Real World Schenck

bughan hangug chimlyag

2010-11-24T07:44:00.001-05:00

uisim-ui yeojiga bughan-ui choegeun gong-gyeog-ui uimi mogsum jasin-ui ma-eumsog-e geugeos-i sesang-eseo daleun salam-eul-wihan daleul su issseubnida. uliga geudeul-ui haengdong-eun gigoehago issseubnida. geudeul-i yeonjuhaneun seutolido maeu daleun siggudeul-eun daleul su uisimhaeyahabnida. geudeul-eun him-eul boyeojuneun saeng-gaghabnida. geudeul-eun myeong-yeleul bojon saeng-gaghabnida. ulineun geudeul jasin-i amu iyueobs-i seoggi sidaelo dasi nallyeo eod-eul daehae saeng-gaghabnida.

hanpyeon, hangug-ui bughan salamdeul-i gulm-eo. ulineun segyeui nameojineun salamdeul-ege jegonghagi wihae gikkeoijaneun hangug bughan salamdeul-ege boyeojugo jeongug eumsig-eul nohgi wihae jusahaeya jejeongsin-i bughan jeong-gwon-eun hangug-eo suneun eobsjiman.

modeun galdeung ibeon-en daleuge jonglyodoebnida. namhan-eun beon-yeong-eul gajyeowassda seong-gongjeog-in jabonjuui siseutem-i eobs-eoss-eoyo. bughan-eun gyeongje siseutem-eulo gongsanjuuiui silpaeui myeoch gaji nam-aissneun yeje jung hanaibnida. geudeul-eun geudeul jasin-ui son-e gwang-gileul dan payeolga gyesogdoemyeon bughan-ui eotteohan chimlyag-iiss-eul geos-ibnida.

Mondo Secondo Premio - Italia

2010-11-12T09:14:00.000-05:00

Aggiudicazione del secondo mondo di oggi va al primo ministro italiano Silvio Berlusconi, che dimostra che l'Italia non è attualmente in grado di essere parte del mondo moderno. Giù il cappello per Berlusconi leader tribali, la cui difesa della prostituzione a partiti di governo è che è meglio che essere gay. Tanto di cappello a voi. L'Italia è squalificata da una voce nel futuro del mondo fino a nuovo avviso.

Health Care is not deserved, a right, or an entitlement

2009-08-18T22:08:00.002-04:00

I am very sympathetic with the desire of Democrats to bring health care to everyone. It seems to me there are enough smart people around that these things could be figured out without destroying the fundamental soundness of capitalism.

But...

That's not what inspired me to post something. It is the language I'm hearing by people like Jesse Jackson Jr. and Howard Dean of everyone deserving health care or everyone being entitled to health care. Wrong. America is a social contract. Even if Jefferson used language of inalienable rights, he didn't mean anything like this. And it simply isn't true. America will be a better place for everyone if we can work these sorts of things out. But health care is not a right. It's a great privilege.

We have a contract to live together freely as long as we all follow some basic rules. We don't steal each other's stuff. We don't hurt each other. We pay taxes so that we can pay police to keep the peace and so that the government can provide some basic services.

The idea is that everyone is free to thrive. It is in everyone's best interest that mechanisms be put in place to help those who get down on their luck as well as to set rules to protect us from our own stupidity. It does no one any good to let those in a cycle of poverty and despair languish. It is a smart system that helps these sorts back on track to being self-sufficient. That diminishes crime and ultimately benefits everyone.

But we are only "entitled" to what we have agreed as part of the contract, and then conditionally on keeping our end of the deal. "He who does not work, shall not eat" is the default. We might very well make it part of our contract to say that if you are incapacitated, society will help. After all, wouldn't we want help too if we came down on our luck?

But the goal is to get back on track. It's not a free lunch--that's not the contract. People should have to do something to get welfare. I appreciate Obama's pragmatism. But I don't appreciate the extreme elements of the Democratic party who are why I am still registered as a Republican.

Osama who?

2009-06-03T10:07:00.002-04:00

I guess bin Laden issued a statement about Obama going to Saudia Arabia today. Certainly the usual rabble rousers of the Republican party--the ones that make me thing about becoming an Independent--are on their hobby horses again.

Sometimes I picture myself at a press conference answering questions, like, "President Schenck, how would you respond to Osama's depiction of your Middle East trip as an attempt to spread hate?"

My response: "Osama who? This is a guy who lives in a cave half the time and every once and a while manages to scribble a note and get it out to the public. Yes, it was a failure of the previous administration to bring him to justice. But really, this is pretty much one guy who got lucky a couple times. One of those times was catastrophic, to be sure, but I give no credit of brilliance or significance to the man who planned it. He got lucky.

"There are some fundamental misunderstandings that were a part of the previous administration's response to this little man. First, they responded to a spider when he is a starfish. With a spider, you hit it on the head and it's dead. You can take the battle to the spider. But with some starfish, almost every part will regrown into a complete starfish again, even if you cut off every arm.

"Terrorism is not a spider. You can't really take the battle to terrorism, because it's potentially everywhere. The previous administration either misunderstood this fact or it saw 9-11 as an opportunity to pursue a secondary agenda in Iraq. If the latter was the case, we can at least admire it for its cunning, for a broader plan that had good intentions but that at least so far has failed to yield the intended results. If the previous was the case, then the pursuit of Saddam Hussein was about as misguided as the French investors who tried to figure out who the president of the internet was before they would invest--and of course with a cost of thousands of American lives and ten thousand Iraqi lives.

"In the process, bin Laden was empowered far beyond the power he had previously. He went from someone on the edges of Islam, despised by those in power in the Muslim world to someone with real symbolic power. Our war in Iraq took someone on the run from his own people, who was denounced by almost every Muslim nation after 9-11, to someone who inspired forces in these nations that those in power now had to deal with on a grander scale. A more conservative regime managed to get elected in Iran, largely because of the American invasion of Iraq.

