I've just finished my first beer. Much better now. Where was I? Ah yes...Iran. Old news by now, but worth the reflection. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited the ivy league juggernaut of Columbia University in late September, no one knew just what to expect. More antisemitism? Threatening religious prose of the 12th Imam returning for Armageddon? It was simply unclear. The President of Columbia provided a cold welcome to Iran's de facto leader as he was in New York to attend the UN General Assembly. The visit to the school was part of their international affairs seminar series, which invites domestic and world leaders for "dialogue." The visit from the Iranian President was unusual; but the importance with the event rested with what he had to say.
There were the usual ambiguous jabs to the "imperial" powers that exist in the world; that Western media has him all wrong, and his unfortunate vague response that further research should be conducted on the holocaust possibly implying--again--that it didn't' happen. Awful shitbag. The poor fool went as far as to claim that no homosexuals exist in Iran. This was quintessential simple minded utterance, which in a weird and twisted way gives a firm preview into the foreign policy logic Iran rolls with.
We are not dealing with the typical world player living in modernity. What we have on our hands is a deeply paper religious, flawed, racist, former revolutionary. The Ayatollah Khomeini and his closest clerics must want this fiery player around. He moves the country to the right, whereas the youthful majority inch closer to the West. The nuclear situation is learned chess from small Siberian hamlets aggravated by the Bush Cartel. Does Bush know the intricacies of chess? I'm not denying they have the bomb, I'm simply claiming they're leveraging the fuck out this whole thing.
The second beer is now open.
Our very own Dark Horse VP is the proverbial gasoline for this fire. A refocus of carrier groups just west of the Straight of Hormuz; vitriolic public statements; avoiding Frontline interviews; things like that. Modern justice, it appears, resembles an old west duke-out of two town idiots. My fear is, there is a final agenda item before January 20th, 2009.
The Columbia Experiment was interesting. The press was mixed, but there was a consensus that the Experiment was a case study in modern, post 911 democracy; that free speech possibly exists in subterranean circles against the ironic backdrop of warrantless wiretapping and sanctioned domestic spying. In the end, this vile game is hard to push the line on, but the possibility is there. That's the marbles were stuck with (don't drink beer while blogging).
Friday, October 19, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
The Aberrant Chronicles
We are approximately 110 days until Super Tuesday--heading into possibly one of the earliest presidential primary seasons in our nation's history. Why is that? In sick and attention-hungry fashion, many States have decided to move thier primaries up, which may force more of the attention on the heavily populated states. The Candidates know this. In previous political cycles, States like New Hampshire and Iowa were significant to win because they are the "early" States. With the first state caucus scheduled for January 14 and 8, possibly 12 states, moving thier primaries up to February 5th, we're geared up for a lightening bolt of a primary season. February 5th could get quite national. No time to think, react or, more importantly, raise money.
As an ironic result, wins in the small early states like New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina now have deep media importance in the big states, which is substantial considering there will be no time to raise large sums of money for those races. Recent reports show the early states moving up earlier; Iowa is seeking a January 3rd caucus date! This is a certified, large scale pissing contest with the various States channeling scenes from Dante's Inferno. Similarly, the pundocracy have mobilized in quick lock step with the premature debate season and have already issued inventive names for the premier policital kick off day: Tsunami Tuesday, Super Duper Tuesday to name a few.
In the end, the big ticket candidates with gold in thier teeth stand a chance. The marathoner(s) with deep pocket media power can survive this lengthy campaign season (which is largely taking place in Iowa and New Hampshire) and position themselves for the early win and big state voter attention.
It appears this presidential election means something. Half the nation has finally come sun up on the stone realization of thier drastic mistake back in November 2004. The desperation for competent (and sane) leadership is at all time high and the American public is so keyed in to foreign policy, security and alcholism that a fever of hyper-concious voters is now inevitable. An unfortunate reflection of the Nixonian duma, which has posited many of the same actors into the current Bush Cartel should be enough to wake us the fuck up. If this robust campaign season and early primary jockeying has showed us anything, it has demonstrated in dramatic fashion that the States, the Candidates and now potentially the Voter, are fully aware of what's at stake.
