09/12/07 09:35 - 54ºF - ID#41059

The Surge and Petraeus briefly

It was called a surge,
and the goals were clear.
Those goals were not met,
so bush's Pet, said
"give me a year"

I find it offensive that people are dieing in Iraq, and Bush is using the war as a political football. It seems that bush's only goal is to prolong the war for the next president to deal with, so that he will not be the one in the history books who failed in Iraq. Sure he botched the whole operation

, but you can't lose a war that never ends. Like Vietnam, we lost that war because we left, that's bush's logic, remember in august "bush compares Iraq to Vietnam"

There are some BS news headlines floating around like "Bush to support troop pullback" so I have to clear the air a bit. The surge was called a surge because it was a temporary increase. But Bush and Petraeus plan to let the additional 30,000 surge troops go home by next summer. That's a year and a half. And bush says he is agreeing to troop cuts by letting the surge troops leave iraq. No, sorry, that's not a troop cut, that's back to where we started.

Next the numbers

Nothing but creative accounting practices to come up with fuzzy statistics. You know, like Enron. Car bombs don't count.

Most importantly, where are we now and what do we do next. Trust Bush to get er done. No.

Let's ask General John Batiste. I think this is a clear and concise assessment of the war. We have been adjusting the goals in Iraq for the entire war. Now bush has been telling us that as the Iraqi Government stands u, we can stand down. There's an inherrent problem with that and General Batiste put it into words

"Bottom line, we have put our strategic interests in the hands of an incompetent government in Iraq and we are 'waiting to see if Iraqi's can settle their differences.' This is unacceptable."

"America's national strategy for the global war on terror lacks strategic focus. Despite a remarkable performance, our Army and Marine Corps are at a breaking point with little to show for it; the current "surge" in Iraq is too little, too late; the Government of Iraq is incapable of stepping up to their responsibilities; our nation has yet to mobilize to defeat a serious threat which has little to do with Iraq; and it is past time to refocus our national strategy for the Middle East. The way-ahead is uncertain at best, but it is time to put America's vital interests first. From this point forward, America's strategy must focus on the mission is defeat world-wide Islamic extremism."

General John Batiste's full testimony

I can't say it any better than that.

More reading and video.

Sorry, gotta go to work.

carolinian writes at 05:50:09 09/12/07 - Comment #24337: The right doesn't count car bombs in their tally of civilian deaths, the left counts traffic accidents in their tally of troop combat deaths.

Both sides of the political spectrum tend to be selective in the ways they are counting.

dcoffee writes at 04:15:52 09/12/07 - Comment #24321: Our military has been successful. That is true. There was a NY Times video online yesterday from Baghdad that showed public markets, and commercial strips that are now open and secured by our troops. Also the Baghdad theme park is open, and people are taking the opportunity to do some things they like. Our Troops have set up checkpoints and made sure that weapons stay out of certain areas, and people are enjoying some ease.

The troops have not failed. The politicians have. We can not leave our troops there forever, Iraq will have to sustain itself eventually. Has the surge gotten us any closer to that? no.

The Iraqi people want us out. They think things will be better when we leave. If we do reduce our presence maybe they can stop complaining about American forces and in their country, and get down to business trying to find a way to coexist. We are a distraction, and an excuse for them to avoid taking responsibility.

As for General Petreus, The Whitehouse turned his report into a political stunt. The whitehouse put so much emphasis on his report, that in the end, they told him what to say and how to say it. And his problem is he listened to them instead of being a professional. However, I don't think he personally should be the target of criticism, he probably hates talking to the whitehouse and just wants to do his job. But we are told to trust his credability above all else, despite the fradulent math he used with a straight face as 'proof' of progress.
As I said above, violence is down, because we stopped counting deaths by car bombs, or gunshots to the front of the head. This is a bush formula, and it's a total fraud. I'm sorry Petraeus is the mouthpiece. But this type of fraud needs to be exposed, move on did it and they were in your face about it. But unlike Swift Boat Vets for Truth smearing John Kerry, this stuff is actually true.
:::link:::

james writes at 02:57:50 09/12/07 - Comment #24302: Joshua: You are right that organizations like moveon use attention grabbing headlines to drum up readership. But give us liberals a break. We don't all read moveon, we don't all like moveon, just like every Republican isn't a neo-facist Christian fundamentalist.

The NYT's has not been a consistently down on the Iraq war. Thomas Friendman and David Brooks have been big supporters of the Iraq war from the start and still support it, but are also critical of the handling of it. Further, it doesn't make any sense for a Dem to denouce moveon publicly, just like it doesn't make any sense for GOPers to denounce Pat Robertson. That is wishful thinking.

And any good news from Iraq is bad news? Do you think that they actually don't want anything good to happen there? And if there is any good news I would love to hear it. What you must be referring to is Dems not swallowing the fake progress being shown in highly armed green zones and not choking down the talking points prepared by the White House for them to read at this green zones.

And critique of solders for killing civilians and inhumane acts isn't exactly out of left field considering there have been dozens of cases (legal, tried cases that is) of soldiers who have killed civilians in cold blood. Abu Graib should speak for itself.

jason writes at 02:02:01 09/12/07 - Comment #24295: I think really what people are missing is that there is a stark difference between a military failure and a political failure. The Iraqi government has failed, not our military. People sort of incoherently clump the two together to obfuscate the issue, sometimes on purpose and sometimes out of innocent ignorance.

Really, the Vietnam parallels are so stale and indigestible that I don't even understand why people use them anymore, Bush included. For every instance of comparing Petraeus to Westmoreland, I've got about 10 questions about who represents Vo Nguyen Giap. It is just useless babble.

To me, clearly, the issue has become so obfuscated by politicians on both sides that the bottom line is being ignored. They (Iraq) can't seem to get their shit together, and nobody wants to hear "Well, we'll have our shit together when we're good and ready. Keep on dying." It is more or less a unanimous vote among experts that if we leave them now, it will turn into a free for all. Bush does not want to be responsible for that (even though he is already) and I'll tell you one thing, Hillary Clinton isn't going to be the vote for change either, so don't get your hopes up.

I don't think Petraeus has failed us at all, and I definitely do not side with those low life, rat vomit worms who attack his character. Given the conditions, and the task he was given to accomplish, I think he's done as well as anyone could do. Who has really failed? The Iraqis have. They're not keeping their end of the bargain, and I don't think Americans have the patience to let things continue the way they are for much longer.

joshua writes at 10:13:46 09/12/07 - Comment #24289: So what do you think about the NYT ad that MoveOn.org paid for, referring to Gen. Petraeus as "Gen. Betray-us?"

Frankly I think this is proof positive that there are a lot of latte-sipping liberals out there that don't know two shits about how to run a war and actively work to undermine the government, but feel entitled to call a career man in uniform a traitor. I'm sorry, but there is nobody at MoveOn that is worthy to even shine the mans 4-star boots. For the matter, how dare some of these idiots that got elected into office treat him as if he's nobody, when he's a 4-star general who has done more for his country than the entirety of MoveOn ever will?

When liberals hear what they want to hear from a military man, they are happy - just ask Wes Clark, at least as long as he's politically relevant. When they do not, he's a liar and a puppet. What kind of fucked up, bipolar, schitzophrenic logic is this? Liberals treat the military with total contempt, which is generally understood by the public, and this was just one of many examples over the past 6 years.

Its completely and utterly disgusting and MoveOn and its little cronies are shit human beings, and I'll tell you another thing - the fact that the Democratic nominees refuse to criticise MoveOn.org over the ad will see them get utterly crucified once the conventions are over. Do the Democrats really believe that they are worthy of being the CIC when they pick MoveOn over the soldiers? If they do, they are clearly having a laugh.

I think this utter folly surrounding the notion that the Democrats "support the troops but not the war" got thrown out the window a loooong time ago. Dick Durbin referring to our own troops as Nazis, Kerry claiming that our troops are terrorizing women in children in the cold of night, Murtha claiming that our soldiers routinely kill civilians in cold blood - none of which is actually true. And we continue to hear Democrats refuse to criticize groups like MoveOn, the rationale being "OHH WE AREN'T FALLING FOR THAT GOP TRICK!" What trick - the one that allows you (rhetorical) to throw the troops under the bus so that you don't have to bite the hand off that feeds you, or the trick that allows you to take the intelligence of the nation for granted by throwing the troops under the bus while still claiming to support them? Fucking hell! This is the sort of logic that will eventually lead to Demos characterizing paying high taxes as a "patriotic virtue."

I'm telling you, the Demos will *not* win in '08 when they have every ability to, if they keep going down this path and lapping up the sour milk that these special interests continue to pour out. America is offended by these sorts of ads... this exact type of thing is why liberals cannot win presidential elections.

This is the bottom line - any good news from Iraq is bad news for liberals. Its just how it is. We all knew that no matter what Petraeus said that it wouldn't be acceptable, so lets just forget about the mistaken notion that the liberals in Congress and everywhere else were going to give Petraeus a fair shake. Its the same behavior that makes me never, ever ever ever want to vote for a Democrat.