"Another mistake of the previous administration is that, realizing how much trouble the legs of the starfish caused (themselves still thinking of it as spider legs that would stop if they could just bop its head), they tried to burn the whole starfish. This was practically the approach of the Israelis in Lebanon a couple summers ago. At some point, however, the loss to innocent life is so overwhelming that the only ethical--and reasonably strategic thing to do is to live with disappointment.

The ancient Syrians did this with the Maccabees. They finally realized that it was stupid to keep fighting and losing so many just so that the Jews would "modernize" and stop strange customs like circumcision and not eating pork. The Russians did this in Afghanistan in the 80s. We did it in Vietnam. The Spanish did it with the Apache. You don't try to defeat a starfish. You isolate and insulate its parts. You make sure it isn't where you are or want to be.

"So let's dismiss this Osama person. He's a has been. That part of the starfish is locked up in a box."

I don't know if Obama's mission to the Middle East will accomplish anything. But it's a lot smarter than what the last guy did. It can't hurt.

Rush Limbaugh in Wall Street Journal

2009-02-21T11:41:00.002-05:00

Here is Limbaugh on a tirade against the Fairness Act. Obama came out saying he did not favor the fairness act.

Of course after the attempt of the previous regime to suppress "anti-American" thought, it's not a little hypocritical to say such things now. I agree with Limbaugh's position, however. And he seemed a little more restrained than usual.

I should expect to hear an increasing number of conspiracy theories about what the Obama administration is doing beneath the surface. To some extent, "to the victor belong the spoils," as it certainly was for the Bush administration. So far, Obama seems to have resisted the temptation to let the liberals in his party exert the kind of revenge they did under Clinton and that Bush's people did.

But of course we'll see what happens in time.

P.S. No comment on the stimulus package. I simply don't know enough to have an opinion.

Warren and others

2008-12-19T07:51:00.003-05:00

I don't really know most of the people Obama has appointed, but I am pretty pleased. More than anything, I'm pleased with his attitude. All the extremes are angry, which tells me he's doing the right thing. Bush said he was a uniter, but his administration turned out to be full of extremists.

Obama appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, reaching out to her constituencies. He has Rick Warren praying at inauguration, which has many liberals up in arms but shows a willingness to reach out to evangelicals (and it will be interesting if he makes some key decisions on stem cell research and stuff the same day! Smart move if so.)

I don't know what the Chicago education guy will be like, but I'm excited at the prospect of someone in office who recognizes that character is a much bigger problem in American schools than reading and writing. My impression is that Christian schools in America largely teach memorization, not the higher level Bloom's skills like analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Phonics to me is the poster child for what I believe to be the often inferior education of most Christian schools in America, when the behavior element is taken out of the equation. With the behavior element brought in, of course, many Christian schools become infinitely preferable and I have seriously considered them for my children as a result.

My hunch is, however, that Bush has had Christian school type philosophers running regular schools--the worst of both worlds, inability or myopia to deal with behavior issues, and an 1800's educational philosophy. I could easily be wrong. That's just how it's felt.

Finally, Obama has appointed real scientists rather than some of the quack people who have seemed to hold sway in Bush's regime. How refreshing to think that the scientific element in government might actually flow from people who use research as the basis for their advice rather than preconceived ideology. I'm sure there were some genuine scientists in the Bush administration. I just don't think they had any power or influence.

Perhaps these appointees will turn out to be duds. But so far they seem on trajectory to what Obama promised.

Obama picks Shinseki for Veteran's Affairs

2008-12-07T06:36:00.002-05:00

Obama announced that he would be appointing retired Gen. Eric K. Shinseki as Secretary of the Office of Veteran's Affairs. The following lines from the article on msnbc.com stood out to me.

"Shinseki’s tenure as Army chief of staff from 1999 to 2003 was marked by constant tensions with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which boiled over in 2003 when Shinseki testified to Congress that it might take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to control Iraq after the invasion.

"Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, belittled the estimate as “wildly off the mark,” and the army general was forced out within months. But Shinseki’s words proved prophetic after President George W. Bush in early 2007 announced a “surge” of additional troops to Iraq after miscalculating the numbers needed to stem sectarian violence."

:-)

Saturday Night Live strikes again...

2008-09-29T21:32:00.006-04:00

Obviously anyone with a brain will not let either of these clips affect the way they vote... but they sure are funny:

Here's one of the McCain/Obama debate. It's obviously lopsided against McCain:

First Presidential Debate

2008-09-26T22:48:00.002-04:00

Watched the majority of the debate. It's hard for me to be objective but I'll try.

I think that both the base of the Republican and the base of the Democratic party will be happy with their candidate's performance. The most rabid Republicans and Democrats will think that their man absolutely trounced the other. McCain supporters will see him "giving Obama a lesson in foreign policy (as Guliani's spin was--interestingly Palin declined appearing next to Biden :-) . Obama supporters will see him as hitting the nail on the head issue after issue.

So what will the swing voters think, people like me who hate the party system and the way it pushes candidates to play to their base rather than say what they really think?

First, my hunch is that most younger voters will not react favorable to McCain's snide and condescending remarks and name calling. On several occasions Obama complimented McCain. By contrast, McCain generally responded with dismissive or denigrating responses. I heard Guliani's summary and it's hard for me to see most middle ground people under 40 seeing it as anything other than the despicable spin they have grown to detest and associate with people like Karl Rove. Guliani infuriated me--McCain and Obama did not.

It's really hard for me to imagine how a "Reagan democrat" would respond. I'm not sure. They might like what I perceived to be McCain's "trust me I have experience and he doesn't" approach. On the other hand, Obama's responses sounded intelligent. He didn't come off as inexperienced, even when McCain responded with, "Son, put your pacifier back in because I've actually been to South Ocetia."

Again, it's hard for me to see myself, but I thought McCain repeated himself and often just gave lines that could just as well have been memorized. I thought Obama came off more composed and, in general, more presidential. It will be interesting to see which one America thought won the debate.

Rick Warren hosts Obama, McCain

2008-08-17T06:38:00.002-04:00

I caught most of the interviews last night between Rick Warren of Saddleback and Obama and McCain. I think how you respond to the debate depends a lot on your age and, obviously, your political positions.

