"Sick of the Swing Voters" written by Dcoffee on estrip.org

08/22/08 09:26 - 68ºF - ID#45408

Sick of the Swing Voters

I can't take it anymore. Seems like the Obama Campaign is resorting to conventional wisdom, moving to the center, compromising, watching the polls, and changing his position to appease the schmucks who make up their minds based on TV adds.

Telling people what they want to hear will fuck you over. You can't change the game of politics, without changing the game of presidential campaigning. Being honest and truthful isn't enough. Registering millions of new voters isn't enough. Fighting the smears isn't enough.

Here's the problem, The largest voting block in America IS THE ONE THAT STAYS FUCKING HOME! It's the young voters and the cynics. How did Obama get the nomination? By inspiring millions of people to volunteer their time. By making people feel like they could be part of the solution. Making us feel like we had the power to take the country back. The new generation of voters is ready to see some serious change in this country, and we're willing to do it our fucking selves. Those are the people you need.

Oh sure, you can register a million new voters, but come election day, they need to be passionate about their candidate, not just scared of the other guy. Or else they won't bother.

I don't know who Obama is talking to but he's getting some bad advice. Remember the Gas Tax holiday? Yea, he called it a sham, and got enough respect to bounce over Clinton. But today we're talking about Offshore Drilling, and suddenly Obama is an appeaser. The Oil Comapnies have leases to 100 million acres of land, 33 million of which are offshore

But they aren't drilling because they make more money when supply is tight. Force McCain to address that question, are you with the Oil Companies or with the American people? But instead Obama wimps out, drilling should be part of the energy formula blah blah... If the oil companies still have lands where they can get oil they don't need more, we can talk about that when they've used what they already have. Taking on the oil companies makes you a hero, thanks for blowing that one.

Add the FISA bill to the list of wimp-outs, and the bullish rhetoric toward Iran. And you start to look like the same old same old. That doesn't get my vote, it doesn't get me to volunteer to phonebank from my home, or pick up a friend on the way to the polling booth, or to sit at a table on campus to register voters. And it won't get my father in-law back to Pennsylvania as a campaign volunteer either. Now you start to see why the ambiguous middle doesn't matter.

Me, you think I'll vote for him anyway, I'm a New York Democrat now, so why not take my vote as a given, and start campaigning for the center. Actually no, I'm one of those crazy motherfuckers who will vote for Cynthia McKinney just to prove a point. Wasting my vote? Yea right, she will appreciate it more than the chosen two. And I'll keep voting with my finger in the air until I get my third party.

dcoffee writes at 06:07:43 08/22/08 - Comment #38057: Josh The studies that I cited are compiled by Liberal outlets, but the data and the surveys is as objective as possible. This is public information, we used the same stuff in my political science classes, it's not like any of those "Fox news polls", I've seen some of those questions, very leading.
You are right that elections are much more accurate than polls at showing American preferences. But what about the people who don't vote, I have many friends who I cannot convince to go out and vote, they are straight up cynical about the whole system. I want the democrats, or somebody, to connect with that group. What are their issues?

joshua writes at 03:23:52 08/22/08 - Comment #38046: I would suggest that national elections bear out the mood of the electorate over the years in the best fashion. Democrats have always been more effective locally than they have been nationally, and the opposite is the case for Republicans. You can imagine what I think about The Nation and Media Matters, David. Do you want me to start quoting polls from The Weekly Standard? =P

I don't think progressives can blame Republicans for their lack of effectiveness. Liberals have been bad at the political game for a long time - in 2004 I heard Lewis Black rip a 10-minute comedy piece on the subject for crying out loud. There is a kernal of truth to what you are saying, but what I'd suggest is that progressives have to do a better job of defining their positions. Just don't blame the electorate when they don't agree with you! Obama is watering it down now, which you've talked about. You are asking why - I am telling you that it is because he knows the aggressive progressive agenda you are talking about is not palatable to the American middle class that he needs to win. McCain is crushing him in the middle right now. The people aren't stupid - they know what Barack Obama stands for. Liberals for a long time have never given voters credit for thinking for themselves because, well, they lose all the time.

(e:drew) - there was nothing unconstitutional about that bill. In fact the federal version (The Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002) was identical and passed with no complaint from the likes of NARAL, Ted Kennedy and other staunch pro-choice advocates. At the time Obama complained about the lack of a "neutrality clause" - when it was added he voted down the bill anyway. Incidentally it was the neutrality clause (it guaranteed that the new act wouldn't affect erosion of the right to an abortion) that guaranteed broad support. This is why it is so shocking - every pro-abortion Senator in Congress voted for a bill identical to that which Obama voted down.

When Obama ran for Senate he claimed that he voted it down because it lacked the neutrality clause. It was a lie - anyone can see in the record that the language was included in 2001 and he voted it down in three straight sessions going into 2003. You can see why it is a point of comedy for me when the Obammunists think this is a smear.

Anyway, since linking to partisan sources is now credible (only teasing, D) here is an article on the subject - :::link:::

dcoffee writes at 03:19:59 08/22/08 - Comment #38045: Sorry to ramble so much, but let me get back to this, since I don't feel like like we can define how conservative or liberal America is anyway.

When you drift toward the center you end up with a confused platform, and you don't inspire people to work hard for your campaign. Your supporters start to wonder if you really support their issue or not. Democratic campaigns have failed time and again because of their focus on the center. The republican base is inspired to support their candidate, and they bring friends to the pols. The Democratic base is sitting at home thinking that no matter how they vote nothing will change. That is the biggest problem for democrats, supporters stay home, or if you're like me, you stick to your ideals and vote Green. Democrats need people like me, and my Father-in-law if they expect to win, ever.

drew writes at 02:58:30 08/22/08 - Comment #38043: right on, d

drew writes at 02:57:54 08/22/08 - Comment #38042: The vote was against an unnecessary, unconstitutional bill. Obama would have been wise to simply not vote, but you can hardly use this to say he was in favor of infanticide. He's against bad legislation.

dcoffee writes at 02:45:09 08/22/08 - Comment #38041: I'd say the problem is that progressive values have been defined by the republicans running against them. They have been very good at creating stereotypes, coming up with catch phrases like "socialized medicine" and otherwise demonizing progressive issues. Progressives haven't had a clear platform for many years. It's not that Americans don't agree with progressives, they just don't know what we stand for. But Americans in general are progressive, I know I have to qualify that statement so.. Research/numbers :::link::: :::link::: of course it's in the liberal press but you can still read the poll questions and see numbers.

joshua writes at 02:24:33 08/22/08 - Comment #38040: "No I don't want to give Bush my tax money, he will blow it on Halliburton." D that is ridiculous!

