Post Game Commentary

Like a thousand other would-be commentator blogs out there, it's time for Black Owl to give the post game assessment of the 2010 mid-terms. They were ugly, and spiteful, and not always particularly honest, but I think there are some winners and losers out there, and I don't necessarily think they are obvious.

Big winner- John Boehner. He is now ringmaster in that circus known as the House, and will be on every website and TV channel he can get his mug plastered upon. He's all about changing Washington... this 20-year Washington politician. Let's hope he takes Michael Jackson's advice and starts with the man in the mirror.

Kinda winner- the Republican party. They made great strides in the House, and have all kinds of an agenda to push: repealing Health Care, fixing the economy (whose troubles have roots in the Clinton presidency while those troubles blossomed in the Bush years, and BO was supposed to already have it all fixed), keeping gays out of the military. They have a lot to do in the next two years. Of course they have absolutely no chance of getting any of it done without the Senate or the White House, but I wish them the best.

Not a winner, but we're saying they are- the Tea Party. They did get a couple of big wins in, but as the Red states have reminded those few Blue states, there's the whole rest of the country. Less than a third of Tea Party backed candidates won. Further, some people are saying the TP lost the Republicans control of the Senate. Ouch.

Losers- The Democrats. You guys did a lousy job of running a campaign. You didn't use facts to counter the half-truths of your opponents, and frankly, the Country has a real right to be mad at you; you swept in with BO and then decided that just having a majority wasn't enough. Despite everything the Pres has made happen, he had to cajole and prod you into action, and it showed. I know, I know, you never REALLY wanted that dude to be President; you were ready for Hillary. You not standing behind your president however has cost you the House, and got you close to losing the Senate. Ouch.

Surprise winner- Barack Obama. The man is still President, and suddenly has something now he didn't have the last two years; Republicans willing to talk. Yeah, I know, they are going to come in like gang-busters, but again, if they actually want to look like they are doing something they do have to appease the Senate, and if I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, the president has to sign their bills into law.




Yep, thought so. That two-thirds veto override is going to be tough too. So to get anything accomplished (here comes the C-word) Republicans will have to compromise; like the President has been trying to get for 24 months. Further, if they don't, the Republicans look like the bad guys in two years. And, I think Barack Obama would like to personally thank the American people for getting Nancy Pelosi the hell out of his way.



Biggest Loser- The American People. More than likely we have a grid-locked Government which will throw insults and rhetoric for the next two years until they can try to completely disparage one another in the next election cycle. That means nothing getting done on either side, and a quagmire which keeps us from growing, improving, or fixing anything...regardless of the side of the aisle one supports. The politics have become far more important than the actual issues. We lose.

Should have voted for this guy. At least he's honest.

A Sarcastic Thank You to the American Media and People

Why am I dipping my thanks in a deep irony sauce seasoned with a fresh grind of hostility? Because you (and by you I must indeed include me, as we are “We the People”) and the media we allow to taint our thoughts have successfully managed to befuddle and obfuscate every issue this election cycle. At times, it's been downright lies, but most often it's half-truths interpreted through our ever more polarized worldviews. I have been labeled, rightfully, in one such discussion as a “Centrist Intellectual.” (Let me wipe off the irony sauce and say thank you to my dear Deborah, who though we may disagree, calls them as she sees them, and this is I hope exactly the political persona I hope to project.)

As such, I now have no one for whom to vote. In order to receive kudos from the vocal of either side and their media masters, any show of intellectualism makes a candidate out to be not of the people. Candidates are CLAIMING IGNORANCE as a positive characteristic. Please think about that for a minute, and honestly assess of you want to support someone who claims to be no smarter than you. I can't balance a checkbook, I certainly hope the people for whom I vote are smarter than me. I want them to be smart... but I am apparently in the minority.

Secondly, there's no benefit in moderation today. Be a little in the middle as a Republican, and you are labeled a RINO and some Tea Partier will come along and kill you in the Primary. Be a little in the middle as a Democrat, and websites like “AlterNet.Org” will decide you are just part of the machine carrying on Bush policy. We have become enslaved to our false left-right political spectrum (where does anarchy fall on that spectrum may I ask?) and have paid corporate giants millions to have their talking heads on both sides stop informing us and start simply confirming what we already think we know. Obama's a Socialist? Beck said so, and that's just what I thought, so it must be true. Reagan's the devil? You bet Keith, tell it like it is! We take it and we feed our confirmation bias, and if we do flip to the other channel, it's just to see how wrong the other guy still is.

And that's if we even bother to go to a “news source.” Usually it's just a forwarded email we won't bother to confirm because it falls in line with what we think. Of course, we must then share this with our like minded friends and perpetuate those half truths ourselves.

So here I am, with no candidate to represent my thoughts except ones already in power whom I would like to replace with someone better, or hear the truth about once in a while. I can't; there's no one better running, and no one who's on the side of truth, on the side of America. If you think your political part represents true America, the simple truth is you are wrong. There is no party representing America, because there are too many of us to break into two easily definable groups, and the fact we keep trying is a detriment to our nation and our future.

I am about to make a confession. I am a Liberal. There, I said it.
Oh, you think I mean PELOSI Liberal? Oh hell no. I am a Liberal like Thomas Jefferson, the classical definition, the idea that LIBERTY should be the first consideration. The rights of the people. I see both slides wrapping themselves in that flag, and neither truly representing it. LIBERTY does not mean the Government doing everything for you. LIBERTY also does not mean a powerless Government. We have a Bill of Rights to protect us from an overzealous Government so that that Government can protect us from overzealous Businesses. Indeed, we seem to be on a path to eliminate the governments ability to do anything, and will instead sentence ourselves to slavery to banks and corporations to whom we will be indebted as long as we shall live. The corporation does NOT represent unfettered capitalism. The government MUST keep them honest, and not be enslaved to them. Simply ask Republican President and Monopoly breaker Theodore Roosevelt:

“Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures. But there is another harm; and it is evident that we should try to do away with that. The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”
Speech at Providence, Rhode Island (1902-08-23), Presidential Addresses and State Papers (1910), p. 103

For there to be true freedom, we must be independent; independent of Government, of Corporation, of Political Party. There was a time Democrats preached that, as did this other Roosevelt:

“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”
Franklin Roosevelt

I have another confession to make; I am a Conservative. There I said it.
Oh, you think I mean a PALIN Conservative? Oh hell no! I mean the one who wants to leave the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as our ruling ideal. We have to understand what that means. If we want to be Constitutionalist, our government doesn't establish a State Religion, we don't keep people from saying what they think, we leave guns in the hands of the people, and we let some bad guys get away in order to secure Liberty and privacy. Yeah, I know privacy doesn't appear in the Constitution. Primarily because the word in the 1700s related specifically to using the toilet. (Look it up- ever hear the term “using the privy”? Surely you can see the etymological evolution of usage here).