But let me suggest broadly how people would respond based on their age, trying to remove the political positions part from the equation. In this case, I think how you respond breaks around 40-45 years old.

Those older than 40-45, like Pat Buchanan afterwards, see McCain as a hands down winner. (Of course Buchanan has become a spin meister too.) McCain had clear cut answers, which this crowd sees as leadership. He decisively jumped in even before Warren could get the questions out. He was confident, unlike Obama, who hemmed and hawed and, in Buchanan's mind, surprisingly didn't seem to know Theology 101.

Those younger than 40 might see it differently. McCain wouldn't have even needed to show up because his answers were so scripted to the party line, especially the sterotyped evangelical party line, that anyone could have given them for him. He had the answers memorized like an old time school boy who can hardly wait to get the question right. Oo, oo, can I tell you the right answer to that question too, now, or do I have to wait.

Obama, on the other hand, gave his real answers in the face of a hostile audience. He tried to find common ground with an opposing position. He was authentic, not canned. He gave realistic answers rather than the kinds of dreamy idealistic ones that got us into the Iraq War (you defeat evil--yeah, that's worked for us, hasn't it).

No Surprises, More Bush Administration...

2008-06-24T22:05:00.002-04:00

Yawn, ho hum. No surprise that Bush justice department people illegally stacked the deck with lesser qualified Republican automatons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25348796/

We've also heard that Bush administration people did this with science reports too.

Yeah America, the only nation where the smart kids in high school are somehow made out to be inferior and where we have a culture that makes fun of experts on any subject.

We are truly the smartest nation in the world.

For Keith--the Hullaballoo over Obama and Campaign Finance

2008-06-22T17:53:00.003-04:00

This one is for Keith.

I caught the beginning of Meet the Press this morning before church. Moment of silence for Tim Russert. Shocking that he's gone. He was the classic nerd--man did he like politics. He was constantly giddy like a school boy, just a little too excited about his white board. But I really did think he was one of the most neutral people around. He loved the game for the game, regardless of who the players were. To this day I don't know what his personal positions were.

So Meet the Press was debating Obama's decision to opt out of the government campaign money. McCain's camp is all up in arms about him flip flopping.

GOOD GRIEF! How many times has McCain changed his positions this election!!!! The most recent I know of was his reversal on off shore drilling. I'm not sure what I think about this, but good grief McCain has changed positions from 2000 so many times he's the last person who has room to talk.

Of course Obama shouldn't try to pretend he's not taking money because the system is broke. Come on, the grass roots people like him, there's no shame in that. On the other hand, he is quite right to point out that doing this is not going back on his claim about special interest groups. The common person has been his money bag... and the common person will elect him.

I'm not saying what kind of president he will be, except that he'll be different.

Requiem for Bill Clinton

2008-06-03T01:04:00.002-04:00

Todd Purdum's Vanity Fair article confirms for me all the impressions I've had of Bill Clinton over the years. I could never believe that people bought the shows he put on during the elections of the nineties. I wouldn't want to say that he did not do some good during his years in the presidency.

Some thoughts:
1. The requiem for Bill is a requiem for the boomers, this generation that either can't smell out hypocrisy or, I've come to believe, really doesn't care.

2. Bill, for all his political genius, can't handle the internet generation, the world where everything you say will be played somewhere on youtube.

3. I don't see the sexism angle at all. I think Geraldine Ferraro embarrassed herself. I would be delighted for a woman to be president. Hillary herself convinced me that this was not the time.

4. I don't begrudge Hillary continuing on until this point. But she and Bill don't have some divine right to be king. The lack of press coverage is now because she's lost. It doesn't feel good to lose, but you just have to deal with it.

I think a new day is dawning in American politics, a day I welcome. I think the rising generation of voters is fed up with the older generation of Republicans and Democrats. Whether you like Obama's perspectives or not, I believe his way of doing politics reflects where the next generation of voters is going.

Enough of the Pastor Stuff on Both Sides...

2008-05-31T09:40:00.002-04:00

I've had enough of the "death by association" pastor stuff. McCain obviously doesn't agree with Hagee on everything and Hagee doesn't agree with McCain on everything. I pronounce anyone "dumber than a door knob" who thinks that the gyrations of an obscure pastor hammin' it up for a crowd that wants to see him perform must obviously be exactly what Senator Obama thinks.

This is the height of illogic, it's not even worthy to be called the ad hominem fallacy because it's attacking Obama through the back door. I guess you would call it the circumstantial fallacy, attacking the circumstances of the person to smear the person's ideas? Let's come up with a new name, "Smearing someone by finding anything even loosely associated with them that we don't like" fallacy.

I once had liver. You don't like liver. Ah, logically, then, you must not like me.

Come on--are we really this stupid in America??? Obama wasn't there. Obama didn't say these things. How many people agree with everything their pastor says? How many people go to church because of the preaching?

Good grief. If the American people and the media (especially FOX news) are this stupid and unable to reason like homo sapiens, then there's no hope for our future. We're no better thinkers than your garden variety slug.

We will no doubt be taken over in the next 100 years by some other nation smarter than we are.

McClellan on the Today Show

2008-05-29T16:43:00.001-04:00

David Gregory on McClellan's book.

McClellan vindicates everything I've said since 2004

2008-05-28T11:37:00.002-04:00

For all who beat their chests at me when I started my other blog in 2004 and argued that Bush needed to be fired as CEO of the country then, for all the illogicians who defended the Bush administration and FOX News while I could see it all as the mounting evidence and voices overwhelmingly have shown it really was, to all those at whom history is already wagging its head, I submit Scott McClellan, along with Colin Powell and so many others.

It's no use. You've not learned anything. Religion and politics rarely have anything to do with rationality or truth.

Hillary Clinton's Demographic

2008-05-13T11:44:00.004-04:00

The Saturday Night Live skit this past weekend seemed so true it almost wasn't funny.