You are correct that Republicans have never had to bow to the center to win. That is because they don't have to - Democrats could never copy the strategy and expect to win. The reason is because conservative politics have been tried and tested, and win national elections regularly. Progressive politics do not. It could be argued that middle America relates to traditionalist values far more than they relate to "San Francisco" values. Actually, I'll go ahead and say that I'd wager that is true.

(e:drew) - do you really believe that the infanticide vote should be disregarded? They are talking about killing babies that survive abortion. He voted against a bill that would have stopped such a practice in Illinois.

:::link:::

Really. What about all of this is so misleading - did me make the vote or not? If anything is a red herring it is the neutrality clause! All of this looks fairly devastating.

drew writes at 01:49:13 08/22/08 - Comment #38036: That "infanticide" vote is a pure red herring.

dcoffee writes at 01:48:49 08/22/08 - Comment #38035: Oh, I forgot one, "Tax = bad" "small government = good" The dominant logic is that the government is the problem. People forget that a competent and transparent government can actually solve problems, and spend our collective resources wisely. The New Deal programs are the only thing keeping Americans comfortable enough so we don't start rioting in the streets.

No I don't want to give Bush my tax money, he will blow it on Halliburton. But I think Americans would have gladly accepted a tax increase to pay for the war. Americans will give money to support worthy causes.

dcoffee writes at 01:37:40 08/22/08 - Comment #38031: Republicans don't win elections by appeasing the center. Let's take 2004 Bush and Kerry. Did Bush wiggle at all on Gay Marriage, the War, Tax Cuts for big Business, Abortion, Healthcare? He didn't wiggle, he stuck to the issues of his supporters, and they worked hard for him. Josh you're exactly right on this, Obama does need to "convince middle America". But the term is "Convince them", not appease them, cause then you look like you either don't have faith in your own ideas, or you just don't know what the hell you're doing. Remember, Kerry was the flip-flopper.

You can convince middle America that you have the best answer, but you don't do it by suddenly watering down your idea and meeting your opponent halfway. Sure you have to do that in the Senate, but in a campaign you need to defend your own agenda, and make your opponent justify why they oppose your good ideas.

I'd say, the Republicans have gotten this far by motivating their core supporters based on hot button wedge issues. Not by drifting to the center. That's why the pundit declared "center" has moved so far toward republican dogma.

"tax cuts for big business creates jobs" "military muscle is the only way to defend ourselves" "the market will naturally take care of global warming" "Free market healthcare is the best in the world"
Sounds like the Right has done a better job of telling the center what to believe. In 2004 Democrats didn't even have a platform outside of abortion and gay marriage, Democrats need do get their populism back.

joshua writes at 01:20:03 08/22/08 - Comment #38028: It is an interesting strategy but in my view it is a loser in a general election. In primaries progressives can win all day long doing that, particularly because of the financial clout that liberal organizations and the blogosphere now wield. I truly believe that the bigwigs fear DailyKos, which is why they work so hard to keep them happy. There is some shame in that, though - if you look at the comments left by many of the readers of the site some of these people are subhuman.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Obama will not win without winning the center, particularly this year and particularly because he is so far behind McCain in centrist core issues. Independents are going to choose the President this time around, but I don't think progressives should worry too much about what Obama is saying. Take a look at his voting record (allow me to snicker for a second - take a look at that infanticide legislation in ILL!) and you'll see that progressives have nothing to worry about. National Journal rated him the most liberal senator. He is not a centrist, but he has to convince independent voters that he's trustworthy. He's losing that battle at the moment.

drew writes at 01:02:41 08/22/08 - Comment #38025: oops. I guess I am with DCoffee, not ajay.

drew writes at 01:01:50 08/22/08 - Comment #38024: I'm with ajay in that a politician doesn't necessarily have to move to the center if he/she can register/get out the many people who don't vote.

This is a difficult and unconventional strategy, but it is the one that won Obama the primary. I wish he had chosen to stick with it in the general election.

paul writes at 12:15:07 08/22/08 - Comment #38014: I totally agree with you.

ajay writes at 11:39:07 08/22/08 - Comment #38010: (e:dcoffee) , from what I've heard, there's a hardcore block of (who else but) Republican congressmen who are pro-drilling. They will not accept any clean-energy initiative unless there's more drilling.

So the choices are: throw them a bone and get them to go along, or do nothing.

Obama is willing to throw them a bone if they'll agree to some massive investment in clean energy.

Of course, the real blame lies with the fucking retards who continue to vote these assholes into office based on the "ooohh... the terrrurists are gonna git us!" argument.

Vote on policies and ideas, people. Not on the label "Republican" or "Democrat".

joshua writes at 11:26:08 08/22/08 - Comment #38008: D -

Obama is moving to the center because he has to. He needs to convince middle America, not you! Swing voters will decide the election and I think the left, once again, has generally overestimated the popularity of progressive politics. I'd hang in there and not worry if I were you. We all know if he gets elected he'll throw middle America under the bus and pursue all the liberal policies that attracted you to him in the first place.

mrmike writes at 10:36:50 08/22/08 - Comment #38002: The zingers have been always been the case of late. None of what we've heard so far in the four years of campaigning (or so it seems) is going to figure into the election which is sad. You want more than sound bites.You want to believe in some hope, that there is some reason it won't be the same old, same old. Make you want to volunteer where the election will matter.

james writes at 09:49:05 08/22/08 - Comment #38000: I have to say, i am disappointed with his post-primary performance. It is such a different game though. There is almost no discussion of policy and it seems like a contest of who can spin the best zinger. booo.

Permalink: Sick_of_the_Swing_Voters.html
Words: 535
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

08/16/08 06:26 - 75ºF - ID#45343

new kittens

Well, I wanted to upload some pictures from the reception and honeymoon first, but I can't help moving on to our new kitties.

We got them as a wedding present from our neighbor Ed. We had two cats but they both passed away over the past year or so. He used to babysit them when we went on vacation, he's like the uncle who feeds your kids candy and sends them home all wired on sugar.

We got our two kittens from the SPCA after we came home from our honeymoon. They are sisters from the same litter, born as strays in north east buffalo.

This is Ally, she's the fuzzy cuddly one. she likes to purr and dig her little nose into your arm.

This is Moosewood the silly crazy one. She likes to jump on your lap and rub her cheeks on your face.

during the day they spend much of their time trying to get my attention while I'm trying to work.

Here's a few more photos.

Missing Image ;(

Enjoy!

Permalink: new_kittens.html
Words: 196
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

07/23/08 02:43 - 70ºF - ID#45111

Wedding Story Part 2

I want to preface this with a little note. I know there are some people on this site who can't legally get "married" to the one they love in NYS. In Buffalo Quaker Meeting there is a 70 year old woman who has spent half her life fighting for GLBT rights. And when NYS decides to turn the corner, I know Buffalo Quaker Meeting will be one of the first to recognize marriage for everyone who is in love, and I would be happy to be invited.

