Journaling on estrip is easy and free. sign up here

Dcoffee's Journal

dcoffee
My Podcast Link

03/19/2008 21:51 #43732

War 5 Years, Numbers & Analysis
Category: war
As you may know, today is the 5th anniversary of the war in Iraq. 5 years, and so little to show for it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fuck the War.


War Numbers,



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

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

I challenge you to go back and read some of this. We lived through it, but in retrospect we can see just how bogus these claims were.
September-November 2002 is interesting, that's when Bush speaks to the UN, the US Congress passes the Authorization to use force in Iraq, and Saddam Lets the UN Inspectors into the country.
Also interesting the just before the war after about March 7 2003, Check out some of the news articles published then, it feels like 1984.

Bush in his own words


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




Articles

Buffalo News Article


UK Article, inside Iraq


War Hurting the American Economy

War and the Working Class



Share your Thoughts, Links, and News Articles below.


dcoffee - 03/20/08 18:25
Another link, Quotes from the Iraq War Sales Pitch
:::link:::
Cost, Casualties, time, troops, cakewalk
dcoffee - 03/20/08 13:30
Great New Documentary
Leading to War: See Where the Truth Lies :::link:::
Lots of video clips from the sales pitch for war.

One more thought. Right before the war, the UN Inspectors were in Iraq looking for weapons. The US kicked them out before they were done. Why not let them collect new evidence, and finish their work, before deciding if there was an imminent threat that justified invasion?
The Bush administration wanted to invade, and they knew there was no justification. They had private reasons for war, WMD and terrorism were only excuses that would never be proven, but they sounded good to a public terrified by 911.
dcoffee - 03/20/08 12:47
To Clarify,
When this president went to war he trusted Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Condi Rice. These people are not qualified to predict anything about the Middle East, except where the oil is.
Before going to war you should get the opinion of people who have actually lived there (wow what a concept), Diplomats and ambassadors who have negotiated with leaders in the Middle East. Scholars who spend their lives studying a region, visiting, researching and analyzing trends.

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

If I knew this was bullshit, and I was just some college student at a state school, why couldn't congress figure it out?
joshua - 03/20/08 12:05
I think academics are useful as advisers but NEVER on actual policy making. Academics just aren't equipped for politics, nor can they make military decisions.

James you don't need to defend your humanities education! Without the humanities human culture would be a blank page.
james - 03/20/08 11:18
Jason, experts on a region are very often professors, Humanities professors. An English professor has not helped the president make a decision on international affairs since Clinton deployed an armada of sestinas to Bosnia.

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

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

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

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

One last thing, I have to say this, I have an extremely cynical view of Liberal Elites like those at The Nation. They don't understand the military, they do not want to understand the military, other than as a humanitarian org, and a working class, Union, blue collar guy like my father would NEVER be allowed into their circles or little soirees. They think of people like my Dad as little people to be taken care of, to have things decided for them by the Elites. No, no, no. Fuck that. Sorry, just a little rantish side thought there.
dcoffee - 03/20/08 08:57
Axis of Evil, one down two to go.
paul - 03/19/08 22:29
I don't know what you are talking about. I feel so much safer without Saddam's finger on the nuclear weapons, right?
james - 03/19/08 22:24
They grow up so fast. One day you are participaiting in a 'die in' and then BAM it is five years later and you have run out of inconvenient spots to pretend you are dead.

03/13/2008 21:15 #43656

News Roundup
Category: politics
So much News So little time.

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

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

This is not news to me, Al Qaeda hated Saddam, they wanted to overthrow the bastard to have a chance at religious theocracy in Iraq. Bush wanted to link these two bad guys to have a justification to invade Iraq on a wave of post 911 blood-thirstiness. And it worked, when we invaded 70% of the country thought Saddam was "personally involved" in the 911 attacks, even though there were no Iraqis on the planes, but Americans didn't get that either. Propaganda anyone? Stop taking what politicians say in a speach as the official fact. Especially when we're talking about war. *cough* Iran *cough*

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

Anyway, the report, with the obvious conclusion, finally coming from the Pentagon, is not going to be quite as public anymore. If they don't talk about it, maybe it will just go away right?