See, I think about these things, and you should too. Think, don't feel. Think, learn to cooperate, because it is what we have in common, which is a hell of a lot more than we disagree on, that will protect us from those who are jealous of what we have. Don't underestimate the internal threat though; we are more of a threat to our own Republic, either through over-legislation, or under-regulation; through taking advantage of an already ailing system, or destroying it so it cannot help those with legitimate need. The answer to America's future lies in the middle, and in thinking so we can differentiate real problems from banner issues meant to get our party elected. We indeed must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately.

Now, I would like to think I haven't promoted a specific side's agenda here, particularly since I am pretty put out with both. Their posturing as left an impression of doom. Despite the S&P500 showing great progress since January, despite two years of tax cuts from withholding (which leaves money in your paycheck which you spend rather than sending you a check you put in the bank which only helps... the bank), and a severe slowdown on job loss. Also, no one came to take my guns, no one forced me to house soldiers in my home (except of course the one who pays the rent) and I am not a headless body left in the Arizona desert...yet. Also, I have not been locked in prison for my repeated use of the term “aham' d'Allah” or my possession and occasional use of Islamic prayer beads (usually while reciting the Shema and singing hymns or sitting in a lotus position). We are not as bad off as either side says, and neither side is really as bad as their detractors tell you.

But don't take my word for it. Put aside your feelings, read a lot, and THINK about it all. If you change your mind on nothing, you haven't done it right. We all are wrong about something. Go find out what YOU are wrong about. Stop letting the parties tell you it's all the other guy, because you know who's fault it is?

Ours.

And that's why I am mad at us (and me too).

Traffic fines more important than Health Care

Love it or hate it, or distinctly ambivalent; ignoring it won't make it go away. How about a little integrity there Fox. Even if you are right and this is the biggest step we've ever taken toward the fall of the Republic, doesn't that still make it the top story?

The Official Black Owl review of James Cameron's “Avatar.”

Oh, where to begin? I suppose at the beginning. (Massive Spoilers!!!!!)

In the future, mankind is out and about in the stars, and have located the forest moon of Pandora. Not only is Pandora lush in flora and fauna, but a noble sentient race, the Na'vi, make the moon their home in various tribes situated in various locales. The moon Pandora is also rich in the extremely valuable mineral “unobtanium” which means the humans are willing to do what they must to, well, obtain it.

Along with the Military/Industrial mission to Pandora to mine the unobtanium, there is also a scientific team using “avatar” technology to study and communicate with the native Na'vi. This means scientists have cloned human/Na'vi hybrids capable of surviving on Pandora's atmosphere. The human half allows for a mental transference; i.e. the human DNA donor can actually project mentally into the nine foot tall blue body as if it were their own, while their own frail human shell lies in a transmitting chamber.

A member of the team dies in a freak accident, but happens to have a twin brother who is a Marine. Jake Sully takes his brother's place in the scientific mission, but for the first time is a member who straddles the line to the military. Additionally, the former Marine suffers from paralysis due to an old war wound- use of the avatar will allow him to walk again.

Though initially there only to help the Military backed Corporation exploit the Na'vi, he becomes attached, falls in love with the Chief's daughter, and proves himself to be the great warrior they need to defeat the superior human forces.


So what's good? The imagery and cinematography are without peer. Every frame and design are beautiful, from the graceful (and scientifically plausible) human starship the Venture Star, to the Scorpion helicopters, to the Battletech-like power suits. The organic design is also masterful, with the majority of Pandora's wildlife designed by the famed Wayne Barlowe, known as the author of “Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials.” (A must have for all geeks BTW.) With a single exception (to be discussed later) the fauna of Pandora follows an evolutionary chain lending a stunning realism and suspension of disbelief to the creatures.




The cast has some of my favorite performers. Sam Worthington, despite being in some awful movies, is always worth watching. Zoe Saldana, the newest Leiutenant Uhura in my favorite film of the last decade, Star Trek, delivers as Neytiri the Chieftain's daughter even through the mask of motion capture CGI imagery. Her skinny blue alien is, and maybe I'm a freak for saying it, sexy as all get out. James Cameron alumni Sigourney Weaver, no stranger to dealing with aliens herself gets to perform as both human scientist and nine foot blue hottie. So what could be wrong?

Well, everything else.

I have hugged more than a few trees in my time, and I have taken responsibility for my share of White Guilt over the abominable treatment of the Native Americans. Cameron wants to make sure we do both, and he isn't hiding this message- he's bludgeoning us with it. Where's the subtle message of cooperation so deftly delivered in “The Abyss”? How about the sidebar conversations on the inevitability, or non-inevitability, of being destroyed by our own science in “Terminator”? Where's the quiet little jabs at Corporate inhumanity as personified by Paul Reiser in “Aliens”? All of these themes which rode in on the backs of movies in the form of brilliant Science Fiction allegory are replaced by Cameron reaching out of the screen and choking you with the barest minimum of character development or plot to deliver the social message. There are no characters in this film- there are stereotypes. Giovanni Ribisi I assume was cast as Parker Selfridge, the Corporate dick, because Paul Reiser was unavailable to reprise his role from Aliens. Sigourney Weaver tapped her Dian Fossey button from her performance in “Gorillas in the Mist.” The military commander, Colonel Miles Quaritch (which I have to assume is named for H.R. Haggard's novel 'Colonel Quaritch, V.C.” about a military man forced to fit into a quiet, nature-like country environment) is nothing more than a two dimensional amalgamation of every military hard ass to grace the silver screen. From reveling in his scars to casually clutching a coffee cup while on missions of genocide, he's about as deep as my belly button. The only character who goes through any transformation or development at all is Jake Sully, who one could very well argue becomes sympathetic to the Na'vi because the avatar program lets him walk again, and no longer being paralyzed means hot jungle sex with a nine foot tall blue Zoe Saldana. Speaking of stereotypes, let's discuss the Na'vi.




After countless hours someone spent imagining the ecosystem of Pandora, the culture of the Na'vi is simply lifted from your standard “noble savage” story. The tribal rituals, the native peoples type accents- no originality WHATSOEVER in their existence. The only attempt at allegory instead of direct rip off is the Na'vi's ability to psychically link with the animals of Pandora- they are literally connected instead of symbolically. Physically, instead of giving us something truly alien, we get exaggerated versions of Western beauty images. Long legs, rounded hips, full lips; only the somewhat feline facial features and impossibly long bodies make them alien at all (Yeah, ok, and they're blue). Their expressions of emotions- exactly human. Their symmetry, idealized human. Why is it every other form of animal life we see on this planet, from the big rhino things to the black panther dogs, even the pterodactyls, have six limbs, but the Na'vi only have four? Are they a transplant? As far as their worship- of course there's a Mother Goddess, and though there is an attempt to give some scientific reasoning to her existence, we are still looking at the same old Gaia/Earth Mother/Living Planet idea used in such brilliant movies as “Ferngully: The Last Rainforest.”