Sources: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/schneider.superduper.tuesday/index.html
As an ironic result, wins in the small early states like New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina now have deep media importance in the big states, which is substantial considering there will be no time to raise large sums of money for those races. Recent reports show the early states moving up earlier; Iowa is seeking a January 3rd caucus date! This is a certified, large scale pissing contest with the various States channeling scenes from Dante's Inferno. Similarly, the pundocracy have mobilized in quick lock step with the premature debate season and have already issued inventive names for the premier policital kick off day: Tsunami Tuesday, Super Duper Tuesday to name a few.
In the end, the big ticket candidates with gold in thier teeth stand a chance. The marathoner(s) with deep pocket media power can survive this lengthy campaign season (which is largely taking place in Iowa and New Hampshire) and position themselves for the early win and big state voter attention.
It appears this presidential election means something. Half the nation has finally come sun up on the stone realization of thier drastic mistake back in November 2004. The desperation for competent (and sane) leadership is at all time high and the American public is so keyed in to foreign policy, security and alcholism that a fever of hyper-concious voters is now inevitable. An unfortunate reflection of the Nixonian duma, which has posited many of the same actors into the current Bush Cartel should be enough to wake us the fuck up. If this robust campaign season and early primary jockeying has showed us anything, it has demonstrated in dramatic fashion that the States, the Candidates and now potentially the Voter, are fully aware of what's at stake.
Sources: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/05/schneider.superduper.tuesday/index.html
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Sept 11
It's almost already become a cliche. I know that I am tired of being asked, "where were you on Sept. 11th?" Ok, not very many people ask me, and I don't ask anyone, but I do remember that day very well. In terms of significance and importance to American politics and history, it is on par with Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor, D-Day, etc. It is a watershed moment. A moment that you can point to and say, "everything changed after that."
I was woken up by my girlfriend. She called telling me to turn on the TV. The first tower had already been hit a tower. I turned the television on just in time to see the second jet hit the tower. I remember when the towers collapsed. I don't really remember what I thought or felt at that time. It was shocking, but we should have expected it. I was amazed then at how fast they were able to credit the attack to Osama bin Laden. I was also amazed at how fast they were able to get pictures of the suspected terrorists (they all perished unfortunately and were not able to stand trial) on television.
Arrogance is a word used to describe someone or something who is so caught up with themselves that they do not pay attention to the world around them. Arrogance is what allows all of us to think that something like that could never happen here, even though it had in 1993. How long did we think that we would stay shrouded, untouchable to the rest of the world? Aside from one attack during WWII when was the last time that we were attacked from the outside? 1812?
In hindsight I wish that we would have been reborn on Sept. 11th ever more vigilant, more fervent citizens of our Republic. Instead we became even more gullible. We became more susceptible to accusations and threats. We bought the Iraq war hook, line, and sinker because we were all told that Saddam could empower more terror attacks.
Another cliche is that a citizen is the most important "office" that anyone can hold in a democracy. I am sorry to say that this is little more than something that is told to civics classes. It is still my hope that citizens take their responsibility seriously, but it is a lot easier to swallow the dreck that is put on the cable news than to think for yourself.
Farenheit 9/11 and Loose Change have both examined the ties, or motivation, that the powers that be had in allowing, or planning, an attack on our own citizens. It's tough to call any of it "proof." They are some rather unique coincidences, but I fear that we will never know the truth. Even faced by the truth it is doubtful that the public would accept it anyway.
I was woken up by my girlfriend. She called telling me to turn on the TV. The first tower had already been hit a tower. I turned the television on just in time to see the second jet hit the tower. I remember when the towers collapsed. I don't really remember what I thought or felt at that time. It was shocking, but we should have expected it. I was amazed then at how fast they were able to credit the attack to Osama bin Laden. I was also amazed at how fast they were able to get pictures of the suspected terrorists (they all perished unfortunately and were not able to stand trial) on television.
Arrogance is a word used to describe someone or something who is so caught up with themselves that they do not pay attention to the world around them. Arrogance is what allows all of us to think that something like that could never happen here, even though it had in 1993. How long did we think that we would stay shrouded, untouchable to the rest of the world? Aside from one attack during WWII when was the last time that we were attacked from the outside? 1812?