In it, Amy Poehler gave three reasons why Hillary should be the Democratic nominee:

1. I am a sore loser.
2. My supporters are racist.
3. I have no ethical standards.

I don't think the first one will be true, and the third I think mainly applies to her election. But...

You have to wonder about a candidate who thinks she should be the candidate because most of her support comes from uneducated whites (54% I think of her supporters in West Virginia don't have a college degree) with a racist bent. My reaction at her demographic is rather to pray for greater education in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky.

Is it a coincidence that many of these are also some of the states with the worst performing school systems in the nation?

And so Hillary says, vote for me because I'm electable and Obama isn't. Isn't this tantamount to saying America is more likely to vote for her because most Americans are uneducated and prejudiced?

Perhaps Obama is not the perfect candidate--but there's something wrong when American turns ignorance and racists into electable virtues. Yeah, that's the candidate for me.

Bitter Americans

2008-04-12T21:22:00.003-04:00

"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Ok, is it just me or is Obama getting a lot of flack for saying something that's true? And is it me or is Hillary Clinton the biggest hypocrite in the world... since she and Bill no doubt say the same thing to each other in private (assuming they actually talk)--except they aren't empathizing but calling smalltown USA stupid?

This is Sociology 101.

Clinton under fire... or not

2008-03-24T20:04:00.003-04:00

I'm hoping that Saturday Night Live will take advantage of Hillary Clinton's story telling last week. She was reminiscing about her great experience as President's wife, the good old days of landing in Bosnia under sniper fire and not being able to go through the welcome ceremony in the run for safety. Video of the welcome showed her and Chesley happily greeting people, including a smiling young girl.

Oops! Here's the scoop:

Meanwhile, we're at 4000 casualties, 97% of which have taken place since Bush declared mission accomplished. I can only imagine the shredding of paper and cover ups taking place right now behind the scenes in fear that Obama or Clinton will be elected. I bet Bush and Cheney have more interest in McCain getting elected than supporting their party.

I wouldn't be surprised if we find them both in prison in a couple years if McCain doesn't win. I will not be surprised at all if we find out after the fact that this has been the most corrupt administration of recent times.

Actress in Clinton Commercial is Obama Supporter!

2008-03-10T13:11:00.002-04:00

HA!

Example of Karl Rove at Work? MSNBC's Dan Abrams

2008-03-08T09:24:00.006-05:00

Conspiracy theories are, by their very nature, less likely to be true than not. Nevertheless, something very fishy seems afoot below in Alabama.

Parts of this administration (especially Rove) have seemed so crooked to me, and my recent disliking to Clinton is my fear that she will only be more of the same on the other side. I just don't get that impression from the Obama campaign. My fear of McCain is that it would just be business as has become usual.

Admittedly, I thought Bush had a good heart when he took office. I continue to want to think the same thing, although I find it so difficult. So out of good will I have him in the "well intentioned but misguided" category. Rove I put in the "Machiavellianly misguided, but good intentioned by a warped and twisted standard" box.

Kerry on Obama's Experience--MSNBC Interview

2008-03-07T15:01:00.003-05:00

A Warning to the Democratic Party

2008-03-07T08:19:00.004-05:00

Who does the Democratic Party need to win this Fall? They need Republicans and Independents who are so disaffected with the trajectory of the nation that they are willing to vote Democratic.

You could argue that I fit that demographic. I can't hardly think of a single area in which I think the Bush administration has, in the end, done anything but harm the nation:

1. Economy worse than it has ever been since the Depression because of a frivolous war costing billions of dollars a week--which we are borrowing from China and Saudi Arabia, making them richer and richer every day!

2. Foreign policy in the tank because of a cocky administration with no understanding of other cultures and a ethnocentric arrogance that is part of the cause of our Middle East troubles in the first place!

3. Education in the tank because of sticks without money or the means to do what is demanded of it--closing schools that fail because of socio-economic reasons and then only transferring the problem to other schools that will now accelerate in failure because the underlying issues aren't being addressed.

4. In our desire to see Roe vs. Wade overturned, we have had to dig up some of the most extreme Supreme Court nominees since the 1800's, almost Nazi types. I have to wonder if the net gain--which has yet to materialize at all--off sets the potential loss in gains we've made as a culture since the days of lynching blacks.

None of the current candidates will appoint judges who will overturn R v W. Even if R v W were overturned, abortion would only become a matter of state by state voting. It would not outlaw it. Those who vote solely on this issue seem to me to be like bugs who can't see anything but the light they are flying into. Let everything else burn to the ground around them for decades on end because all they can see is this one issue... that we are hardly any closer to fixing than when we started.

The anger I have toward the current Republican trajectory is overwhelming.

But I have unequivocally decided since Ohio and Texas that I'll vote for McCain over Clinton. Why not? He has an evangelical position on abortion. Despite the fact that he has joined Bush for political reasons, he would never have got us into this war if he had been president. He'll be more fiscally responsible than Bush has. He won't cater to the Nazi wing of the Republican party any more than he has to to survive.

So here's my warning to the Democratic party. You might convince me that Obama is just the change we need at home and abroad, despite issues where I might disagree with him. But you'll never convince me that Clinton is just the change we need. She's a smug conniver who, if she gets the nomination, will do so by playing the system. My hopes that we might return to honesty and the "good of the people" will convert back to the depression of the Karl Rove years.

I'll not vote for her. So go ahead and be the stupid party... AGAIN, if you want to. Or wise up and pick someone who inspires hope in people like me--whether it's real or ephemeral.

How about it, Pennsylvania, superdelegates, Michigan, and Florida? Help your party, send Clinton a packin'. Or you'll alienate the very people you need to win the next election.

And then there were three...

2008-03-06T15:48:00.003-05:00

Looks like we're down to McCain, Obama, and Clinton. I don't think it's possible for McCain to win against Obama, although he might against Clinton. Hard for me to see Clinton winning over Obama, but she's not to be underestimated. So I'm sticking by the predictions I made way back after Iowa, that Obama will ultimately win against McCain.