Permalink: The_Surge_and_Petraeus_briefly.html
Words: 548
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: political

08/09/07 01:02 - 75ºF - ID#40451

Lots of News

Ok, there's a lot of news to comment about. I gotta start somewhere..

I want to talk about the Warrantless Wiretapping program. but first I want to mention the democratic primary and the debate last night on MSNBC.

I was fired up watching the debate. Speaking in front of a union audience in a football stadium. Many of the candidates were straight forward and passionate. Healthcare, campaign contributions, NAFTA, Iraq. The democrats talk about serious issues, and their solutions go the the root causes of the problem. Not all the candidates would make a great president, but some are outstanding, and I'm glad to have them all in public office working to protect me, and all the citizens of this country. Democrats have a great field of candidates to choose from.

I can't find a direct link to the full video on MSNBC, but if you go to this link you can see some of the highlights, and once the video player opens look for a video called "democrats face off in soldier field" that's the full video.

After watching the candidates debate here and on the Youtube debate, and hearing some interviews, I've narrowed it down to three.

Dennis Kucinich - Barak Obamma - and Chris Dodd

Why not the others? Bill Richardson can't handle foreign policy, he's a governor, and hasn't given foreign policy enough thought. John Edwards, I'm not convinced he will work hard enough to change things, though his ideas are good, he's just not convincing, I'm not sure people can rally behind him. Joe Biden is a bit too headstrong and I'm afraid his impulses might lead to some bad decisions. Hilary Clinton, though I'd love to have a woman president, she is too close to the power establishment, and has made a lot of terrible votes, she's soft on universal single-payer healthcare, workers rights, She is trying not to rock the boat, but guess what, the boat is Way the hell off course, and it needs to be rocked. However, after saying all that, she's probably my 4th choice.

Denis Kucinich is my favorite, I'm not convinced he would be the absolute best president yet, but he has the best track record, the best ideas, the most honest passion, and the greatest desire to turn this country around. He was the only one on stage repeatedly answering the tough questions by saying "Yes I support Universal, Single Payer, non-Profit Healthcare for all Americans. In Fact, I introduced legislation a few months ago..." Just paraphrasing his response there, but over and over, he answered questions by talking about a bill he wrote and exactly what it would do. How many jobs would be created, how many people this would help, etc. He's done the work, and crafted legislation on every important issue. Kucinich rocks, our rights and our safety would be best taken care of by him. he is careful deliberative, and driven to do public service for the sake of the public. I'd say he's the most selfless candidate. I'm not sure how other countries and the American people would accept him, but he would make the best decisions on the issues, and he would push hard for the serious change that this country desperately needs.

Kucinich does not parse his words, he's not digging for happy terminology and 8 second sound bites, he knows he is right and speaks straight from his heart. Obamma is a close second here he would make great decisions and be an excellent leader, he's just a little too political. He chooses his words, and tries to tailor his ideas so that people can accept them at face value. The difference is that Kucinnich is always looking out for our best interests, and he doesn't care if you don't agree at first, because it's the right decision. and in a Democracy when you have a free flow of ideas the right decision comes out on top. Open up a thoughtful discussion of any issue and you will see why his ideas make the most sense. He's not affraid to be drastic, this country needs drastic change. That would be the difference between Obamma and Kucinich.

Chris Dodd is third, he stands up for issues that are important to working families. I can't find anything to criticise, though I think the other two would take more risks to do what's right for the country.

I wish out voting system made more sense, so we could continue this robust discussion past the primary season. I'm worried about what will happen when our "2" parties get back to bickering instead of thoughtful debate.

Here's a video from the debate.

I guess that's my synopsis. There's more to talk about but I ran out of time. Wiretapping, Voting, and funding infrastructure, will have to wait for another day.

i should mention one thing though. about the Warantless Wiretapping stuff that congress passed last Friday. It's unconstitutional, 4th amendment. It's illegal search and seizure without a warrant. It's called checks and balances. You know the reason our powerful country has survived over 200 years without tyranny. The executive branch needs to tell someone when it's going to go through your stuff, or else they will abuse that power, no matter who the president is.

Brian Higgins voted for it. He was the only Democrat in NY to vote for this unconstitutional power grab by the president. Why did all the Republicans in the US vote for it I don't know. Conservatives usually want to keep their rights. Whatever. Brian Higgins is a tool. I'm writing a letter, what on earth is he thinking, this is worse than the Bankruptcy bill he voted for. He probably thinks Guantanamo is alright too. Anyway the president can now monitor your computer and phone communication without a warrant. The constitution is in trouble.

Here's the vote

Here's a good summary of why it's so terrible.

Thanks, take care all, talk to you soon.

libertad writes at 11:30:39 08/12/07 - Comment #22076: I finally got through all of the debate after watching it on youtube. On future debates I believe that microphones should be cut when time is up. Why should candidates be awarded for being arrogant and ignoring the time restraints? Why not penalize the candidates whom don't answer the question asked or go off topic by giving them less time to speak on their next question?

Although I could be persuaded to change as we head towards elections, I currently stand behind Kucinich. I wish that he had more opportunity to talk during debates that seem to center on Hillary and Obama. At this point I trust Kucinich to do the right thing. I believe what he is saying and I also find his straight answers refreshing. BTW his wife is hot.

dcoffee writes at 05:06:20 08/09/07 - Comment #21952: Thanks for correcting me on Bill Richardson. I didn't know much about his background. He just doesn't articulate as well as the others I guess.

Regarding the concentration of power in one branch of the government or another. In this case we're talking about Wiretaps, we could be talking about the power to declare war, propose a budget, change tax policy, manage the market, govern the schools or whatever.
We have separation of powers and checks and balances for a reason. The American system has existed for over 200 years we take government for granted, we are insulated from the abuses of power and the tyranny that caused to founding fathers to flee their home countries and declare independence from england.

We should be skeptical of power. That's the point, that's what makes our democracy work, it's checks and balances. Don't give your government unchecked power, if you do you are forced to trust the PERSON, instead of the SYSTEM to guarantee your rights and safety. Sure some people have a paranoid personality, but none of us should trust any one branch of government to moderate its own power.

Warentless Wiretapping steps over the line, the president doesn't have to tell anybody whose conversations he is monitoring. T

joshua writes at 12:32:33 08/09/07 - Comment #21939: I actually forgot a few things -

Firstly, bravo for being one of the few who are actually paying attention to the debates... I think the last one charted less than a million viewers nationally. The question about whether or not people are getting tired of the debates has been answered as far as I'm concerned.

By the way. The concept of offering special interests their own debates is going to go off horribly once the general election comes around.

Totally unrelated, but did you hear about the idea of a bloggers labor union? I could be wrong but I think it was brought up at this panderfest known as the Kos convention, but I don't remember exactly... I heard of this on NPR this week while going to work. I heard quotes from bloggers saying stuff like, 'yeah, it would be nice if we get organized... maybe we can get health insurance!' Are these people fucking stupid? Who is going to pay for any of it? I thought the comments were severely bubbleheaded.

I completely forgot to mention Bill Richardson's credentials so thank you for that (e:blotics). He is a professional diplomat, and as far as qualifications go he is the only one that has credible experience with foreign policy.... just not his own! =)

The Republican party is not fractured, but the ambivalence with the current set of candidates is obvious. You simply cannot, as a Republican, ignore the base and gamble by trying to compensate with independent voters! I'm not compelled by any of them at the moment, and I'm one of the few here that are even willing to give them a chance. The *only* candidate that can galvanize the party is Fred Thompson.

(e:dcoffee) - your discussion about FISA and how it works is a symptom of a much larger problem - most Americans do not know how this works and largely do not care anyway. I'm not going to pretend that I know the techical details of how tapping outgoing calls to suspected terrorists singularly could be achieved. Making any assumptions about the technical details would be impractical in my view... even people with the technical knowledge are more than likely not privy to the some of the technology implemented by the government to achieve this, which obviously (some of it, anyway) would be of a classified nature.

I've never been comfortable with the objections of people who do not like the idea of wiretaps. The reason is because the objections largely are based on a long list of assumptions, "what ifs," and even worse, what all of this stuff means politically. I am 100% for fully vetting the pros and cons of such a program, but I doubt the wisdom in making a series of conclusions based on speculation and fear. Is there *no* issue that liberals feel is political in nature? Are all of the objections to this law going to disappear once a Republican is not in office... similar to how all objections concerning "stolen elections" disappeared when the Democrats took the Congress last fall and the "right guys" won?

libertad writes at 11:17:19 08/09/07 - Comment #21936: I haven't watched the debate yet. I was glad that you linked to it. When I started watching it, I got a phone call and had to pause it. After returning, I got this message saying I did something illegal and my computer froze up for a good while.

I'm very disappointed with Hillary. Her foreign policy sucks and I think she is way too much of a politician. She lacks courage and tries to mask it by being overly aggressive as if to overcompensate for being a woman. I was turned off by her hostility towards Cuba and Venezuela during the youtube debate when asked if she would be willing to meet with their leaders along with Iran and North Korea. The tone that she was using when she said their names (Castro and Chavez) was hostile and she seemed more concerned with Cuba and Venezuela than North Korea. It just seemed strange and unbalanced that she focused her hostilities on countries that really don't threaten our national security like Iran and N. Korea do. And she thinks she is going to be used as a propaganda tool? She is a propaganda tool.