In hindsight I wish that we would have been reborn on Sept. 11th ever more vigilant, more fervent citizens of our Republic. Instead we became even more gullible. We became more susceptible to accusations and threats. We bought the Iraq war hook, line, and sinker because we were all told that Saddam could empower more terror attacks.
Another cliche is that a citizen is the most important "office" that anyone can hold in a democracy. I am sorry to say that this is little more than something that is told to civics classes. It is still my hope that citizens take their responsibility seriously, but it is a lot easier to swallow the dreck that is put on the cable news than to think for yourself.
Farenheit 9/11 and Loose Change have both examined the ties, or motivation, that the powers that be had in allowing, or planning, an attack on our own citizens. It's tough to call any of it "proof." They are some rather unique coincidences, but I fear that we will never know the truth. Even faced by the truth it is doubtful that the public would accept it anyway.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Shia in Iraq
The Economist commented on the British withdrawal in Basra.
With the British leaving who fills their role? Muqtada al-Sadr?
The departure of UK forces from Basra Palace, their last base within Basra city limits, is likely to precipitate a free-for-all among rival local groupings for control in Iraq's second city. Although violent confrontations between the various powers in the area have been taking place for some time, the withdrawal of the British—claimed as a victory for Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army—will allow these Iraqi groupings to concentrate solely on each other. However, the Shia dynamic is extremely complex, and alliances and rivalries differ not only at the national and local level, but can also vary from governorate to governorate.
Fearing Shia chaos in Iraq
With the British leaving who fills their role? Muqtada al-Sadr?
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Iraq revisited
The General Accounting Office, the *ahem* non-partisan branch of Congress, has released a study of 18 benchmarks that are being used to grade the progress in Iraq. Three of the benchmarks are currently being met.
Not bad. Those are important first steps. Four have been partially met.
Ok, so the rubber isn't hitting the road, but maybe it just needs a little bit of a tune-up.
11 of those benchmarks are not being met. Not sure about my math, but I'm pretty sure that those marks won't get you a "C" in college, not even at Yale.
Ok, this isn't exactly news. This has been the problem the whole time. Iraq needs to stand on its own, the question is whether or not we can give them the help that they need? Speaking of benchmarks, doesn't anyone care if children can get to school safely or that citizens of Iraq can get a fair trial?
That seems to be the obvious question. What happens if we leave? Do Iran and Syria gain more influence in Iraq if we leave? Does that further destabilize the region?
1. Committees established that support political, media, and economic aspects of the security plan.
2. Thirty-two of 34 planned joint security stations are established in Baghdad.
3. Rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi Legislature are protected.
Not bad. Those are important first steps. Four have been partially met.
1. Law passed on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions, to be implemented in 2008.
2. Three Iraqi brigades to support operations are trained, but effectiveness is limited.
3. Security forces are established, but militias have infiltrated them.
4. $10 billion in Iraqi revenue has been allocated, but is unlikely to be spent on reconstruction projects.
Ok, so the rubber isn't hitting the road, but maybe it just needs a little bit of a tune-up.
11 of those benchmarks are not being met. Not sure about my math, but I'm pretty sure that those marks won't get you a "C" in college, not even at Yale.
1. Establish a Constitutional Review Committee.
2. Provide de-Ba'athification legislation.
3. Ensure equitable distribution of oil revenues.
4. Establish an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.
5. Establish amnesty legislation.
6. Create a militia disarmament program.
7. Increase the number of Iraqi security units capable of operating independently.
8. Stop Iraq's political authorities from undermining Iraqi security forces.
9. Have Iraqi commanders make tactical and operational decisions in the pursuit of extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shi'ite militias.
10. Have Iraqi security forces provide even-handed enforcement of the law.
11. Reduce the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminate militia control of local security.
Ok, this isn't exactly news. This has been the problem the whole time. Iraq needs to stand on its own, the question is whether or not we can give them the help that they need? Speaking of benchmarks, doesn't anyone care if children can get to school safely or that citizens of Iraq can get a fair trial?