I'll confess that I'm getting the same vibe from the Clinton campaign that I had from Bill back in the 90's--"Slick Hilly." I guess the white male vote for Hilary breaks at 44 years old right now--white men over 44 go for her, younger for Obama. HA! I'm 41 and have liked her less and less with each passing bump in the road.

I'm getting that same vibe I've always got from her and her husband--manipulation. Whatever you think of Obama's views, he and McCain have seemed to me to run clean campaigns. My impression from her--she'll do whatever it takes and whoever she needs to run over to get elected.

My thought--this is Hillary's last chance. The boomer demographic barely continues to hold power. Next election the next generation will be in full control, and they can smell a ruse a mile away.

Clintons, rest in peace. You'll never go back to the White House.

The Status Quo of the Union

2008-01-29T15:09:00.000-05:00

Last night Bush showed me why Obama will win this election. There was nothing of any interest in Bush's talk whatsoever. We've heard it all before and none of it changes anything.

Cursed earmarks! Who cares? In fact none of the electable candidates give us any sense of anything new at all--except Obama. That's not an endorsement; it's an observation of why he will win the election.

Frankly, he scares me a little. I like his heart. I like his priorities. I'm a little afraid of what it would look like in reality.

Economy--I think taxation tends to cripple an economy. That's why an Obama scares me in this area even more than a Clinton. But by the same token, this 600 dollar stimulus package, funded courtesy of money borrowed from China, makes no sense to me at all. Strangely, Huckabee has made the most sense to me on this issue.

Foreign Policy--Obama will immediately go light years toward healing our relationships with the rest of the world. I hope he will not plot some precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Ironically, although our invasion of Iraq was the defining stupidity of Bush's entire presidency, I am not gun ho about setting timelines. We screwed up. We bear some responsibility for the damage control.

Education--Obama will heal the short sighted approach to education known as "No Child Left Behind." Tell me, is it more important for a student to be able to know how to get along with others and fit into the world or to get a good score on a Geometry test. You take the test in Algebra 2, Bush, and if you pass we'll talk about what is most important to learn in the public schools to succeed in life.

Immigration--It is hypocritical in the extreme for Americans to get indignant about illegal immigration. We have looked the other way for twenty years, and businesses have been happy to have the cheap labor. We bear some blame for this problem, and now we're going to get "righteously indignant" that they're here--especially big business Republicans. Go take a log out of your own eye.

The Christian attitude to have is to be compassionate toward the non-criminal illegals. I guarantee we can find sins you commit equal to their crossing the border against the law (ever walked along a train track--it's against the law). In God's eyes, you're not worth one dime more than them. And the only practical thing to do is to secure the borders and find a way to mainstream the good people who are here. Say what you want, but this issue teems with hypocrisy, prejudice, and economic suicide.

Health Care--There are smart enough people to figure out how to insure everyone without killing the economy or watering down quality. Politics is the only thing that keeps such things from happening. This will happen. The question is how.

Environment--Whatever you attribute it to, the climate is warming in ways that are going to change the complexion of the planet significantly in the next 50 years. My advice, move away from Florida. Those expensive beach properties are going under water.

The only appropriate course of action is to work aggressively on the use of hydrocarbons. And why not, we should be working on technology that eliminates our use of oil period, foreign and domestic. The ethanol kick is a joke.

If I had the time, resources, and know how, I'd be building a pedal powered car to go back and forth to work in right now. Yes, you could finagle the gear ratios and maybe give a little help with a battery to go 40 and 50 miles an hour without great effort. Man, I'd love to build something likethis and stick it to the oil industry and OPEC. Again, only big business has kept the right things from happening in these areas.

My thoughts, filled with my frustration with how politics nurtures insanity.

Can't Teach a New Dog Old Tricks

2008-01-28T08:39:00.000-05:00

Apparently Bill Clinton's stump speeches for his wife failed in South Carolina. The press of course had a hand in it, for they were discussing his antics out where everyone could see them. The result apparently was to push the South Carolina primary even more in Obama's direction that it would have been.

Now, mind you, my political eyes in 1992 and 1996 were a little different than they are now. But I have never thought of Bill Clinton as an ideological purist. I do think of Hilary more in those terms (no disrespect intended by the first name, but the fact it is what comes out first says something about America's conception of her).

To me, Bill Clinton has always been a slick talker, someone who confuses most people with a barrage of figures and sentimental stories that impresses the average individual but may in fact mean absolutely nothing. John Edwards has his flavor to me this election.

But it seems to me that we're into a new generation. The Boomers don't seem to get hypocrisy the way the Millennials do. (We GenXers never made a difference because we were sitting in front of the TV with our 2 liters not paying attention). I saw a microcosm of this at a church I was at where everyone in that generation seemed to coo and oo and ah a certain pastor that to me was obviously faking it. He was later found in a hotel room with one of the church members.

So go on Clinton if you want, try the same old same old with the Boomers. Maybe you'll convince enough of them to vote for your wife. But for me, if I were to vote for your wife, I would have to block you out of my mind. For me, you're making me think--"Who's running for office anyway?" and "Isn't she big enough to run for herself?" and "You're a fake."

Did I mention that Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama today?

FOX's Republican Debate in New Hampshire

2008-01-06T22:22:00.000-05:00

I was helping my children get to sleep tonight when by chance or design I found myself watching the Republican debate in New Hampshire. I apparently missed the beginning, which will become significant later.

Here's my run down:

1. I thought McCain did well. I would pick him as the winner from my perspective, although admittedly my attention was sometimes divided. I also think that he and Thompson are the most transparent in their positions. Everyone else has flip flopped on something at one time or another.

2. I seemed to have missed any brilliance from Mit Romney. I'll confess up front that I don't like him. It has nothing to do with him being a Mormon. In fact, if anything he's lost points with me for acting like his faith doesn't encompass his whole life. It seems to me that means he's more serious about winning an election than about his faith, which means his faith isn't much of a faith.

