Dcoffee's Journal

09/12/2007 09:35 #41059

The Surge and Petraeus briefly
Category: politics

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

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

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

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

Next the numbers

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

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

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

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

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

General John Batiste's full testimony

I can't say it any better than that.

More reading and video.

Sorry, gotta go to work.

carolinian - 09/12/07 17:50
The right doesn't count car bombs in their tally of civilian deaths, the left counts traffic accidents in their tally of troop combat deaths.

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

dcoffee - 09/12/07 16:15
Our military has been successful. That is true. There was a NY Times video online yesterday from Baghdad that showed public markets, and commercial strips that are now open and secured by our troops. Also the Baghdad theme park is open, and people are taking the opportunity to do some things they like. Our Troops have set up checkpoints and made sure that weapons stay out of certain areas, and people are enjoying some ease.

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

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

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

james - 09/12/07 14:57
Joshua: You are right that organizations like moveon use attention grabbing headlines to drum up readership. But give us liberals a break. We don't all read moveon, we don't all like moveon, just like every Republican isn't a neo-facist Christian fundamentalist.

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

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

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

jason - 09/12/07 14:02
I think really what people are missing is that there is a stark difference between a military failure and a political failure. The Iraqi government has failed, not our military. People sort of incoherently clump the two together to obfuscate the issue, sometimes on purpose and sometimes out of innocent ignorance.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

01/17/2007 23:17 #37752

Bush Thinks You're Stupid
Category: politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour, Interview with President Bush.

Enjoy!

dcoffee - 01/18/07 19:53
Good article Jason, that's what I like about FAIR their reports are always loaded with research and emperical evidence. This may play into my ideas about campaign finance reform. THe government can mandate a certain abount of radio or TV time for candidates and eliminate or reduce the amount of political TV adds. I mean seriously, do you learn anything from political TV adds nowadays? 30 seconds is not enough time to explain a campaign platform. I'll keep reading.

jason - 01/18/07 13:34
Hey there,

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

:::link:::

dcoffee - 01/18/07 13:08
Josh, it looks like we were typing at the same time! You should check my comment about the president's Iraq Speech. I realy am the type of guy who will change his opinion, or disagee with my liberal friends about things. I'm not a partisan. My approach to the interview was "Hmm, Jim Lerher interviewed Bush, I gotta check this out." I just expected some good quality journalism, maybe some insight into the president's thinking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All news has an angle to it.

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

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

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

jason - 01/18/07 08:42
I'll have to watch it later.

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

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

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

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

- Z [from the actual liberal press]

08/09/2007 01:02 #40451

Lots of News
Category: political

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

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

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

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

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

Dennis Kucinich - Barak Obamma - and Chris Dodd

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a video from the debate.

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

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

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

Here's the vote

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

Thanks, take care all, talk to you soon.

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

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

dcoffee - 08/09/07 17:06
Thanks for correcting me on Bill Richardson. I didn't know much about his background. He just doesn't articulate as well as the others I guess.

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

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

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

joshua - 08/09/07 12:32
I actually forgot a few things -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

joshua - 08/09/07 09:25
You were being nice - I think Chris Dodd is a turd!

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

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

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

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

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

:::link:::

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

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

07/31/2007 00:11 #40321

Great weekend + Photos
Category: life

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

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

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

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

Anyway, the weekend

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

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

David Torke

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

I like this shot

My new favorite Buffalo Building

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

neat moon rise

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

Packed Summer Street during Garden Walk

Beautiful Summer Street

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

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

Self Portrait

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

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

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

metalpeter - 07/31/07 19:25
My first thought was that they where staged and part of the look. Then once I saw your pictures of that same scene I figured it must have been. I just found it odd that someone would leave out a towel. Thanks for your imput and now that they are up I also enjoy those great shots of the polar bears.

dcoffee - 07/31/07 19:18
James, (I'm guessing you're sometimes known as 'James the Terrible' but anyway), my new canon G7 is a compact camera, fits in your pocket. I have had an SLR for about 3 years. I have the Canon 20D, plus lenses, pro flash equipment and all those goodies. It's a great camera, heavier than the Rebel because it has more metal in the body and is more durrable.
And you're right, my 20D is just a little more portable than a cinder block. So after much debating, I bought the Canon G7 for everyday travel. I felt like I was missing out on so many photo opportunities because my 20D is so heavy. The G7 has the most pro features of any compact I found, and it will work with my flashes and other gear. it's a 10mp, so I can make big prints if I need to. it has it's downfalls, but all around, I'm realy glad I bought it. And I've been getting quite a lot of good use out if the little powerhouse.

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

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

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

james - 07/31/07 15:37
I have a semi-pro Nikon SLR. I would love to carry the thing around where ever I go, accept it is the size of a cinder block with a lens on it. I will say, Canon makes some damn fine small SLR's like the Rebel XT. Glad you are finding yours portable.

joshua - 07/31/07 15:23
Thats interesting - I only knew David Torke from an old e-mail list that I was a part of for a while, and on occasion still do receive e-mails from. Apparently I didn't realize that this was the same guy I see almost all the time right on my corner.

07/25/2007 21:39 #40251

I miss E:strip
Category: life

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

Wow

I honestly feel like a jerk.

How can I make it up to you...

Here's an embarrassing picture of me!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flickr, the more artistic gallery.

Picassa, the gallery where I share vacations and events.

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

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

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

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

Cheers (E:strip)

jason - 07/26/07 09:16
Congratulations, sir!

Look forward to hearing your thoughts. Take care.