Part 2: The Ceremony.

We wanted to have the ceremony outside under this huge tree in the front yard, but we weren't sure if it would happen. The forecast was calling for 70% chance of rain. You can't control the weather, but I was just hoping for 2 rain-free hours to do the ceremony outside. The reception was going to be under a huge tent, so it didn't matter if it rained later in the day, but the ceremony would be so much nicer outside under the tree in the front of the house.

When we finished taking pictures at the lake it was windy, really cloudy, and it had rained on us a little. We went back to the house for the ceremony and we both expected the chairs to be safely under the tent. We arrived at the house, and the place looked totally different than how we left it. I'll never forget pulling into the driveway and seeing all these people, gathering in the country with their fancy clothes on, walking in a hundred different directions, moving out of the way of our car as we passed. And to our surprise all the chairs were confidently set up under the tree.

Getting Everything Ready

Our un-signed Wedding Certificate

There were people everywhere! We only had about 10-15 minutes before the ceremony started. I kind of led Molly through the jungle of people so we could go upstairs and get ready, "hi... good to see you, we gotta go hide upstairs..." We paused to give grandma a kiss on the cheek but that was it. I forgot to shave that morning, so I did that. Then I stuck my head out the door to check on the microphones. We waited on the steps, for things to start. Edgar gave everyone an overview of Quaker practice and what would happen during the ceremony. Then we walked out.

We sit in calm silence until we feel moved to say our vows. People might pray, or meditate, or just quiet down their minds to bring a spiritual calm into their hearts.

Quakers would call the silence during meeting, becoming centered, listening for the light within, or waiting for god. Quakers usually worship in silence, unless they are inwardly moved to speak. We waited about 10 minutes. This must have seemed like a long time to non-quakers, but I noticed many of them dreamily gazing at me and my bride, I think they understood. When we were both calm and ready, we said our vows. The sun was out.

First Kiss

Our Vows:
"In the presence of the spirit, our friends and our family, I take thee, to be my Wife. I promise with love, to be caring and compassionate, to be supportive and patient, to show understanding and empathy, to keep an open and honest heart, and to always nurture our shared unity as your Husband from this day forward."

We wrote our vows together, and remembered everything. After saying our vows, we exchanged Rings, and signed the Marriage Certificate.

Then we looked at each other and we both wanted a hug.

That's when everyone gets teary eyed. We sit back down again, and the marriage certificate is read aloud.

For the rest of the meeting we just wait silently for people to share messages from their hearts.

The dog was interested, but he was calm too.

Our View

Under the huge canopy of shade provided by the the ancient and sturdy Maple tree.

There is no minister leading the ceremony, anyone can speak if they are moved to do so. People just raise their hand for a microphone, and share what they wish. It's unscripted, and the messages are very personal, and very spiritual. We waited about 15 minutes in silence. The first message was a song called 'Simple Gifts', it was shared by someone from Buffalo Meeting. Below is a picture of all the people who shared.

As you can see, anyone can speak, weather they're 9 years old or 90. Many people shared stories about us, or they talked about love and marriage, how happy they were for us, and how good we are for each other. Something like this ... "listening to the leaves, and the birds, and feeling the warmth of the sun, it seems as if the heavens are celebrating with us." "May your love be as broad as the branches above you, and as deep as the roots below." "We love when they do First Day School, they're so nice and fun to be around." "The bride adopted us as her grandparents when she moved to Fredonia. She would arrive late at night to sleep at our house, we woke her up, fed her, and gave her a ride to Quaker Meeting on Sunday." "the groom and I have known each other since we were born, and we did all those important things together, like climbing trees or playing with legos." .... It was realy nice.

A few More Photos from during the messages.

Bride's Family

My Mom Sharing, she's so cute.

The Scene for our big Country Wedding.

After the Meeting Ends our families and wedding party sign the Marriage certificate. Everyone at the wedding also signs the certificate during the night. The entire ceremony was wonderful, things went so well, and we got to do it outside under the tree. We are very blessed. Afterward we said hi to some of the guests, and did family portraits.

Next time, the reception. Honeymoon stuff later too.

I'm glad I'm writing all this stuff down, it's nice to remember it now, and I want to keep all the details.

Enjoy

dcoffee writes at 08:21:06 07/24/08 - Comment #37363: I'm glad you guys can enjoy this too.
to answer paul's question, I'm not a quaker by birth, but my wife is. There aren't many Quakers around, Buffalo Meeting has like 150 members but about 20-30 attend each week. Orchard park has about 15-20 that attend. There are a lot more in Pennsylvania. And Quakers do play a pretty bad-ass role in history, with abolition and civil rights. And they're not like Amish people with buggies and whatnot. They're just a compassionate group of people, trying to live peacefully and coexist with life. They don't have have any promises or ritual, or dogma. Meeting is like a moment of silence, one that gets comfortable, and lasts for a while. Growing up I was one of those Christmas and Easter type Catholics, we went to the OLV Basilica, I enjoyed some things about church, my mom goes there every week now. I was always a spiritual kind of person. In college I just happened to meet my wife who was a Quaker, I found they fit very well for me. You don't have to be a Quaker to marry one, but I did become a member in the spring.

Quaker weddings are so flexible, you kind of have to make up some things as you go along, but that just makes it more personal. And the open microphone is great, i want to write down more of it cause I don't have any recordings.

Heidi, it's so weird working in the wedding business and then doing it for yourself.

Tiny, One thing I knew for sure, as a photographer, the bride should not wear a strapless dress :) They squeeze the brides body, and things hang out, even on skinny girls, trust me, I have to edit their photos. Unfortunately 90% of the dresses for sale are strapless, (e:mmtornow) had 3 choices, she tried it on in the store and ordered the same one on ebay anyway :) I'm also glad you can identify with the ceremony, it's hard to describe, but people are connected somehow, and the silence is very moving. The wedding certificate is longer, it had room for 175 names, it's a pretty big thing to have framed. Not sure about the flowers on top we didn't choose the type of flower, just the color. I'm pretty sure they are a real flower in nature.