That seems to be the obvious question. What happens if we leave? Do Iran and Syria gain more influence in Iraq if we leave? Does that further destabilize the region?
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Former Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn Dies
Jennifer Dunn passed away today in Alexandria, VA. The former Congresswoman had an embolism that proved to be fatal. Jennifer Dunn in so many way personified the so-called "Reagan revolution" and provided a rather striking contrast for the parade of these "so-called" white men that must be mass produced at the Republican party factory candidate factory. In the other Washington (you know, where Maria Cantwell makes swimsuit team, imagine 20 years ago) Dunn must have really stood out.
Dunn was beautiful and successful woman and she became the FIRST woman to chair the state republican party and later the FIRST to hold a Republican leadership post in Congress. Dunn, and her image, still represents a rather prickly problem for Democrats. If there is an anti-Hillary it would probably look like be Jennifer Dunn. 2004 showed how dependent the Democrats are on voting women. The only problem is that suburban moms feel safer leaving their kids with Dubya than John Kerry. Women like Jennifer Dunn take offense at Hillary. They bristle when they hear Hillary dismiss trivial pursuits like baking cookies for children as beneath her. They whisper in the beauty salon, "can you believe it?" "if she was giving Bill what he wanted." "well, can't say that I blame the girl."
Oh the humanity.
The Democrats are lucky that she didn't have ambitions for the Senate (hands down the best candidate that could have run against Murray or Cantwell) or (who knows) the Presidency, she would be formidable. She had charisma, empathy, and remained likable, which are all of Hillary's weakest points. If not for catching her husband's spotlight she would not be where she is. All you can do is give her credit for keeping the audience's attention after the star left the stage.
The PI ran a side piece on the wikipedia and how quickly it responds to, and apparently leads, the news cycle. It took less than 10 minutes after they pronounced Dunn dead for her entry to be updated. Don't believe me? Read about it the PI.
Oh, and her former Congressional seat is squarely in the crosshairs of the state Democratic Party once again. It looks like Rep. Dave Reichert vs. Darcy Burner (again). Will her spectre influence the outcome of the race? Tune in next week . . .
Dunn was beautiful and successful woman and she became the FIRST woman to chair the state republican party and later the FIRST to hold a Republican leadership post in Congress. Dunn, and her image, still represents a rather prickly problem for Democrats. If there is an anti-Hillary it would probably look like be Jennifer Dunn. 2004 showed how dependent the Democrats are on voting women. The only problem is that suburban moms feel safer leaving their kids with Dubya than John Kerry. Women like Jennifer Dunn take offense at Hillary. They bristle when they hear Hillary dismiss trivial pursuits like baking cookies for children as beneath her. They whisper in the beauty salon, "can you believe it?" "if she was giving Bill what he wanted." "well, can't say that I blame the girl."
Oh the humanity.
The Democrats are lucky that she didn't have ambitions for the Senate (hands down the best candidate that could have run against Murray or Cantwell) or (who knows) the Presidency, she would be formidable. She had charisma, empathy, and remained likable, which are all of Hillary's weakest points. If not for catching her husband's spotlight she would not be where she is. All you can do is give her credit for keeping the audience's attention after the star left the stage.
The PI ran a side piece on the wikipedia and how quickly it responds to, and apparently leads, the news cycle. It took less than 10 minutes after they pronounced Dunn dead for her entry to be updated. Don't believe me? Read about it the PI.
Oh, and her former Congressional seat is squarely in the crosshairs of the state Democratic Party once again. It looks like Rep. Dave Reichert vs. Darcy Burner (again). Will her spectre influence the outcome of the race? Tune in next week . . .
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Conservative Christian Quote
While reading up on the Larry Craig thing at the Christian Science Monitor, I ran into this nifty line from Gary Bauer:
Seriously?
If my choice is between being governed by hypocrites and being governed by people who will be very consistent in what they put through – same-sex marriage, condoms, and birth control pills in the schools, etc., etc. – that would be a horrible choice, but I'd still go with politicians who are willing to vote for the correct things.Let me get this straight. Gary Bauer is saying that he would rather be governed by hypocrites than by people who are highly consistent because he disagrees with the idea of educating teenagers about sex.
Seriously?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
