smijer

Make a Difference

Tomorrow is World AIDS Day. Make a difference, if you can. Since an 87 billion dollar war and the latest 350 billion dollar tax cut are more important to our fearless leader than funding the 15 billion dollar AIDS package he signed, maybe some of us who are still employed can find a little change to help make up the difference. Donate time or money here.

Week-end Fun!

South Knox Bubba has stumbled upon a canned "letter to the editor" written up by the Bush campaign.

Want to have a little fun? Do what I did. Go write a letter. Put in your zip code so you can e-mail it to every paper in your region. Instead of your name, sign it with the URL:

This letter was generated automatically with this Bush campaign tool:
http://www.georgewbush.com/GetActive/WriteNewspapers.aspx?aid=92

Alternatively, you can take the grass roots approach: "Bush iz Gud", scrawled in your favorite Crayola hue!

Preach it Bubba
South Knox Bubba notes how Digby notes how not-ready-for-prime-time election results, wars, and legislation tend to be rammed through by the GOP before the American people get a whiff of the accompanying odors.

A truer thing has never been said.

Bush's Secret Trip

I know this is a stupid question, but if the motivation was to thank the troops, and if security were so blessed important, why didn't they just leave all the journalists home? This wasn't a major policy decision that the American people should know about (like the energy policy that was decided behind closed doors). We would be none the poorer for being kept in the dark on Bush's secret visit to the troops. No, security isn't that important.

Liberals Are Killing Our Soldiers

I hear whispered concerns from those marching in lock step with the New and Improved Republican party that dissent against George's war is causing unnecessary American casualties in Iraq. That's right, boys & girls: our soldiers are getting killed because the "foreign terrorists" who resist our occupation there are emboldened by American dissent.

I'm sending out this urgent plea to those who have complaints about Bush's foreign policy: Please remember that criticizing bad foreign policy gets American soldiers killed!

Just as importantly, please forget - for the good of the country - that bad foreign policy also gets American soldiers killed!

Happy Thanksgiving

That's all. Just Happy Thanksgiving!

Abortion

Thank God nobody reads this blog. What I'm about to write would earn me hate-mail from every political partisan in the country. That would be from both sides - if anybody from either side ever read it. So I'm safe.

I'm a yellow-dog democrat. I'm a little more fiscally conservative than most in my party, but the party itself is moving in that direction, too. It's possible to be a good, loyal democrat and be against unbridled spending and running huge deficits. In the last decade, the Democrats have been far more fiscally responsible than the Republicans. And I like that.

I'm not as much pro-labor as most democrats, but that comes from living in the south. Territory known as "right-to-work" states, where we have bought into the notion that a unionized workplace will shut a lot of employers down and keep a lot of people who are wanting to work out of a job. And we may not be entirely wrong about that. I still take the Democratic position on labor, though, because I am keenly aware that without labor unions and their political influence, there would be no middle class in this country. I am keenly aware that if the unions were all dismantled tomorrow, it would be only a matter of years before congress repealed all the worker safety, child labor, and minimum wage laws, and we were left with a nineteenth century economy that was quite literally all work and no play for the great American underclass, while a very few elites would reap all of the benefits of the work the rest of us are doing. So labor is easy.

But abortion is tricky. I'm not comfortable at all with my party's position on abortion. Nor am I comfortable with the idea of returning to the days where poor girls got butchered in back alley's while rich girls went to Canada, Mexico, or a neighboring state to have their family's little embarassment "taken care of." So, should I vote pro-life or pro-choice?

Although many proponents of choice fail to recognize it, the pro-life position is a construct of Human Rights advocacy. Although proponents of choice find it more comfortable to recognize only the base political motivations of the pro-life movement, the way it has been co-opted by those seeking power on the right, there is a strong core of grass roots sentiment among men and women that supports a pro-life policy because and only because they feel a fetus is a human being with the right to life.

Those who are pro-choice most often respond that a fetus is not, in fact, a human being with the right to life. And there-in lies the rub. It is a most sorely dangerous thing to define a group as non-human or sub-human without very good cause. What right have we to decide that a twelve-week fetus is sub-human? What standard applies that the twelve-week fetus is not human but in the next hospital bed over, the baby who has been in the world for only a few seconds has an unalienable right to life?

