"truths, twisting of the truth, and spin" written by Dcoffee on estrip.org

05/28/08 12:04 - 52ºF - ID#44472

truths, twisting of the truth, and spin

This perked my interest. Now "outside the bubble" Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan coming to terms with the failure of Washington politics. The way he describes it really pinpoints some of the fundamental failures that have manifested in government.

Washington has become the home of the permanent campaign, a game of endless politicking based on the manipulation of shades of truth, partial truths, twisting of the truth, and spin. Governing has become an appendage of politics rather than the other way around, with electoral victory and the control of power as the sole measures of success. That means shaping the narrative before it shapes you. Candor and honesty are pushed to the side in the battle to win the latest news cycle...

That is key, that is the lens through which we can understand, and think critically about what the elected officials want us to believe. The manipulation of truth, to serve the permanent campaign, that is a fundamental problem in our system. We should be aware of this manipulation, and seek ways to overcome it. The press and the public need to be skeptical.

Read more about his new book

dcoffee writes at 11:10:26 06/03/08 - Comment #35681: Watching Scott on Meet the Press and Countdown, seems like he started with a very different proposal, but as he was writing the book, it turned into a soul searching mission. I'm not saying that there's no selfish intent, maybe to exonerate himself from his CIA leak problem a bit, or jump the sinking Republican ship. But he was press secretary during 911, Katrina, Cheney's Hunting accident, and the run-up to the Iraq War. If you were in his shoes, pressuring the country to go to war for reasons that you knew were secondary to the insane idea of spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun. 5 years later that war is a disaster, and people are dying by the thousands, you might feel a little guilty. Watching him on the TV, it looks like he's having trouble living with himself, and this is his effort to cleanse his conscience. I mean really, if you knew that the major public understanding of why we went to War was a false narrative created by the government you were a part of, and if you were one of the key people who shaped and defended that narrative, then 5 years later thousands, hundreds-of-thousands of people had died because of a lie you helped sell to an entire nation, you might feel like you were going to hell in a flaming basket of shit. I'm staying skeptical, but I wouldn't be surprised to find more people speaking out. Like General Sanchez, who also released a book in the past week. Yes Josh, I know that's your bigger problem here, loving people who say what you want to hear. but I think the fact that they were part of the problem is what gives them credibility. The perceptions of people who were there, alongside the president and everyone else as they were making decisions, that's a perspective that's tough to get from pure research, it's a first person perspective, it's not really objective, but it's a personal view point of someone who interacted frequently with the president.

james writes at 09:54:35 05/28/08 - Comment #35529: This book smells. Scotty stood up there and mouthed the words he was told to and all of the sudden he has had a change of heart and tells us of an inept administration? He is just trying to clear his name or at least distance himself from an administration that could very well be prosecuted in the future.

jason writes at 06:18:06 05/28/08 - Comment #35522: That is some vintage Joshy. Chief fork-tongued asshole. Lol.

joshua writes at 06:12:07 05/28/08 - Comment #35518: I mean really, its to be laughed at. People that looked at McClellan and called him the chief fork-tongued asshole yesterday, literally want to enter his words into political and historical canon today, as if he's Moses coming down the mountain.

I can't respect it - its that simple.

joshua writes at 06:07:43 05/28/08 - Comment #35516: Here we go - yesterday McClellan was Bush's chief liar, a virtual pariah, a person to literally be hated. Now he says something that they agree with, and their characterization of the man does a complete 180 - his word is to be trusted, his thoughts are worth pondering, his shit doesn't stink.

You can't have it both ways and expect to retain a veneer of credibility. Liberals treat military figures in the exact same way - these people are only useful to the extent that they advance an agenda. Otherwise, fuck 'em. Believe me - if he didn't "sound like a left-wing blogger," as a certain evil genius phrased it, these people wouldn't even be coming CLOSE to licking his balls like they are now. Liberals that wouldn't give the guy the steam off their piss yesterday want to kiss the man today - you cannot retain political credibility and expect people to trust you (or your candidates) when you behave this way. Trust me.

Amazon #1, BTW!

Permalink: truths_twisting_of_the_truth_and_spin.html
Words: 205
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: healthcare

05/09/08 12:03 - 48ºF - ID#44279

Rod Watson Kicks Healthcare Ass

In the Buffalo News today, Rod Watson lays the failure of the US healthcare system out there for everyone to see. The commentary is inspired by a local story about a mis-diagnosed 4 year old child on Medicaid who died. The doctor didn't even look at her.

Watson is blunt and to the point, the article is like a 5 minute version of Sicko.

Rod Watson: Don't expect health reform any time soon
By Rod Watson
Updated: 05/08/08

The richest and smartest nation in the world has the dumbest health care system, one that leaves out 47 million people while spending far more than any other nation.

It's a system in which those on Medicaid - like a father who lost his 4-month-old daughter - get shunned or wonder if they're getting substandard treatment.

Yet you won't hear Sens. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain talking about the obvious solution: a national, single-payer system that could preserve private doctors and hospitals, yet stop wasting money on health insurers who give no shots and perform no surgeries.

Full article, check it out, it's a quick read

Rod Watson is my new Buffalo Hero

jenks writes at 09:33:14 05/11/08 - Comment #34938: sorry lib, don't take me the wrong way. I'm not condemning cuba- their health care, from what I know, is quite good.

and- any tips on quitting NRT? My mom has been chewing the gum for, oh, 5 years now. I know it's better than smoking, but I wish she'd quit that, too.