Also, she admits that she would not rule out using a Nuke in the hopes of killing terrorists! She is clearly out of her mind and should spend some time talking to survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki so she can fully understand the implications of what she is saying. The last person we need running our country is someone with a hostile and threatening attitude when it comes to nuclear arms. I'm truly disgusted and will not vote for her in the primaries. We can only hope that she continues to reveal her true nature before the election. Thanks for IRAQ Hillary!

bloticsblog writes at 10:01:37 08/09/07 - Comment #21931: I agree with a lot of what you say about Kucinich and blogged about it on my blogspot site: :::link:::

You can't accuse him of flip flopping to be sure. He answers questions directly, and that sets him apart in the debates and in politics in general.

Bill Richardson, despite being a governor, is quite versed in foreign affairs. He represented New Mexico in Congress for 14 years, and more telling, he was Clinton's Ambassador to the United Nations near the end of his second term. He has also negotiated hostage releases for the US in several countries, including Iraq in the mid-90's.

I haven't agreed with Richardson on a few issues, but I think he would be a fine addition to anyone's ticket as a VP candidate.

dcoffee writes at 09:45:02 08/09/07 - Comment #21929: The Novak article notes that the Republicans sold out their base too. I don't get it, what's wrong with the republican party? they are so concerned about beating the other "team" that they will shred the constitution simply for the hope that it will give them an opportunity to play the "soft on terrorism" card. these political games are killing us.

The old FISA law was that the president could tap anyone he wanted and he had 72 hours to even Apply for a warrant, from the secret FISA court. Just checking in and making a semi public record of what he was doing. That's it, a measly bit of oversight. Conservatives were pissed about this law when it was enacted because of the creation of a new secret court.
the legitimate problem with FISA is that communication has changed, and now foreign calls are routed through fiber optic telecommunications hubs which are on US soil. The administration could have some leniency here. The way they would monitor the lines is by installing a computer in the fiber optic network to monitor data transfer. I don't see how they could just store data transmitted by foreigners (I'm looking for some communications geeks to help me figure how this stuff would be implemented). It seems like the machine would create a database of everything that went over the lines, and someone would have to call up something specific from this packed database. wouldn't they just store all the data, for at least a few days, before writing over it? why wouldn't some guy kicking back in his office listen to Harry Reid or Hillary Clinton, just for kicks?

Here's another good video discussing the FISA wiretapping revisions.
:::link:::

joshua writes at 09:25:30 08/09/07 - Comment #21927: You were being nice - I think Chris Dodd is a turd!

I don't think Kucinich is electable but I've always respected him. That is definitely one guy that sticks to his guns (unfortunate phrasing there, but whatever).

Barack Obama is too naive to be the POTUS... this is why he's 22 pts. behind Hillary in the polls. Its still early but I can't see anybody but Hillary getting the nomination, which, if in fact happens as it looks it will, essentially means that I'm definitely not voting for a Democrat in '08. I will *never* vote for Hillary Clinton.

I've never been more open to a 3rd party candidate before.

jason writes at 08:55:57 08/09/07 - Comment #21924: I agree with a lot of what you say about Kucinich, although I don't exactly see eye to eye with him on all of the issues. He just seems to be by far the most honest of the Dem candidates. He isn't afraid to say exactly what his position is, without mincing words, and he's not afraid to face the big, bad Brit Hume. He isn't so interested in the media games. I give him a lot of credit.

Robert Novak wrote a very interesting column about the eavesdropping situation:

:::link:::

I love politicians. They don't vote against it because of political implications, then go ahead and shift the blame for their failure to someone else (as usual), this time the DNI.

Of course, I think we should be monitoring terrorist communication. That's a no-brainer. The slippery slope theory is in play now, and in my experience people tend to only believe that theory in situations where they oppose the vote. Other situations? Nahhh it's silly, kooky. This program should be heavily, heavily monitored by Congress to prevent abuse. They need to own this now.

Permalink: Lots_of_News.html
Words: 1025
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

07/31/07 12:11 - 75ºF - ID#40321

Great weekend + Photos

Hi all, this weekend was the best one I've had in a long time. Makes me want to quit my job today so I don't have to work any more weddings on Saturdays.

What made it even better is we rode our bikes Everywhere. So much better than a car. No stupid drivers, long red lights, one way streets, finding a place to park, instead we got to enjoy the scenery, fresh air, exercise, everything. It's so much better to ride a bike.

Bonus, I got it on Film, er, file I guess, thanks to my new Canon G7

I love having a 10mp semi pro compact camera. After all, as a photographer, I should have a camera on me at all times right?

Anyway, the weekend

Friday: we had pizza with our neighbor. sorry no pics

Saturday started with the Tour de Neglect. A bicycle tour of Buffalo's East Side, highlighting ababdoned architectural treasures, blighted side streets, and nice people.

David Torke

(e:mmtornow) had never seen the Centeral Terminal up close

I like this shot

My new favorite Buffalo Building

Later that night after dinner (e:mmtornow) and I went to lasalle park to see the sunset. To bad we got there and the sun was gone, so we saw the moon rise.

neat moon rise

Sunday we started with the Garden Walk. Very happy to be on a bike. Checked out Little Summer Street and the near west side. Little Summer is a Buffalo treasure, if you're ever trying to convince someone to move here, just take them to Little Summer Street. There are 3 brick houses tucked away in a little cottage universe of their own, it's like something out of a story book. It was realy crowded, but worth it. Sensory overload, I wasn't convinced I could squish it all into a photo, but they turned out prety good. (yea, G7)

Packed Summer Street during Garden Walk

Beautiful Summer Street

I'll take it!! This is the sweetest hot tub/pool I've ever seen. I'll move in any day.You'll find this behind the pink house pictured above.

This is one of the hidden cottages. You had to be there. It felt like we had stumbled into a storybook retreat of some sort. It's like being on vacation every day.

Self Portrait

Who would have guessed an abandoned Wilson Farms could be reincarnated as a church. Only in Buffalo?

Then off to a (e:mmtornow) 's company picnic at the Zoo. Some of the animals were napping so we couldn't see them, cause the party was after hours, but it was still cool. definitely worth going back. They're doing some big renovatrions too, it'll be cool to see it when it's done.

Check out the tiny duckling wandering carefree, around this giant rhino. pretty cute.

metalpeter writes at 07:25:11 07/31/07 - Comment #21462: My first thought was that they where staged and part of the look. Then once I saw your pictures of that same scene I figured it must have been. I just found it odd that someone would leave out a towel. Thanks for your imput and now that they are up I also enjoy those great shots of the polar bears.

dcoffee writes at 07:18:35 07/31/07 - Comment #21459: James, (I'm guessing you're sometimes known as 'James the Terrible' but anyway), my new canon G7 is a compact camera, fits in your pocket. I have had an SLR for about 3 years. I have the Canon 20D, plus lenses, pro flash equipment and all those goodies. It's a great camera, heavier than the Rebel because it has more metal in the body and is more durrable.
And you're right, my 20D is just a little more portable than a cinder block. So after much debating, I bought the Canon G7 for everyday travel. I felt like I was missing out on so many photo opportunities because my 20D is so heavy. The G7 has the most pro features of any compact I found, and it will work with my flashes and other gear. it's a 10mp, so I can make big prints if I need to. it has it's downfalls, but all around, I'm realy glad I bought it. And I've been getting quite a lot of good use out if the little powerhouse.

Josh, you must be talking about the Cafe Aroma corner :)

Peter, I think the champagne and blueberries were staged, but my guess is they are frequently found next to that perticular pool.

metalpeter writes at 06:18:19 07/31/07 - Comment #21454: First of all some great pictures. I wanted to get a picture of those cottages but I had no idea how to. I also have a question. I saw those houses on Sat. Afternoon I was wondering do you think by that hot tub the strawberries and drinks almost gone and Towel in the exact same spot where staged like that on purpose or did someone leave them out? The reason I ask is because I went to a house on Richmond and there where people in the pool. In any event nice pictures and thanks for posting them.

james writes at 03:37:19 07/31/07 - Comment #21443: I have a semi-pro Nikon SLR. I would love to carry the thing around where ever I go, accept it is the size of a cinder block with a lens on it. I will say, Canon makes some damn fine small SLR's like the Rebel XT. Glad you are finding yours portable.

joshua writes at 03:23:10 07/31/07 - Comment #21440: Thats interesting - I only knew David Torke from an old e-mail list that I was a part of for a while, and on occasion still do receive e-mails from. Apparently I didn't realize that this was the same guy I see almost all the time right on my corner.

Permalink: Great_weekend_Photos.html
Words: 536
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

07/25/07 09:39 - 81ºF - ID#40251

I miss E:strip

It's been Half a year since I posted last.

Wow

I honestly feel like a jerk.

How can I make it up to you...

Here's an embarrassing picture of me!

I'm the one on the right who looks like he's getting smacked in the head with a paddle. This picture was taken at the end of an "Under the Sea" Costume Party.