On the other side of the coin, how can we convince ourselves to sincerely believe that a single-celled zygote has a right to life that outweighs a woman's right to determine what purposes she will allow her body to be put to?

I'm not certain that logic and the twenty-first century ethos - as grand and diverse at it is - are together sufficient to make such heady determinations. I think that both sides of the debate must abandon their dead certainty and advocate their position in the spirit of honest dialogue and debate. Nothing will ever be settled by Operation Rescue screaming "murderer" and "whore" at young girls going into a clinic for reasons known only to those girls. Nothing will ever be solved by radical feminists screaming "rapist" at sincere individuals who want only to see the lives of the unborn protected, and are willing to push for legislation or constitutional amendments to make that happen.

In fact, very little will be accomplished while billion dollar advocacy agencies from both sides are handing out pamphlets and slicks that stack statistics - or lie about them. Little is helped when crisis pregnancy centers hand out misleading literature that detail the slightest health risk of abortion on the basis of nothing more than anecdotal evidence - or when pro-life advocates hand out literature grimly warning of health risks from pregnancy that are equally rare.

Nothing is gained by impugning the motives of whole groups of people. Everything is gained by moderating the rhetoric and by emphasizing science and fact in the discussion.

I'm going to propose a rhetorical question. I hope that the efforts to answer that question will some day be a step toward finding a way for us to look at the problem of abortion in a way that honors the rights of all human beings. But the question is a radical one, and almost a hurtful one. It isn't asked as a challenge to the pro-life viewpoint -- or to that of the pro-choice viewpoint, though it could be construed either way. Here is the question:

If a fetus is a human being, then why are abortion laws needed? Why shouldn't abortion be prosecuted under the existing homicide laws? Why shouldn't a doctor go to prison for murder for giving a woman a morning-after pill thereby killing a human being with a dozen cells, no heart, no and no brain? Why shouldn't a woman be sent to prison for conspiracy to commit murder for having an abortion during the first or second trimester? If she has an abortion in order to save her own life, why can't she and the doctor both offer a defense of justifiable homicide, and let the D.A. and the courts judge the merits of that defense?

Who has an answer that will really make sense?

This question should challenge the pro-choice side as much as the pro-life side. It should challenge them to try to understand why protection of all life is important and why they really see a difference in the case of a fetus. But pro-choice people have an other question that clouds the atmosphere. We have to ask them: What makes the newborn baby different from the un-delivered fetus it was yesterday? What is unique about the condition of being unborn that makes one fundamentally un-human or sub-human? If you believe that there is a time between conception and birth at which the transition occurs, what is special about that transition?

This post is just meant to raise the questions and start the dialogue more or less formally for my own benefit. I am reluctantly pro-choice at this point, though I can argue either side of the case effectively. I would like to be able to only argue one side of the case against all objections from the other. Then I can be confidently and serenely pro-....whichever?

Freep, at your service
Jay rosen has a nice piece about the new political lexicon emerging on the twenty-first century internet. Among Gore as a verb and moonbat, he nailed me:
Freep: A person who mindlessly and shrilly repeats talking points from one side or the other. From freerepublic.com, where the Freep hang out. Spinoffs include Dean-freep, Clark-freep, Demo-freep.Yes, I'm afraid its true. I'm a Dean-freep. So, next time I have a mind to write off some moon-bat wingnut as "just another freeper", I suppose I'll have to look to the mote in my own eye. Or something.

We need your help!

If you are a southerner who supports or leans Dean, please help with DeanSouth, a developing project to showcase Dean's positions on issues important to southerners and to all Americans. We really need help with this, so please pitch in!

I didn't expect a kind of Bush Administration.

NOBODY expects the Bush Administration! Our chief weapon is some lies...some lies and fear... fear and some lies.... Our two weapons are fear and some lies...and ruthless extremism.... Our *three* weapons are fear, some lies, and ruthless extremism...and an almost fanatical devotion to Karl Rove.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, some.... I'll come in again.
...
I didn't expect a kind of Bush Administration.
...

NOBODY expects the Bush Administration! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, some lies, ruthless extremism, an almost fanatical devotion to Karl Rove, and fake flight uniforms - Oh damn! I can't say it - you'll have to say it.

(to be continued??)