libertad writes at 09:50:11 05/09/08 - Comment #34896: I used to work for the woman that Watson is quoting. "Single-payer is not a panacea. Monroe cautioned that it would have to be structured with the right incentives." I definitely agree with her on this one. Cuba shouldn't really be condemned when it comes to health care. They are doing tremendously well in comparison to other third world countries. If I were to have cancer I would rather be here, but if I didn't have health insurance I would rather be there. There infant mortality is less than ours. This is due to the emphasis on prevention. There prenatal care for everyone beats what the majority would receive here. You should see all the old people in Cuba exercising in big groups. I have never seen that here ever. These are state sponsored classes to keep them active and heatlhy. When it comes to our own socialized medicine, Medicare, they lack in prevention. My work in smoking cessation can be very frustrating. People that only have Medicare and no secondary insurances get no help in quitting smoking. Smoking is the biggest health crisis in the country and world and they won't provide nicotine replacement therapy to their clients. People on Medicare are worse off than those on Medicaid. Some of the quotes that Watson used are complaining about Medicaid and really they get a lot in comparison to those who have there own private insurance, at least when it comes to drug coverage and nicotine replacement. Nicotine replacement is proven to double peoples chances of quitting. You can't imagine how frustrating it is to speak to Medicare patients and tell them "sorry I know you have quit smoking for two weeks using the nicotine replacement we sent you but you are going to have to buy the rest on your own." People need NRT for sometimes up to 12 weeks. This stuff costs $50 for a two week supply. Many of these people just don't have enough to pay for them and return to smoking. You tell them to use the money that they save from not smoking and then they tell you that they bought their "Smokin Joe's" at the reservation for $10 a carton. What are you supposed to tell them? Usually I say "Sorry, if it were up to me I would give it to you." New York State is the only state that I know of that offers free nicotine replacement. Every other state people are having a hard time quitting because a proven, effective and relatively safe product is not within reach of those who need it. I also should say that in Cuba they do not put things in the cigarettes to make them more addictive. My Aunt Anne has Lyme Disease. Her doctor, the only one so far to be able to help her, has rejected insurance companies because they refuse to pay him for treating his patients. These insurance companies are not doctors yet they decide who is going to live and who is going to die. My Aunt is very sick and I wish she didn't have to pay for all of this herself. She has insurance!

james writes at 03:26:34 05/09/08 - Comment #34889: Joshua: you mention the relation between life expectancy and lifestyle. Preventative medicine is covered lots of other countries but unless you are on the most expensive insurance plans here you are not covered.

Additionally, health education in this country is a joke. For example, during the Atkins craze I was in a grocery store. They had roasted chickens for sale with with a big label "Low Carb!". The very fact that a collection of proteins and fat necessitates such a label makes me sick. Why do we pump money into programs telling kids that the drugs they will do in high school are bad when there is no nutrition education? Ultimately, Americans are going to die earlier, require more expensive treatments, and miss more days of work because they don't know that chicken is low in carbs.

Oh my god, I am about to run screaming into the wilderness pulling my hair out.

jenks writes at 03:03:33 05/09/08 - Comment #34888: I agree- for-profit private insurers who care about nothing more than their bottom line are not helping the situation. For example- there's a great machine called a wound vac. It really helps nasty wounds heal. The thing is, it's expensive, so insurance companies often refuse to pay for it once a patient goes home. What they don't seem to realize is that if they say the patient can't have it, it's not like we take it off and give the patient something cheaper. No, we make them stay in the hospital longer to keep getting it. Which is FAR more expensive than just paying for the damn thing. Or there are some oral antibiotics that are VERY expensive. But when you compare that the cost of a PICC line (special IV), plus the cost of having a nurse come to your house twice a day to give medicine, or to simply staying in the hospital a few extra weeks- the pill is way cheaper. But insurance never sees that. it makes me crazy.

My other brilliant solution- make tobacco disappear from the planet. Don't just make it illegal, b/c that opens a whole different can of worms. Make it gone. If I'm not mistaken, tobacco-related illness is the #1 preventable cause of death in the US. Health care expenditures would probably go down 50% if people didn't smoke. There are days where it's so frustrating, I almost think "you don't deserve medical care if you smoke." Obviously that's extreme. But at the same time- the 100K spent to treat a smoker's cardiac disease could treat a LOT of uninsured children, etc. I've heard that some nations are instituting age limits. Like if you're 95 and come in with some horrible condition that CAN be treated, but only with a $100K operation, they say "we're sorry. you're 95. It's not worth it."

sorry... I'm getting all fired up here. I'll stop.

and josh- thanks for the bday wishes. :)

joshua writes at 01:28:04 05/09/08 - Comment #34886: Oh, and it may warm the cockles of your heart to know that this was the same company that flooded the market with 1 billion solid doses of generic Plavex for $4 a pill - Pfizer sued them and tried to get an injunction but it failed because the drugs were already being distributed. =D

joshua writes at 01:25:32 05/09/08 - Comment #34885: Yes that is a good point - its true that a lot of the money that goes into drug production ends up part of the marketing ploy to get the drug on the market. Whether not that is wasteful I can't say one way or another - I'll leave that for people to decide on their own. If a drug works, shouldn't the doctor know about it? Personally I would never be that presumptuous. I don't know if our everyday doctors really pay that much attention so I wouldn't dare comment on that, but I'd guess that the marketing budgets for drugs pale in comparison to what they spent to research and create the drug.

I've actually audited Canadian drug manufacturers - the largest out there, as a matter of fact. You would be absolutely astounded at the amount of resources on hand to do what they do. Just one machine I saw was about the size of a PC tower and it costs $220k per unit... and there were rooms full of them.

joshua writes at 01:18:08 05/09/08 - Comment #34884: DC its interesting you've brought it up, since this is one of my gripes. People often cite birth rates/death rates or similar statistics as a criticism of not having enough health care. In my view thats not a health care problem, that is a lifestyle problem.

The reason why we are less healthy than other countries is fairly obvious to me - we are generally fatter and lazier than our foreign counterparts and live more stressful lifestyles. We largely eat like shit. We are less healthier because we are a fast food nation that thrives on having things quickly and easily at the expense of making choices that would be wiser in the long run.

The thing is, when people say we should be healthier given our status I think they are right. Given our lifestyle what concerns me is that if we create a nationalized system, how is any of it going to fix the problems that make people have to visit the doctor in the first place? As I said earlier the natural consequence of this is what we are seeing in England now, where reputable government and non-governmental people are batting around the idea of rationing the care. The least healthy would actually be exempt from coverage if they had their way. At that point the idea that the prime concern is the health of the country would be ludicrous - it would be about dollars and dollars only.

So why can't we fix the financial problem first? This is why I think some elements of free market capitalism will have to be present in an American system.

dcoffee writes at 01:11:37 05/09/08 - Comment #34883: PS How Much of the cost of Plavex goes to their TV commercials? And how much goes to the free crap they hand out in hospitals all day? is it half their budget? then how much goes to political contributions? I'm just saying... seems like we're paying for a lot of waste here too. if a drug works you use it, and drugs work differently on each person. Why should they tell me to I ask my doctor about __Rx____ if it works, the doctor should know, right?

dcoffee writes at 01:03:05 05/09/08 - Comment #34881: Well i think we can all agree that if we are spending almost double what any other country spends on healthcare per capita, we should be the healthiest. But we're not, by the WHO's ranking in 2000 we're number 37. Now that is an outrage.