By the way, I enjoyed Enknot's birthday party a few months back where I met some of you guys. I hope we can get together again sometime. I had fun talking to you all and seeing the house.

So where have I been? I haven't had much of a social life since March when my boss Mike went in for surgery. He had an operation on a vein in his leg, and he was out on disability until last month. i work at New Visions Photography, a studio of 3 people, Mike, Teri and me. So I've been keeping track of contracts, deadlines, customers, and everything else. Including the NYS Photographers convention, our studio was responsible for a team of 12 people who had volunteered to photograph everything for the event. So I took on Mike's responsibilities, staying up till 2am waking up ad 6:30. You get the idea. It's been stressful. At the same time I've been managing my own business doing web design, photography and advertising for my clients. That's the reason I haven't been around. Plus i work on the computer all the time, I like to spend my Free time outdoors.

But there is s light at the end of the tunnel. In October I will be leaving New Visions and becoming my own small business. I do web design, commercial photography, advertising, and graphic design. I'm getting enough work to sustain my current level of income. and I have enough happy clients to continue a chain of referrals and expand. It's a potentially difficult situation to get yourself into. But as a backup plan I have a lot of photography experience and equipment, so I could work for any photography studio during wedding season. But wedding photography is not what i want to do forever, that's why I'm leaving New Visions now, before it's too late.

I'm looking forward to October. I always miss fun events because of the busy New Visions wedding schedule. I work about 2/3 or 3/4 of the Saturdays in the summertime. Missing graduation parties, concerts, historic tours, community events, summer festivals, and more. but in October, I'll be self employed, doing something I enjoy, with a schedule and workload that I agree to. I'll have the opportunity to be more active and social.

More good news, I'm getting married to (e:mmtornow) next summer 6/28/2008, in the Finger Lakes at her parents house. We've been together for 5 years, time to make it official. We've figured out how to do a nice wedding that feels personal to us. We are doing a Quaker Ceremony, in her parents yard, out in the country. I go to a lot of weddings as a photographer, so it's interesting to be planning a wedding for myself.

(e:mmtornow) and I just got back from a camping trip in the Adirondacks. Took a lot of pictures with my now compact camera, the canon G7.

You can see what I've been up to by checking out my pictures.

Flickr, the more artistic gallery.

Picassa, the gallery where I share vacations and events.

Here's my business website, I'll be putting up something completely new in October that includes photography, but for now here's DC Photography and Design

And did you know that I set up an (E:strip) API? probably not. Here it is, you should do one too!

That's all for now, I hope you forgive me for disapearing for so long, I plan to more now that Mike is back at work and I have some time.

Don't worry, the political stuff will be back soon :-)
lots to talk about.

Cheers (E:strip)

Permalink: I_miss_E_strip.html
Words: 686
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

01/17/07 11:17 - 25ºF - ID#37752

Bush Thinks You're Stupid

I know, it's a provocative title, and this post definitely too short to prove anything about how or what Bush thinks.

But after watching Bush's interview with Jim Lehrer that's one of the big things that stuck out to me, he thinks you and I are a bunch of idiots whose opinions are worthless.

He says things like "this is what is hard, I think, for the American people to understand", he mentions us a lot, the "American People" you get a concept for his idea of We the people.

He always talks about convincing us, and teaching us to see things his way, like we're misguided children and he knows everything. Well, I'm sorry, but who the fuck believes this guy knows what he is talking about anymore? He has failed at everything, But now we are supposed to have faith in his judgment? Bush has zero credibility, but he is still an arrogant fuck who doesn't give a damn if we agree with him or not, because he is "the Decider". That's the perfect Bush-ism that says, "I don't give a fuck what you think, because I'm going to get my way no matter what, you are all coming along with me whether you like it or not.

I'm a believer in democracy. I know it's messy, compromise and consensus, and finding common ground upon which we can all agree to move forward. You have to be able to see things from the other perspective, to empathize with the other person because we all have very serious reasons for feeling the way we do. And you also can't have a hidden agenda, something you don't want to bring into the open because the reasons behind it are greedy or selfish. But I digress..

If you want to get a handle on the real Bush, watch this interview. I think Bush feels pretty safe, I mean it's just Jim Lehrer, nobody watches the News Hour on PBS, Jim Lehrer is pretty mild mannered, what's to be afraid of? Bush takes this interview less seriously than his weekly radio address.

Jim Lehrer rocks, He's probably the last real reporter on TV, he asks the questions that a journalist is supposed to ask... like this "But to be very direct about it, Mr. President, you had a few years here and you've been in charge. And you've made a lot of decisions; you've made a lot of judgments about things and they haven't worked. And so now you've made a new one. So why should anybody expect the new ones to work when the prior ones did not?" RIGHT!!! You see what I'm saying?!?! You're going to have to watch the video to get Bush's response.

I like Jim Lehrer because he has standards, he knows his job as a journalist is very important to the survival of democracy. That's why the Press is protected by the constitution, not so they can make a bunch of money, the purpose is to make them the watchdogs of democracy. We protect their right to ask difficult questions of those in power, for the sake of protecting the public from tyranny.

So at long last, Here is our commander in chief, with no clothes. definitely watch the video,

PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour, Interview with President Bush.

Enjoy!

dcoffee writes at 07:53:10 01/18/07 - Comment #14758: Good article Jason, that's what I like about FAIR their reports are always loaded with research and emperical evidence. This may play into my ideas about campaign finance reform. THe government can mandate a certain abount of radio or TV time for candidates and eliminate or reduce the amount of political TV adds. I mean seriously, do you learn anything from political TV adds nowadays? 30 seconds is not enough time to explain a campaign platform. I'll keep reading.

jason writes at 01:34:39 01/18/07 - Comment #14748: Hey there,

Check out this article from Common Dreams on the Fairness Doctrine. I don't agree with some of the ways in which they spin it, but there is oodles of good information:

:::link:::

dcoffee writes at 01:08:36 01/18/07 - Comment #14746: Josh, it looks like we were typing at the same time! You should check my comment about the president's Iraq Speech. I realy am the type of guy who will change his opinion, or disagee with my liberal friends about things. I'm not a partisan. My approach to the interview was "Hmm, Jim Lerher interviewed Bush, I gotta check this out." I just expected some good quality journalism, maybe some insight into the president's thinking.

I don't disagree with you though, some people will never agree with Bush simply because he is Bush. but as for me, I kinda want him to get something right, I don't like having to live with catastrophe, and the more he screws up the more i get screwed. If he makes a good decision I'm right behind him. Like with the Iraq speech, I was behind him for a few hours, till I realized this plan requires people to trust us and work with us, yet we have no credibility. how can we expect the world or the Iraqis to believe one thing we say, and that's exactly what the bush plan expects. I think the first step toward establishing trust would be to close Guantanamo and outlaw torture. The Iraq plan makes sense in a vacuum, but there are variables out there that make it a failure.

I'd like to get help from other countries instead of calling on additional American soldiers. And to get help from anyone, for anything, we need to demonstrate that we are not a Rogue nation. You can insist that we mean well till you're blue in the face, but the fact is that actions speak louder than words. Close Guantanamo and follow international law first, then we will be able to inch our way toward success.

joshua writes at 10:03:09 01/18/07 - Comment #14737: President Bush wasn't trying to convince you - you are among those who are unconvincible due to your sharp diametrically opposite views. I have to ask the question - why did you watch the interview?

I'm not picking on you here. I'm simply curious about your approach to the interview before you watched it.

Speaking of people being taken for fools and having all kinds of nasty things being said about them - anybody remember "Jesusland?" I find it intriguing that people who consistantly find President Bush intolerable and allege that he is insulting their intelligence are the same people who impuned, lampooned and insulted the intelligence of those who voted for President Bush.

The media gets absolutely no sympathy from me. For years the newsrooms of major media outlets have been slanted and there is absolutely no debating that fact. There have been numerous studies done on this subject, among the best being the ones done by Jim Kuypers of Dartmouth College and the original 1986 study called "The Media Elite." Whether or not Jim Lehrer "stuck it" to the Prez is another issue... I tend to doubt it since I don't really see Jim Lehrer as a liberal firebrand, like Bill Moyers.

The difference between the major networks and PBS/NPR is not ideological but financial - with NPR I get spoon fed liberalism on a daily basis and my tax money is given to them for the pleasure. There is no pretense of balance and I am constantly finding irony in the fact that there are people who fiercely deny obvious bias then immediately criticize the news outlets whose slant is different to their own ideological views. NPR and PBS are *not* ideologically neutral.

All news has an angle to it.

dcoffee writes at 09:49:02 01/18/07 - Comment #14735: Hmm, the fairness doctrine is an interesting piece of legislation. I wonder if we might need to also get the FCC to reduce the size of media conglomerates so that we can separate News outlets from entertainment.

I should mention that I wanted to believe Bush's Iraq speech the other night. I don't want this problem to persist, and I always hope that the president has come up with a good plan. But after a few hours I realize that no matter what we say, nobody believes we have good intentions. And until we take action on things like Guantanamo, torture, Israel, war profiteering, human rights, international law and etc. We can't expect anyone to work with us.

libertad writes at 09:06:48 01/18/07 - Comment #14732: Wow. This is the first time I have seen you get so heated. I like it! I'll watch the interview later when I get some strength to watch. Usually it is too painful for me to watch him speak.

jason writes at 08:42:27 01/18/07 - Comment #14729: I'll have to watch it later.