More Moore

Found this this juicy bit from Chuck Baldwin this morning. He has what is purported to be a section of the Alabama Attorney General's questions and Moores answers from the transcript of Moore's ethics trial. Bill Pryor doesn't represent the side of civil liberties well:
Pryor: Mr. Chief Justice? And your understanding is that the Federal court ordered that you could not acknowledge God; isn't that right?

Moore: Yes.

Pryor: And if you resume your duties as Chief Justice after this proceeding, you will continue to acknowledge God as you have testified that you would today ---

Moore: That's right.

Pryor: ---no matter what any other official says?

Moore: Absolutely. Without --- let me clarify that. Without an acknowledgment of God, I cannot do my duties. I must acknowledge God. It says so in the Constitution of Alabama. It says so in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It says so in everything I have read. So ---

Pryor: The only point I am trying to clarify, Mr. Chief Justice, is not why, but only that, in fact, if you do resume your duties as Chief Justice, you will continue to do that without regard to what any other official says; isn't that right?

Moore: Well, I'll do the same thing this Court did with starting of prayer; that's an acknowledgement of God. Now, we did the same say thing that justices do when they place their hand on the Bible and say, "So help me God." It's an acknowledgement of God. The Alabama Supreme Court opens with, "God save the State and this Honorable Court." It's an acknowledgement of God. In my opinions, which I have written many opinions, acknowledging God is the source --- a moral source of our law. I think you must.

Baldwin comments:
Does everyone understand what Bill Pryor was saying? He was saying that in order for Chief Justice Moore to resume his duties, he must not acknowledge God. The posting of the Ten Commandments did not even come up. Roy Moore's "crime" was acknowledging God. For this, he was removed from the bench.
Now I'm not saying that you should trust Chuck Baldwin to give you the whole story, so I wouldn't assume that just because the posting of the Ten Commandments didn't come up in this brief segment of questioning, then it must not have come up at all during the trial. But it still doesn't look good for "our side." Until you realize that Bill Pryor isn't on "our side." He was on Moore's side. Which explains why the questions sound like so much baloney. Here's a positively glowing New Republic On-line piece about Bill Pryor. I'm taking bets on whether this article will be taken down when the right decides to demonize him.

Just in case, I'm going to excerpt a bit here:
"The truth is that Pryor is the kind of solid conservative who shows great deference and humility towards other branches of government and to higher courts, sometimes at cost both to his own political preferences and to his popular standing."
...
' "Mr. Pryor is a parody of what Democrats imagine Mr. Bush to be plotting for the federal courts," wrote the Post. It called Pryor "a zealous advocate of relaxing the wall between church and state" who "has vocally defended Alabama's chief justice, who has insisted on displaying the Ten Commandments in state court facilities.." '
(emphasis added - note the bolded quote refers to a piece in the Washington Post, from which NRO wishes to defend Pryor)
Thanks for tuning in.

South Korea

US pulling back from DMZ in South Korea, Rumsfeld says it will be a stronger position from which to defend the South.

What say ye? Cover for shifting troops to Iraq? A reminder to the restive south that they need us? Or straight up what Rummy's preaching?

Ugly Politics Revisited

Judge Roy Moore is advancing his chances for election to Alabama's Governorship, leaving a trail of broken law, defied courts, and desecrated scriptures behind him.

Footprints on their backs, legions of southern church-goers are delighted to see their Holy scriptures manipulated for political profit and their religious freedoms compromised for the same.

I think its been too long since civil libertarians have taken a stand in the south. We have allowed a few homespun demagogues to frame the debate, and to define our side. They are doing so, of course, to their own advantage.

Grotesquely, these few southern demagogues - Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, and their secular allies - have spun civil liberties as a threat to American Freedoms, and southern audiences have come to accept that view as truth. Judge Moore doesn't have to work hard to make a case for giving the state a say in our religious lives. The good people of Alabama are already convinced that not putting religious power in the hands of the state is a threat to their freedom to worship. All Moore has to do is play the role of persecuted martyr for the church, and chuckle under his breath as the contribution money and the ballots fly.

It isn't so hard to convince the public of an absurdity when the only voice they hear is one that is glibly peddling that absurdity day and night - in books, magazines and newspapers, and disgracefully, from church pulpits. Civil Libertarians owe it to ourselves - especially in the south - to turn this message around and expose it for what it is: a lie.

