jump to navigation

Clinton, Obama Bicker on YouTube Debate July 24, 2007

Posted by chuckwh in Barack Obama, Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton, Neo-cons, News and politics, Obama, YouTube.
add a comment

The stars of CNN’s YouTube debate were clearly Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but it was Clinton’s reaction to a question posted to Obama that is curious, given the success the Gore administration has had dealing with hostile regimes.

Stephen Sorta of Diamond Bar, Calif. asked the candidates if they’d be willing in their first year in office to talk with the leaders who, from the viewpoint of some U.S. policymakers, are considered the world’s troublemakers, including presidents Fidel Castro of Cuba, and Kim Jong Il of North Korea.

SEN. OBAMA: I would. Not only has this been the guiding diplomatic principle of this country, but this administration has demonstrated the importance of maintaining this approach with its successful rapprochement with Iran and Fatah in Gaza, which has led to the highest level of peace the Middle East has seen since World War II. (Applause.) Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to the Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them, they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we have the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

But Hillary Clinton, one of the architects of the diplomatic efforts in Iran as Vice President under Gore, disagreed, saying, “While I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these during my first year, I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort, because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don’t want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don’t want to make a situation even worse. We’re not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and, you know, the president of North Korea.”

This was a curious reaction considering the successful waves of diplomacy initiated under Gore. Especially odd was her reference to making a promise, which wasn’t part of the question (the question was whether candidates would be willing to talk to hostile governments, not whether they would issue promises to that effect).

Clinton continues to distance herself from the progressive end of the Democratic party (and her own administration) by sounding the foreign policy mantras of her husband, who was centrist only in name and only within the relative scope of the era he presided.

Keep in mind just how far right the Reagan era swung the pendulum of political discourse. In many eras, Clinton the Husband’s foreign policy would have been considered far to the right and subservient to special interests, but he looked progressive when matched up against conservative Republicans and neo-cons (who wanted to invade Iraq, which would have been an unmitigated disaster).

Today, the U.S. still isn’t talking to Cuba, a harmless little island to the South whose fangs, if there ever were any, were removed by the fall of the Soviet Union. Diplomatic relations would only help the island’s economy. And maybe even ours. If we’re the good guys, there’s nothing left, right, or centrist about that position, and making an effort towards that regime or any other hostile regime can never be harmful.

Advertisements

Former V.P. Joe Lieberman Released From Psychiatric Hospital March 28, 2007

Posted by chuckwh in Al Gore, Iraq, Joe Lieberman, Neo-cons, News and politics.
1 comment so far

Former Vice President Joe Lieberman was released today from a Connecticut psychiatric hospital today nearly five years after his famous rant in the Senate chambers urging President Gore to invade Iraq “post-haste.” Lieberman, who was diagnosed as having Dissociative identity disorder after a series of speeches shortly after 9/11 that seemed to reflect changes in left/right philosophy on an almost daily basis, was released after the hospital was able to conclude conclusively that Lieberman was, in fact, a Republican. Joe is released
“Joe has been a model patient,” said Dr. Anton Fesk, “and it appears his confusion about who he is, this haunting struggle he’s faced reaching out and finding nothing, is finally over. He is solidly in the Republican camp, where he promises to remain for life.”

Lieberman was replaced as vice-president early in the Gore administration by Hillary Clinton, who is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination.

His plans are unknown, and it is also unknown whether there is any treatment for being a modern day Republican, despite recent suggestions within the psychiatric community that some provision for the affliction be provided in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).

Republicans Accuse Gore of Implant Program February 10, 2007

Posted by chuckwh in Al Gore, Dave Winer, Neo-cons, Neo-conservatives, News and politics, OPML, RSS, Winer.
add a comment

Ever notice how you race to the computer whenever you’ve been away from the house for awhile? Especially after a long vacation without access? Hell, you’re a frothy mess. As are most Americans.

Truth is, who the hell can run to the computer anymore to check an email, other than, maybe, our moms?

As a result, most of us are racing frantically for the newest PDA/Cell phone device. Apple not only didn’t bother with a 1984 type commercial to deal with our newest frenzy, they charged a fortune for the privilege of hearing God Jobs (aka, Boom!) talk about the next generation of phone/pda/whatever (I really don’t think, at this point, another link to iPhone is needed here, do you?).

Well, Republican Lynn Westmoreland is saying he has uncovered evidence that the Gore administration will soon propose a program that will require all Americans to be equipped with a microchip in their brains that can accept email and important blogs. According to Westmoreland, the Gore Administration will create a new tax to pay for the mandatory program.

Westmoreland further claims to have uncovered evidence that Dave Winer, the inventor of RSS, has been hired by the administration to create a receptor that can be implanted in the brain. The implanted receptor, according to sources, will only accept RSS and OPML. According to Westmoreland, Winer, a well known tech guru, refused to participate unless OPML, which is a lightweight outline editing markup language, would play at least a minor role in the implantation process.