The story? Equally derivative. If you caught a double feature of “Dances with Wolves” and “Pocahontas” you have seen this film. Did Neytiri really have to be the chief's daughter? Did they really have to teach Jake Sully their ways as a hunter so he could understand them? Did the Na'vi really need a white man to come in and save them from the other white men? There's no depth here either. No surprises. It's like someone took a Hollywood Mad Libs script book and followed the formula. Hell- Cameron doesn't even bother to tell us WHY unobtanium (and dear god, what a dumb name! Why not “Hardtogetium” or “Rareicity” or “MacGuffinanium”?) is so important! Is it fuel? Food? Medicine? You want depth in this story? Tell us there's a plague ravaging Earth, and the only way to save the human race is to mine unobtanium (though I guess then it would be “panaceaithium”). have some of these characters desperate to find another way, but needing to ensure the survival of their children on Earth. Nope- we just get that the Corporation wants this stuff 'cuz its 'spensive. Quite the cliché.

And speaking of clichés, here's the part that really got my goat about this film. The portrayal of the military. My own commentary on my Firm on this very Blog has shown there are plenty of people in the military willing to dehumanize the enemy and exploit poor situations. However, the military is also full of some of the finest, most honorable, most intelligent, and caring people on this planet. Many do their jobs to make Earth and America a better place, not just to get resources of value for the Corporation. Yet in this film, the only military characters who show the slightest bit of empathy for the Na'vi are the ones who have been properly deprogrammed by working with the scientists; Jake Sully and Michelle Rodriguez's Scorpion pilot Trudy Chacon. Trudy's been flying these scientists out on their missions, and loves the beauty of the world. She is the sole pilot to disregard the order to bomb the Na'vi tribe's “Hometree,” this tribes homeland for all of history, full of women and children. EVERY other pilot and Marine launches. Every other member of the military shown on screen is perfectly happy to slaughter the blue people because corporate said so (except of course for Jake Sully, who may only be resisting because of the tail... his and Neytiri's). Cameron has dealt with the military in a Science Fiction setting before. The Colonial Marines in Aliens are felled a bit by their arrogance, however most of them are sympathetic characters (CPL Hicks in particular, and even the dipshit Hudson isn't evil) on a mission to save human colonists- in the end those Marines are every bit as exploited by the Corporation Weland-Yutani as the colonist sacrificed to the Xenomorphs are. Even in The Abyss, the SEAL Team leader trying to blow up the aliens is a) trying to do what he thinks is right to save the humans from evil aliens, and b) suffering from madness due to high pressure syndrome. Not here; here in this remake of a film which showed how awful we were in the 1870s, we get Manifest Destiny Marines in the future. Now, maybe I am being over sensitive, but I have a tough time thinking Cameron is trying to remind us of what happened to the American Indian. This would seem to be a message pointed more toward modern day, and since the script and film were developed while GW Bush was still on office, I have a tough time thinking I shouldn't imagine unobtanium as oil, and RDA as Haliburton. Does this mean I should be imagining the soulless, heartless, killing machines perfectly happy to carry out genocide at the request of their corporate masters as... well, me? That seems like a pretty personal affront to me and people like me who put our lives on the line in service to our country. Our leaders goals may be skewed at times, and some of us do certainly lose our way, but to generalize so willingly and unapologetically was more than a bit troubling to me. I kept hoping the movie would surprise me with a twist to break the stereotypes in character, story, and military vilification; nope, we rode it all the way out to Jake leaving his battered, broken, inferior body behind in favor of new blue hotness after leading those noble savages to defeat the evil humans and drive them from the planet.

Again, maybe I am being too sensitive, but I remember another movie came out a few years ago, “Final Fantasy.” It was full CGI, had great production design, a sexy CGI lead, and centered around a Gaia situation being exploited by an evil military officer. “Avatar” doesn't even manage to offend me with any originality.

I am however looking forward to the sequel where the human ships return and don't even bother to land before razing the surface from orbit, magic tree and all. Perhaps by the third film in the trilogy, Jake will show the few surviving Na'vi how to build casinos...

Choose for yourself what you think of it. As a conservationist, it offended me with it's simplistic take on why we should protect our environment. As an SF fan, it offended me as being so derivative of other, better films, and for the laziness involved in developing a truly alien culture. As a member of my firm, it offended me with it's simplistically brutal portrayal of my honorable profession. As someone who wants to see us put aside our differences and reach out into the stars as one world (yeah, I said it), it offended me to say the future is more of the same.

Why can't I have a science fiction movie where human and alien come together, overcome their differences, and put aside barbaric concepts like greed and avarice, while showing a military both strong and humanitarian?





Oh yeah. Live Long and Prosper.

Maybe I should pick...

OK, it's no secret I voted for and remain a fan of our current Commander-In-Chief. I think given the steaming pile of American Eagle droppings he was handed on January 20th, the fact he has yet to have broken down and cried openly on national television is a testament to his character. Taking heat for not fixing the previous eight years worth of smeg-ups in the first 10 months alone would have broken me. I think the administration was WAY too optimistic about their ability to fix the economy (which will take years) and need to bust a couple heads there in Congress, but overall, the downward spiral of economic freefall, worldwide hatred, and Texas style dumbassery ruling the free world seems to have slowed if not stopped.

However, not sucking as much as the last guy does not qualify you for the Nobel Peace Prize. In a couple years if Iraq is independent and stable, and we have Afghanistan under control, have partnered up with Russia over Iran, and maybe gotten things quiet between the Israelis and Palestinians? Give the man the medal. Right now? No. Indeed, I think this will hurt my President as it will promote the "he's one of them not one of us" nonsense so prevalent in the opposition. Were I the President, I would have turned it down. (Of course, I've never been offered one, so maybe I wouldn't. After all, earned or not, you still get to have one. You know what they call the guy who graduated last in medical school? Doctor.)

So, if I were allowed to pick, who would it be? Hmmm...












OK. Maybe I shouldn't be allowed to pick.

Deyz in yur government mezzin' up yer medizin!

My dear congressional Republicans, there is a problem in this country which needs your action. Right now, Federal bureaucrats are preventing doctors from making medical decisions regarding their patients. A specific treatment which has proven beneficial and cost effective is being blocked by big government, and some committee which thinks it know better than physicians how patients should be treated. Seeing as how that's one of the major arguments Congressional Republicans have against the Public Option, I am looking forward to seeing some brave Conservative get up and say it:

It's time to repeal the Federal ban on medical marijuana.

Seriously, regardless of my Centrist views, I also do NOT want some committee deciding who gets particular treatments. However, if we're not going to let a death panel decide an 80 year old can't have a new liver, then why are we still allowing the FDA to say doctors can't prescribe marijuana? I am not talking about legalizing it for recreational use (that's another argument). I am talking about a doctor prescribing to his or her patient who is undergoing chemo, or suffers from glaucoma, or has breast cancer, or even as some studies show, Alzheimer's- a natural remedy which is easy and cheap to produce, and has far less ill effects than the pharmaceutical alternatives.