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

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

And it's costing us 12 Billion per month and over 3 trillion so far, 50 times more than the 60 billion predicted in 2003,

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

Deep Breath... next


The Iraq War is only 2% of media coverage.


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


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



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

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

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

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

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

Read more about Fallon resigning .


Presidential Politics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Olberman did his homework and found at least 3 occasions where Ferraro said the same crap about Obama. But the media is taking it out of context... sure they are. Interesting, the first time we herd about Ms. Ferraro this campaign season, she was calling Obama, Edwards, the Media, and the entire nation sexist for confronting Hillary. Ok she may be right about the nation, and about Chris Matthews. But now that someone is calling her statements Racist, she thinks that the Obama Campaign owes her an apology for calling her racist. And she's not even close to being sorry for what she said.
Here's Olbermann


"Senator Clinton Isn't A Republican, As Far As I Know" 't-a-r_b_91187.html

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

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




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

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

:::link:::

A direct quote -

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

I told you they were focused on the negative stuff only, and being lazy to boot. Now we have the word directly from the horse's mouth.
dcoffee - 03/14/08 13:02
Thanks Josh, I hope people read the whole thing, I try to be specific, direct, and a bit entertaining. And you know I really value different opinions, especially those from the non-neo-con type conservatives like yourself.

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

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

sorry I digress.

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

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

PS, thanks for the nomination Drew! Season's not over yet though.
joshua - 03/14/08 12:18
Eh, anytime somebody commits their time and effort to lengthy posts involving civics, I think the person at least deserve attention and a proper reading of what he wrote.
dcoffee - 03/14/08 12:13
I know this is long guys, don't be intimidated I really enjoy one sentence comments too. Perhaps my longest post ever, but I try to make it entertaining.
jason - 03/13/08 23:04
I fully plan on reading all of this epic post carefully soon, but first thought that came to my mind was:

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

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

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

I still have to read it all, and I probably won't (as usual for me) agree with all of it or even respond but you've made the effort and so I'll check the rest of it out later.
joshua - 03/13/08 22:00
There is nothing more hilarious to me than a career liberal like Geraldine Ferraro being accused of being a racist by OTHER LIBERALS! Democrats always eat their own. The Clinton slash and burn tactics have come to bite them in the back... and I don't know why she wouldn't condemn Ferraro. Allow me to take the piss for a second - I think its because she's a woman!

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

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

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

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

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

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

As for Obama - wait until we see who plays the race card once the general election season hits. Then we can talk about who is being cynical! Anyone want to wager with me that not Obama, but a campaign surrogate or classic race baiters like Sharpton and Jackson will be the ones to cry racism when people start scrutinizing Barack Obama? Obama has absolutely, positively gotten a free pass up to this point. The rhetorical question - why is that?
drew - 03/13/08 21:43
great post. I nominate this for best political post of the 2008 primary.

03/04/2008 21:36 #43555

Skiing
Category: life
And now for something completely different

I have a new hobby. I really enjoy Skiing. The first time I went was about 3 years ago in the Adirondacks with (e:mmtornow) and her family, I caught on fast. I guess after skateboarding for most of my life balancing on skis is like second nature. My mother never skied so growing up we just went sledding at Chesnut Ridge. Snowboarding seems fun, but I feel like it's easier to control yourself on skis. But eventually I'll probably try snowboarding too. Anyway.

This past weekend (e:mmtornow) and I went to Kissing Bridge, it was my 5th time ever skiing, my third at Kissing Bridge, We've moved on to black diamond hills, jumps, and a really fun hill called "Moment of Truth", it consists of about 8 big quick jumps and then a steep dropoff. It was really fun. After a while I got pretty confident, decided I wanted to do some jumps and try sliding on a rail, the rail didn't work, but the jumps definitely did. They wear out your legs when you start really flying over them, but it's so fun. We Skied for about 7 hours. I'm looking forward to using my last pass of the season.