Why is it fair for employers to foot the bill for healthcare? How can we compete against Japanese automakers when they are saving all that money that we spend on healthcare?

In America we can learn from other countries mistakes and create our own model. I don't know if our healthcare facilities are the 'best' or not, but the issue is not the facilities it's how we pay for Americans to have access to it.

I don't think we should nationalize hospitals, doctors, or research in general. But having an insurance company serve as a middleman for every procedure is wasteful. We set up HMOs to help keep costs down, didn't happen. How about we minimize waste, minimize the amount of hours people spend on the phone or filling out paperwork to get approval from someone who has never seen the patient, or the hospital.

Medicare works, and older people tend to be more costly to take care of. Why not triple the size of Medicare and cover everyone. I'm not saying I know what the perfect system is, but I see a lot of problems, and a lot of waste. The layer of insurance providers is unnecessary, and I see that as a problem that makes sense to solve through single payer coverage.

joshua writes at 12:57:57 05/09/08 - Comment #34879: (e:jenks) - wasabi girl? I'm sorry I missed your birthday so I'll say it now - happy birthday!

I'm not necessarily against the idea of health care for all - David and I have talked about this for a few months now. Based on the evidence I'm skeptical, and to be fair I think its justified skepticism. We have to find a way to make it work for us. Any politician that wants to mimic Europe will never get my support.

One of my tangentially related concern is medical costs. Insurance is one thing but controlling medical costs is a knot that I don't think can be unraveled. $16 for a dose of Plavex is ludicrous, but isn't the medical industry entitled to recoup the billions they spend on the R&D it took to produce the drug in the first place? What if the drug companies simply tell the government, as they've done with flu vaccines, that they will not produce life saving drugs anymore? Its cynical but that is a very real possibility.

Having the government pay for the Plavex instead of my dad (not that dad takes Plavex) ultimately isn't solving anything. Oh, by the way, in Canada unless you are elderly or on social assistance (also "first nations" folks are included I think), or ironically, if you are an inmate in a federal prison, drug coverage is not part of the package. Prisoners get drug coverage but you would not. When you see any references to "group coverage" in foreign countries that provide socialized medicines they are talking about supplemental health insurance that their company provides. Despite the vast bureaucracy and heavy taxation, individuals and companies are still forced to provide for themselves.

Not enough people read the fine print.

jenks writes at 12:38:09 05/09/08 - Comment #34878: good point josh. Sure I'm biased, but I think the health CARE in this country is pretty excellent. It's the health INSURANCE and ACCESS issues that are the problems.

I mean if you have cancer, do you want to be treated here, or in cuba? Even if cuba does have lower infant mortality rates, etc...

joshua writes at 12:00:41 05/09/08 - Comment #34877: As I've said before, the application of nationalized health care has never worked as advertised. In Britain they are actually talking about rationing it off and denying access to fat people.

By the way, in Canada companies *still* subsidize a large amount of health care that the government does not cover. Having visited dozens of Canadian manufacturers at this point I can tell you from first hand experience how cynical most of the people I've talked to are about their system.

McCain's solution is crap, but we are no closer to national health care then we are with dissolving the military. Really the ONLY opinions I'm interested in at this point are those of the doctors, because they know first hand the merits of such an idea. Some crunchy granola hippie NGO employee sitting at a computer is going to know jack fucking squat in comparison.

The problem is not the health care here, but the access to it. We have the best and most comprehensive medical facilities in the world. The question is, do we want to keep it that way or are we going to dilute our resources, nationalize our system and give everybody health care that was actually worse than it was the year before? The answer is somewhere in the middle.

james writes at 11:15:51 05/09/08 - Comment #34875: ya know, I hear this stuff about long lines for equipment in other countries. But, despite lower infant mortality rates and a longer life expectancy than in the US, that seems to be a problem with healthcare and not health insurance.

What I find fascinating about the national dialogue on health care is that in 2004 if John Kerry mentioned universal health care in the vein of Obama and Clinton, he would have been booed off the stage of his own party's convention. Four years later those concepts are not only apart of the campaigns vocabulary, but the Republican's solutions seem quaint and ridiculously old fashioned. On this issue John McCain seems like the grandfather who's crazy ideas we tolerate because he is old.

carolinian writes at 09:35:18 05/09/08 - Comment #34873: One has to wonder whether unaffordable health care and people having to choose between gettng medical treatment and paying their mortgage has substantially contributed to the current financial crisis. If that's the case, then nationalized heath care probably would have cost less than this crisis is going to cost us.

jenks writes at 03:38:36 05/09/08 - Comment #34871: I will read the article, but a "national single-payer system" is not always all it's cracked up to be. (insert here the usual comments about the 6mo wait for a CT scan in Canada, etc. And my personal experience with Canadian patients coming to Buffalo fairly often if they want anything done in a timely fasion.)

Yes, our healthcare is expensive and wasteful and a mess. I'm not arguing that, and I certainly don't know the answer. I figure if there were a nice simple answer, it would have been implemented years ago. It's not like no one has proposed nationalized health care before...

Permalink: Rod_Watson_Kicks_Healthcare_Ass.html
Words: 202
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

05/01/08 11:20 - 51ºF - ID#44207

Political BS

This is in response to (e:jason,44190)

Even I am tired of it. Still reading and up to date, but the showmanship and trivial issues have completely turned me off.

Why does the media spend so much time talking about BS? Does anybody actually give a damn about Rev Wright?! "Is this going to help or hurt the campaign" well seriously, who gives a shit. I want to know "will this help America" you worthless 'pundit' do you have a Twinkie in your head?!?!?

America needs solutions, and the corporate media can't even facilitate the discussion.

My favorite infamous quote from the last ABC debate a few weeks ago, "Does Rev. Wright love America as much as you do?" Oh boy, thank you George, that is definitely the question I was burning to ask Obama. What a great service you are doing for the country.

Somehow I don't think this is what freedom of the press is all about. Let's have 25 people talk about Rev Wright, or Miley Cyrus' bare back, or Clinton visiting a gas pump, wall to wall 2 hour coverage.