Josh, it was great to hear people speak during the ceremony, I forgot to mention this, the first non-quaker to speak was the boy in the red shirt, my 17 year old cousin, he said something like, "i know marriage doesen't work out some times, for whatever reason, but I hope the two of you stay married and love eachother for a long time." Meeting actually went over about 20 minutes, people enjoyed the occasion.

joshua writes at 09:50:27 07/24/08 - Comment #37345: D - thanks for taking the time to share this occasion with us. This is is a way of doing it that seems so personal and beautiful - if my family and friends stood up individually to say things like that about me and my new wife, I don't know if I could hold back tears. Talk about meaningful!

paul writes at 12:11:31 07/24/08 - Comment #37341: Seriously, your ceremony sounds awesome and looks picture perfect. As for the Quaker thing, did you grow up quaker - I never met a quaker before - I kind of thought it was a historical movement.

heidi writes at 11:03:25 07/23/08 - Comment #37338: Once upon a time, I worked for a catering company that did oodles of wedding receptions. You can tell so much about people from their weddings & receptions... yours seems to have been a wonderful, joyous, loving occasion that reflects the grace and joy of your lives. It reminded me of my best friend's wedding two years ago, also very non-traditional, outside, by a lake. I teared all through hers and again while reading about yours. Thank you for sharing!

tinypliny writes at 09:54:21 07/23/08 - Comment #37334: Thanks so much for sharing with (e:strip)! Loved every minute of it!

Are those forget-me-nots on the top of the wedding certificate? They are pretty! Just curious though, did your certificate run into several pages? Such a cool concept. Imagine if someone who would become an extremely famous celebrity in the future, came to your wedding and signed it! :)

I am in love with (e:mmtornow)'s gown. When you are walking out, it has quietly assumed a life of its own and gives an ethereal dimension to the walk with a little twirl and flow. :) I also like the part about sitting in calm and getting acquainted mentally with your audience, your witnesses and yourself before you say what your heart knows. There is something so peaceful in connecting with people whom you are going to speak to. I know this is probably a somewhat unrelated experience but somehow I find it easier to express myself and speak clearly if I have made a kind of mental contact with my audience/patients/students/professors after a moment of silent communication. When I don't take this minute, invariably I sound flustered, indifferent, bored, impatient, snobbish or outright rude. The silent communion is a brilliant idea. :)

As I look at your wedding, I think back to a zillion of my cousins' and friends' weddings back home. Some were nightmares, some downright hilarious, some drunken revelries, dance manias, suffocating rituals, some all-night eating binges, some pompous shows of wealth, some five-minute court-signings (followed by one of the above) and a few were outright weird. I think I like your wedding the best. I need to cc the link to your journal entry to my whole crazy clan and broadcast across the pond and some mountains, now. ;-) I would have loved to be that woman sitting in the grass with her shoes off and enjoying it all in the best way possible. `

Totally flippant comment, but your sideburns rock! I have been trying to get my brother to grow them out. :)

I thoroughly enjoyed reading your story! If you see a spike in your views over the next couple months, it's probably me reloading the pictures to look at them all over again. Thank you! :^D

boxerboi writes at 04:38:14 07/23/08 - Comment #37328: congratulations! your ceremony looked amazing

dcoffee writes at 04:15:15 07/23/08 - Comment #37327: I should correct that, traditional weddings of many faiths can be impersonal, not just Christian.

dcoffee writes at 03:58:08 07/23/08 - Comment #37326: hehe, Drew, I hear your weddings are wonderful, I'd love to photograph one! I know you would want the ceremony to be personal for the bride and groom, and that's what's missing from the majority of cristian weddings I've been to.

I've photographed over 100 weddings, Jewish, Catholic, Indian, justice of the peace, etc. Planning my own, I had to keep asking myself "can I see myself there, and does it feel natural?" I had to slowly pry my head out of the traditional, cause it didn't work for me. I love working at the Statler Towers, and photographing in beautiful cathedrals, but I couldn't see myself in it. It's worth it to spend time making it your own.

drew writes at 03:01:36 07/23/08 - Comment #37325: You need to stop spreading the word about how great Quaker weddings are. I won't have as much work!

Just kidding, of course.

mrmike writes at 02:51:26 07/23/08 - Comment #37324: Very cool, seems more genuine than some by the book ceremonies, more yours than from some etiquette book

jason writes at 02:50:49 07/23/08 - Comment #37323: I really enjoyed this post. Thanks for sharing with us. I think about getting married and the big party and the big ceremony and I think I would be miserable!!! This seems so much more natural.

Permalink: Wedding_Story_Part_2.html
Words: 1073
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

07/18/08 10:52 - 78ºF - ID#45063

Wedding Story

Part One:

We got Married in the Fingerlakes at (e:mmtornow)'s parents house on June 28 2008, and had a 2 week Honeymoon in the Adirondacks afterward. My former co-workers did the photography, and they just gave me all the raw photos afterward, I've spent the past week editing them all. We have about 1000 photos from the wedding, and 1000 from the honeymoon. so this is part one.

We did a lot of work ourselves cause this was a backyard wedding, and we didn't have all that stuff banquet halls have. So we reserved the tent, tables, chairs, linens, and bought plates, napkins, decorations, booze etc. We went out to the Fingerlakes on Wednesday before the wedding to get things ready. We were pretty well prepared.

It was supposed to rain all week, but you can't control the weather, and the tent was big enough to hold everyone, so we didn't worry too much about it. I was just hoping to have the ceremony outside. Here's me and my new Bro-in-law on Thursday morning as the tent is being delivered. He's tall.

as you can see it was raining a bit then, and the forecast for Saturday went from 50% chance of rain to 70% through the week.

Friday Rehersal Dinner.
Glad we did this, because a lot of our 'people' had last minute concerns about everything. After answering about 135 questions apiece, I had a Headache, and (e:mmtornow) was wishing we had just done it at city hall, she was overwhelmed and in tears at the end. So we resolved to enjoy our wedding day no matter what. I told her if anyone asked us any questions on the Wedding day just say "that's your area of expertise, I trust your judgment" and move on. After almost a year of preparation, the wedding day we just had to let it fly. We weren't going to worry about it.

Saturday Morning:
Despite our decision to take it easy, there was a small list of things that needed to be done the day of the wedding. Picking up the beer, and making table numbers were the big ones. But I wasn't going to let (e:mmtornow) worry about it. The hair stylist came at about 9:00 and my plan was to let (e:mmtornow) hide in an air conditioned room while I delegated responsibility. Things went smoothly, I talked to all the 'people' mostly friends who happened to have the skills we needed. then I dropped everything and got dressed about Noon.

That's right, breaking with tradition we got ready together. We're not down with that superstitious tradition stuff. I feel like most of it comes from nervous medieval pre-contraception parents, and arranged marriages. We slept in the same bed, got ready together, and took portraits together before the ceremony. For me, as a wedding photographer, I see all kinds of brides getting ready, putting on their dress and hanging with the girls, it's one of those things, I couldn't miss part of my own wedding story. Actually I even took some pictures on my small camera before the photographers arrived. It made me feel relaxed :).