I'm talking about a treatment supported by the American College of Physicians, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychological Association, and of course Chris Robinson of The Black Crowes.

I'm talking about an easily delivered treatment which some evidence shows may treat or alleviate up to 250 different ailments.

Now, let's be fair- this list was assembled by a doctor who may not be totally objective about this subject, but if it works for even ten things on this list, isn't it worth using? Five? Even one, if it can bring relief for a single ailment, and doctors want to use it, why are we letting the Federal government say otherwise? They're the doctors right? And not just some quacks, but real doctors (see the list above).

So, what is the government's argument against it? The hazards of smoking. No really, you can't have relief for your nauseous reaction to the chemo you have treating your cancer because the period you smoke the MJ might give you lung cancer. Well, what if it becomes a gateway for the patient? According to the Rand Corporation, the Gateway concept is bunk, and so say these doctors.
Even the 1999 study the FDA cites on usage in general only says:

"The gateway analogy evokes two ideas that are often confused. The first, more often referred to as the 'stepping stone' hypothesis, is the idea that progression from marijuana to other drugs arises from pharmacological properties of marijuana itself.

The second is that marijuana serves as a gateway to the world of illegal drugs in which youths have greater opportunity and are under greater social pressure to try other illegal drugs." (Institute of Medicine in its Mar. 1999 report titled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base")

Not really a damning statement. Here's how Lynn Zimmer, PhD, Professor Emeritus at Queens College at the City University of New York put it:

"In the end, the gateway theory is not a theory at all. It is a description of the typical sequence in which multiple-drug users initiate the use of high-prevalence and low-prevalence drugs.

A similar statistical relationship exists between other kinds of common and uncommon related activities. For example, most people who ride a motorcycle (a fairly rare activity) have ridden a bicycle (a fairly common activity). Indeed, the prevalence of motorcycle riding among people who have never ridden a bicycle is probably extremely low. However, bicycle riding does not cause motorcycle riding, and increases in the former will not lead automatically to increases in the latter.” (his 1997 book “Marijuana Myths - Marijuana Facts”).

More than that, 13 States have voted to use medical marijuana- aren't the Republicans the party of State's Rights? Why aren't Republicans screaming about the Federal Governments insistence on imposing their will over these States' decisions? Who's going to be the brave Republican to get up and call for the end of these laws? John McCain, whose state is one of those who passed a local proposition? Sarah Palin, who is vehemently against Federal controls and bureaucratic interdiction in medical decisions? Joe Wilson, who obviously feels very passionately about health care. Who?

I am not trying to be a smart ass here- this is exactly WHY I want to see two parties in government. Any argument however must follow to the logical consequences. Opposing Government Health care on the grounds of bureaucrats not being allowed to countermand doctors has to apply to any reasonable medical decision. The facts are in- MM is reasonable, with the FDA's stats being spurious at best. Further, wanting to shrink Federal power in favor of State power means allowing States to make certain decisions on their own. The tenth amendment says they can do that, if there is not an existing Federal law- Federal Laws came from the control of recreational use- you know what? I can't use Vicodin for recreational use either, but no one in the Federal Government is asking to ban it as medicine.

So as a citizen, I ask a Republican to take advantage of the argument about health care right now and do the right thing. You would have doctors, States, facts, and logic on your side. Be the party of Smaller Government and put this tool back in the hands of doctors.

So I been thinkin'...

I just watched a really good TV series from Great Britain, called “Torchwood.” For those of you who don't know, it's a spinoff of the venerable “Doctor Who” tv series, and plays a bit like a British version of “The X-Files” though is at times a bit more grown up, and certainly allows darker things to happen to its characters, which British SF is kind of famous for (Blake's 7 anyone?). It stars the delighful John Barrowman as Captain Jack Harkness, the indestructible leader of the extra-terrestrial-investigating group Torchwood, and Eve Myles (who has the best hair in television history) as Gwen Cooper, the former cop turned alien hunter (I might have written this entire posting as an excuse to post a picture of Eve Myles).


I specifically watched the third season, a special five part miniseries within the series called “Children of Earth.” I don't want to give away too much here, but the basic premise is what happens when an alien race comes and threatens to wipe us all out, unless we give them ten percent of every pre-pubescent child on Earth (I specifically won't spoil the 'why' part).

As the story plays out, the British leadership does some pretty heinous things, and eventually puts troops in the streets to gather up the undesirable children to give to the aliens. “Undesirable” pretty much equates to those who are eventually just end up on welfare or in prison, or those who were children of immigrants denied asylum. The scenes were the politicians are justifying this decision to themselves, while not offering up their own children are especially chilling.

The show is written by Russell T. Davies, who is also responsible for the Doctor Who revival, and the Showtime show “Queer as Folk.” The man is obviously a Liberal, and uses this venue as a method of pointing out how easily those who are supposed to serve us will offer us up to the wolves. He also makes a great show of pointing out how the Government, particularly in London, makes use of the “security cameras” to exploit or spy upon their citizens.




Now, this got me thinking about “V for Vendetta.” Decent film, but much better graphic novel about tyranny which takes hold while no one is looking, under the auspices of security and defending the people from terrorists. In the case of that film (pardon spoilers), a manufactured terror attack allows the powers that be to be those powers for life, and a despotic Orwellian nightmare ensues. Again though, this is a warning about the misintentions of government from a liberal source. Lots of that was really going on under the Bush administration for the last eight years, driven by things that even I have talked about: The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, warrantless wire-tapping, willfully ignoring the FISA laws, etc. It goes back though; the original V for Vendetta was written in the late 1980s, and was specifically talking about Margaret Thatcher's government. Frank Miller did something similar in “The Dark Knight Returns” with a Ronald Reagan who had become President for life. Liberals don't want those damn Conservatives creating a police state.

Have you checked your e-mail lately? Conservatives don't want those damn Liberals creating a police state. President Obama is backing public health care to weed out the old white folks (majority conservatives), and wants you to report to his political officers the names of people who disagree with him. Apparently he is also prepping to declare all Christians to be extremists, and possibly has the secret cabal backing of the Hawaii state Records division. Think though- this didn't start here! Bill Clinton was in office when the ATF went after innocent Christians like David Koresh, and he stripped down our military to make us weak before the UN. Remember all the people he and Hillary had killed to ensure their place in the Oval Office? (I bet Al Gore wishes they'd killed a few for him.)



So what's my point?

Maybe it's the idea they are all actually out to get us, and secretly in cahoots. It wouldn't matter who you voted for, it's whoever THEY want to win to keep the people thinking they have a say in a Democracy which is long dead.