They spend more time predicting how the public will react than they do talking about the issue itself. As if any of the TV blowhards mingles with 'the American public' in order to form their 'expert' opinion.

This is a disgrace.

Here's a media rant for you

and for a little more sarcasm and video in your politics go here

New: Kerry tells MSNBC STFU!

Permalink: Political_BS.html
Words: 268
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: political

04/17/08 08:40 - 60ºF - ID#44041

Confused or Furious, Last nights debate

This video sums it up. Although the clip is a few years old, ok it's from 1976.

Seriously, 50 minutes before we could talk about anything besides gossip? War, Inflation, outsourcing jobs, the environment, corruption, waste, fraud, fear, gas prices, recession, healthcare, people losing their houses, bridges falling down, and cities destroyed by floods, the things that actually matter in people's lives! Not a Priority.

After the debate I was thinking about the news media, not the candidates. Why the hell would they dwell on gossip for so long? do they think the American people really give a shit? They think Pennsylvania voters would rather talk about gossip than inflation?

The media is so interested in gotcha politics, and I don't think the American people really give a crap right now. Maybe if they weren't so worried about affording food, and healthcare, and gas, and mortgage payments next week. Or preoccupied thinking about what kind of world is going to be left for their children because of this war, the environment, and the national debt. Maybe, just maybe, we'd really want to get to the bottom of what he said and she said, but right now, we have better things to talk about.

The debate was another great reason for why people become cynical, and tune out politics. They aren't talking about anything that matters. This kind of politics is an insult to the nation. We really deserve better, especially now.

Similar Opinions

Washington Post

Obama's Response

Permalink: Confused_or_Furious_Last_nights_debate.html
Words: 276
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: web

04/10/08 11:05 - 41ºF - ID#43970

Online Payment Suggestions?

Hey, I need help on a web development / geek question.

What service would you recommend for online credit card transactions?

Anybody set up online payment accounts? Were you satisfied with the service, reasonable fees? Also doesn't take hours of coding to implement?

I'm working with a non-profit group that wanted to switch to Authorize.net, but their subscription is expiring this month. I'm just finishing up their new website, and I don't like the looks of Authorize.net. The instillation guides and sample codes are mostly from 2004, and they require a bunch of coding and configuring to start up. And all of the sample code says "use at your own risk" which doesn't make me feel good.

Considering "Network for Good", and "Paypal", but my knowledge of this area is slim.

Suggestions are very much appreciated,

Permalink: Online_Payment_Suggestions_.html
Words: 136
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

04/07/08 10:43 - 53ºF - ID#43946

one of those days

Spring, you know what I'm talking about.

I worked outside with the laptop today. Looking forward to many more days of that.

yea, she's soft and fuzzy... I think I just heard Paul sneeze. Sorry Paul.

Permalink: one_of_those_days.html
Words: 38
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: war

03/28/08 09:52 - 31ºF - ID#43812

Iraq Going Badly

This has not turned into huge news yet for some reason. So in case you hadn't heard.

The Green Zone in Baghdad has been under rocket attack for the past 4 days. That's where the government and the US offices and Embassies are. It's a fortified city. US personnel have been advised to avoid traveling outside and sleep in reinforced structures.

The southern port city of Basra is basically occupied by Shi'ite militias. The government ordered them to hand over their weapons by today, I'm guessing that's not going to happen.

Bush thinks everything is swell, Sounds more like 1984 doublethink propaganda to me.

Chuck Hagel (R) Talks about Bush being Alice in Wonderland.

This doesn't sound good,
"Military: Troop Strains Putting US at Risk"

The Point, we can't solve other people's problems. If they can't work it out, we can't fix it for them. The Iraq war is now a completely political problem. We can't fix it, but we don't want embarrass ourselves. The Republicans in particular, have a lot riding on this flaming turd, especially with the election coming up.

The Surge brought a temporary lull in violence, but in the meantime we didn't get any progress in the government. All this time, and we haven't built anything that will last. 4,000 deaths, 40,000 wounded us soldiers and 5 years, and 500,000 billion so far.

Permalink: Iraq_Going_Badly.html
Words: 277
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: political

03/27/08 12:39 - 42ºF - ID#43806

My Superdelagate Letter

We now know that it is almost imposable for Clinton to win the nomination through democratic means. She would have to get around 70% in all the remaining states. And asside from a "political meteor" hitting Obama, this is not going to happen. But she seems not to notice or care, and it's likely that her candidacy will just go more and more negative as this thing drags on. Her only hope is that the 800 superdelegates at the Convention will appoint her as the winner, and ignore the voters who worked so hard to make their opinions known. This undemocratic attitude really rubs me the wrong way. If votes don't matter there is no hope for this country.

More people are saying that the Clintons don't care how much they damage Obama or the party, Clinton wouldn't mind a McCain presidency cause she could run again in 2012. Not saying it's true, she's just making weird choices and statements.

Read an article yesterday, Clinton Donors write Scathing Letter to Pelosi

Kind of bothered me they were insisting the Superdelegates give Clinton the nomination, like they have the right.

Another good Article by David Brooks in the NY Times "The Long Defeat"

Not obeying the will of the voters really bothers me, so I decided to write a letter to Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the DNC. I faxed it to Reid and Pelosi, emailed to the DNC.

My Letter

Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, et all

If the Democratic Party overturns the vote of the public and chooses Hillary Clinton during the convention, at best you will alienate a generation and validate their cynicism about American Politics. But the damage will likely go well beyond that. Hundreds of thousands of Democrats and Independents will stay home, others like myself will vote for a third party, and many more will vote for John McCain.

The truth is, Americans believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, but they don't believe in the politicians or the political system. This is why we have horrible voter turnout, even in presidential elections. If you can inspire people to get off the couch and vote, Democrats will win elections year after year.

If you don't take the opinion of the voters seriously, they will not trust you, and they will not vote for you. To win an election you need votes more than anything else. If you begin the presidential election with the candidate who did not receive the most votes, you will be at an enormous disadvantage, and the mistrust of the voters will carry on for years to come.

The Democratic Party needs somebody who can champion our principles, and get results, someone who is more trustworthy and convincing than the right wing. An eloquent person who can speak in terms that Americans identify with. Someone from a working class background who we can relate to and respect.