There has been no comment yet from the Winer Blog Machine, which Westmoreland claims has been in existence since 1997, and is also part of the reason Gore was elected in the first place. Westmoreland: “Winer created an environment that leads to brainwash, by his nefarious insistence on this strange, bit-based concept of community. He was wrong in 1997, and he is wrong now.

“He is also a well known non-Christian, and the Bible is clear about that.”

Westmoreland (excellent comedy link on YouTube has been banned by Viacom (which happens to be controlled by a neocon named Sumner Redstone, and so, is, unfortunately, not available).) is an up and coming Georgia Republican whose mantra is family and Christian values but who, also, could not recite the ten commandments under questioning by Steven Colbert (proof is not available for this claim, see Redstone/Viacom comments).

BTW, the only way to get to Steven Colbert. is through MySpace.

OH!!!

I get it!!! Sumner Redstone owns Steven Colbert (nobody tell Steven, lest he wet his pants). And Jon Stewart, too!.

It all makes sense if you just read the irony in stuff like this.

Understanding all of this will create an infinite loop (like how Southwest Bell begat SBC which begat AT&T which was nailed originally for antitrust actions)(but I digress) if you study it too hard. Luckily, most of you are much more interested in the relationship between Sawyer and Jack and that nasty woman with the high leg kick (hey, can’t blame you there, who doesn’t love a broad with a high leg kick?).

So for most of you, all is good.

But me, I thought the simple fact that Al Gore was president would solve the world’s ills.

Or maybe I’m just writing about some awful nightmare, about a world that could have happened, if George W. Bush had been elected.

No. I’m not that crazy.

Al Gore’s “October Surprise” November 6, 2006

Posted by chuckwh in 9-11, Al Gore, Bush, Congressional ethics, Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Gore, Iraq, Neo-cons, Neo-conservatives, News and politics, Politics, Scandals, Terrorism.
2 comments

Al Gore today, in a surprise pre-election announcement, has pardoned several well-known Republican criminals, including Bill O’Reilly (imprisoned for illegally obtaining abortion clinic patient records), Donald Rumsfeld (who along with Dick Cheney was nailed for racketeering and embezzlement during the Iraq Reconstruction Project — see this link for background on the Bill of Hope), and several other small-time Republican crooks. Notably absent from the list was Senator Tom DeLay.

Press Secretary Aaron Sorkin today said Gore is doing this as part of national reconciliation efforts that began when Republicans were routinely put in prison back in 2001, when Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris were thrown in jail for vote fraud.

He is also offering “limited amnesty” to Republican sex offenders who have not yet been apprehended and who come forward and show a willingness to adhere to a GPS-based tracking system, and who voluntarily submit to psychological counseling. Insiders say that the reasons for this are more practical than a simple desire for national reconciliation. “Our medium security prisons just don’t have enough room for all the offenders,” says one official close to the administration.

In fact, prison overcrowding has again become a major issue, in spite of recent changes in criminal drug laws that no longer mandate imprisonment for minor drug offenses and have returned the focus to drug rehabilitation. Studies are beginning to pour in showing that, since the crackdown on Republican corruption, the prison population once dominated by drug offenders and minorities is being replaced by Republicans.

With the mid-term elections tomorrow, and the nation enjoying unprecedented peace and prosperity, electoral interest seems to be at an all time low, and Gore appears to be trying to remind voters why he was re-elected in the first place. While neocons refer to Gore as “the appeasement president”, the fact is that Gore has become a world leader based on his skills at managing reconciliation on a global level, while driving successful worldwide anti-poverty and environmental programs. He has, in other words, not only not squandered the good will that wrapped the U.S. in an emotional blanket of sympathy after the 9/11 attacks, he’s capitalized them in a huge way, one that’s easy to take for granted in a less dangerous world.

When things are going well, it’s easy to become complacent, and Gore apparently is trying to find a way to remind voters how dangerous such complacency can be. “It’s really hard for most voters to imagine how bad things could become if the current Republican leadership were ever to take control of the government,” says one Democratic campaign pollster, who is hopeful that the neoconservative wing of the Republican party is finally being dismembered through its delirious combination of sex and corruption scandals, as well as voter antipathy towards the neoconservative doctrine of perpetual war.

Also, in a speech late yesterday, Gore offered what he called some personal advice to the challenger in his first presidential election, George W. Bush. “I think maybe it’s time for George to check himself out of the Betty Ford clinic. He’s been in there, what? Five, six years? I know it was a tough election, but it’s time to move on.”

Is Rupert Murdoch a Terrorist? October 21, 2006

Posted by chuckwh in Murdoch, Neo-cons, Neo-conservatives, News and politics, Rupert Murdock, Terrorism, Terrorismo.
8 comments

Is Rubert Murdoch a moral terrorist? Or just a guy who likes to make a lot of money, damned if he cares how?