Me on the Hill at KB
image

Not Skiing, Cheap Plastic Snowboarding at the Cabin in the ADK's
image

Marvin the Mountain Dog.
image

The Fam at Oak Mountain in the ADK's
image

(e:mmtornow) on the slopes at Oak Mountain
image

Check out the View of Lake Pleasant from Oak Mountain, Larger at Flickr
image

Oak Mountain's only lift. Small but cheap and laid back place, they have these long chill trails that wander through the woods, after a while you just go full speed all the way down, they're not too steep.
image

On the Lift
image

Leaving Kissing Bridge
image

After Skiing, Pizza and a Beer, or Hot Chocolate, whatever you like.
image

Not Cooking tonight. Beer Pizza, Couch.
image

joshua - 03/05/08 13:48
Well done my man.
fellyconnelly - 03/05/08 09:56
JEALOUS!!!
imk2 - 03/04/08 21:44
you should have estip know so that we could have come along. i didn't go not once this season. damn.

03/12/2008 15:11 #43637

Books Vonnegut Fiction and Creativity
Category: life
I've discovered I really enjoy reading Novels. I haven't read too many yet, because I just realized how relaxing and interesting it is to read Fiction. When i was younger I thought people who read fiction were lazy, maybe they just couldn't handle the truth or had some other issue. Truth is stranger than fiction right, so why bother? Turns out, there's a big difference, non-Fiction is a bit like studying an interesting topic, and Fiction is like immersing yourself in a movie.

I read a lot of news, and the Nation, some other magazines, and listen to talk radio, but recently somewhere between 7:30 and 10:00pm I grab my book and relax for the night. Right now I'm reading Kurt Vonnegut Slaughterhouse Five, I really like Vonnegut, he cracks me up, always entertaining. I just finished Cats Cradle, also by him. Anyway, I wanted to share this tidbit from Slaughter-House Five..

Billy was twelve years old, quaking as he stood with his mother and father on Bright Angel Point, at the rim of Grand Canyon. The little human family was staring at the floor of the canyon, one mile straight down.
'Well,' said Billy's father, manfully kicking a pebble into space, 'there it is.' They had come to this famous place by automobile. They had had several blowouts on the way.
'It was worth the trip,' said Billy's mother raptly. 'Oh, God was it ever worth it.'
Billy hated the canyon. He was sure that he was going to fall in. His mother touched him, and he wet his pants



Maybe it's just me, maybe it's not as hysterical out of context... but if I wanted to describe Vonnegut's writing style, I might read that paragraph for starters.

Other books... I read the Lord of the Rings twice. My last novel was a 4 book series by Dan Simmons called the Hyperion Cantos, best Science Fiction series you'll ever find, in my opinion. Read that one for the second time a few months back, Takes a while to finish, and when i finally did, I was a little depressed that i didn't have my book anymore, I felt homeless or something, a fish out of water, till I found Cats Cradle. A while back I read a few others that were good, Black Like Me, 1984, Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee, Forever by Pete Hamill. Next I want to read Catch 22, Tale of Two Cities, Animal Farm, and some of the classics.


Different topic, my old job. I've been gone since October, they hired somebody new. I tried to leave good records of how things were done, because nobody knew how to do all the things I did and I was worried the place would fall down without me. So it goes.

Found this advertisement in the Phone Book Coupon thing that came in the mail. They just shifted around an original design I created for them last year.

image

My Original, designed for the phone book, you'll currently find it under Photography.
image

I know, they own it, it's not my property, as a business they don't want to waste time reinventing the wheel, or whatever. But it made me sad. I'm not even there and they are still relying on my creativity to get them by. I don't care if they reuse my ad for the next 10 years, but subtly mutating it instead of being creative on their own, kind of burns me. This type of thing ever happen to you?



theecarey - 03/12/08 19:57
Vonnegut. Nice. Please add his "Breakfast of Champions" to your now ever growing pile of books to read :) His characters make multiple appearances throughout his works. Excellent excerpt from SH5, too!