If the tone is like you say it is, I would definitely disagree with the way Bush handled the interview. I think it's true that there are some things Americans don't fundamentally understand as a group, but I wouldn't quite say it that way. I don't believe he thinks we're all stupid. The American people have been called stupid overtly many times in the past few years and I don't think he is trying to be a copycat.

Anyway I will have to see how the interview shakes down. I agree that Lehrer is a solid guy and good at his job.

Z, I love the muppet avatar by the way. By now it is (or should be) clear enough already where the public media stands. With a Democratic Congress in place the public media is 100% safe. What will be interesting to see is if the Fairness Doctrine is actually put in place, and how that will affect the already homogenous nature of the messages the media gives us.

zobar writes at 07:31:14 01/18/07 - Comment #14726: It won't be long before someone uses this to prove the public media's liberal bias and use it as a justification to pull the plug on PBS & NPR. Keep shooting the messengers until there aren't any left.

- Z [from the actual liberal press]

Permalink: Bush_Thinks_You_re_Stupid.html
Words: 566
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

01/12/07 11:58 - 44ºF - ID#37660

I smell corruption

As all of you know the Democrats are now in controll of congress. The house of Representaves is busy passing legeslation that the people support, but the Republicans have ignored. They call it a 100 hours agenda, and there are at least 8 key pieces of legeslation they are working on.

So far Democrats have passed bills to raise the minimum wage, fund stem cell research, and inspect cargo coming into the US.

Today they are trying to fix the medicare perscription drug plan and make it less expensive. And the Republicans are trying to protect their corporate sponsors.

This is one of those programs that is so corrupt and harmful to the taxpayer that everyone I tell about the program is appalled. Whether they vote republican or Democrat, or don't vote at all. This plan is a huge giveaway to the pharmicutical companies. (funny, the pharmicutical industry gives the most money to political campaigns). The program costs more than tripple what they originally projected. It is just funneling government money into the pockets of corporate doners.

The biggest problem with the program is this; our government is prohibbited from negotiating with the drug companies for lower prices. There is a clause in the bill explicitly forbidding the government from negotiating prices. Why? In any normal market situation companies bid on contracts. When you are spending a lot of money, say providing 23.5 million seniors with perscription drug coverage, companies try to get that contract by offering a competitave price. I thought republicans liked the free market? Maybe not when it prevents them from funneling taxpayer money to their campaign doners.

The government already negotiates lower prices for the Veterans Administration, why not the medicare perscription drug plan? Shouldn't we be concerned about saving the taxpayers money? Spending responsably?

The Republicans are trying to block this reform of the medicare drug bill. The Democrats are going to pass a bill opening the door for the government to start negotiating lower drug prices, getting rid of the loophole. but the republicans are threatening to filabuster, and the president it threatening to veto the bill. Thanks George, I can see you realy have my best interests at heart.

I find it amusing that this is the first thing the republicans are actively trying to block. They must figure that money is worth more than votes. Corporate sponsors are worth more than popular support. When it comes to getting reelected, they would rather hyponotize voters with TV commercials, instead of getting support based on responsably looking out for the interests of the taxpayer.

The republicans who vote against this bill will give you a long line of bullshit, but essentially they can't vote against the bill because they will lose their corporate sponsors.

libertad writes at 06:26:57 01/13/07 - Comment #14539: holy shit I dont have enough time to read all these comments! Sorry guys. Interesting stuff though. Drug prices are outrageous and unfair...period. My friend got billed for $600 for a tube of psoriasis cream. Is this all going into research for developing drugs or going to politicians and executives? You don't have to answer that, but it would be interesting to see where it all goes with like a pie graph or something.

metalpeter writes at 01:22:57 01/13/07 - Comment #14531: I will admit that I think perscription drugs are too expensive. That being said though if the drug companies don't make enough money then they will stop looking into cures for dieases. The real question is do they over inflate prices. I think that they may (not sure don't have all the facts). As I think Josh said R&D does cost a lot of money.

I don't have a problem with the importation of drugs from other countries. The question is who should pay for the FDA to inspect them and see if they fall into US standards and who will oversee that to make sure that there isn't corruption. For example some Japanese drugs use ingreidants that arn't legal here. How do you deal with that are those products banned or do you give them a not tested by FDA mark. Or would the FDA run tests on them.

If a company in Canada can make a drug for cheaper then good for them. But what if they pay there employees less or do other unetical things to cut corners? If that is the reason they are cheaper then we don't want them here. But the other question is would cheaper drugs by competeators cause us companies to cut there profit margin on drugs they sell or would they figure lets fire people or not do as much R&D? You don't want greed in the drug business and companies do need to have etihics after all you are trying to help people but it is still a business. It is a delicate balance between lowering drug costs and still making sure the medicine is good. Off course if everyone in the country had good insurance then the insurance companies would pay most of the cost of medicines.

I'm kinda agaisnt bidding on drug prices for the government. I think it is a good idea. But the reason i'm not for it is how bidding usaly works. Most times us humans go with who ever gives us the best price. That is a bad idea you need to follow who gives the best service for the price. For example what if I said I could get your package to some place for half the price of Fedex or UPS. You would say great and pick me instead. But what I don't tell you is that all my packages I send with drug cartells who are going to that area allreday.

I also don't like the concept of the first 100 hours. It is the wrong mindset they should concentrate on doing what they think is right not some agenda in a short amount of time so they can say they did something.

ajay writes at 05:05:40 01/12/07 - Comment #14517: Can some Republican please explain to me how a _prohibition_ on government negotiation of prices for drugs that the government is buying somehow fits in with the "core" Republican principles of free markets, meritocracy, yadda yadda....

jason writes at 04:45:16 01/12/07 - Comment #14515: Sure, I'd love a beer sometime.

I'm not trying to be critical of you, so I hope I didn't come across that way. The important thing for me is that we do the right thing (offer everyone basic health care). It is far too important to let the politicians BS us over it. I'm sure there are plenty of other articles and studies out there, so if you find some more with some information that contradicts what the CBO says I'd be happy to give it a look.

dcoffee writes at 04:01:26 01/12/07 - Comment #14514: We're all going to have to have a beer together one of these days.

Jason, thanks for the correction, both parties are corrupt! I didn't mean to infer that the democrats are purely concerned with the will of the people, they're self interested contribution hoggs too.
you found some interesting studies on the perscription drug program. I know that fixing this loophole won't fix the problem, but I'd like to stop wasting more money than we have to. Thanks for the empirical articles though, I'll check them out more.

Josh, I also like the idea of bipartisanship and cooperation. The democrats are just trying to show off now. They almost need to though, in this type of short attention span culture.
I am worried about the likelihood of bipartisainship too. If you read Matt Tiabbi's "Worst Congress Ever" he talks about how cold the attitude has become in congress. people on opposite sides of the aisle don't develop friendships anymore. It's disappointing, and I hope we can get less confrontational.

joshua writes at 02:35:51 01/12/07 - Comment #14512: I generally agree with what the Democrats want to achieve in the so-called "100-hour" agenda.

I also agree with what (e:jason) just wrote concerning the Republicans and their desire to block Medicare reform. Its wrong, plain and simple. The consequences of not giving the medical industry what they want, however, remains to be seen. They can simply choose not to produce and develop drugs if they don't get the price point they want, which is cynical but ultimately very likely. I'm no fan of the drug industry anyway, but its absolutely true that these companies sink upwards of $1b into development of a drug. As such they are entitled to recouping what they invested into R&D, and perhaps *gasp!* make a profit. That is a separate issue though - ultimately, why is it bad for the government to negotiate with these companies and possibly save taxpayer dollars? Aren't the politicians supposed to be stewards of our coffers?

The problem I have with what the Democrats are currently trying to do with the 100-hour agenda is that they are trashing a campaign promise they paid to the American people concerning a "new era of bipartisan cooperation." You cannot say this, then when you win the election ultimately say "Well, we have a 100-hour agenda now, and we'll bring in our 'new era of bipartisan cooperation' at a later date, when we've rammed through what we want to ram through." Similarly, "bipartisan cooperation" doesn't mean "approve our bills or you are not cooperating."

Believe me, I know why the Democrats are doing what they are doing, and I don't necessarily disagree with them. However, what they are doing now is going to create an impetus for the exact OPPOSITE - zero bipartisan cooperation. And Democrats ultimately are going to need some cooperation from Republicans to pass bills. Republicans never really cared about bipartisanship, but its also true that they never claimed to like the Democrats now are.