Bride, sans-wedding dress

Marvin wants to come

That's me checking the list in my head, and rushing to get my tie on for photos.

on the move

Portraits:
We headed to Seneca lake park with the Wedding Party before the ceremony. I'd definitely recommend taking portraits before the ceremony. You have a choice to sit in a room nervously awaiting 3 o'clock, or hang out with your closest friends in a park making each other smile. Pictures definitely kept us relaxed, even without champagne. The weather? It sprinkled a bit, not a problem, and the overcast skies were great for pictures. The photographers are Mike from New Visions Photography

my former boss, and Angela

my former co-worker. Real easy to work with and friends. They gave me all the Raw files, and did the wedding kind of as a favor.

Next Entry I'll do the Ceremony. We also got new kitties as a wedding present and I want to post stuff, but I'm doing the wedding first. Enjoy!

libertad writes at 06:31:20 07/19/08 - Comment #37208: Sorry, I meant to say nice photos and congrats! You both look very happy.

libertad writes at 06:29:56 07/19/08 - Comment #37207

imk2 writes at 02:26:14 07/19/08 - Comment #37193: wow your photos are simply beautiful! congratulations!

dcoffee writes at 11:02:07 07/18/08 - Comment #37179: Tiny, thanks so much. It was an amazing time, and I wanted everyone to be there, that's why I wrote it like this. I waited a few days to write about it and I think that was a good idea, I had time to remember the details and give everyone some context. I feel like I'm prolonging the magic by writing about it, and capturing it all so I can look back.
That reminds me, something funny as I go through the photos, I see a whole bunch of stuff that you missed. Like the wedding cake, I never actually looked at it, they set it up, we cut it, and then it was gone, but didn't really see the decoration until I looked at the photos :)

Thanks to everyone for reading and for your support, don't worry mmtornow reads the comments too, I know she appreciates it :)

tinypliny writes at 08:59:11 07/18/08 - Comment #37173: I think its so sweet of you to spare (e:mmtornow) some of the coordination headache! Weddings are major synchronization and planning routines! Also, hurray for getting rid of ridiculous superstition. I think it adds an extra layer of totally unnecessary anxiety and has absolutely no basis at all.

PS: I think I have already looked at the pictures and read the story around 10 times. The wedding story is delightful! :)

tinypliny writes at 08:41:31 07/18/08 - Comment #37169: Wow!! I feel like I was at the wedding! Thanks SO MUCH for sharing these absolutely GORGEOUS photographs and the wonderfully detailed story-telling. I followed along with the story and I feel so happy! I am having a very hard time picking favourites because you two look beautiful together in every single picture. I think I like the one where you and (e:mmtornow) are walking through the wild grass on the road. Very detailed and romantic! :) Again, thanks very much for sharing. Looking forward to Part-II!!

james writes at 04:43:42 07/18/08 - Comment #37164: Congrats. The photos came out really well.

carolinian writes at 11:55:24 07/18/08 - Comment #37158: Congratulations! I hope you have many happy years together!

mrmike writes at 11:51:52 07/18/08 - Comment #37157: Terrific photos, you guys look great. Hope it was an amazing time. Congrats.

paul writes at 11:17:49 07/18/08 - Comment #37156: Those photos are great. You guys look great. Looks like you had an amazing wedding, congrats!

jason writes at 11:11:47 07/18/08 - Comment #37155: You clean up nice! Great photos. Looks like everyone had a good time. Again, congrats!

Permalink: Wedding_Story.html
Words: 739
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

06/24/08 05:34 - 72ºF - ID#44771

Getting Married

(e:mmtornow) and I are about to tie the knot :) this weekend June 28 we are getting married in the Fingerlakes on her parents property. We've been together for 5 and a half years, living together for 3, and engaged for 2.5. The big weekend is here. We are having a Quaker Ceremony, and everything will be outdoors at her parents house. We have a big tent for dinner and the reception.

After photographing over 100 weddings, it has been interesting planning my own. We've found a way to make it personal, and meaningful. We are pretty laid back and frugal people. But we're attentive about aesthetics and we want our guests to feel comfortable and welcome. I think we've bent the traditional wedding mold quite a bit, and I'm thankful that our families are so accepting. Quaker ceremonies are very meaningful and sentimental, I'm glad to be part of this tradition. The reception will be fun too, we have a good DJ, and I think a bunch of people will be out on the dancefloor.

We have been planning for a long time, and at this point we have most of the arrangements wrapped up. I'll be posting some pictures when we get back from our honeymoon. We will be gone for 2 weeks in the Adirondacks, camping, backpacking, sitting by the lake, enjoying peace and quiet.

Just for reference we got engaged on 11/15/2005 (e:dcoffee,21694)

trisha writes at 09:20:41 06/26/08 - Comment #36488: whoo hoo! congrats and happy marriage!

mrmike writes at 10:36:06 06/24/08 - Comment #36443: Congrats

drew writes at 09:50:40 06/24/08 - Comment #36440: Because I know your politics (a little bit), I think you will appreciate the statement "Jesus is Lord," more if you learn more of the context.

It was originally a political protest. Caesar reserved the terms, "Lord," "Savior," and "Son of God" for himself. Proclaiming Jesus as any of these was a rejection of empire.

Of course, in today's American church, it is not often understood that way. But it was crystal clear in the first century.

janelle writes at 09:18:27 06/24/08 - Comment #36439: Congratulations! Thanks for the interesting explanation on a Quaker wedding.

paul writes at 08:13:20 06/24/08 - Comment #36436: Congratulations, you guys look so cute together.

dcoffee writes at 08:13:09 06/24/08 - Comment #36435: Thanks Everyone :) If I had a cell phone I just might live blog from the wedding :)

Here's a bit more about Quaker Weddings, for anyone who's interested.
Quakers generally do not forbid or mandate any type of ceremony or ritual, so all that is expected in a quaker wedding is that the couple say their vows, sign a marriage certificate, then someone reads the marriage certificate aloud, and worship continues with a normal one-hour semi-silent meeting for worship. It is common, but not required, to exchange rings. Prior to the wedding the couple meets with a marriage Clearness Committee, and is given consent to be married under the care of their Quaker meeting. Then there is a marriage oversight committee to oversee and help facilitate and plan the meeting for marriage.

What makes a quaker wedding different from other traditions.. The Bride is not given away by her Father. The wedding couple walks in to meeting together. There is no person who marries the couple (ie priest), they marry each other. There is no podium for designated speakers. There are frequent periods of silent reflection, meditation, or prayer, and any guest can speak out of the silence. Everyone attending becomes part of the marriage by signing the wedding certificate.