Frankly, he comes off to me as an artificial pretty boy. I can't see people under 40 voting for him. For some strange reason, older folk can't seem to spot hypocrites as easily as the younger crowd. I'm not surprised that FOX seems to be skewing things in his direction. More on that to come...

3. Huckabee apparently did worse than I saw--or not. The New Hamphire focus group FOX set up hated him, maybe a little too much. Apparently he jumbled the first question. Did anyone see that? I didn't notice any incredible screw up.

In fact, to get a little ahead of myself, the reaction of the FOX focus group was so overwhelmingly in favor of Romney and overwhelmingly against Huckabee that I smelt a rat. I noted in my previous post that FOX was anti-Huckabee in its coverage and commentary (so was MSNBC). So the commentary was again tonight. In fact, one of FOX's commentators had to make a full disclosure that she was connected to the Romney campaign.

I won't convince the unconvinced, but in my opinion FOX is the least objective of all the networks. Let no one think that these people are Christian conservatives. They're political and economic conservatives. Such people are far more likely to worship the almighty dollar than the Almighty God. Such people are utilitarians and egoists, not moral absolutists. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of Christian conservatives can tell the difference.

Huckabee didn't do badly tonight in the parts I saw. FOX just doesn't like him and uses its power to its own ideological ends. Mind you, I'm not endorsing anyone here. I'm just pointing out to Christian conservatives that Huckabee is the conservative Christian horse in this race and FOX doesn't like him at all. Recognize that FOX's conservatism is not the same as Christian conservatism.

4. And for those who might question this, did you know that FOX did not allow Ron Paul to debate tonight? The New Hampshire Republican party backed out of supporting the debate for this reason. I hope a bunch of angry NH Republicans vote for Ron Paul in the caucuses just to stick it to the FOX News monster. Teach them a lesson.

5. Guliani and Thompson were on the margins of the debate. FOX at least put it right when it saw Guliani's hanging off the side of the table as symbolic of his marginalization in the NH race.

Thompson's a nice guy and his answers aren't bad. It just always seems like he's sitting on the side, not really in the center of the action. He doesn't have spiz.

Well, I thought they were all civil and didn't see a knock-down winner, but all in all thought McCain did the best. Some of that no doubt has to do with positions he took. And so to be fair to FOX, they surely agree most with Romney.

Then again, I wonder if he's donating money to them on some level. I swear, almost everyone in the NH FOX focus group became a convinced Romney supporter and all of them thought Huckabee was trash. This group seemed to have the attitude as if to say, "We're smarter than the stupid Christians in Iowa. You'll never catch one of us voting for a Huckabee." The thought struck me, "I wonder if they've stacked this deck!"

No matter. Romney will not be on the Republican ticket, and Obama will beat whoever is. That's a prediction, not an endorsement.

Iowa Caucus Night

2008-01-03T23:44:00.000-05:00

I'm ready to predict who will be the next President of the United States. It will be Barack Obama. His speech was the best of all the speeches, the freshest, the most statesmanlike, and the one that most speaks for change.

The second best was Mike Huckabee's. I don't know if he will be the Republican candidate. Frankly I think it will be either him or John McCain. Guliani won't go the distance, I don't think. Romney is a fake pretty boy and won't fly.

Huckabee's a better speaker than McCain, but man the media don't like him (both FOX and MSNBC's commentators clearly don't take him seriously). Neither are attractive enough to capture America's superficial imagination. For Huckabee, the teeth just look too much like, well, exactly what you would expect a Huckabee to look like.

Hillary Clinton's speech was a disappointment. She just doesn't have the juice. Edwards went on and on. All right man, you were doing good for the first four minutes. I didn't hear Romney because he chose to go on at the same time as Huckabee.

From what I can tell, FOX chose to show him rather than Huckabee, even though he was the loser. HA! Good political move for Romney, since his people likely watch Fox.

I don't know if Obama has the wisdom to make the changes that I do believe America needs across the board--education, economy, foreign policy, energy, climate change. But I'm predicting tonight that he will not only be the Democratic candidate, but the next President.

The blog for my philosophy class

2007-11-23T17:59:00.000-05:00

I have shown extraordinary restraint in the substitute assignment I have created for my philosophy class. I was away at a convention so had them talk on a blog to substitute for a missed class.

Peek in if you'd like:

http://www.iwuphilosophy.blogspot.com

Bush's Veto of Congress' Health Care Plan

2007-09-29T23:07:00.000-04:00

Bush has called a congressional plan to provide medical coverage for children currently in between Medicare and other health plans "irresponsible" and has promised to veto it.

I haven't investigated the particulars of the plan. I do believe we need to make major changes in the American health care system, but we also need to make sure someone can pay for whatever changes we might make. Bush has no better answer.

But it is hypocritical in the extreme for Bush to say a word about irresponsible uses of funds in the face of his frivolous war and Sec. of Defense Gates' trip to Congress this week for yet more billions well beyond the billions already budgeted. Whether wise or not, at least Congress is asking for funds that would actually help someone. Bush's war has helped no one, but it has killed or maimed tens of thousands who would otherwise be living, and that with their limbs in tact.

Bush's Post Petraeus Speech Tonight

2007-09-13T22:24:00.000-04:00

Bush did what he should have done tonight--put the most positive spin on Iraq and his coming actions that he could. So we all know that he has to begin downsizing the troop levels. So he has portrayed that decrease as a consequence of success in the surge. Good political tact. At the same time, of course, they are only going to decrease to what they were before the surge at this point. Little consolation. But rather than such withdrawal looking like failed policy, he can pin it on the success of his actions. He's not conceding to Baker-Hamilton. Look, he did it his way and was right and can now begin some withdrawal.

Has the surge brought success? I believe it has made the situation in Iraq better, yes. The real question is whether it has made it better in the long term or only because there are more troops there right now to police things. Time will tell.

Let us rejoice with what seems to have happened in the Anbar province. It does indeed seem good news that the Sunnis have turned on the elements whose main purpose is to fight us. But of course Anbar is not a Sunni-Shiite, mixed place with a lot of civil war going on. The biggest problem in Iraq by far is not those there to fight us. It is the civil war going on between Sunnis and Shiites.