I'm a book-eater; tearing through several fiction and non-fiction novels a month...always looking for suggestions and offering them myself. Whether at the same time or one after the other, when selecting a book, I aim for a smart balance of 'brain candy' and 'brain food'. There is just so much great stuff out there. Welcome to the fiction world. Enjoy!!


joshua - 03/12/08 19:12
So it goes - how many caught that in his journal that has read the book? =D I got a kick out of seeing that.

SH5 is his only novel that I've read... there are too many authors out there for me to focus on one for long! Actually looking at my bookshelf I think the only author I've read multiple times is Jack Kerouac. I am reading a couple works by James Joyce though.

Lately I've been interested in Latin American authors as well as exiled (one way or another) Chinese authors. Ha Jin might be one of the only Chinese authors that writes natively in English rather than being translated... Bei Dao is probably the best Chinese exile author out there now. They write pretty frankly about life under communism - the one I want to read is a short story collection by Ha Jin called Ocean of Words, which is a collection of stories that details the extraordinarily harsh existence of being in the Chinese Revolutionary Army... which Ha Jin was in fact a member of prior to staying in America when Tienanmen Square happened.

The Latin American author of note is Jorge Louis Borges - he is a Nobel laureate and is generally considered one of the world's greatest authors of any extraction. He is heavily influenced by William Faulkner, as is another well known author (and a Nobel laureate as well) named Gabriel Garcia Marquez, whose most well known novel "100 Years of Solitude" is considered by many to be the greatest Latin American novel.
dcoffee - 03/12/08 15:31
Yay, suggestions! I also might read Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
james - 03/12/08 15:30
May I recommend C.S. Friedman's Coldfire Trilogy.

I read novels and poetry constantly growing up and currently read almost all non-fiction and poetry. I hope I go through the same thing you are now and rediscover how great the novel can be.
jason - 03/12/08 15:20
Heyo. I haven't looked too much into this yet, but I saw there is a site called DailyLit that has a bunch of classics for free, right online.

:::link:::

ladycroft - 03/12/08 15:17
when you finish slaughterhouse five give sirens of titan a whirl :)

02/29/2008 11:44 #43506

Nader, Healthcare Revisited
Category: politics
In my last entry I forgot to mention that Nader is running without the backing of a third party. Probably no third party wants to base its mission on pissing off Democrats, but agitating the political system is an honorable vocation, and shame on Nader for abandoning the Green Party.

To change the 2 party system we need a persistent threat of "spoiling" and "stolen votes" not an occasional surprise candidate. The two parties should expect a Green candidate and a Libertarian candidate who mess up their pretty little duopoly, not the current "aww crap, Nader's running again". The only way the system will change is if it's in the Democrats and Republicans self interest to change it. A determined third-party can accomplish this, an individual can not.

So even though I may defend Nader's candidacy, he is a jerk for failing to inspire a third party to agitate the system in the long run. The Greens should run a candidate every year, and embrace the anger of Democrats, tell them if they don't like it, do something about it, because there are a lot of people out there who don't believe in either of the 2 parties. For example, 90% of the people who will read this. Carolinian, Jason, Josh, James, Jim, Terry, Metalpeter etc etc


About fixing the electoral system, (e:metalpeter) commented that we should have each state divide its electoral votes based on the percentage each candidate receives. Good idea, but it doesn't fix the Ralph Nader Spoiler problem though. If some third candidate goes through the election with 5%-20% of the vote from all the states combined, it's similar to "spoiling" Florida or Ohio except Nationwide. We could end up with neither of the two popular candidates receiving a majority of the vote (ie. winning with 44%), so we still don't know who the majority of Americans actually prefer. In order to find out who would have beaten all other candidates in a 2 way race, we would still need a runoff election, or IRV to figure out the majority candidate.

It does however make my vote count here in Blue NY, and it eliminates the "swing state" garbage. I'm pretty sure at least one state does it that way (can't find a reference source). I do like that Democratic Primaries are done this way, makes a lot of sense, but it still pushed Edwards out and gave us only two. (It's a start Sign a petition to support this )

The solution I recommended is to have each state do their own Instant Runoff Election. Voters rank candidates so that even if there are more than 2, we can still find out who the majority of the voters in that state support. If you voted for Nader you also put down a second choice. if nobody gets 50% your second choice is counted and Nader's votes are reallocated. This should be done nationally but it would require a constitutional amendment. States could either give the majority winner all their electoral votes, but a better system would be to divide the votes by percentage after the runoff is complete.