A candidate who inspires people will always get results, because once you convince the public that something is the right thing to do, politicians have no choice but to go along or lose their seat. You need a better salesman at the bully pulpit, someone who believes deeply in the values of the party, and clearly puts the good of the country above themselves

My story. I switched my party affiliation to Democrat, just so I could vote in the primaries. This time in history, and this election are so important that I needed to make my opinion known. In New York State voters must switch a year in advance, I took that step and I voted for Barack Obama. I'm also a small business owner, and a member of the Chamber of Commerce. I read the news, and have a BA in Political Science. I'm not quiet about my opinions, I vote every single year, even in local elections. There are lots of people like me, potential Democrats who need some reassurance that you will not let us down.

The people have voted, and we will continue to vote for the candidate we prefer. Do not ignore our votes in the primaries, or you will not get our vote in the general election, or in future elections.

Dcoffee

dcoffee writes at 08:18:19 03/27/08 - Comment #33205: Funny I just checked my email and MoveOn.org got pissed off about the same thing today. The letter from Clinton Donors to Nancy Pelosi. They put it this way;
"Clinton-supporting big Democratic donors are Threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.
It's the worst kind of insider politicsâ€" billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters."

joshua writes at 03:24:03 03/27/08 - Comment #33196: Nah - Ron Paul is finished.

dcoffee writes at 02:31:10 03/27/08 - Comment #33191: Sitting out! whoa not a good term. voting third party is one of the most bad-ass things you can do! I always vote third party, even if I vote for a Democrat it's usually on the Working Families line.

Anyone else wondering if Ron Paul is going to make a Libertarian run?

janelle writes at 02:08:13 03/27/08 - Comment #33190: Cynthia McKinney??? Really? I need to start following my own party more closely. If she gets the nomination, looks like I'll be one of those people sitting out on this election.

mrmike writes at 02:08:07 03/27/08 - Comment #33189: I agree with you Josh. Hillary has been almost "Sybil-esque" in taking on whatever personality to get the night's soundbite. Lying about the Bosnian trip repeatedly is just the latest tidbit.

It's interesting watching them run out of things to talk about. After almost a year of campaigning before the primary season began, both are grasping at straws and Hillary especially is saying whatever (Witness yesterday's hopping on the Rev Wright bandwagon) happens to suit that day.

dcoffee writes at 01:51:19 03/27/08 - Comment #33188: I'm toying with the idea that the Clintons want revenge on the Republicans for how they tortured and impeached Bill when he was in office.

I think once we got to the general debates Clinton supporters would end up voting for Obama, when him and McCain are next to each other, they'll see the difference.
Some of Limbaugh's republicans might have voted for Clinton instead of McCain, but they can stay home instead, not sure.
A lot of Obama supporters on the other hand, especially if there's an undemocratic convention upset, they will stay home or vote third party. We're talking about a couple hundred thousand refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils in every state, I'm just making that number up, but there would be a huge turnout difference. Watch, if Obama is the nominee, record breaking turnout numbers.
Cynthia McKinney is probably going to be the Green Party nominee too, she would definitely take a chunk of the vote against Hillary.

joshua writes at 01:19:55 03/27/08 - Comment #33186: What is said about Hillary Clinton is true. She is willing to do whatever it takes, and if that means fracturing the party even more than it already is and making the Convention unworkable, then so be it. She and Bill think they have a divine right to be back in the White House, are watching a dream slip away right before their eyes - bottom line, they are pissed off. Even the surrogate Clintonoids are angry - Carville is a disgrace for calling Richardson "Judas."

More and more information is coming out suggesting that if Obama wins, Clinton supporters will vote McCain, and if Clinton wins, Obama supporters will either stay home or vote third party. Based on the Democrat on Democrat vitriol I've read and heard over the past few months I am not surprised if this would turn out to be the case. All partisanship aside, I'm astonished at the infighting the Democrats are doing.

Honestly, if I were a betting man I would put my dough on this ending a tad ugly.

Permalink: My_Superdelagate_Letter.html
Words: 727
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: war

03/19/08 09:51 - 43ºF - ID#43732

War 5 Years, Numbers & Analysis

As you may know, today is the 5th anniversary of the war in Iraq. 5 years, and so little to show for it.

Somebody once wrote that it's easier to fool somebody into accepting a Big Lie. We all commit small lies, but when it comes to life and death, it's hard for us to believe somebody would trick us, and lie about something that serious. Something like war.

America was fooled on purpose.
I tried to stop it.
And as time goes on there is more and more evidence like the Downing street Memo, which tell us that the "reasons" for the war, were nothing but excuses.
WMD, links to terrorists, nuclear weapons, "We don't want the Smoking Gun to be a mushroom cloud". All of it, just for the sake of Fear. This was not an investigation. The goal was always war. A better goal for a democratic nation would be justice, order and stability.

The congress and the press failed us. They believed the Whitehouse, instead of scholars and generals. They followed the herd, instead of getting a second opinion.

Today, there are no good options in Iraq. We leave, and Iraq falls apart. We stay, and America falls apart.

We have nothing good to show for ourselves after 5 years.

National Debt, international hatred, economic crisis...
These are deep wounds, serious problems, that we willfully brought upon ourselves.
And the fact that we've gotten rid of some punk dictator, and trained a couple thousand Iraqis to manage their country again doesn't make me feel better about it.

Fuck the War.

War Numbers,

Timeline before the war 2001-2003, How this all started.
Remember this.
First Ultimatum: We demanded Saddam let Weapons Inspectors in or face war. Saddam let them in by November 2002. Iraq is stubborn at first, but making concessions and actively disarming.
March 2003, Hans Blix is in Iraq looking for WMD, publishes the first Weapons Inspection report, Things going well, cooperation.
Dispite progress Bush strangely "advises" UN Inspectors to leave the country in the middle of their work. Next day...

Second Ultimatum: Saddam Leave the Country, and take your two sons with you in 48 hours, or else we bomb you. (this impossible request, on live TV, is what realy led to war. Saddam agreed to inspections, so Bush just raised the bar to an impossable height)

I challenge you to go back and read some of this. We lived through it, but in retrospect we can see just how bogus these claims were.
September-November 2002 is interesting, that's when Bush speaks to the UN, the US Congress passes the Authorization to use force in Iraq, and Saddam Lets the UN Inspectors into the country.