Maybe each side is vying for their own power, so THEY can rule without dispute. We The People would still be screwed, because by that reckoning, each side still wants to enslave us, just around different agendas.

Maybe it is the natural way of all governments to tend toward tyranny. Again we would be screwed, because it doesn't matter what the actual intentions are of any given politician, so long as we keep legislating we will eventually create a state with so many rules anything is a crime.

Maybe each side is just doing what they think is for the best, mostly based on honest intentions (always some bad apples), and we have all descended to this sorry point where it is easier to spout one side's rhetoric than to actually look for a solution which is mutually beneficial. It's easier to believe the other side is evil than to admit you may be wrong about something and the truth may lie somewhere between.

Maybe it's always been this way. Have you looked at old political cartoons calling FDR a Commie, or anything in the late 1800s by Thomas Nast (the Mormon/Roman churches as “Reptiles” slithering on America is my favorite), or the rhetoric from John Adams' enemies regarding the “Intolerable Acts.” (The fact we remember them as the “Intolerable Acts” I think demonstrates some pretty powerful swaying of public opinion!)




Maybe... hell, I don't know. I was just thinking in Word. I do wish I was hearing more reasoned arguments and less fear mongering. What have YOU done to make things better? Something positive, not stopping someone else from doing something, not neglecting to do something out of protest; what was the last thing you got out and DID for your country, your state, your town, or your neighborhood? If you have something good, cool. If you had to think through all the negative things you did, even for the right intentions, maybe you should rethink it. Maybe it's time for all of us to research before we vote, be active in the community, and actively try to find a middle ground.

Or don't. We'll just pass more laws until passing laws is illegal.

Not really gonna tie this one up neatly; I think it's just a rant.

What did you know, and when did you know it?

Ok, so according to this CNN story, Nancy Pelosi knew about the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques used by CIA operatives in Abu Ghurayb. Knowing about it, though something of a problem for me, is not what I really have a problem with. It's the lying about knowing about it. It's the same problem I had with Bill Clinton- I don't care he got a hummer while on the phone with a congressman; I care that he looked me and my fellow Americans in the eye and lied about it. There are secrets- got it. Then there are lies to cover your ass.

If these charges against the Speaker are true, she needs to step down. She needs to get out of the way as an example that no one is immune in this situation. Officials who approved it should be indicted. People who covered it up should be indicted. I don't know if Pelosi covered up the torture, or just the fact she knew about it. Either way, she was covering her ass, and she needs to take responsibility. Personal responsibility is becoming as uncommon as common sense.

Dropping the F-Bomb to stop torture.

Sheppard Smith just became my favorite Fox News reporter (my apologies to the lovely Patti Ann Browne). There's been a lot of debate whether waterboarding and torture are OK if they saved American lives. Shep sums it up here:





Damn right. Look, go look at my previous posts regarding my firm, and you will see I have been a professional inquisitor for a long time. I know the ins and outs of this stuff. The former Vice President and his lawyers can argue all they want that these techniques got info- the point is irrelevant for two reasons. One, Shep makes quite eloquently above; two, its is a fact, not opinion, fact that in the majority of detainees, harsh techniques will either harden their resolve (particularly in the ideologically motivated like... oh, I don't know, fundamentalist Islamists?), or make them give false info. Which means even if we got info while drowning people, we will NEVER KNOW how much more we would have gotten if we had done it right. Would we have ended the insurgency in Iraq already? Captured 'Usama bin Ladin? Stopped the Taliban's inroads into Pakistan? We don't know.

And we should. Professional interrogation would likely have provided information for all those things. Instead, we had a bunch of people who used techniques from SERE (Survive, Evade, Resist, Escape) training. I've been an interrogator at a SERE school. We were there to be the BAD GUYS. We were there to elicit FALSE CONFESSIONS. What genius was sitting around saying "hey- here's the most important detainees the US has had to question since the Nuremburg Trials; lets act like the bad guys and get them to confess to things they didn't do!"? What kind of person thinks that's a good idea?




Oh. Yikes.

Y'all don't come back now, y'hear?

So, Texas Governor Rick Perry while speaking as a tea-bagger (snort) mentioned secession. Secession because a fairly elected president who can be voted out in less than four years raised taxes (for 2% of the people, we'll talk about the deficit later).

I have long said the best thing I ever saw in my career with my firm was Texas in the rear view mirror.

Let us know how your Southern Border fares with no Federal Law Enforcement. I can only ask why you couldn't have done it before you foisted W. on us...

Much better.

This young lady needs to be the future of the Republican Party.



Perhaps one day I will vote for a McCain again.

Earning Obsolescence

I will be the first to tell you I am ambivalent about the Stimulus Package. I think it is necessary as we have debted ourselves into a new depression, and since the government exists to keep society safe, preventing economic crashes is pretty important. However, I think there are things in this bill which do not really contribute to economic bailout. As I am reading all 700 pages of bill, I am wondering how $450,000,000 for space exploration immediately stimulates the economy. I am all for funding space exploration, but why is it in this bill?

So the bill isn't perfect certainly, but necessary, and I believe will do more good than harm. It is after all a compromise. Negotiation between the parties altered the bill to bring both sides of the American political spectrum together to vote on this bill. There's only one problem:

Having negotiated a compromise, the Republicans then backed out. "We won't vote for it until you change this. Ok, that's better. But no, we won't vote for it." Apparently the word compromise is lost on them. But no, they felt strongly, and opposed it vehemently. Indeed, the three Republicans who did vote for it are already getting flak from the party- the party intends to find people to oppose them in the primaries. That's how strongly they feel on this issue. There's only one problem:

All their opposition was for naught. Even with negligible Republican support, the bill has passed, and let's face it- in record time. From the right I am hearing what a defeat for the President this was because he couldn't sway the Republican party, but to me it seems the Republican opposition has only really proved a couple of things; Republican obsolescence and Republican impotence. Their vicious opposition resulted in nothing, and all polls show Americans mostly in support of this bill. We may not all be completely happy with it, but an 80% solution now is better than a 100% solution at some indeterminate time in the future, when its too late to matter. Apparently the Republicans Congress don't agree, leaving the rest of Congress to say, "so what?"

If the Republicans couldn't stop or even really slow something this contentious, they likely won't be more than a low speedbump for ANYTHING Congress or the White House wants in the next two years at least. That is the Bush legacy for the Republican Party- America has to fail for them to have a chance of regaining ground in the Government. With that in mind, how does one drum up support for the party? What does this mean to the party? What does this mean to America?

The President has to succeed, or we all suffer. If he fails, and we are suffering it seems our only recourse is to re-elect the people who got us into this mess in the first place. That's how Revolutions begin.

So, I am hoping this package works, and I am hoping the people who opposed it hope it works too. Either way, Congressional Republicans did prove a point- they are now irrelevant. Not the point I think they were trying to make. They need to come down off their high horse if they plan to stay relevant, and make themselves part of the solution. The party lost and lost badly- regroup and stop trying to earn your own obsolescence.