And please, dear friends in Alabama: please don't elect this scoundrel as your Governor - or worse - a Senator in the most powerful legislative body in the world!

Blog Plug

A couple of days ago, I mentioned having to spend a little time cleaning up behind a talk-radio character by the name of Neil Boortz. Well, it looks destined to become a full time job. Wish me well.

Ugly Politics

Rather than watch C-Span, I decided to get my coverage of the 30+ hour Washington temper fit on other blogs. Like Daily Kos, and Eschaton.

I guess I feel bad for the Republicans. Sure, they control the White House, and both houses of congress. Sure all but four of their judicial nominees have been confirmed. Sure the Senate rules have been around a long time, and sure Republicans took advantage of them to block 60 of Clinton's appointees when they were the minority. So why should I feel sorry for them?

Well, Georgie Bush, having promised to hold his breath until all of his appointees are confirmed, is turning an ugly shade of blue. I'm afraid its going to be the pretzel incident all over again for him. Billy Frist is developing more of a blotchy red complexion, now that the real tears are dried up and he is left to howling sobs to make up for them. Oh yeah, and he lost this round of hide-the-online-poll. To top it off, little Billy has got caught holding hands with Brit Hume, and now he's having to endure some embarrasment on that account. (Thanks to Atrios for both stories.)

So I feel sorry for them. My dad, when he was a youngster confronted with an infant cousin crying in his crib, suggested helpfully, "Give 'im a 'nanner & he'll hush crying." But I think its time to start practicing some tough love with our Republican youth in the Senate.

Democracy Begins at Home

Since the WMD's didn't materialize, Bush has suddenly fallen in love with Democracy, and the people at CNN/Time seem to believe the new love story.

The American people would have liked a vote on whether our armed forces should be committed to the "crusade" to democratize the world, and whether Iraq should be the first... ermm... recipient.

Would someone please tell George Bush that Democracy begins at home?

Horse Shit

"With the exception of Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, who are committed to victory in Iraq, it is unclear what the other Democratic presidential candidates would do differently to ensure an American victory -- or how they would handle the consequences of the early American withdrawal some advocate," McCain said. "Governor Dean has expressed ambiguity about the justness of our cause in Iraq. I hope he will learn that partisan anger is no substitute for moral clarity."

This piece of manure, courtesy of Boston.com, deserves a very short response.

Senator McCain has expressed his party's line about the justness of our cause in Iraq. I hope he will learn that partisan ass-kissing is no substitute for moral clarity.

Today's Boortz

Lots of interesting stuff over at the Boortz page lately. I don't see a way to link to archives, but for as long as it lasts, his "News" page is there. I was directed there by my mother, worried that the U.S. is going to surrender control of the internet to the United Nations. It being from Neil Boortz, and it being the intellectual successor to the e-mail tax e-hoax, I did not get too wrapped up in that story. But reading along, I found that Al Gore raised some Republican hackles in his Saturday address to the "far-left" MoveOn.Org. Neil has this to say:

So, just how easy is it to debunk Gore's utterances? The first thing you do is look for the premise behind Gore's remarks. If you can destroy the premise then the remarks based on that premise fail. The premise of Gore's remarks is that Bush sent the troops into Iraq to "get at Osama bin Laden." I don't really have to spend too many words here to debunk that premise, do I? Nobody connected with the Administration, including President Bush, ever said that we were going to Baghdad to get Osama. We went to Baghdad to change the regime in Iraq.

Now no one ever accused Neil Boortz of being especially smart, but doesn't Gore's point make sense? I mean, instead of chasing powerless half-bit dictators who we only recently climbed out of bed with, shouldn't we have been going after the ones that just attacked America on its own soil?

Ok, so its true that Bush and his cabinet did try their best to spin a connection between Hussein and al Qaeda, and maybe that's how Boortz took Gore's remarks. In that case his rejoinder still seems kind of weak. Of course any rejoinder prefaced by the adolescent phrase, "So, just how easy is it to debunk so-and-so's utterances? The first thing you do is look for the premise behind so-and-so's remarks. If you can destroy the premise then the remarks based on that premise fail,"... is bound to seem kind of weak. Did Boortz just complete the first quarter of his freshman philosophy class?