With Fox News currently pandering to the current Republican Fear Campaign (the RFC), it’s time to dig deeper into the pathology of Republican hypocrisy.

The maze is a difficult one to follow, so get yourself some green tea (or some scotch), and get ready to try to follow the amazing thought process that is prevalent in the land of the GOP.

To do this, we don’t need the Mark Foleys of the world, and we never have.

All we have to do is look at Murdoch’s media empire.

from http://www.page3.com/girl/katie_harte/main_image/2009_5_30_katie_harte_1_347x509.jpg -- this is a copyrighted image from Rupert's media empire

from http://www.page3.com/girl/katie_harte/main_image/2009_5_30_katie_harte_1_347x509.jpg -- this is a copyrighted image from Rupert's media empire

And, then, somehow, make a connection to “family values.” The largess of Republican hypocrisy, we’ll find, is matched only by their corruption.

Murdoch’s family values, like Foley’s, tend to gravitate towards skin. Let’s have a look at one of his first successful media ventures, London’s daily tabloid, The Sun.

As you can imagine, sex sells, and Murdoch found that out early. The Sun’s Page 3 girl became famous, especially after 16 year old girls started strutting their stuff before Murdoch’s eager lenses (note that this was legal in Britain until 2003).

Now, I don’t consider myself a prude. In fact, I’ll just be honest and tell you that when I bought Playboys while attempting to stumble into adulthood, I did not buy them for the articles.

But Playboy is published by Hugh Hefner, who is not exactly a major GOP funding force.

So here we have Republicans consistently stitching up victory after victory in the Bible Belt, extolling family values as a key part of their platform (when they’re not begging underage pages for pix), while at the same time, the mouthpiece of the GOP in America (Murdoch owns Fox News, too) has been titillating weak-kneed Brits for more than three decades.

Meanwhile, according to this Wiki site, The Parents Television Council named the Murdoch-owned Fox Network “the worst network to watch with your children”, describing many of the shows as “100% immoral.”

Moral values. 100% immoral. Interesting juxtaposition supporters of the GOP moral crusade face. Problem is, they’ve been facing it for years, and have been pulling the electoral switch for the GOP, anyway, without as much as blinking.

And now we’ve got MySpace.

For a brief sample of ribald MySpace pictures that our friends in the Red should really love (you may want to cross yourselves, first, before looking, if you’re a Red just getting out of church), fu attitudeall you need to do is browse the site for a few minutes. There, our friends from the Red will find much more than an attitude. In fact, there’s not much you won’t find.

But hey, I’m not here to rail against public morality or its evil twin, public immorality. I could actually care less what people watch in the privacy of their homes.

What I do care about is when other people tell me what I should and should not do.

Especially when those same people’s propaganda machine is pushing the masses to actually do the opposite of what these people are saying we should do.

It’s a form of terrorism because the effect of the bipolar messages are actually a major cause for the current toxicity dominating political discourse. On one hand, you’ve got the Murdoch media machine blasting away at (mostly) our youth with titillation and the notion that all you need in life is fun, fun, fun. On the other hand, you’ve got a Red State mentality from voters who, before the Crusades begun by the Moral Majority, typically voted Democratic, but are now buying the propaganda from the other half of the Murdoch media machine, Fox News.

As the frustration in liberal circles has grown with the hypocrisy, along with their own inability to break through to Red State voters in a way that truly resonates, they’ve become more vitriolic in their lambasting of Republican hides, and the Republicans, always in attack mode anyway, have responded in kind.

In a sense, in its most savage form, terrorism is all about trying to drive a wedge between two groups within the same nation who normally have more to gain from unity than from disunity, more to gain from harmony than discord. Healthy disagreement is always good for the democratic process, but terrorists sew discontent between groups. That’s their master plan.

How better to drive such a wedge than to drive the citizens crazy with mixed messages. “Look at this, wouldn’t you like a piece of it? Can’t have it. You’re wrong to think that you can.” It’s like showing a small child a nice, sparkly bit of candy, and then when she reaches it for it, you kick her in the teeth. That kind of thing makes people mad. Or at least it should.

As the congressional elections approach, the results are not in the hands of pundits or talking heads. It’s in the hands of Mary Joe Pinupski, deep in Kentucky, who needs to ask herself why she keeps voting for people who torture her teenage boys with titillating pix, and plan for a war where he has a very good chance of dying. Mary Joe, in other words, needs to ask herself if she wants to get kicked in the teeth.