Some rules really are golden...

I have a fundamental belief in how the universe works. I believe everything in the end balances out. One of the things which first brought me out of my “everyone has to believe just like me” shell was recognizing balance as a major factor in most of the belief systems of the world. “Karma” has several interpretations in the world of Eastern Religion, but stays true to the concept of balance. Sure, some forms of Hindu karma say it is delivered by the Supreme Being while Buddhism sees it more as one of the building blocks of natural law, but the idea is our deeds (in fact the word itself is derived from a Sanskrit word for “deeds” or “actions”) affect what happens in the world. Our actions carry repercussions, consequences, and we have a responsibility to act properly to make those consequences turn out for the best.

Just before the time of Rabbi Jesus, Judaism came under the influence of a Rabbi named Hillel. Hillel, who basically established Rabbinic law, codified the ethic of reciprocity for the Jews. As the story goes, a foreigner (rejected by another Jewish leader at the time as being unfit for God's law because he was not a Jew) complained to Hillel there were too many rules to follow in the Jewish religion. Following his rejection at the hands of the other Rabbi, the foreigner felt he could never understand Judaism unless it could be simple enough for Hillel to explain while standing on one foot. Hillel raised his foot and said, “that which is hateful to you, don't do it to your neighbor; the rest is commentary.” So, this great teacher reduces the entire Torah, Talmud, and Mishnah to little more than an explanation of why God's law is the ethic of reciprocity- balance.

Then of course, in our Western tradition, comes that Rabbi Jesus I mentioned earlier. He takes it a step further. See, the Eastern idea was one allowed the balance to happen- Karma was a matter of course. Hillel said you should adjust your behavior to not do bad things. Jesus comes along and says “do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law of the prophets (Mt 7:12).” It has become active at this point- you are to go actively do good.

One of the most important tenants of this rule is the object of its application. To whom are we to do good? Jesus makes it pretty plain he thinks it applies to everyone. In the parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 we see Jesus point out to a fellow Jew that the term 'neighbor' applied to the Samaritan man in the parable (this is right after the whole love your neighbor as yourself thing). We forget that to the Jews of the first century, the Samaritans were held in about as low regard as you could get. Tell yourself this story, but substitute a Christian for the Priest, a Jew for the Levite, and an Islamic Fundamentalist Mujahadin in Afghanistan for the Samaritan and you'll get the idea what Jesus was talking about. Now, it would seem Jesus himself didn't have this lesson at first- when in Matthew 15 a Canaanite woman asks him for his help in exorcising a demon from her daughter, he initially refuses saying he's only there for the Jews, but she convinces him to do more, and he does. What's the lesson?

The tenants of faith don't just apply to the adherents of that faith. You don't just do unto other Christians as you would have them do unto you, you do unto EVERYONE as you would have them do unto you. I love my neighbor as myself even if he's a lowdown, dirty Samaritan. The Laws of God are good enough to apply to everyone, whether they believe in it or not. Regardless of a person's own belief or origin, Christians must treat everyone as they treat Christians, Jews must treat everyone as they treat Jews, and karma will get you if you are chubby Gautama or skinny Siddhartha (yeah, I know really they are the same guy, but it sounds poetic, doesn't it?). What does this mean to us today?

The philosophical edict of universalizability. Immanuel Kant in the 18th Century said the only way to judge an ethical philosophy was by its application; should it be applied as a natural law? If an ethic is truly right, it has to apply to everyone. So, Kant extends the idea of the “Golden Rule,” the great balance, beyond religion and into philosophy- if a set of ethics or rules are truly good, they must be applied universally, just as karma will catch everyone, not doing bad things is the whole of the law, and even the jerk who lives down the street is the neighbor to whom you should do good things. Kant summarizes the simple fact that our ethics, like our religion, aren't only for those who share our ethics but are for everyone.

Anyone who knows me or has read this blog knows I have a passion for the Constitution of the United States that borders on, and perhaps illegally immigrates into, religious fervor. I have literally sworn a solemn oath to support, defend, and bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. Establishing a government ruled by the people, ensuring and enumerating rights held by the people, codifying the process for peaceful transfer of leadership as dictated by the people-- these are not just words to me. To establish Justice and ensure domestic tranquility, ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity is a mantra of faith to me. To whom do we do this?

If I truly believe in the greatness of our codified law, in the power of our democratic republic, I have a moral and ethical obligation to apply to protections of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to everyone, regardless of their citizenship. If I truly believe the ideas of presumed innocence and right to a speedy and fair trial are morally right, I must insist on their application to everyone, regardless of their origin. Universalizability, the Golden Rule, makes it a moral imperative to grant equal protection under the law to everyone, despite their adherence to the law.




That's why we have to afford the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Holding Facility a trial by jury. See, I have faith in our system. I think our system is good enough to apply to terrorists as well as criminals. I think its good enough to apply to citizens and foreigners alike. I believe in America. I believe in the inherent rights of Habeas Corpus, and I argue here that those rights must be applied universally if we are truly to claim our system as morally just.

Should we proceed with these trials, is it possible some legitimately bad people will be acquitted? Of course, it happens in our criminal justice system every day. As Americans we accept the fact protection of individual rights is more important than locking someone up. “Blackstone's ratio” is a common edict in our courts; that is the idea that it is better for ten guilty persons to escape than one innocent person to suffer. William Blackstone was an English jurist in the 1700s, and author of Commentaries on the Laws of England, which heavily influenced our Constitutional framers and has been cited as recently as Clarence Thomas in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Despite the possibility some “terrorists” would go free, the majority will find justice in a trial by jury. Additionally, we would again show ourselves to be an example to the world as a nation and people who practice Democracy not as a convenience but as an obligation. We would demonstrate again the moral certitude and convictions inherent in a fair system which guarantees equal protection under the law. There is no better method of spreading democracy than practicing it.

That's really the key isn't it? The acts of these extremists are by design intended to change how we think. The definition of terrorism is the “use of violence or intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.” The political aim here was to hurt the way we conduct our nation. The unfortunate truth is, it succeeded. In response to their attacks, we adopted their methods rather than employ our own. We suspended our ideals of trial by jury, and legal representation, and presumption of innocence under the rationale of “they would do the same or worse to us.”

Of course they would. They're terrorists.

The Golden Rule doesn't say do unto others as they did it unto you, it says as you would have them do unto you. The fourteenth amendment while defining citizenship also states you can't deny equal protection to any person within the state's jurisdiction. Do we as a people really feel it's OK to circumvent these ideals by simply not bringing them within the borders of the United States? Why have we sought ways to avoid granting the guarantees of the system we seek to protect? The ethic of reciprocity dictates we must apply our laws to everyone, or else they are nothing more than words on paper, and not ideals of ethics and morality. I can't believe that's true. I didn't take an oath to protect words, I took an oath to protect ideals we as Americans should all share, despite our individual differences. Ideals which can light the world when properly exemplified.