By the way, remember how hard the Bush administration fought against that label--civil war? Publically we have had nothing but denial after denial. Well, only 20 some % of Americans actually believe Bush's spin now. These are either the enlightened ones or the expected small group who wouldn't change their minds if the truth came up and bit them on the ... nose.

But as a Christian, and as an American, I have to hope that it works out. My human side wants Bush to be held accountable for a frivilous war that has cost us thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, not to mention billions of dollars and the moral high ground vis-a-vis the world.

But I have to hope that, against all expectations, Iraq and the Middle East will be a better place in the end. We have to hope that Bush can gloat about how the Iraqi government became unified and the sectarian violence came to an end. I have to hope that things will begin to go so well that he can try to rub it in my face. "Look at how wonderful life in Iraq is now. It truly is better than it was under Saddam Hussein."

I hope we can say that one day, in the same way that a teenage pregnancy can result in the birth of a wonderful person that we would never wish had not been born. But the facts of the beginning of the war cannot be changed.

That Bush launched an inappropriate preemptive war without prerequisites long established for over 1000 years. He did it on the basis of a overarching strategy for the middle east first and only secondarily because of Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Without provocation, Hussein would not even have been a sufficient basis for going to war. Those who don't learn from history...
That this war was a diversion that had nothing concrete to do with 9-11 or terrorists or Al Qaeda. We should have continued to pursue bin Laden. This was a switch-a-roo to accomplish side goals.
That Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld launched this war with naive, utopian visions of Western freedom, thinking we probably would not lose much more than a 100 troops as they flocked to our ideals for them. Oops.
That we are not "fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them here." The terrorists in Iraq are not the 9-11 terrorists and they only joined to Al Qaeda after the war had started. I doubt what we have done in Iraq has diverted a single terrorist plot here in America.
That our moral influence in the rest of the world is nil, that we have only pushed people away from the Christianity they associate with America. Rest assured no nation will be signing up for us to help them get freedom any time soon.

History will not be kind to President Bush.

Signed, a Republican

Baghdad in the Stone Age

2007-08-20T10:48:00.000-04:00

Here is an article from Newsweek that I find very sad.

City in a Time Warp War is pushing Baghdad out of the 21st century and back to a bygone age of ferrymen, midwives, donkey drivers and shepherds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20326315/site/newsweek/from/ET/

This is the fruit of Bush's naive belief that everyone wants Western freedom.

When will we own up to the fact that homo sapiens is an animal? Individuals can rise above the norm of the species. But most humans never truly exist. They are born. They eat, poop, and reproduce. Then they die. Oh, and the humans who are most animal kill those who want to exist.

Most people don't want to be created in the image of God.

Farewell to Karl Rove

2007-08-13T13:49:00.000-04:00

I'll confess my delight at the departure of Karl Rove from the Bush administration. He has appeared to be a genius of political strategy, a worthy adversary. Indeed, the bumbling Democrats weren't up to the challenge at any point. And when the American people fall right into his hands, how can you put all the blame on him?

But alas, truth ultimately doesn't care how clever you are, and no amount of spin can put the Humpty Dumpty that is the Iraq War back together again. "Blah, blah, blah" is the sound of the many words of those who think the truth can be changed by much talking.

The average intelligence of an American is, well, average.

Carmona's Surgeon General Testimony

2007-07-13T22:32:00.000-04:00

Dr. Carmona, the outgoing Surgeon General, testified about a week ago before a Senate committee and indicated what I don't think any sane person finds surprising. He testified about the strong political interference by the Bush administration in what he was allowed to talk about during his tenure. Consultation with C. Everett Koop and other former Surgeon Generals confirmed that the level of interference was more than in any other administration for the last 30 years.

This is infuriating to me because, as a biblical scholar, I am well acquainted with non-specialists setting boundaries for truth on matters about which they are not competent to speak. Religion and politics both have a tendency to avoid the question of truth while shouting for truth louder than anyone else. Truth really doesn't care about such politics. An administration can issue a statement insisting that pigs can fly, but the truth doesn't care. Go ahead, throw them off the White House and we'll see.

I recognize the "truth" that post-modernism contributes to our culture--the need for science to be humbler than it has been in the past. But what we are witnessing is an immense surge in pre-modern ignorance, hosted by this administration's political maneuverings. I know I may find myself making the same comments about some far left administration voted in in over-reaction to this one. But I'll at least enjoy the justice of reversal for the first week--then Hades will begin, pay back for an administration that has listened to no one but itself.

Also begun last week I believe was the confirmation hearings of Jim Holsinger, a good man who is on the Board of Trustees at Asbury. I feel sorry for him. He is a really nice person whom I'm afraid Washington will eat alive. He will try to do what he thinks is right. In fact, his submission to God may actually lead him into conflict with conservative politics. He will live by the two great commandments over fundamentalist Christian "values." If politics and his God ever come into conflict, he will serve God rather than Cheney.

His theology I suspect is straight down the line conservative evangelical, which is why he is being appointed. I love the man. I would say he has most of the qualities needed for the job--a doctor who loves people and wants to help the nation. What he may lack is the pure pursuit of scientific objectivity.

Bush Administration Gets Something Right

2007-06-18T10:12:00.000-04:00

The Bush administration is going to lift its sanctions against the Palestinians in the West Bank. To do so of course requires little on their part, since Mahmoud Abbas has reformed his cabinet in a way that excludes Hamas. The background to this action is of course the fact that Hamas has largely taken over Gaza.

But this is a smart move and I suggest they "wine and dine" the West Bank. I have a number of thoughts here.

1. The West Bank is already a very peculiar piece of land. Its boundaries are very fluid in the sense that Israeli settlements have incurred all over the place into it. It is geographically isolated from the other half of the Palestinian "territory" in Gaza, if we can call it that since the Palestinians don't really have a state to speak of at present. Israel has dominating power over this fluid piece of land and can enter it at will without serious fear of loss of life (Gaza is much different).