Lots of good stuff there. A chart showing that the bottom 50% of wage earners pay only 4% of the total income tax receipts. What's truly alarming about that statistic is that the cut-off point for "bottom 50%" income was at $28,528 - meaning half of Americans are existing at subsistence level or below. And, of course Boortz left out charts showing how much these folks paid in regressive sales and gasoline taxes. Unless Kenny Lay is taking his Beamer out for a Sunday driver a lot more often than millions of Joe Sixpacks are with their civics, I'd bet we would turn this chart on its head.

What I'd really like to see is a chart of how many calories were burned per week by the individual producing these levels of wealth. I'd also like to see how many of the top 1%'s dollars were actually earned by the bottom 50%'s work. Would charts like this be facile? Yes, but that's the point isn't it?

I'm afraid I may have to hold my nose and start checking behind Neil more often. Thanks mom.

Rumsfeld lies.

Picked up this beauty from Atrios.

Whoever's keeping track of Lies & the lying liars this will be a nice gem for your collection.

Fantasy Interviews
I've just completed my second Fantasy Interview, wherein Howard Dean (or fill in your own favorite Dem candidate) whops GWB. I've left it in their own words as much as possible. I like to hear their voices when I read it. Well, I sort of cringe hearing GWB's voice inside my head, but for now I don't think its pathological. I hope to make a series of this.

Too Good to Be True
The majority of Americans say they will not vote to re-elect Bush.

Of course a majority of American's didn't vote to elect him in the first place, either.

The Defense of Marriage Act, of course, isn't

Its awful, but today we find ourselves in agreement with Andrew Sullivan. Of course, we are talking about an issue that affects the gay community, because Andrew has a strict policy of being liberal on exactly as many issues as bear directly on his personal rights.

Now President Bush is pushing this new legislation. The Defense of Marriage Act. Like the Clean Skies Initiative, it is named in the Bush style - its name has nothing to do with its actual function. The Clean Skies Initiative doesn't make the skies cleaner, but does hand over the environmental chicken coop to the corporate wolves for regulation. Likewise, the Defense of Marriage Act has no language defending marriage from some awful liberal anti-marriage group. Instead, its intent is to limit eligibility for the state regulated contractual arrangement of marriage. Here's the language, with a shudder and a hat tip to Andy Sullivan:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."

So, in order to "defend" marriage, Bush thinks the right strategy is to outlaw marriage for certain groups.

Maybe he's right. Maybe if Tennessee legalized gay marriage then somehow it wouldn't stick when my female wife and my male self tied the knot. Maybe the fact that Bob down the street would be allowed to be present in the hospital room of his life-long companion Fred as Fred lay dying would inevitably lead to my early divorce from my wife.

Or maybe this is just a seemingly politically "safe" way for Bush to appeal to his constituency in the religious right. Maybe the 700 club vote is more important than equal rights for all. Maybe the appearance of being "moral" is more important than doing the right thing.

I don't think so. Gay people pay taxes just like everyone else. They represent their country in uniform, and they fight and die. Gay or straight, society benefits when lovers are monogamous.

Society rewards monogamous family relationships with benefits like sharing social security, sharing employer benefits at reduced cost to family members, immediate access to family being treated in a hospital, and many other ways. It is bigotry to demand we refuse these rewards to people who are willing to engage in the same civil family arrangement, but with the "wrong" gendered partner.

I could go on about the hypocrisy of a Bush administration that ran for election on making government smaller and less intrusive but that writes legislation intended to infringe on states' and individuals' rights in the most intimate of family relationships. But if I should start on the hypocrisy of the Bush administration, I should never be able to stop, so I'll just cut my small part of this discussion short.

All is forgiven

No Excuses

This is the kind of angry that I normally reserve for the Bush administration. Of course I am talking about Howard Dean's dismal performance in the "Rock the Vote" debate last night. He must have been prepared for exactly that question from exactly such an audience member. His aloof, above-it-all attempt to off-handedly deflect criticism must therefore have been the plan.

Puke.

That's why we're against GWB.

And then there's the whole "don't condescend to southerners" thing. Note to campaign:
1) Get in touch with southern voters.
2) Do not sit still and do nothing while your opponents define you on stage.
3) You have until last week to get this on track. If you wait until after last night you're too late.