You see, I believe in the Constitution. I have faith in its edicts, it protections and its punishments. I believe it was written for all time, and not just for times of expediency or convenience. I believe it is strong enough to survive any onslaught from a foreign enemy. I believe it is strong enough to withstand any testimony of a foreign fighter. I believe granting trial to the prisoners at Guantanamo will not weaken our Constitution, but rather will bolster it.

I believe, as with any system of faith, there is only one thing which can destroy the Constitution: its own adherents allowing it to pass away. We can do better. We can continue to ensure the blessings of liberty to our posterity. We only have to do what it says unto others, Samaritans and all.

As the inauguration approaches...

Wow- there's some very surprised liberals out there, and some very stymied conservatives. It seems the "change" the President-Elect wants to bring isn't change from the current administration, but rather change from the status quo. See, rather than come in and install all Democrats and Liberals, President-Elect Obama is doing something unprecedented in American politics; he's picking the people he things are the right people for the job. This even means Republicans. Secretary of Defense- Republican. Secretary of Transportation- Republican. Did you see who's giving the invocation at the inauguration? This is not the left wing tidal wave the liberals were expecting.

Meanwhile, Republicans over at Fox News are having to make things up to talk bad about. With the Blagojevich thing blowing up, but no sign of an Obama connection, the investigating attorney asked the President-Elect's office to keep their mouth shut until things could progress. Reasonable. Fox has decided to insinuate no such request was made. The RNC chairman also wants the President-Elect to say more. This got the RNC chairman chewed out by Newt Gingrich of all people. The whole conservative side seems to not know where to go.

So- Obama is not the Left Wing Pelosi whipping boy the Republicans expected, and he's not the Leftist crusader the Democrats expected... he would seem to be his own brand of shrewd politician who's going to take advice from both sides and then make the decision himself. Wait a minute... is that the gentle hum of equilibrium I hear? Not partisan politics, but an honest attempt to do what's right for America? Now THAT'S change I can believe in.

Hurray for balance.

My last comment on the 2008 Presidential election.

I want everyone who reads this to understand something right up front: I am not being snarky or sarcastic. I know it can be hard to tell in blogs and emails whether or not someone means what they say. I want to assure everyone, I do mean this, I am not being facetious. I really would like my Christian friends to consider the following.

On October 22nd, Governor Sarah Palin said "God will do the right thing on election day." Indeed:

“And it also strengthens my faith because I know at the end of the day putting this in God’s hands, the right thing for America will be done, at the end of the day on Nov. 4.”

In response the renowned and popular minister James Dobson, with whom Governor Palin was speaking, said that he and his wife were praying for the right outcome as well. I am sure millions of faithful conservatives prayed all year, right up to the election, that God would do the "right thing" on election day. That's a lot of prayers going to God. Yet, at 8PM Pacific Time (when the West Coast polls closed) on the 4th of November, every major news network declared Barack Obama to be the President-Elect.

I honestly, honestly want my conservative friends to consider something. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is the outcome God wanted.

I know President-Elect Barack Obama does not seem to have the exact Christian values espoused by a lot of more Conservative Christians, in particular regard to salvation exclusivity. Would this however be the first time God made someone who was not orthodox in their beliefs to do His work?

Pharaoh gave the Israelites sanctuary during famine at the behest of Joseph. He was obviously not a follower of the God of Abraham. God chose a man raised as an Egyptian to lead His people back to Canaan after successive Pharoahs enslaved the Hebrews. Nebuchadnezzar assisted Daniel and in some stories is the first human to proclaim the Christ. The Roman Empire's roads, language, and technology carried Christianity to the world when it should have been nothing more than a minor sectarian disagreement in the First Century. Saul was a man who actively persecuted the nascent church until he was quite literally knocked off his ass. Jerome, a monk who couldn't keep his hands off the Nuns, gave the Church the Latin translation of the Bible, which would be the Word of God until Vatican II. Thomas Jefferson, a man whose "Christian beliefs" were FAR more unorthodox* than Barack Obama's, rolled the Word of God secularly into our nation's birth with the phrase:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So why do we have to think that everyone who does God's work agrees with a specific orthodoxy? Isn't God far more able and capable than to be stymied by a presidential campaign? Isn't He perfectly capable of having someone be part of the plan, regardless of specifics?

So, I ask only for a moment's consideration, and perhaps a prayer tonight to ask the Lord His opinion: Governor Palin said God would do the right thing on the 4th. Maybe, just maybe she was absolutely correct.


So that's it, I am done with politics here for a while. Next post will probably be about how much I am starting to dislike the new Star Trek movie, while I am keeping a close eye on the new President since it's We the People's job as his employer. Hopefully this President remembers that far more than the outgoing administration.




*If you don't believe me about how unorthodox Jefferson was, check out his Bible Translation with a miracle-free Jesus...

The Proverbial Ball.

Dear Mr. President-Elect,
In a time when we as Americans desperately wanted to see our Nation secure our place as leader of not only "the free world" but the world as a whole, we the People have chosen you as our President. The expectations we have for you are astronomical. The fear your opponents have sowed is still out there among many, and you are going to need to prove yourself to them. Those of us who crossed old lines to support you because we so desperately wanted to believe in our system again, well, we're behind you, but you need to prove yourself to us too. The economy is in shambles, we have wars to win, and there was a lot of ugliness on both sides this election. However, you are a living symbol of an America trying to move beyond its past. You are the living example of an American dream come true. You are a living example of someone who set out to improve their community, and now have a chance to improve the world.
The ball, Mr. President-Elect, is in your court. Lead so I can follow. And may God bless the United States of America, every last one of us as one.

Ready? Go!

Dan

Anti-Intellectualism

So, there I was looking through the news at CNN (I like to hit the American news spectrum: I start at Fox, dart left and hit MSNBC, then settle in the middle with CNN. Then I go find the wacko channels; much fun). I read an article about Conservatives having issues with the McCain campaign keeping Governor Palin under wraps. I came across this quote:

In defense, Republicans say the complaints are coming from "intellectual" conservatives -- not Main Street Republicans, who they insist love the "hockey mom," from Alaska, as Palin describes herself.

"These are the folks that really have responded to the candidacy of a McCain-Palin ticket. These are the folks that are showing up in huge numbers, tens of thousands, to the rallies," Leslie Sanchez, a CNN political contributor, said.

So, correct me if I am wrong here. The complaints regarding Palin and her complete on air meltdown with Katie Couric are only coming from the intellectuals. Let me rephrase that:

Disregard the problems, only smart Republicans are having problems with Palin.

Similarly, I keep hearing that only eggheads and intellectuals are voting Obama.

The educated, smart people are voting Obama.