Also interesting the just before the war after about March 7 2003, Check out some of the news articles published then, it feels like 1984.

Bush in his own words

Timeline of the War 2003-2008
Just browse through this timeline, it highlights some of the major news with photos and gives details. you'll be amazed at all the stuff the you haven't thought about in a while.

Articles

Buffalo News Article

UK Article, inside Iraq

War Hurting the American Economy

War and the Working Class

Share your Thoughts, Links, and News Articles below.

dcoffee writes at 06:25:36 03/20/08 - Comment #33000: Another link, Quotes from the Iraq War Sales Pitch
:::link:::
Cost, Casualties, time, troops, cakewalk

dcoffee writes at 01:30:05 03/20/08 - Comment #32997: Great New Documentary
Leading to War: See Where the Truth Lies :::link:::
Lots of video clips from the sales pitch for war.

One more thought. Right before the war, the UN Inspectors were in Iraq looking for weapons. The US kicked them out before they were done. Why not let them collect new evidence, and finish their work, before deciding if there was an imminent threat that justified invasion?
The Bush administration wanted to invade, and they knew there was no justification. They had private reasons for war, WMD and terrorism were only excuses that would never be proven, but they sounded good to a public terrified by 911.

dcoffee writes at 12:47:51 03/20/08 - Comment #32996: To Clarify,
When this president went to war he trusted Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Condi Rice. These people are not qualified to predict anything about the Middle East, except where the oil is.
Before going to war you should get the opinion of people who have actually lived there (wow what a concept), Diplomats and ambassadors who have negotiated with leaders in the Middle East. Scholars who spend their lives studying a region, visiting, researching and analyzing trends.

The problem during the lead up to this war, the media, Congress and the Executive branch neglected the opinion of scholars, diplomats, ambassadors, experts, and generals. They didn't want to listen, because the vast majority of experts were saying Bush was full of shit, they were resigning in protest, publishing books and articles, and otherwise trying to speak out, but America didn't listen. We still haven't accepted our failure.

If I knew this was bullshit, and I was just some college student at a state school, why couldn't congress figure it out?

joshua writes at 12:05:02 03/20/08 - Comment #32994: I think academics are useful as advisers but NEVER on actual policy making. Academics just aren't equipped for politics, nor can they make military decisions.

James you don't need to defend your humanities education! Without the humanities human culture would be a blank page.

james writes at 11:18:41 03/20/08 - Comment #32993: Jason, experts on a region are very often professors, Humanities professors. An English professor has not helped the president make a decision on international affairs since Clinton deployed an armada of sestinas to Bosnia.

Just wanted to stick up for my useless humanities education.

jason writes at 09:56:44 03/20/08 - Comment #32991: As always, I appreciate the post. See the thing is for me, I absolutely MUST distinguish between what is real, not real, cold hard fact, or simply supposition. As Carl Sagan said, and I use this quote all the time, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I take this attitude whether the claim is that Iran has a nuke, or whether the claim is that we were fooled on purpose.

Generals are the military equivalent of top corporate executives. Some of the motivations are the same. They also have different opinions about how a task can be accomplished. They are not monolithic. The biggest complaint I heard from Generals back in the beginning was that the politically motivated "light footprint" idea was nonsense, and that you needed a real force to get the job done right. Looking back it is hard to disagree.

Now, as far as scholars are concerned, I wonder what scholars you mean. If a sitting President were to take their cues on National Security, War and Peace from some random Humanities professor, or media studies professor, or English professor, I would say without a doubt they are a damned fool, and embarrassingly unfit to be our CIC. Now, if you were to ask an expert on the region for information on the pulse of the area, and what exactly their concerns are, what the cultural challenges are, if that's what you meant, then I would agree.

Of course, it is obvious to everyone that the aftermath has been handled abysmally, and was ill considered. All this money and blood and I can't say exactly what we've bought. One thing I can guarantee you is that the committed anti-war types who want an instant pullout, and impeachment, will never ever get what they want. That road leads only to a dead end. As I've said before, we are stuck eating our shit sandwich, and have to develop a smart plan to get the hell out without rendering useless everything we've done to this point. That is what you will get from a President Obama.

One last thing, I have to say this, I have an extremely cynical view of Liberal Elites like those at The Nation. They don't understand the military, they do not want to understand the military, other than as a humanitarian org, and a working class, Union, blue collar guy like my father would NEVER be allowed into their circles or little soirees. They think of people like my Dad as little people to be taken care of, to have things decided for them by the Elites. No, no, no. Fuck that. Sorry, just a little rantish side thought there.

dcoffee writes at 08:57:39 03/20/08 - Comment #32990: Axis of Evil, one down two to go.

paul writes at 10:29:20 03/19/08 - Comment #32986: I don't know what you are talking about. I feel so much safer without Saddam's finger on the nuclear weapons, right?

james writes at 10:24:42 03/19/08 - Comment #32985: They grow up so fast. One day you are participaiting in a 'die in' and then BAM it is five years later and you have run out of inconvenient spots to pretend you are dead.

Permalink: War_5_Years_Numbers_amp_Analysis.html
Words: 614
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

03/13/08 09:15 - 41ºF - ID#43656

News Roundup

So much News So little time.

Pentagon Cancels Release of Report that finds Iraq had no link to Al Qaeda.

"An exhaustive Pentagon review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network."

This is not news to me, Al Qaeda hated Saddam, they wanted to overthrow the bastard to have a chance at religious theocracy in Iraq. Bush wanted to link these two bad guys to have a justification to invade Iraq on a wave of post 911 blood-thirstiness. And it worked, when we invaded 70% of the country thought Saddam was "personally involved" in the 911 attacks,

even though there were no Iraqis on the planes, but Americans didn't get that either. Propaganda anyone? Stop taking what politicians say in a speach as the official fact. Especially when we're talking about war. *cough* Iran *cough*

If I knew there was no link, Why didn't Hillary Clinton? "(Saddam) has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001." - Clinton October 10, 2002

Anyway, the report, with the obvious conclusion, finally coming from the Pentagon, is not going to be quite as public anymore.

If they don't talk about it, maybe it will just go away right?

Put that together with the fact that almost 4,000 of our soldiers have died in Iraq alone, many more wounded. Fighting for our.. um.. what.. our right to tell other nations what to do? I'm not sure anymore.