Republicans Gear Up Their Media Fear Machine October 21, 2006

Posted by chuckwh in 9-11, Al Gore, Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Foreign Policy, George W. Bush, Gore, Haliburton, Iraq, Law & Politics, Neo-cons, Neo-conservatives, News and politics, Politics, September 11th, September 11th & The War On Terror.
2 comments

The Republicans have officially ramped up their fear-based media frenzy by generating ads suggesting we’re all about to die.

You can find one of them here.

As a professional web developer, I ask this simple question. Do you really trust a party that uses Dreamweaver to write its scripting code to tackle such potential horrors as dirty suitcase bombs?

How do you know they’re using Dreamweaver? Easy, just do a view source and see the ubiquitous Macromedia function MM_swapImgRestore() littering the HTML code. Now, there’s nothing wrong with amateurs using Dreamweaver to crank out a site, but do we want the Republicans to hire amateurs to run a war? If they can’t come up with the technical resources to do a web site properly, how in the name of fat hypocrisy can we expect them to run a war if they somehow get the presidency back?

You think the connection is off the wall? Well, just, for a moment, let’s come up with a preposterous scenario.

Imagine, for a moment, that Bush had beaten Gore in the presidential race of 2000. Now, imagine that instead of engaging the Middle East with diplomacy and, essentially, winning the “war” on terrorism (as summed up here) Bush had done something crazy, like invade, oh, I dunno, just for the sake of argument, maybe Iraq. Who knows why, but just bear with me for a moment. For me, it’s almost as easy to then imagine other weird scenarios. You know, like the U.S. drives into Baghdad, quickly routs the hapless Iraqi army, then disbands it and allows a massive looting spree where all kinds of nasty weapons are squirrelled away.

Okay, granted, I do have an over-active imagination. You have to sort of clear all reason from your mind to imagine such a scenario, but if you saw the job Bush did in Texas and, generally, what a dunderhead he is in general, you begin to realize that, by golly, anything is possible, had he won.

Understanding that Bush would have probably included guys like Paul Wolfowitz in his cabinet makes me think even greater disasters would have been possible, had he been elected. Keep in mind that in February 1992, Wolfowitz’s henchmen drafted an American defense policy that called for the United States to brandish its military might aggressively and persistently. The policy was too chilling even for Republicans, and it was dropped, but George Bush Sr.’s well known phrase “New World Order” came largely from that document, as did, later, the Project for the New American Century, of which several dedicated neo-cons were a part of, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Wolfowitz.

In fact, way back in the day Bill Clinton was in office, the neo-cons officially urged an invasion of Iraq.

Still think the whole idea is silly?

See? This is what happens when we become complacent during times of peace and economic prosperity.

Gotta watch that. It’s dangerous business, this complacency.

Okay, so let’s just say their man had won. It’s not too much of a stretch to think that their man, he of a somewhat dim mind, would have played catch with these fellas.

Now, chances are, these neo-cons would not have thought out the prospects for an invasion of Iraq. Even if they did know the difference between a Sunni and Shi’ite, neo-cons are, basically, and simply, warlike. And arrogant. They probably felt that if Saddam could contain the two groups, the U.S. certainly could. As preposterous as it sounds, they probably would have done something completely outrageous, even after winning the initial phases of the war. Who knows what? But something. Maybe they would have relied on patronage to manage the rebuilding process instead of using local civil engineering firms. After all, you can bet that any invasion would have really torched the Iraqi infrastructure. Everything from electrical grids to oil fields would need to be rebuilt.

Who knows, maybe after beating up on the Iraqi army these clowns would even disband it, letting them roam the streets penniless, hungry, and angry.

I know how silly and impossible this all sounds.

Today, Iraq is a study in possibilities, a thriving regional economic power whose biggest problem is the restive Kurds, who want to finish the job of autonomy and become an independent state, but who are not so restive as to take up arms.

But still, these are people whose idea of technical competence is using Dreamweaver on their web site. If that’s the kind of technical competence the GOP has on hand, had Bush been elected and had done the neo-cons’ bidding, I bet they couldn’t have even kept the electricity on in Baghdad for more than a few hours a day, had they been foolish enough to invade.

But the most chilling aspect about their incompetence is their fuzzy knowledge of world affairs. If they thought Iraq was okay to invade, then who would be next? Syria? Or, even more incredible, Iran? Let the dominoes fall, right fellas? Geniuses, all of them.

All of this would have given birth to an army of new terrorists. I suspect if we had invaded Iraq, that nation would have become an Al Queda playground, where American troops would have been engaged in a horrible guerrilla war, with red big targets on their humvees the size of Dick Cheney’s massive butt.

If the U.S. had then moved on to Iran, then we really would have been talking about the very real possibility of a nuclear terrorist incident in the U.S.

And that, my friends, is something the GOP doesn’t talk about in its ad.

Luckily, this is just a nightmare scenario. The kind of thing we only think about as the autumn skies turn grey and the void between life and death, as represented by old Gaelic beliefs of Halloween, approach.