For years I have been a voracious reader of online political commentary from left, right and center perspectives. A common complaint for years from liberals brought about the suggestion that when Republicans passed bills they wanted (that included full votes, by the way) this was tantamount to 'mob rule.' Now that Democrats are doing what they are doing now, is it fair to characterize it as 'mob rule?'

jason writes at 12:39:29 01/12/07 - Comment #14506: "We estimate that striking that provision would have a negligible effect on federal spending because CBO estimates that substantial savings will be obtained by the private plans and that the Secretary would not be able to negotiate prices that further reduce federal spending to a significant degree. Because they will be at substantial financial risk, private plans will have strong incentives to negotiate price discounts, both to control their own costs in providing the drug benefit and to attract enrollees with low premiums and cost-sharing requirements."

jason writes at 12:38:23 01/12/07 - Comment #14505: Hmm, no, I was wrong, after reading the second one it doesn't say that at all. They are avoiding making recommendations.

jason writes at 12:33:03 01/12/07 - Comment #14504: And, here is another CBO report (PDF, warning) that says Medicare CAN save billions a year:

:::link:::

jason writes at 12:30:19 01/12/07 - Comment #14503: David,

I found this analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. It is entitled "Would Prescription Drug Importation Reduce U.S. Drug Spending?"

Take a look at it, and if you don't have time right now I'll give you the conclusion at the bottom:

"On the basis of its evaluation of proposals to date, CBO has concluded that permitting the importation of foreign-distributed prescription drugs would produce at most a modest reduction in prescription drug spending in the United States. H.R. 2427, for example, which would have permitted importation from a broad set of industrialized countries, was estimated to reduce total drug spending by $40 billion over 10 years, or by about 1 percent.(14) Permitting importation only from Canada would produce a negligible reduction in drug spending."

Very interesting. Why would the Democrats propose this as the be-all, end-all when the savings are going to be minimal? It sounds more like wanting to score political points than to actually save us money. This deserves further research and consideration.

jason writes at 12:22:11 01/12/07 - Comment #14502: I wondered when you would get around to making another entry. I thought for sure it would be about Bush but this is a surprise.

I wouldn't be so quick to make assumptions about who is corrupt and who is not corrupt. You seem to be falling into the trap of assuming one party is corrupt, or owned by special interests, and the other is not.

An example: Kennedy's proposal for Medicare is to make THAT the Universal Health Care system. I assume by reading your comments on Medicare that you're not a fan, so I would assume you can agree what a financial disaster that would be, especially in a place like New York where Medicare is so bloated.

I support lowering drug prices, and allowing the government to negotiate. I think the fact that we can't is wrong. I don't think of it as a situation where we can just soak the Pharm corporations, and assume that everything will be fine. It won't - there are a lot of factors other than drug prices that determine how expensive our health care is.

The whole system needs to be overhauled and leaned out so it can be what it is intended to be - a system that gives people access to the basic health care staples that everyone needs. The 100 hours really is a bunch of nonsense - Medicare could never be fixed so fast. If it is done quickly, but with little thought or consideration, we will just be back at the drawing board again in a couple of years.

Permalink: I_smell_corruption.html
Words: 457
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: war

12/20/06 01:11 - 41ºF - ID#21759

Changing the war debate

It is time to change the tearms of the debate from, "Winning", "Victory", or "defeating the terrorists", to this... Ending the violence.

Iraq has become a cesspool of revenge killings and hatred. The US is in a situation where our millitary is essentially just another Millitia battling for controll of Iraq. That is nothing but a recipe for disaster.

This is not a battle in which we can simply allign ourselves with one side of the struggle and try to defeat the other. This is a country in crisis, where neighbors are killing eachother for the sake of revenge. You kill my family I kill yours. And the more killing that goes on, more hatred is created, and the more evil the other side seems.

There is a solution, but it has very little to do with military strategy. Talking about a surge in troops, or attacking this militia or that one, or reoccupying this city or that city is meaningless without addressing the real problem, Violence. Stop the killing and you will have success. All of our involvment sohould be focused on reconcilliation, and easing the tensions, and establishing a system of justice that does not come from the barrel of a gun.

No sir, this is not about "winning" it's about Ending the Violence.

Permalink: Changing_the_war_debate.html
Words: 216
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

11/08/06 11:58 - 52ºF - ID#21758

America Saves itself

I have been so worried about the fate of this country. We have been traveling down a very dangerous path.

The manipulation of fear and prejudice for political gain is a recipe for disaster, it is the most severe challenge democracies face. The manipulation of fear, and the demonizing of a shadowy enemy is a classic tactic for the strangling of democracy. This has killed democracies in the past, and it was very alarming to see it's ugly head in America again.

Thank you America for stepping back from the brink of fascism. I had a feeling that we would not be so easily fooled into submission. I knew that there were certain things that America would not stand for like suppression of the freedom of speech, and our right to demand answers and accountability from the government. I had a feeling that these strengths would carry us through this radical un-American regime. And I'm happy to say we still have the will and the power to save ourselves.

We have a lot stacked against us. The bush administration broke a lot of constitutional boundaries designed to protect us. They showed no regard for checks and balances, they even flaunted the subversion of the constitution and the rule of law openly, and sadly some Americans fell for it.

This is one of the most secretive administrations in history, information control is a high priority for Bush and company, and that is very dangerous. National security was the excuse, but saving face or avoiding retribution was often the real motive. Thankfully some whistleblowers had the courage to release the information about Abu Graib, the NSA spy program, the manipulation of Iraq intelligence, and countless others.

This is also one of the most manipulative administrations in history. They are not afraid to lie in our face. to say things like "Saddam Hussein harbors terrorists. And there are al-Qaeda in Iraq" Bush conveniently left out the fact that those al-Qaeda were trying to overthrow Saddam so he couldn't possibly give them WMD. But this was one of many manipulative sales pitches. lip service to renewable energy and handouts to oil companies. He read the CIA report that the war in Iraq was making us less safe and he lied to us about it before the report was leaked. Uranium from Africa was obviously false, he lied about it.

Subverting the rule of law. Abandoning treaties like the ABM treaty, Kyoto, small arms trade limiting treaties. Calling the Geneva conventions "quaint" the list goes on. This executive branch put itself above the law, that's not how America works.

Wonton destruction of international ties, disregard for allies and other nations. I don't know about you but I wish we had some friends left in this world.

Starting another Arms Race, by trying to scare the world into submission. it doesn't work that way. You need allies, friendships make you safer because you have more people watching your back. All you fuckers who were talking about letting France and the UN dictate American foreign policy.. "oooh nobody can hold us back.. we won't let anybody tell us what to do.. we know everything.. our ideas are better than everyone else.. we don't need to have a conversation or ask for advice.. or check with people who know more about the middle east than we do..." How do you feel now? We invaded Iraq, kicked out the inspectors, and said, bombs are better, we need to kill first and look for WMD later. hey, good fucking job asshole. next time all you Bill Kristols of the world Shut The Fuck Up!!

Man did we lose a lot. We really have. What a shame we don't learn from history. It took us this long to figure stuff out.

Now we have a health care system that serves the drug companies before the people. the Medicare prescription Drug giveaway, you know the government can't negotiate for lower prices? Why not the Veterans Administration drug plan does? oh, right, corruption, line the pockets of the richest Americans.

That explains why we're giving tax breaks to the richest companies in the world, the oil and gas companies. Hello!! they're making record profits, they don't need any subsidies, or any help, they need to be taxed!

Let's spend billions on a war, where all the money goes into the pockets of defense contractors who aren't doing their job. They are charging us tax payers $80 for a case of Coca Cola! They are driving around with empty trucks because they get paid by the trip, they don't have to deliver anything.

Yea global warming doesn't exist, how come the only people who believe that crap are scientists that are paid by the energy industry or the Republican party.

and the deficit, what happened to fiscal responsibility? Bush DOUBLED the deficit in just 6 years, sending us 600 billion more in debt, way to go you fiscal conservative you.

I think the internet helped us a lot. We quickly found out if somebody was lying by doing a Google search and finding the transcript or video of the lie. Tons of concerned people were linking back and forth, pointing to official documents and mind blowing investigations. Secrecy is not so easy nowadays.

We have just overcome something big. This Republican government war drunk with power.

What does a Democratic Congress Mean

Contrary to Republican scare tactics, I don't think it is going to be payback time. I don't think the most liberal policies are going to be suddenly thrust down the throats of an unwilling electorate. and I don't think the democrats are going to be the congressional bullies. Although no matter what they do they couldn't possibly top the last 4 years of republican rule.

It boggles the mind when conservatives warn against polarizing the country. Does "you're either with us or your with the terrorists" ring a bell? how about straight party line votes in congress, and wedge issues like flag burning and gay marriage. I have the scream when republicans talk about Democrats being divisive.

But back to the point, I think Democrats know that a lot of people should be on their side, and they're going to show it. They aren't going to be divisive, there are so many issues ahead of things like abortion and gay marriage, they won't have time for those, nor do they want to bother calming oppositional voices. Republican citizens have been voting against their best interests for a long time. And over the past 6 years Republicans have become the party of the Super Rich, while the middle class has shrunk. The Democrats are going to go for those broadly supported yet long neglected issues that everyone agrees upon.

The democrats will work on raising the minimum wage. They got a bill to the floor but the Republicans put abolishing the estate tax on the same bill so it failed. Anyone have an estate worth over $7 million? ok none of you will pay the estate tax, only .5% of estates pay any tax whatsoever. gee sounds like a pressing issue

They will also work on Energy independence. Scary huh? too bad everyone supports that. getting rid of fat oil companies and high gas prices, sound's like a far left fringe issue to me.