And we've been there for 5 years on March 19,

And it's costing us 12 Billion per month

and over 3 trillion so far, 50 times more than the 60 billion predicted in 2003,

Add that to higher oil prices, stronger terrorist networks, and a less stable world, and a less safe USA, and you might want to... oh I don't know Impeach the President!

Deep Breath... next

The Iraq War is only 2% of media coverage.

No news is Good news... for the bush administration and McCain at least, if we don't hear about Iraq it must be going great. A perfect time to cancel the release of the Pentagon Report so Iraq doesn't become news again. The lack of media coverage is partly to blame for the fact that only 20% of Americans know we're about to hit 4,000 dead in Iraq

At least I'm talking about Iraq here right? I'm doing my part.

Admiral Fallon, the top US commander for the Middle East Abruptly Resigns.

Who is this guy? Probably the highest ranking officers in position of power trying to talk sense into a bush administration hell bent on World War III. You know telling Bush it would be a bad idea to bomb Iran.
What? We'll be greeted as liberators! More Kool-Aid Please.

Quoting Fallon
"This constant drumbeat of conflict ... is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." What America needs, Fallon says, is a "combination of strength and willingness to engage."

Bush Quote Instead
"Like al Qaeda and the Sunni extremists, the Iranian regime has clear aims: They want to drive America out of the region, to destroy Israel, and to dominate the broader Middle East. To achieve these aims, they are funding and arming terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which allow them to attack Israel and America by proxy."

Talking trash and telling countries they are pert of the "Axis of Evil", and we might bomb their country if we feel like it, doesn't help anybody, every time bush gets on the TV and threatens Iran it makes us less safe.

Read more about Fallon resigning

.

Presidential Politics.

The math is against Clinton, she needs about 64% in all states to overtake Obama, not happening.

The only way she can win is if the super-delegates appoint her at the convention, against the will of the people. That sounds pretty terrible right, we have all kinds of young people voting for the first time, huge turnout, new grassroots networks, and millions of people believing that if they vote, they can take back the government. Protesting in the streets didn't work, but maybe voting will, that's how everyone tells us democracy works right?

But the Democratic party could just say, thanks for your opinion, I know you spent months of your life working for this candidate, but you can't have him. You don't know what the hell your doing, let us take care of the government, you're too stupid to be trusted with that kind of power.

The Democratic party has no desire to snub their voters at a time like this. I know it was supposed to be Clinton's turn to be president, sorry, I'd like to see a woman president too. But Barrack Obama is just a better candidate.

But Clinton is counting on the super-delegates appointing her in the end. Probably the reason her campaign keeps mentioning Obama as a splendid Vice President, but a terrible Commander in Chief, like that makes any sense. But maybe, she can convince us that really it was her turn, but she will let Obama be VP.

Hillary Clinton and her campaign had a private meeting in DC with her big donors today "the clear message emerging from the presentations was that Hillary's success depends on the campaign's ability to persuade the super-delegates that they should be considering three "data points," as this fundraiser puts it, in considering whom to back: The pledged delegate count, the popular vote, and the specific states won by each candidate."

I have bad news for Clinton, she's not winning the popular vote or the delegate count, and she's right that those things do matter.

I'm starting to think The Clintons really want their power back so they can get revenge on the Republicans for impeaching Bill Clinton, and going after him for all those years. They were a royal pain in the ass, and still are. I think the Clintons have their pockets full of smear tactics and venom that they were intending to use on the Republicans, but Obama has been getting their dirty tricks cause he got in the way.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Sorry.. I know this is long already and I wanted to get straight to the point here. What the fuck is that? And this woman hung around for an entire week before voluntarily resigning her post as a fundraiser for the Clinton campaign?

Obama has gotten to this point because he's black... funny, cause that didn't work for Jessie Jackson, or Al Sharpton... We've had a black presidential candidate almost every election for the past 30 years. But Ms. Geraldine Ferraro can say that crap and pretend it's fair, it's objective, it's just the truth nobody wants to admit right? No, it's a smear tactic, meant to win points with other racists. Obama got this far because he's a good candidate. Because he's run a good campaign, and risen above petty attacks like this.

And Hillary had this to say "It's regrettable that any of our supporters _ on both sides, because we both have this experience _ say things that kind of veer off into the personal." yea, take that, I love Black people.

On the Obama Campaign, an Staffer named Samantha Powers called Hillary a "Monster" and was gone the next morning. Hillary still has not condemned Ferraro's remark. Not to mention the Muslim thing that came from her campaign chair in Iowa, and the Drug Dealer thing, and the Obama doesn't know the words to the Pledge of Allegiance thing... yea real cool. If the truth doesn't work, make something up.

Olberman did his homework and found at least 3 occasions where Ferraro said the same crap about Obama. But the media is taking it out of context... sure they are. Interesting, the first time we herd about Ms. Ferraro this campaign season, she was calling Obama, Edwards, the Media, and the entire nation sexist for confronting Hillary.

Ok she may be right about the nation, and about Chris Matthews. But now that someone is calling her statements Racist, she thinks that the Obama Campaign owes her an apology for calling her racist. And she's not even close to being sorry for what she said.

Here's Olbermann

"Senator Clinton Isn't A Republican, As Far As I Know"

't-a-r_b_91187.html

Found that title while looking for some sources for this entry it cracked me up. The title is a play on Hillary's response to the muslim garbage "there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know," she said on 60 minutes.

Anyway, there's all the news that's fit to bother me, for now.

joshua writes at 12:39:43 03/17/08 - Comment #32850: David the point of the surge was to crush violence! It wasn't going to create a political solution - for that matter liberals have claimed for years that the military is incapable of creating a political solution, which is something I tend to agree with. To the degree that it could have had anything to do with politics, our surge bought the Iraqis time to create one for themselves to come up with a solution, which they have not done. They are deciding their own future and are taking their sweet ass time doing it.

Anyway thats not why I've posted - your journal entry popped in my head today when I was reading the news - an article in the Miami Herald addressed the exact topic you were interested in. Check it out -

:::link:::

A direct quote -

"There is always news out there if you look for it," said Jon Klein, CNN U.S. president. "What too many news organizations were doing was covering the car bomb du jour, and when the car bombing ceased, the coverage ceased."