Dean is still the one with the best record, the best policies, and the most independence from special interests. He probably still has the best vision for where our country needs to go. And kudos for wanting to broaden appeal in the south in the first place, which is how all this got started. But now we have a real reason to be concerned about Dean's electability. And worse, his accountability. I'm not pulling up my yard sign yet. I'll keep you posted.

Et Tu ZigZag?

The buzz around the blogs is that former Georgia Governor and retiring U.S. Senator Zell Miller has finally gone over to the other side.

He thinks the Democratic Party is just too liberal for the south, and that George W. Bush is the right amount of conservative. Of course this is hogwash. The real truth is that George W. Bush isn't representative of conservatism. Conservatives would be easier to run against, surely, if social regressivism, fiscal irresponsibility, and radically bad foreign policy were the defining trademarks. The fact is, however, that Bush has taken the Republicans (and one Democrat) into new territory: radicalism and lunacy.

The coming elections - especially the 2004 Presidential election - will not be liberal against conservative. They will be American values versus far-right radicalism. Fortunately for us, liberals get to carry the banner for American values this season. If we do a better job in this campaign than we did in 2000, then we can hope to see some healthy reform in the Republican party before very long.

Zell Miller doesn't want to see the Democratic party become more conservative. Perhaps he does have hope to see us be more inclusive of some more conservative social views on guns or abortion or states' rights. And perhaps we do need to make more room in our tent for debate on such issues. But, by falling in line with George W. Bush, and by speaking out against the candidate who will make the clearest alternative to Bush's disastrous policies at home and abroad, Zell Miller shows himself to be a radical loose cannon, not a conservative southern democrat.

Wolfowitz is More Patriotic Than Us

Melanie on Daily Kos highlights an exchange between Wolfowitz and a questioner at Georgetown U. She says she'd like to see this outrage plastered all over the blogosphere by nightfall. I agree.

Truly, Wolfie is Cheney's child. Told that many of us deplore his policies in Iraq and will fight them forever, Wolfie smugly intones that the questioner would surely be happier if Hussein were still in power

Q: Hi, Mr. Wolfowitz. My name is Ruthy Coffman. I think I speak for many of us here when I say that your policies are deplorable. They're responsible for the deaths of innocents and the disintegration of American civil liberties. [Applause] We are tired, Secretary Wolfowitz, of being feared and hated by the world. We are tired of watching Americans and Iraqis die, and international institutions cry out in anger against us. We are simply tired of your policies. We hate them, and we will never stop opposing them. We will never tire or falter in our search for justice. And in the name of this ideal and the ideal of freedom, we assembled a message for you that was taken away from us and that message says that the killing of innocents is not the solution, but rather the problem. Thank you. [Applause and jeers]

Wolfowitz: I have to infer from that that you would be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power. [Applause]

Well, now. Let's follow this up a bit. Is the inference that the questioner believes Saddam's fall taken alone is a bad thing? Of course not, Wolfowitz. You insult Americans' intelligence. Of course, we would have been happier if Saddam could have been removed during the late eighties or early nineties during the height of his human rights abuses without creating a grave national security situation for America. At that point, however, there was a modicum of sanity in the bully pulpit that held you back, and you and the connivers who are responsible for our recent unprovoked aggression were busily in collaboration with Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, given a choice between leaving Hussein in power and unilateral aggression leading to a new Vietnam, or given a choice between leaving Hussein in power and a new terrorist breeding ground in the middle east, most sane Americans would prefer to have Hussein in power. And that, Paul, is exactly our point.

Seems obvious? It does to me. But to Paul Wolfowitz, someone who thinks this way must just hate America. Consider:

Q: I'd just like to say that people like Ruthy and myself have always opposed Saddam Hussein, especially when Saddam Hussein was being funded by the United States throughout the '80s. And -- [Applause] And after the killings of the Kurds when the United States increased aid to Iraq. We were there opposing him as well. People like us were there. We are for democracy. And I have a question.

What do you plan to do when Bush is defeated in 2004 and you will no longer have the power to push forward the project for New American Century's policy of American military and economic dominance over the people of the world? [Applause]

Wolfowitz: I don't know if it was just Freudian or you intended to say it that way, but you said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him.