They will also investigate where our tax money is being wasted. Hmm I thought that used to concern republicans.. I guess power and campaign contributions made looking after our tax dollars a non-issue, wasting tax money became a great policy when it went to their friends in the oil and pharmaceutical industries.

There will be investigations on waste and fraud in Iraq.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Plan will be amended so that the government can buy in bulk and negotiate for lower prices. Hmm saving my money.

Social Security is not in as much danger as the Republicans made you believe, small changes will be put forward eventually.

Taxes, you have to face it, the whole mantra of lower taxes is a bunch of bullshit that republicans pay lip service to. How come the middle class hasn't felt any tax relief? and how come our jobs pay less, and our money buys less than it has since the 60s? The Republicans have lowered taxes all right, on the top 1% of America. And guess what it hasn't stimulated the economy at all!!!

There is a simple equation for this economic taxation mumbo jumbo. If you want to stimulate the economy, you give money to the people who are most likely to spend it. Wow, that's not so hard, how come nobody told the president? The people most likely to spend money are Those who need new cars, a new water heater, a new roof, a paint job, a new TV, to pay off their credit card, go out to dinner for once, a new house, maybe they stop renting and buy a house, new shoes, a winter jacket, a new computer on and on. It's an indisputable fact that the middle and lower class spend money, not the richest 1%. We have given all the tax breaks to the top 1% they put it in the bank, the end. No seriously someone has $4 million in assets, you give them an extra $8,000, they might expand their business and hire new employees, but most likely it's going to the bank to earn interest. They don't really need that money, they're ok as it is, they can choose to spend it or not. Unlike you and me, who really need that new car but we can't afford it, we really need to do some home repair, and we need to buy a house and stop living paycheck to paycheck. We will spend the money, that stimulates the economy.

So eventually we're going to have to get some money into the pockets of the middle class and the working poor. We will have to raise taxes on the rich... go cry me a river, I said we're going to have to raise taxes on the rich. Sorry, the democrats won't be acting on that one any time soon, they can't cause the Republicans will manipulate it for all it's worth, "high taxes, kill jobs, hate America" you know, the usual. Bush's tax cuts will expire in 2010 but that's the best that can happen, and you know the Republicans will cry foul, even though it's the middle class that has been fouled for so long.

I just feel bad that the Democrats have to deal with Iraq, they were all lied to by Bush, and he knew it all along. Now we have a horrible mess, and those who aren't responsible will have to deal with it.

kookcity2000 writes at 05:00:24 11/11/06 - Comment #12763: I still don't feel all that saved

dcoffee writes at 09:11:33 11/09/06 - Comment #12739: Josh, I agree with you "What is good for corporations is rarely good for the average guy on the street" let's start there and protect jobs from going over seas to countries with questionable human rights records. Fact is if Americans got paid better Wal-Mart wouldn't be necessary. Funny thing, business always tries to argue that raising wages hurts the economy, but in every american state that has raised the minimum wage the economy has gotten better as a direct result, because you are doing exactly what I said, giving money to the people who are most likely to spend it. Maybe raising takes on the rich isn't necessary if you can find some other way to funnel money downward through wages and reducing expenses.

And by the way, health care is a big expense for American corporations, let's reduce their bottom line and enable them to sell for less by getting rid of the burden of healthcare. This is a big fish to fry, but the benefits are obvious. it's unfair that american corporations have to pick up the tab for healthcare. It's shocking that so few corporations are advocating for a single payer government healthcare system. Also the burden is shared by the employees who pay a premium for coverage, they would have more money in their pockets if healthcare was covered through taxes rather than out of pocket every month. I don't know what the specific solution to this is, but I'm sure we could come up with a system that pleased both you and me. We have the most expensive healthcare system but we are ranked about #25 for health. This is a problem that won't be solved without government intervention. And I'm sure we could come up with a fair solution that you and I, and rational people everywhere could agree upon.

mmtornow writes at 05:25:27 11/09/06 - Comment #12733: HEELLLLL YEAAH!!!
Very nicely written... Sarcastic and Entertaining- But all so very true.
Now I see why you were up all night writing this... :-)

joshua writes at 05:10:02 11/09/06 - Comment #12729: The bottom half of Americans pay exponentially less in taxes than the top half - if the only way to make middle class people "feel it" is by taking from the rich to give to the poor I am 100% against it. Where I'm absolutely gagging to see tax reform is the so-called corporate welfare. Nobody in their right mind believes that oil companies need tax breaks, and I hope that the Democrats end it ASAP. Prepare for the oil companies to throw a fit and threaten higher gas prices, however.

When you aren't in power, you don't get to run the agenda - this is why Democrats (up until now!) have not had much of a say in having hearings and getting bills to the floor. Theres no dirty tricks involved there - if you don't run the comittees then you cannot call hearings and getting opposing legislation through is very difficult. Matt Taibbi's piece was amateurish, and the only reason why it got published in RS was because of the fierce anti-Republican rhretoric. RS is worse for having a little bit of the Beast in it.

I'm all for people having more money in their pockets, but it is wrong to rob Peter to give to Paul. Whether or not they really need the money is irrelevant - the richest pay the most taxes and as a result receive substantially more back when taxes are cut. Doing what I do for a living, however, I can tell you that the erosion of the middle class is real - I've seen it up close in 32 states.

The economy is fantastic - that is, if you have money invested in the stock market. You are incorrect about whether or not the tax cuts have stimulated the economy. If you look at the statistics, everything looks great - low unemployment, market highs, more home owners than any time in American history, etc. - much like everything else, from what I've seen with my own eyes, I don't think stats tell the whole story. Trickle down economics does work, to an extent - taxes have been cut yet receipts are high. Middle class Americans HAVE gotten more tax money back then they had previously. The economy *has* been stimulated to a great extent as a result of the tax cuts.

Where the Republicans failed, and I hope the Democrats suceed, is in protecting American jobs from going overseas and begin doing less business with countries with questionable human rights records. What is good for corporations is rarely good for the average guy on the street. The bottom line is this, who do you trust more to be benevolent to the middle class - corporations or government? Its a global economy, and similarly Americans should expect to have to compete in the global marketplace. This means, unfortunately, that unless you want to pay $30 for a white t-shirt and $130 for a pair of Levi's, Americans will have to adapt.

It is basically the Wal-Mart paradox - people love Wal-Mart, particularly in rural areas, because their money goes further. Wal-Mart achieves this by being ruthless in negotiating price, which trickles down to the manufacturers... the people I visit. The #1 controllable cost for manufacturers is labor, which is why production has been going overseas. As long as Americans want cheap stuff (and demand for cheap stuff is extraordinarily high), its going to have to be made overseas in order for people to continue paying low prices. Very few of the American manufacturers that I've visited pay extraordinarily high wages. Some places I've visited pay on average $50k a year, while others pay strictly minimum wage - in order for American companies to compete, you can guess which end of the spectrum the majority lies in if they aren't in a niche market.

I'm interested to see if Democrats have a solution for this.

jason writes at 12:50:39 11/09/06 - Comment #12721: Sure David, if you want a little back and forth I'm willing to oblige. We've always gotten along and I know we can learn from each other.

dcoffee writes at 12:13:31 11/09/06 - Comment #12720: I don't care if ALL the issues I support are addressed, what I am happiest about is that we will no longer be unilaterally ruled by dangerous extremists. Bush and the neo-cons represent a radical regime and I'm glad Americans have woken up. I don't think it's right to shove your agenda down anybody's throat. Bush was constantly saying "HaHa Fuck You" to the democrats when he used his signing statements, and the republicans twisted people's arms to get some radical legislation passed on a party line vote. They used every dirty trick in the book to prevent democrats from having Hearings, getting bills to the floor, having a say on committee reports and etc, if you want to know how much the democrats were bullied by the Republicans I'd like you the Read Matt Taibbi's piece in Rolling Stone, "The Worst Congress Ever" :::link::: Matt did a lot of research and interviews, there are some amazing stories told by congress people about republican bullying. I'm happy to end that era.

This is my position on Democracy. I don't believe in any particular team, I believe that if you have a diverse group of people rationally discussing how to handle an issue, if people aren't stubborn, and are willing to see the issue from somebody else's perspective, you will get good policy. I don't think good policy comes from one team or another, it's the thoughtful democratic exchange that creates good policy. The congress isn't at a point where it can impeach bush or raise taxes, oh well, I still think we are going to have a more democratic discussion there (democratic with a small 'd') more civility, more open and honest, and that is a big deal.

PS I'd love to hear your criticisms if you get a chance. I always want to know what king of holes are left in my arguments.. it's that whole democratic exchange thing.

jason writes at 08:46:17 11/09/06 - Comment #12711: Actually I do have a question for you David. You say you want taxes raised, and Ajay says he wants impeachment. Have you been watching what Pelosi, et al have said? Neither are going to happen, if you believe politicians anyway, so why would Liberals like yourself and Ajay cheer on policies that, at the core, you disagree with? Is it a case of, well at least we aren't run by the far right anymore?

jason writes at 08:37:31 11/09/06 - Comment #12709: I vehemently disagree with a lot of this rhetoric, but I'm glad that you're passionate and involved, because most young people aren't. Good for you.