How we're doing it.. We wrote our own vows and marriage certificate, based on the practices of New York Friends Meeting. We had a calligrapher design a marriage certificate for us, it will hang on our wall after the wedding. We will walk into meeting together, after our families and wedding party are seated. There are many non-Quakers in attendance, so we will have an opening and closing speaker from our oversight committee to help get everyone on the same page. We sit in a spiritual silence until we are ready to say our vows. Then we exchange rings, sign the marriage certificate, and the certificate is read aloud. Meeting continues, and any guest can speak out of the silence and share their reflections on marriage love, or the bride and groom. Often family members share something. After meeting everyone signs the marriage certificate. mmtornow is wearing a wedding gown, and I'm wearing a suit.

Why not do it the normal way? Quakers are a Christian religion, but the focus is on personal growth and spiritual seeking, and personal inspiration, rather than reliance on a book or person for divine leading. I have been to many Catholic/Cristian weddings as a photographer, some are very moving and spiritual. Others, I'd say the majority, are routine exercises, and the emphasis on ritual is distracting. I hear the same readings over and over, and they've lost their impact. I like the one about how "love is not jealous or boastful.. it rejoices in the truth" The one I dislike is the one about how (paraphrasing) "Adam named all the beasts that god created but did not find a suitable companion, so god made him fall asleep and took his rib, encased it in flesh and called it woman, for it was taken from man." I've heard it interpreted in the homily, but I still think it's quaint, strange, and of course, gender biased. I also never understood why god has to be a man, and I never agreed with calling Jesus "Lord". I have read the first 3 books of the bible, and intend to read more. I also find power in group singing, like they do in church.

This is too long... I guess it's because I have been a spiritual person all my life, so I have thought about it. Mmtornow is lucky, she's been a Quaker since birth, after we met I started to learn about Quakers, and the more I learned the more I liked about them.

tinypliny writes at 07:53:42 06/24/08 - Comment #36434: Congratulations!!!!

PS: Is (e:mmtornow) wearing the awesome duct-tape dress? That would be so cool. :)

metalpeter writes at 06:54:10 06/24/08 - Comment #36427: So I take it by fun you mean you are having "The Real Wedding Crashers" crash the wedding, kidding that would be kinda cool though. Congratulations, and hope the weather is nice.

leetee writes at 06:27:17 06/24/08 - Comment #36421: congratulations. i hope your wedding is everything you both wish it to be, and that your life together continues to be happy. looking forward to the photos.

jenks writes at 06:19:02 06/24/08 - Comment #36419: congratulations! I hope you'll share pictures!

drew writes at 05:54:57 06/24/08 - Comment #36417: Congrats!

I thought Quakers just made vows during a regular meeting.

Care to provide some of the detail about what makes a Quaker ceremony special?

jason writes at 05:46:58 06/24/08 - Comment #36416: That's so great, man, I'm happy for you two. Have a great time. Nice picture of you in the entry as well. You could have smiled!!! (This is when I would say, I *am* smiling).

Permalink: Getting_Married.html
Words: 233
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: life

06/18/08 12:04 - 55ºF - ID#44698

Art Festival Pics

Had much fun this year at the Allentown and Allen West festivals. My friend came up from Angola, he hasn't been since he was a kid. It was fun going with them, they bought a bunch of stuff, and I got Mmtornow a great birthday present :). The weather was perfect, not as hot as it was the past few years. We went both days, I saw most of the festival with my friend on saturday, he wanted to see all of it cause it was a rare occasion for him. We were all sore from walking when we got back home for that well deserved beer. On sunday my main goal was taking pictures, I wanted to capture the scene.

You can see the photos larger at my Flickr Account

Nickel City Co-Op Festivities, "more living less parking"

The pigs have flown, you wild and improbable dreams are about to come true!

Allen West

I can see why this extra festival sprung up. Millions of people come to the streets of Buffalo, but they come for the vendors, many of whom are from out of state. The businesses that usually occupy these streets aren't able to set up tents or compete with the festival. I know restaurants do well, but the businesses on Allen decided to start their own festival, it's a lot of fun. The festivals both have their own charm.

Allentown Art Festival

Louies after the festival saturday, Ambrosia before :)

Permalink: Art_Festival_Pics.html
Words: 286
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

06/12/08 03:51 - 74ºF - ID#44629

Constitutional rights barely upheld

The Supreme Court ruled today that everyone deserves a right to know why they are in prison. And if you are imprisoned, you get an opportunity to see a judge, have a trial, and if you are innocent get out of prison.

Sounds basic right, but..... it was a 5-4 vote, meaning the Supreme Court just barely saved the Constitution, by one vote.

And those other 4 Justices are Nuts! Don't believe me? Here's Justice Scalia... "America is at war with radical Islamists.. this ruling will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Stop, he's a judge, on the Supreme Court, judges are supposed to interpret the law, and preserve the Constitution right? Where does it say "Uphold the Constitution, unless America is at war with radical Islamists", Where is it? Where's the 'Islamic war exception clause' that allows you to throw out the constitution!?!?!

The main point of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, is to make sure that politicians don't overreact during a war or some other tragedy, and throw out the Bill of Rights in a panic.

Scalia also predicts more Americans will be killed. That's his job? Predicting the future? Those damned "activist judges".... oh, it's conservative activism, legislating from the bench.. that's different.

Some of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been held for 6 years without a trial. They are all declared Enemy Combatants by the president, and that's supposed to make it ok. They don't need a trial to prove they are a threat, the president said so, that's good enough.

America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not ruled by the passions of men. You usually have a trial to prove someone violated a law, then sentence them to prison. There are countries in the world that do it backwards, they declare people an enemy, skip the trial, and throw them in jail forever, those countries are called Dictatorships, and the leaders are called Tyrants. That's why we have a Constitution in This country, to prevent tyrants from seizing power and changing the laws to suit their self interest.

The Supreme Court did its job today, this is good news, that we saved habeas corpus for now, but it worries me that it was such a close decision. The fanatic opposition also worries me. I'm holding my breath for the November elections.

Read some

dcoffee writes at 07:29:21 06/13/08 - Comment #36034: Just a historical note, the Supreme Court wasn't hasty about their decision. Congress was hasty when they passed this law just days before a campaign season break in 2006. Republicans thought it would be a pawn in their reelection, and they left out habeas corpus on purpose. Even though that's the main problem with the Supreme Court. We could have fixed it then, instead of using constitutional policy as a public stunt to grab a couple votes. Something has to change, you can't just disappear people and detain them indefinitely.

"we should have a framework through which we can ethically deal with these people that won't potentially endanger Americans." exactly.