It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies. [Applause]

I'm sorry, Paul. We aren't too stupid to know that we can love America and not love bad policy. You make bad policy, Paul. You don't get a free pass by wrapping yourself in the flag. That's our flag. And those are our sons and daughters, brothers, sisters, cousins and friends out there killing and dying for your neo-con wet dream of American global hegemony. We can and will vote you and your puppet, George W. Bush, out of office and we will be Patriots in doing so.

Did I mention that I'm for Howard Dean?

The astute reader will know already that I am supporting Dr. Howard Dean for President of the U.S. in 2004. Dean's candidacy has renewed my interest in politics and in public policy. With that comes a certain preoccupation with social ethics and philosophy. Oh yeah, and news. Expect to hear a lot about current events especially in the White House. The only way we are going to change things in this country is to get a coherent message out highlighting the need for change. That's going to mean raising a red flag as much as possible over the current administration's sorry record of deception, fiscal irresponsibility, cronyism, dangerous foreign policy, and weakness on defense. The buzzword for this administration's record is "misleadership". Expect to hear speculation whether this "misleadership" is a product of the President's radical agenda or whether he is being manipulated by elements within his regime.

We'll talk about the "liberal media". We'll try to own up to real liberal bias where it is found. Then we will point out real radically conservative bias at Fox News. We'll talk about the difference between a liberal slant from Dan Rather and CBS News on the one hand, and the use of a news organization as the propaganda wing of a radicalized White House on the other.

But then expect to look at the harder questions. Why do liberals and progressives support a pro-choice agenda? Why do conservatives support a pro-life agenda? How do we find the enlightened path with regards to the Israel/Palestine conflict? What is the most fiscally sound tax policy? What are the real merits of these views? When are the views internally inconsistent? Who is insensitive to human rights, and who tramples on them?

I'm going to start off easy and positive, returning to my inspiration to enter the blogosphere. I'm going to tell why I support Howard Dean. I don't agree with him on every issue, but he has won my political heart and mind for a number of reasons.

He is NOT George W. Bush. The damage being done right now will take generations to fix. We cannot afford another four years of Bush in the White House

He is a straight-talker. I don't mean "a politician who knows how to sound like a straight-talker." I mean someone whose talk is consistent with their own beliefs and whose walk mirrors the talk. I mean a person who will stand up for what's right no matter if it is politically "safe". It's important to me to believe I am not voting for "the lesser of two evils." With Dean, I can vote for someone and feel safe giving them my trust.

He can beat George W. Bush. See the first point. Dean, of all the candidates, sets himself out as a clear alternative to Bush's radical agenda. Dean has a record on the issues that can be put, point to point, against the Bush record. His record will win on its own strength, and unlike Gore, Dean is not afraid to run on his record and to draw the contrast in no uncertain terms.

He has a long record of fiscal responsibility. I remember prosperity, and I liked it.

He has a strong record on individual, human, and civil rights. These are the foundations of Democracy. Dean understands that. George W. Bush does not.

He showed excellent judgment on the Iraq war, when the rest of the country seemed to be going crazy. In the mad rush to war in Iraq, he was one of the few voices that were boldly talking common sense on the issue. He shows the kind of judgment that we need desperately in the conduct of the common defense and foreign policy. He's no pacifist. Instead, he understands American values as well American security needs. He has the strength to go into the next Afghanistan - then stay the course and provide a secure environment there. He has the intelligence and the values that will prevent him from abandoning a just war on terrorism in favor of a unilateral intervention and occupation in a nation that was never a threat to us. In short, he understands defense in a way that our current president does not.

Sure, there are plenty of other wonderful things about Dean. Some like him for his commitment to health-care. Some like him for his commitment to labor and fair trade. Others because of his stand on reproductive rights or his stand on gun rights. Those are not my issues. I'll discuss them later, and in a broader context. I hope that someone reading this blog will see some of the same attractions I see for Dr. Dean and will decide to give him their support. And maybe this blog will stay alive and interesting for a while. Here's hoping.

Welcome Me!

I hope I will be welcome in the world of blogging. Matthew Gross at BlogForAmerica introduced me to the gentle art. Many others have refined my taste. So here begins my own experiment in blogging. Thanks for your patience.