Now, please don't take this as "only dummies are voting McCain." I know very intelligent people who for whatever reason have decided to go that way. Yet, I can't get over the continued vilification of the intellectual. You know, the people who invented vaccines and make schools work so we are not a third world country.

No, smart doesn't always equal right.

Just the vast majority of the time.

September Eleventh

To those responsible for the atrocity committed seven years ago I say this:
I do not and will not live in fear of you.
I will not give up my freedom or my free thought for you.
I will not stop being an example and champion of freedom, self-determination, and equitable treatment for all men and women.
I will continue to be the opposite of those who would use fear to exercise tyranny over the hearts, minds, and souls of my brothers and sisters worldwide.

To those brothers and sisters I say this:
Join me. Live not in fear, but in defiance of tyranny. Live not for vengeance but for justice.

Amen.

Liberal Bloggers are dumb.

Ok folks, let me admit I was wrong. I always admit I might be, but it
is less usual that I have to admit I was. I was wrong about Sarah
Palin. She isn't a joke. She's far worse. She's attractive enough
to make people not listen to what she's really saying, and she has
enough problems around her for Liberal bloggers to blow out of
proportion to be dangerous.

See, here's the thing. The left is taking every little rumor about
Governor Palin and hitting it with Pym particles (google it if you
must) to make it much bigger than it should be. Case in point: a list
was floating in the blogosphere of books MAYOR Palin wanted banned.
The list was plainly false. It was a dirty lie. It was made up. The
fact was the Mayoral candidate Sarah Palin simply asked the local
Wasilla librarian if she would remove books if Palin deemed it
necessary, and then proposed this once again when she was elected as
mayor. No book ban. Just a...

Wait a freakin' minute.

She asked if the librarian would be willing to remove books from the
library? Are you serious? According to the NY Times, the Anchorage
Daily News, and Anne Kilkenny it happened.
Witnesses have come forward. In modern America this newly elected
mayor was looking into what it would take to censor books from her
community. This repugnant truth has been tied to an easily disproven
lie... and the lie drags the truth overboard with it when it is washed
away.

I am registered third party, but consider myself a
"Constituitonalist." The idea of a public servant considering
censorship is anathema to me. That alone would be reason enough not
to vote for her (and let's face facts- I hope John McCain passes
quietly in his bed well past his 120th birthday, but odds are a job
like president is not going to sit well with this man, so SHE is
likely who you are voting for).

So, Liberal Bloggers-- Stop being morons. Sarah Palin is raising her
own child, not her daughter's. Sarah Palin has not posed nude, or
even bikini clad holding a rifle (darn). Sarah Palin HAS made
prepatory actions toward censoring books, and MAY have asked a
librarian to resign for the sin of disagreeing with her. Sarah Palin
IS under investigation for possibly firing Alaska's top cop because he
did not fire her ex brother-in-law. The facts are bad enough.
Discrediting yourself by running the unsubstantiated rumors makes you
look like the people who claim Barack Obama is a secret Jihadist.
This election is too important to ignore facts. Play fair, or don't
play at all.

God- I'm asking politicos to play fair. Now I'M the moron!

Jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiihad, cowboy!

I am sure you've seen the e-mail; Barack HUSSEIN Obama is actually a closet Jihadist who will dismantle America from the inside out, and has been a Manchurian candidate type for decades, with ties going back to childhood.

I have actually been rolling these stories over in my head quite a bit
recently, and I have come to some conclusions.

Did George Bush protect America?

In his last 8 years, the President would seem to have kept attacks off
American soil. We have passed legislation, some shady, allowing for
investigation of terrorist suspects. We have created the Department
of Homeland Security; given special powers to the military and FBI;
allowed the NSA and CIA to collect on American shores; allowed warrant-less wire tapping; used coercive interrogation techniques; Law
Enforcement has more ability and databasing now than ever before in
history. We must surely have the safest state in human history.

And they never discovered Obama is a terrorist? Are we really saying
that the myriad of enforcement and intelligence agencies with all
their technological and Human intelligence abilities have allowed a
sleeper agent to not only be elected to congress, but to become a
presidential contender? They never tapped a phone call between Obama and his contact? No e-mails with encoded messages to his Jihadist brethren?

And what about all the press out there, national and otherwise? Looking through these articles, the only people with these stories are the admitted far right, and have to draw on forty year old insinuations to "connect the dots". Look at the references
in these articles-- World Net Daily, Newsmax, personal blogs, and a
couple of BBC and NY Times articles that aren't about Obama but other events. You can claim liberal media bias, but if there was clear evidence here, do you really think Bill O'Reilly wouldn't lead with that story, instead of Edie Hill giving snarky little
comments about "terrorist fist bumps?" Wouldn't Limbagh be handing
over research to the FBI to arrest Senator Obama? I do agree there are biased news outlets in mainstream media, but they all bow to their first master: Money. Sensational sells, and even if Keith Olbermann wants to have Obama's baby, you can;t tell me MSNBC wouldn't break a story about Obama being a terrorist if there was proof of such. Profits beat politics any day, and the ratings go to the newsfolk who break the big story first. Yet not even Fox News has Fair and Balanced its rightside lean to the point of actually playing the story. Do we really believe ALL the mainstream media would skip this story if it was true?

All the vetting the press has done on Obama since the campaign began, and no one has discovered the deep seeded Islamist within? He has never slipped up with a "aham d'Allah" offhandedly? The Republican party, who would gladly push anything they could has only had Sarah Palin go so far as to disparage community organizing, but hasn't been able to claim him as a Mujahadin. Would they really pass that up if there was actual evidence?

When Obama was granted a security clearance to become Senator, none of
the investigators found any evidence of this? My clearance from my Firm had four
investigators- surely a few more are working on Senators, and even if
they aren't, are we really saying the government security agencies
couldn't find what Scott Thong at Worldpress could?

Let me also understand that some of the "clues" to Obama's actual origins lie in the memoirs HE HIMSELF published? This incredible sleeper agent planted into our society in the 70's by the Muslims in an incredible act of insidious premonition has fooled EVERYONE but a few bloggers and far right websites. Yet, an agent of this caliber NAMED HIS CONTACTS IN TWO SEPARATE AUTOBIOGRAPHIES!!!

But here's the real issue:

If Obama is a secret Islamist, and is setting us up as a Jihadist, then
the Bush administration has failed far more spectacularly than any
detractor has ever thought. The Bush administration has allowed
America's enemy into congress and perhaps into the White House. Is
that what we are saying here? Every federal agency, every bit of law enforcement, every security and intelligence agency utterly failed? The press, the Republican strategists, hell, Karl Rove and Dick Cheney all failed to find out this startling truth? If that is true, that alone would be a good reason to get the Republicans out of office, or at least impeach the current administration.

Jaded as I am , even I have more faith in my government than that. When the CIA has enough reason to put Obama in Gitmo, then, THEN, I will buy the secret Jihadist argument.

Until then save me some hummus and falafel!