I told you they were focused on the negative stuff only, and being lazy to boot. Now we have the word directly from the horse's mouth.

dcoffee writes at 01:02:08 03/14/08 - Comment #32735: Thanks Josh, I hope people read the whole thing, I try to be specific, direct, and a bit entertaining. And you know I really value different opinions, especially those from the non-neo-con type conservatives like yourself.

About your War opinion, there has been a reduction in violence, but the political progress has not been made. That was the point of the surge, so I don't view it as a success.

If you were a militia and the Americans are at full strength, and they're handing you cash to "keep al Qaeda out of the neighborhood" you might want to wait it out instead of attacking the them. But are we building anything that will stick around after we leave? Because we do have to leave, we can't continue to spend this kind of money, going into debt, just to blow stuff up and rebuild it overseas. Where's all this money going anyway, to Haliburton, so they can do substandard work that ends up getting torn down because it's a health hazard? Then Halliburton moves their headquarters to Dubai? I thought war was supposed to help _our_ economy, not Dubai. And what's up with the gas prices, if the plan was to steal their oil we failed at that too.

sorry I digress.

We do have Iraq News today apparently, and you can say I told you so, cause it's bad news.
- Petraeus: Iraqi Leaders Not Making 'Sufficient Progress' -
:::link:::

Oh one last thing. This is one of the reasons why I can't listen to Rush Limbaugh without swearing. To be fair, you only said we "don't want to hear good news" and that holds more water. But just to make the point, Liberals do not want to surrender or let the terrorists win. Sure bad news allows me to say I told you so, but we don't want to surrender, we want to be safe just like everyone else. We just don't believe force is the best tool. I know there are bad guys out there who won't listen to anything else, but we should prove the need for force beyond any doubt, and through that process, we prove to the world that we are a just and honest country that doesn't deserve hatred. The only way toward peace is to prove that we are good, just, and honest. You know the crap we've pulled with other governments, we got some work to do. That's part of what makes me so angry at Bush.

PS, thanks for the nomination Drew! Season's not over yet though.

joshua writes at 12:18:39 03/14/08 - Comment #32734: Eh, anytime somebody commits their time and effort to lengthy posts involving civics, I think the person at least deserve attention and a proper reading of what he wrote.

dcoffee writes at 12:13:37 03/14/08 - Comment #32733: I know this is long guys, don't be intimidated I really enjoy one sentence comments too. Perhaps my longest post ever, but I try to make it entertaining.

jason writes at 11:04:21 03/13/08 - Comment #32704: I fully plan on reading all of this epic post carefully soon, but first thought that came to my mind was:

I'm pretty sure that it has long since been reported and admitted by the government that no "operational links" (think about what exactly that means or doesn't mean) existed between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. I don't think that's the information our government wants to keep hidden. What is it? I suppose right now we can only guess.

I was shocked by what Ferraro said, and imagine if someone said something like that about Hillary, except that the insinuation was that the fact Hillary is a woman is the reason for her rise to the top. The Sisterhood would shit a solid fucking brick.

That is just straight up wrong wrong wrong, and I don't believe it for one second concerning Obama. I'm not even an Obama supporter, I probably will never vote for him, but I understand his blackness isn't what attracts people to him. She's a repeat offender, and deserves scorn for it. The cynical side of me says it was planned, for a surrogate to say the scandalous shit instead of the candidate.

I still have to read it all, and I probably won't (as usual for me) agree with all of it or even respond but you've made the effort and so I'll check the rest of it out later.

joshua writes at 10:00:25 03/13/08 - Comment #32701: There is nothing more hilarious to me than a career liberal like Geraldine Ferraro being accused of being a racist by OTHER LIBERALS! Democrats always eat their own. The Clinton slash and burn tactics have come to bite them in the back... and I don't know why she wouldn't condemn Ferraro. Allow me to take the piss for a second - I think its because she's a woman!

I know that its incredibly unfashionable to say so, but the reason why Iraq isn't a big ticket item in the news is because the news is far less negative than it used to be - at this point every credible news organization acknowledges that things are improving in the country. As you well know David, savvy news readers understand that negative news always comes first because, well, it sells papers and gets website hits. People reject this because they expect the impossible - perfection. These people are not military experts and don't know the foggiest thing about it, really. Not to mention that most of the people complaining believe that the soldiers are the cowards and that the people running to Canada are heroes.

Lets be honest - the people that are complaining don't want good news anyway - they never have and they never will. Its really that simple. The biggest crime the press has committed isn't the lack of reporting but the lack of reporting on the progress in the country. These "patriots" in the media have done our country a grave disservice because of their personal hatred of President Bush.

The $3T estimate as its been assembled is wrong. The book is littered with examples of "fuzzy math," as the example I cited previously with death benefits illustrates. The government pays $400k per death to the family. The government itself, as the authors illustrate, value the life of a person who died due to health and safety concerns at $7m. One figure is the actual payout, and the other figure is the one that isn't actually paid out - I'll give you one guess as to which is used in the $3T estimate. The book is littered with examples like this that compromise the entire exercise.

The truth is that we have, to this point, have spent $800b or so. Its a staggering amount of money. When its said and done its unreasonable to think it could easily double or triple. What I want is a credible study, and I'm sorry but the Stiglitz book is not when they include examples as I've shown.

I won't get into the obvious agenda-driven baggage the economists' co-author harbors - she is releasing a book in June about how government money should go into more socialist-style public services. Where do you suppose she wishes that $3T went? It doesn't take a genius to realize that this is going to skew her work, and to be honest, it shows in an embarrassing way. In reading the book it becomes patently obvious that the conclusion came before the beginning.

Sure, the author is a Nobel laureate, but so is Yassir Arafat, Jimmah Carter and Al Gore. There is a differentiation between the scientific and, well, fluff awards that I willingly acknowledge, but I think Stiglitz has tarnished his credibility by having his name on the book. Its as if he traded his scientific credibility for liberal popularity, because as usual, the details never matter that much when you get the answer you like.

As for Obama - wait until we see who plays the race card once the general election season hits. Then we can talk about who is being cynical! Anyone want to wager with me that not Obama, but a campaign surrogate or classic race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson will be the ones to cry racism when people start scrutinizing Barack Obama? Obama has absolutely, positively gotten a free pass up to this point. The rhetorical question - why is that?