As for Europe, we would be better off relying less on interrogation and more on our allies. You said it yourself Josh, terrorists and captured foreign soldiers will lie, better information comes from cooperation. And we would be safer with more respect, more appreciation, and hell, more affection from countries around the world. Part of the reason we want that moral high ground is pure self interest. It's not all touchy feely :)

metalpeter writes at 05:23:40 06/13/08 - Comment #36025: Just wanted to add that those 4 that voted are not crazy but are kinda foolish. They think that in times of war or maybe even not in times of war it is ok to give up our freedoms to try and catch "The Bad Guys". But see what they don't understand is that "The Bad Guys" is a point of perspective. They don't get that once that protection is gone someone can come after them. They view it as oh we are going to get them. But they don't get they can be thought of them also. The thing that makes this country so great is that we have our freedoms and rights, but once we start to give those away we might as well move to Nazi Gemeny or Even China or someplace like that.

joshua writes at 11:32:39 06/13/08 - Comment #36012: The reason why I would only talk about this stuff seriously with you and you alone (out of the anti-war crowd, anyway) is that you always have a knack for coaxing something thoughtful out of me after I rant. =P

We do agree on the central principle that we can't be holding these people forever without some sort of resolution on their status. My problem, as seems to be always the case with the left, is how it's actually come to be.

With respect to interrogation - these people are trained to lie, as we've found out conclusively via capture of their own training manuals. To a degree I see the anti-war left as being hoodwinked as a result of this deceit. It offends me that the anti-war left holds these sort of people at Gitmo, who by the way aren't there because they were smoking a cigarette at the wrong corner at the wrong time, in higher regard than the soldiers at Haditha, almost ALL whom have been found innocent of any wrongdoing. The anti-war left sold those boys down the river and have never apologized to them. I'll never respect the anti-war left as long as they behave that way, and thats the honest truth.

The Supreme Court made a catastrophic error in the spirit of idealism. Enforcement of the law and "saving the constitution" is in the eye of the beholder. The only sure result is that in our haste to do the right thing we'll have released extraordinarily dangerous people for silly garbage like procedural errors.

I agree that we are a nation of laws and that we have to follow them. That does mean, by the way, the ones we don't agree with as well. You are right in saying that Gitmo, for good or bad, has resulted in us losing the moral high ground. To be honest though, to a degree I really don't fucking care what Europe thinks of us. They don't have to like us, but they certainly should respect us. Prez Bush and his administration has lost that respect for our country, but hardly the way to earn it back is to grant constitutional rights to terrorists and treat them with more respect in the public mind than we do our own soldiers.

As far as I'm concerned, equality under the law does not apply to enemy combatants and/or those who provide material support to known terrorists; however, we should have a framework through which we can ethically deal with these people that won't potentially endanger Americans. I know its a rhetorical question you are asking, but the answer should be obvious.

jason writes at 09:24:57 06/12/08 - Comment #35992: As always, I appreciate that you're a stand up guy. Next time I'm unfair to Ginsberg you're free to give me shit for it, hahaha. Seriously though, check it out, and even if you disagree it at least gives an insight into how these people come to their conclusions. I'm a nerd, I think it's pretty cool.

The thing about FDR that I respect is that he was very up front about his intentions, as compared to Bush's shadiness and secrecy. He's one of your faves, and do you have a copy of his inaugural address where he talks about it? He is a pretty persuasive guy, although I do sympathize with people when they talk about the danger of too much concentration of power in one of the branches.

I think in his day, there would be no Gitmo, he would just have them executed. One result of this decision (my own opinion here) is that when military people have to make these split second decisions, they will favor killing them on the battlefield instead of running the risk of them being let go. They won't make it to Gitmo. A possible consequence is the mistaken killing of innocents. I don't think there are nil consequences of this decision no matter which way it goes.

It is a terribly difficult choice to make, taking the high road and making the sacrifices to prove your dedication. In the end I have to agree that we have to set a good example, we have to be a leader whether we want to be or not.

dcoffee writes at 08:20:14 06/12/08 - Comment #35989: Jason, to be honest, I haven't read Scalia's opinion. It's easy to pick on him, and that's not really fair. And you're right about FDR, and he is one of my favorite presidents. But I'm not sure why we need to create a new legal system just for this, we have military courts, and civilian courts. if we would have put them right into the military legal system we could have avoided some of this.

dcoffee writes at 07:57:58 06/12/08 - Comment #35987: Yea I guess the above entry was a bit sarcastic, can't really do stand-up with just text.

dcoffee writes at 07:31:57 06/12/08 - Comment #35981: Actually Josh i thought you'd agree with me on this one. Should the government have limits to it's power? Should they be able to put people in prison and not have a trial? Should we just interrogate them until we are satisfied, then what, leave them in jail, or send them home mentally disabled?

There are ways to get information on potential security threats, one is through interrogationof captives, but you often get bad information, they tell you whatever you want to hear. For Bush that's ok, "do they have WMD?" "Yea, tons of it.." That's fine if you don't care about the validity of the information, and you are just looking for excuses instead of facts.

The other option is cooperating with different nations and other inelegance agencies, and broadening your allies. The way you do that is by agreeing on laws and sticking to them. By setting a good example that people can respect. By being open, and forthright about out intentions. We have lost the moral high-ground partly because of our indefinite detentions at Guantanamo.

Maybe all that stuff about equality under the law, innocent until proven guilty, equal opportunity, upward mobility, maybe that was all lip service, but if so, what the fuck are we protecting? What the hell makes us so special that we are worth fighting and dieing for.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither. Who's radical here? Me or Antonin Scalia?

PS. the supreme court didn't decide how long you can keep someone without charge because there was no limit in the law passed by congress. Is the supreme court supposed to make up a number, or should it come from congress? Also Foreign soldiers have rights under our legal system. Does that harm our security? I think it shows that we are fair, and our enemies are the ones at fault.

jason writes at 06:57:46 06/12/08 - Comment #35980: David, you should do yourself a favor and read the majority opinion, as well as Scalia's dissent. I have it in front of me here and it's fascinating reading. You may well find yourself trusting the blogosphere far less.

Why do I request this? Because I don't think you're at all being fair to Scalia or the dissenting justices. They're not dangerous, they're not fanatics, and they are not crazy. They are legal minds, no more, no less. The Constitution wasn't "saved" and neither was HC. No matter what Justice Ginsberg tells you, Justices aren't put in place to fight for the "right" result.

A cursory reading of the first few pages of Scalia's dissent reveals that he isn't fearmongering, or telling lies, or looking into a crystal ball. He cites real-world circumstances that have already played out, and only a world-class fool could believe that these real-world circumstances are going to go away.

It isn't what he said that bothers people, but that he was so devastatingly correct in what he was saying.

And it isn't even defensible that one group of people values the Constitution or detainees more than any other group. FDR - expanded the SC, interred Americans, and expanded presidential powers far more than Bush ever did, and what do liberals call him? The greatest President ever.