Instant Runoff Voting explained


Healthcare - going to make this quick -
I'm starting to see a system like Social Security. The government guarantees some basic insurance, and it is paid for through a percentage of your taxes automatically. With Social Security you can still invest in additional retirement accounts, or if an employer is trying to compete for skilled workers by offering a hefty retirement account they can do that too.

Same with Universal Healthcare, you won't get screwed if you break your arm no matter what, you can go to the hospital and they will help you. You won't end up a cripple who can't work just cause you couldn't afford the hospital bill, and you tried to deal with it on your own. If you have money, or a good job, you may get some fancier service, but everyone is at least covered.

And it would be cheaper, because of less paperwork, and a more purchasing power. I paid $1000 in healthcare this year, you bet your uninsured ass my healthcare tax would be less than that.

Please spare me the criticisms of Social Security going bankrupt, etc. Those problems come from our lazy and corrupt politicians not following the rules. And I said "like" Social Security.

We need a new system, and yes it will include the private sector, no matter who calls it Socialized.


dcoffee - 02/29/08 23:14
Peter, you're not alone in thinking Instant Runoff Voting is confusing. And thanks for admitting it :-). That's why every time I mention IRV I give a new description, I hope that by explaining it in different circumstances the idea might just click in one more persons head. You might want to watch the animation I linked to :::link::: Let's say Obama, Nader, Gore, and McCain are running for president. Gore Obama and Nader agree on most things, and their supporters probably would not vote for McCain right? But when the election comes around McCain gets 35% of the vote, and he wins, even though 65% of the country hate the guy. McCain does not have a majority of the country supporting him. A majority is 50% +1 no matter how many candidates there are. Check out the video to see how IRV solves this. Once you figure it out, you'll see why even Drew and his dad can agree it's a good idea.

Josh, I don't want to ignore Social Security, I just think the Hype is BS. Bush couldn't get us to agree on Social Security Reform (read 'Abolition') but he did succeed in getting many people to agree that it probably won't last much longer. For the FDR New Deal haters that's success. You're right that the longer we wait the more drastic the changes will be, but now minor reforms would fix it. Currently people only pay social security on the first $90,000 they earn, if you raised that cap to say $200,000 or eliminated it all together, you could fix Social Security. (Gasp! Raising Taxes) That brings me to my next point.

Even if my taxes are raised to pay for a new Healthcare program, my total _expenses_ will go down. Like I said, I paid $1000 for healthcare this year, and I'm positive the government could standardize the system and do it cheaper without losing quality. American Companies provide most of the Health Insurance in this country, imagine how much their expenses would go down. Why can Toyota sell a better car for less money than American Companies? Because they don't have to pay for Healthcare. Not only is it Humane and Morally right to provide Healthcare for everyone, it removes the burden from our companies, and that means they can compete better in the international marketplace. We have a $700 billion trade deficit, :::link::: that's why our standard of living has suffered, we need to bring money into the country, instead of consuming foreign lead paint toys.

Single payer Healthcare would help the country in more ways than one. By pooling our resources, distributing the risk, and cutting down on the waste that Insurance middlemen create, both citizens and corporations would end up saving money. Other countries may have tried to have their cake and eat it to, by keeping taxes level. If the government took better care of my money I wouldn't mind giving it to them for a good product. Instead they have been flushing it down $2,000 toilets built in Iraq under no-bid contracts. Government has failed in many ways, but the solution isn't as simple as taking our money away from them, We need better oversight, and we as citizens need to hold them accountable.