Permalink: America_Saves_itself.html
Words: 1790
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: elections

11/07/06 09:07 - 48ºF - ID#21757

To Josh, Faith Based Voting

This is for (e:joshua)#207 and anyone else who believes we don't need to verify that votes have been correctly counted in America.

Do you doubt that politicians cheat in elections? You think nobody in America has ever intentionally cheated voters? Rigged voting counts, under-supplied voting machines in districts not favorable to them, jammed phone lines of the opposition party, called voters on the other side with misleading information to frustrate them and prevent them from voting?

Sorry to burst your bubble but all of these things happened in 2004, and in past elections. In 2004 some people went to jail for it. And guess what, most of the time the cheating was on the Republican side. I'm not saying nobody else has ever cheated, but the Republicans insult my intelligence on a daily basis, and I don't trust that they will respect me or my vote. Nor would I demand any fewer protections from Democratic or any type of cheating.

And I certainly don't trust paperless electronic voting machines. As far as I'm concerned that's like "faith based voting". No government Ever deserves that leisure. Honest, verifiable, and open elections, that's the basis of democracy. That's the principle of America, the idea of checks and balances, and the idea of a government ruled by the people. If the Executive or Legislative branch cheats, the judicial branch is there to enforce the rules, and make sure the interests of the people prevail. What better example than making sure votes are counted. This is an imposable task if the only record of the vote is a number on a computer screen, we all know how easy that is to manipulate.

Foul play happens, and we need to safeguard against it right away, or else we will be throwing away the dream of America, and pissing on the graves of our founding fathers and all the men and women who have died to preserve our noble democratic system.

I you don't want the election to drag on for days, get rid of Faith based Voting, and have stricter penalties for misleading or lying advertisements, voter intimidation, fake phone calls, and voter help line jamming.

And by the way, if the exit polls don't match the vote count, trust the exit polls, the vote count is wrong. Don't bullshit me, I'm a Political Science major, and half of that field is statistics. Exit polls are the one true check against corrupt vote counts, even in this country. We scrutinize power to make sure it is not abused, that's America. Don't stop now, or we'll lose everything.

ajay writes at 01:54:31 11/09/06 - Comment #12706: (e:Joshua), sampling is a basic part of our daily lives. That computer you're typing on? Its components weren't tested; only a sample of the batches were tested. The reason people cried foul about the discrepancy between exit polls and the real results is because HISTORICALLY exit polls have not been far from the final results. If suddenly you start seeing huge deviations from the norm, then there must be something wrong somewhere (either in the polling methodology, or the actual polls).

You say "when Democrats are winning, they aren't complaining about cheating". I think what you wanted to say was "when the Republicans are cheating, they aren't complaining about cheating".

Read about the New Hampshire phone jamming scandal which resulted in convictions: :::link:::
Why did the RNC spend over $2.5Million defending their operative in this case?

Why was the NRCC harassing Democratic voters with robocalls :::link::: ?

I'm not saying Democrats are saints; but compared to the Republicans, they don't have to be. ;-)

PS: Watch this :::link:::

dcoffee writes at 08:47:49 11/08/06 - Comment #12705: Josh, you just contradicted yourself in the 3rd sentence. You said that democrats think that if they lose the "only possible" answer is that somebody cheated. That assumption about the Democrats is "cynical and unrealistic", not the assumption that people sometimes cheat in elections. Democrats know that they can run a bad campaign and lose fair and square, shit happens.

On the contrary, Ken Blackwell fucked the democrats in 2004 on purpose, and that type of partisan electioneering should not be permitted by any party or any citizen.

There were lots of problems with electronic voting machines on election day and before, on both sides, and everyone complained. And the fact is that some ballots in florida that were intended to be straight democrat registered as straight republican, that is a legitimate reason for concern, and those who are concerned about it do not disserve to be labeled as loony conspirists. All of this makes it imperative that machines have some way of verifying the vote.

It is also a legitimate concern that when republicans enacted HAVA they didn't care if the companies who owned the machines were the only ones who could see the votes after the election, that borders on atrocity.

My comment on exit polls was this. When they don't match the vote count Americans tend to discard the exit polls without much second thought. Don't do that. Statistics are by nature imperfect, but exit polls are one of the most reliable. if there is a 3-5% difference that election disserves a second look. We need safeguards on our voting, for the sake of all americans, not just democrats.

joshua writes at 03:59:30 11/08/06 - Comment #12690: Dcoffee -

In general Democrats have been crying foul about elections ever since GWB won in 2000. While I don't doubt that some shady business goes on in elections, lets not pretend for a second that somehow this is a Republican only problem. The fact of the matter is that when Democrats are winning, they aren't complaining about cheating; when they are losing, cheating must be the only possible method by which they lost. Its a cynical and unrealistic viewpoint, and in every single election since, Democrats have attempted to discredit America's democratic voting process. While I'm certain that some dirty biz was going down, its equally true that Democrats have been crying wolf about just as many contested votes. I'm sorry, but having to wait in a long line to vote does not constitute an impropriety.

By the way, JFK lost to Nixon in 1960 with 300,000 votes being the deciding factor. Historically Republicans have done far less complaining than Democrats have about losing elections - should Nixon have challenged the vote in 1960, or is it that because JFK won there couldn't have possibly been any um.. "indiscretions?"

I tend to agree that I do not trust paperless balloting - however, guess who was complaining yesterday when in some states the machines weren't working so they had to resort to paper balloting? I'll give you one guess.

About your statement about exit polls - this is the holy grail of Poly Sci. Not to burst YOUR bubble, but its about as accurate as predicting the weather. 2004 proved beyond argument that exit polls are not to be trusted - nobody outside of a PS department (or liberal kook land!) believes they are credible, which is why most networks declined relying solely on them when making calls last night. Trust the exit polls but don't trust the actual votes? That is absolutely inane.

As you say, "preserving our noble democratic system" is important. What I absolutely reject is the idea that somehow this means that Republicans are to blame for the absolute joke that our electoral process appears to be at times. Democrats are just as guilty and that is an absolute.

By the way, since you did mention that you believe that Republicans don't respect you or your vote (I should remind you that voting does not equal getting your way) - the sole reason why Democrats won the House yesterday was because a series of moderate and even conservative Democrats swept several elections in the midwest. When Speaker Pelosi starts towing the extreme far left line in the House, I have to ask - those moderate and conservative Democrat votes that sent their elected officials to office - are those people and their votes going to be disrespected?

jason writes at 09:16:13 11/08/06 - Comment #12681: You know what, I'll be the first to say that I agree with you concerning harsh punishment going to people who do shady things concerning the vote. You're absolutely right about it, it has to be done this way or things will continue down the same path.

If there's one thing I know about you from your writing, it's that you are absolutely sincere in what you say. The problem I see is that you're basically the only one! Sketchy, criminal behavior is absolutely acceptable to most politicos when it benefits their political faction. When Democrats win elections by the skin of their teeth they do not flail their arms and yell about these things, nor are they demanding recounts for the sake of a valid vote. When a Democrat candidate in San Diego urges illegals to vote, and tells them how they can get away with it, people are utterly silent, and why? Anyone who is sincere, and who wants an honest vote would never give this person a chance. I don't like it any more than you do, but sketchy, illegal tactics will continue to be used by the political class until WE decide it's over, but I'm not holding my breath.

You have an iPod, right? I found some cool podcasts - Instapundit and Left, Right, and Center. Listening this week has opened my eyes to what exit polls really are, and I don't think you should trust them like you do based on what I've heard. They are NOT the same as a real vote count. At best, they are a snapshot based upon a very small sampling. They are also on occasion released before all polls are closed, and why do you think this is? In some countries this is a criminal offense! It is only one tool that we have, and it's far from perfect. I think our energy is best spent on perfecting methods of tabulating votes based on both paper and technology.

mrmike writes at 09:18:37 11/07/06 - Comment #12673: Not to mention, that the first official complaint was launched by the Pennsylvania GOP, their machines didn't work....poor bastards

Permalink: To_Josh_Faith_Based_Voting.html
Words: 431
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: war

11/05/06 11:45 - 45ºF - ID#21756

Rushing into War

The Bush Administration really wanted to go to war with Iraq. This war is without a doubt, a war of choice, not necessity. All the Bushistas wanted to "Get Saddam". And as soon as 9/11 happened all the crazy geo political neo-cons were trying to force the conversation over to Iraq. Invading and occupying Iraq was key the the Project for the New America Century, and all the crazies from that organization invaded the whitehouse along with Bush.

Anyway, in case you needed more proof, here's another ex-CIA analyst who retired after 25 years. He's an insider who worked directly with Iraq during the lead up to the War. He just published a new book "On the Brink: An Insider's Account of How the White House Compromised American Intelligence" You can read a few of its key points here

You can also watch a movie from 2004 about this topic, it's a good primer for everyone. And you can watch it in full here