People wish to manipulate the Constitution in ways that serve their political needs. Nobody is exempt, and you can't be any more honest than that. Whatever the legal reasoning, I agree that we can't just hold onto these people forever with no trial, but the price will indeed be high for someone, probably not you or me who are here at home instead of the sandbox.

Thank God that the decision upholds the appropriate nature of Military Tribunals in these cases. I would have shit a solid brick had they decided otherwise. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for them.

drew writes at 06:52:51 06/12/08 - Comment #35979: Anybody charged--and the slightest bit of evidence is enough in a terrorism case--can be held for trial, eliminating the possibility of "terrorists being released to the battlefield."

joshua writes at 06:20:52 06/12/08 - Comment #35978: (e:d) - you are a well-intentioned guy and are generally reasonable so I'll reserve most of the vitriol. With all due respect, a lot of this entry was naive and overemotional.

What has happened today is that the liberals on the Supreme Court have extended Constitutional rights to coughallegedcough terrorists. Liberals have never, nor will they ever, understand national security issues and how the Constitution should be applied in cases like this. You want more erosion of our ability to defend ourselves? Vote for Barack Obama. The rest of America (non-liberals) should be deeply concerned.

The Constitution has always been malleable - that is exactly how Roe vs. Wade got through. I find it interesting that you think selective interpretation of the Constitution is appropriate as long as you are doing the selecting and the interpretation. You mention conservative judges and activism, which any student of history knows is a ludicrous thought. Judicial activism implies that something was actually forced through against the grain, or intentionally overlooked despite the law. Judges are allowed to have opinions in dissent... don't you know that? I also find it interesting that you are suggesting hypocrisy on the issue when your brethren have NEVER been able to admit to it, even with Roe vs. Wade in place. In fact, its usually ignored. As usual - liberals are white as snow and everyone else is evil. Don't believe me? Feast on liberal talk radio.

This sort of well-intentioned naivety is dangerous to America, and if you enjoy it by all means support Barack Obama. This is an idea he'd love, and the thought of a liberal being the Commander in Chief of the United States in this context should alarm any American concerned with national security issues... PRECISELY because of this garbage. The court was wrong. What *should* have happened was the immediate establishment of limitations on how long we can hold these detainees without trial. Instead, we have liberal insanity that will undoubtedly allow terrorists to go back in the battlefield. Frightening.

I suspect when Barack Obama gives his opinion on this, during the first debate he will be eviscerated for it.

mrmike writes at 03:55:36 06/12/08 - Comment #35976: Skeery bidness

Permalink: Constitutional_rights_barely_upheld.html
Words: 404
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

06/11/08 11:15 - 69ºF - ID#44616

58 bases in Iraq

What is the goal in Iraq? I thought we wanted to turn over management of Iraq to the Iraqis, so we can come home and stop spending 720 million dollars per day in Iraq and start using it here where it is desperately needed. You know we could fix crumbling bridges and levees and stuff.

Right now the US is negotiating a 'status of forces' agreement with Iraq that would allow the US to maintain 58 military bases in Iraq. I'm not sure if that includes the US embassy next to Baghdad that is the size of a college campus.

Top Iraqi officials are calling for a radical reduction of the U.S. military's role here after the U.N. mandate authorizing its presence expires at the end of this year. Encouraged by recent Iraqi military successes, government officials have said that the United States should agree to confine American troops to military bases unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance, with some saying Iraq might be better off without them.

"The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician ... "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.' "

Read Iraqi reactions and some more details about the negotiations.

Another interesting article Bush Has a few regrets,

In the UK times online "President Bush regrets his legacy as man who wanted war"

Update, One more thing

War is an opportunity to make money, for some companies. And politicians sometimes like excuses to give handfuls of taxpayer money to rich corporations, they hope the corporations will finance their campaign, or maybe give them a high paid job when they get caught screwing the taxpayer and get thrown out of Washington. AKA the Military Industrial Complex.

the $300 Billion Betrayal - Video
Weapons programs at the defense department are one of the biggest sources of wasteful spending in the federal budget. Just to give you an idea of how much $300 billion is, you could run the entire state of Tennessee for 11 years on just $295 billion. That $300 billion number comes from the Government Accountability Office's new report on Defense Acquisitions. Watch the video and see examples.

Permalink: 58_bases_in_Iraq.html
Words: 421
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

06/06/08 04:42 - 85ºF - ID#44568

Generational Perspective

Just a thought.

I'm one of those 20 something people who grew up in the 90s and I was taught that I live in the future. We learned about World Wars, slavery, unequal rights, lynching, Hitler, fascism, communism, bombing London, and all the other horrible stuff.

But that was history, America had made it to the future. Americans are living in a fair and just democracy now, the rest of the world was coming along too, because we were setting a noble example, and sticking to our high minded ideals. We knew there were problems in the world, but international cooperation, community, and a fair justice system could solve these problems.

The pride and confidence of our generation has been eroded after September 11. Partly because we were attacked, and we realized that not everyone had made it to the future with us. But mostly for me, it was the barbaric response of our government. We said we would eliminate Saddam Hussein whether the rest of the world liked it or not. It didn't matter that we had no real evidence against him, and that he had no connection to 911 whatsoever. The America I expected, was supposed to rally the world behind a common goal. I expected the criminals to be exposed an humiliated, because what they did was clearly wrong. I expected justice, I expected our nation to have faith in a system of laws without self interest. A legal system that seeks to expose the truth, and expects rational people to see a path to justice.

We got none of it. We went backward, instead of forward. We got infinite detention and kangaroo trials, we abandoned international law and cooperation, we decided might makes right, shoot first ask questions later, the public was misinformed and deceived on purpose, color coded alert systems, we couldn't keep citizens in New Orleans from drowning, or bridges in Minnesota from collapsing, we even got rid of one of those ancient Latin laws that was the foundation of our country, called Habeas Corpus. And the people of my generation, once they woke up, said holly shit, it CAN happen here.

Maybe it's just me but it seems like this election fits into that history. The younger generation voted less than the older generation, partly because we took our country for granted, we thought peace and prosperity was a given. In 2004 we were demoralized and fearful, we still didn't vote enough. But in 2008, seems like there is potential, possibilities. We can take our country back. And one of the things I like most about Obama, he keeps saying WE can change Washington. Saying that the American people must be involved if we want to fix this country. Nobody is going to do it for us, we are looking for leadership, but we can't do it without a committed public, it's up to the American people to take their country back. Maybe politics can become a national pastime again.

I don't recognize the America of the last 7 years, the is not the America I was supposed to inherit. I think my generation is ready to reclaim America.

Permalink: Generational_Perspective.html
Words: 520
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: politics

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