metalpeter - 02/29/08 18:24
(e:Joshua) I had no idea they used that system in California, I now think it is great that they do. I would like them to use that in every state. I admit I don't get the runoff thing to me it doesn't make sense and is complicated what Happens If there are say 4 People and I Only pick one person cause he is the only one I like. The thing I like about the percentage thing is that it seems very fair. I don't think 51% makes a Majority even though that is how it is defined currently. I think the majority is 100/ the number of people running so if 5 people (to many I know ran) then you could win the Majority vote with (20% would tie everyone)21% Of the votes or at least the elctoral votes. I say that the person who gets the most votes should win and not use the current system but the powers that be will never get rid of it, so that is why I say you tweak as in California and have all the states do it. That way a 3rd party has a chance at winning. Not only that but currently votes don't count. Say it obama Vs. McCain say Obama takes New York by 2 Million votes that is that many votes minus one that don't mean jack shit. But if it was done on percentage and then every vote would count. That could be said for McCain also he might lose but at least his voters would get him some points. I think that would make votes more important and it would send people who don't vote out to the polls. I think it would do that for 3rd parties also cause if a third party guy is 3% behind in every state currently he would get zero nothing no points, but with what I suggest it would be a close race and with a couple big wins he would have a shot at winning the presadentcy.
joshua - 02/29/08 13:48
I love your journal... you do think things through carefully and if I may pay a compliment its my favorite journal of the bunch.

  • "The two parties should expect a Green candidate and a Libertarian candidate who mess up their pretty little duopoly, not the current "aww crap, Nader's running again". The only way the system will change is if it's in the Democrats and Republicans self interest to change it. A determined third-party can accomplish this, an individual can not." *******

Couldn't agree more. Our nation needs a change in mindset to make this happen. Many liberal Democrats freak out about Nader because they know what his role will eventually be - I see that view as incredibly undemocratic.

I don't know if Nader is even capable of inspiring a person, let alone a party. In my view Bloomberg would have even been more of an third adequate candidate than Nader. The man is dull. Even if I smoked an eighth I don't think I could find something amusing about him.

One observation is that no matter how much tinkering we do with the system, there is no way to erase close elections and how a third candidate can ruin it for somebody. The system Peter mentioned is already in place in the state of California.

The last Presidents to have gotten more than 50% of the popular vote -

GWB 2004 50.7%
GHWB 1988 53.4%
RR 1984 58.8%
RR 1980 50.7%
Carter 1976 50.1% (this was the closest election for 25 years)
Nixon 1972 60.7% (WOW! He won by 23%. BTW they call Obama the new McGovern, and I hate to say it but Nixon is more charismatic than McCain - should be interesting this year).

The only two Democratic presidents to have won with a majority vote in the past 44 years has been Carter and LBJ, and LBJ is the only one to have won in a landslide. He crushed Goldwater that year as Nixon crushed McGovern 8 years later.

You ignore Social Security at your own peril though David. The next President *will* have to address this, and as my brother has previously stated, taxes are about to go up for everybody, not just the rich... and this is before we ever discuss a national healthcare system.

As I've said to you previously I do not oppose a healthcare system. However I have to say this to you -

I still remain unconvinced that having the government manage this is a good idea. Take a look at how California and New York manage health care costs - I don't think it will likely be any different unless a radical set of changes and outlooks occur. Socialists in the UK (otherwise known as the Labour Party) are now examining the idea of cutting obese people out of the system. When costs spiral in these systems, as they inevitably do, the contradictions and problems with national healthcare become obvious. If a fatty gets cut off of the system, do they get to keep the tax money that goes into it? "Fat" chance. I'm not even mentioning the moral contradiction of a system set up for humane reasons only to do an incredibly inhumane thing.

I like social security too. I fear it won't be there for us. No President, Democrat or Republican, want to be the one responsible for raising taxes during a likely recession. By the time its over, its going to be too late without some incredible sacrifices that no American will find palatable yet will be forced to accept. Taxes are going up eventually though, and the middle class will not escape it!

I honestly feel very, very pessimistic about the next few years no matter who wins. We have a bunch of careerist milquetoasts in office.
drew - 02/29/08 11:48
The need for instant runoff voting is one of the few issues my Dad and I agree on. It's far past time.