2. The unification of Gaza and the West Bank has always been a brain teaser to me. There's no way Israel will give up or lose the land between the two. It is just plain dumb for the many who continue to think that Israel will somehow cease to be a state. The region will be completely uninhabitable before that happens.

I have generally seen two main solutions: 1) two Palestinian states and 2) making the West Bank Palestinians citizens of Israel, just like the Palestinian city of Nazareth is. I don't see the second one happening, so this seems as good a time as any to work toward the first.

3. They say there are three main elements in the creation of most suicide bombers (there are the ideologues, but they are the exception): 1) poverty, 2) anger, and 3) no hope of any change (I hope I'm remembering the second correctly, oh feeble mind of mine). What this means is that the general tactic that Israel and the Bush administration have tended to use actually generates more terrorism than it stamps out.

We would be stupid to pass up on any legitimate opportunity and reason to "wine and dine" these sorts of places. The desperate blow themselves up. Every ounce of hope we can give is in our own (and Israel's) best interest.

Abbas could be a friend to the West. It's land locked country, but with Israel and Jordan as friends, it could make a real go of it as a prosperous nation, even while Gaza self-destructs at the hands of Hamas.

4. For Christians out there, we should remember that, at least at the turn of the millennium, there were far more Palestinian Christians than Israeli ones. In fact, I've heard it is illegal to try to convert someone to Christianity in Israel and that 85% of Israelis aren't even practicing Jews, let alone Christians.

Instead of American fundamentalists blindly funneling their money to non-Christians, even anti-Christians in Israel, they should have been supporting the Christians of the region, both Israeli and Palestinian. How many of these clever Americans know that there is a Palestinian Baptist Bible College in Bethlehem?

Our blind support of the Israelis has likely hurt Christianity in the region! So many American fundamentalists ignorantly think Israeli=Christian while Palestinian=Muslim. Quite the contrary. The Israelis are not yet the people of promise in Romans 11--"All Israel will be saved." Hasn't happened yet!

When I was in Israel at the wailing wall, orthodox Jews could spot a Christian tourist a mile away and came a runnin' looking for donations to the cause. I didn't give anything of course, but I can see them raising tons of money off of all the fat, camera laden American dullards. Then they joke with their friends that evening about all the stupid Christians who give them money.

And yet many Palestinians have historically been Christian. They are the ones who live in Nazareth and Bethlehem. The Israelis do not worship in these churches. If anyone does other than the tourists, it would be the Palestinians.

I consider myself a friend of Israel. But I think it is in our best interest to be just as good friends with Abbas as well. And as far as God is concerned, He does not show favoritism. He is the God of the Jew and the Greek. The circumcision of those Jews who do not believe is as uncircumcision, and the uncircumcision of those Palestinians who do believe is as circumcision.

Jimmy Carter on the Bush Administration

2007-05-21T07:57:00.001-04:00

Carter is being quoted today as saying that the Bush administration is "the worst in history." This is of course an excerpted soundbite. The full statement made it clear that he was speaking in terms of the Bush administration's foreign policy rather than the presidency overall. Also very important is the qualifier "in terms of the adverse effect it has had on US foreign relations" (or something similar, I'm quoting from memory).

Carter this morning qualified the statement even further, placing it in the context of a question comparing the Bush administration with the Nixon administration, although he did not word his answer in such limited terms. For not doing that he characterized the comment as "careless." He was also careful to mention that the comment was about the administration as a whole rather than Bush alone.

However, I don't personally find the comment as fully stated careless. I think a good argument can be made that the foreign policy of the Bush administration has had a more adverse effect on US world relations than that of any previous administration. Time will of course tell. Who knows, maybe it will turn out a better world in the end. If so, I think it will be inadvertant and coincidental.

Truth doesn't care about feelings or office. It is cold and uncalculating. It is what it is and no amount of rhetoric can change it. I'm willing to overlook occasional overstatement because I think Carter is playing an important role in America right now, the role of "loyal opposition." He is often criticized for his criticisms, but I think the Bush administration long ago crossed the line when exceptions to this general rule became permissable.

The Bush administration responded that Carter was simply making himself irrelevant by such comments. But given the administration's approval rating on the war, such a comment points in the opposite direction. When Carter represents apparently the sentiment of the majority on the war, who is truly out of touch?

Is McCain Insane?

2007-04-07T11:09:00.000-04:00

No, I don't think he is, even though he has just endorsed Bush's surge.

I thought that McCain's support of Bush's policy in Iraq might actually be fatal to his presidential bid. He can't do any more damage there... BUT he can try to turn it into a strength. One of Hilary's big problems is her previous support for the war. She could stand by her vote to keep from looking like Kerry, but it's not clear how profitable that will make her with her party.

It's different with McCain. Standing firm on the war for him might just strengthen his base enough to win him the Republican primaries.

Some might be surprised to know that I have never been sure what to make of this surge. I don't trust Bush's foreign policy or military judgment any further than I can throw him. But I'm not sure that setting timetables for withdrawal is the right tactic either.

Long and short--I think McCain would be an infinitely better president than Bush. I don't think he would have gone to war with Iraq, if he had been in the hot seat at the time. And I think that regardless of what he might feel he has to say at this point of the game.

Iran, hostages, and such

2007-03-31T18:24:00.000-04:00

It's been over a week since Iran seized, what is it, 12? British soldiers off a ship Iran claims was in their waters. I am of course disinclined to believe them. The news is saying that they actually revised the coordinates they gave first, after realizing that the first coordinates they gave were actually in Iraqi rather than Iranian waters! Oops! It's frustrating to be so certain that they are lying through their teeth... knowing that they are beaming propagandistic sound bites to their people to where they all are sure that the British (which of course mindlessly blurs into Americans) are lying.

Of course to be objective we can't rule out the possibility that the British government might lie. From all appearances, the British appear to have done an excellent job in Basra.

So far, the public statements of the British have seemed unprovocative. I have admired them for that. The frontal approach doesn't give the Iranians a way out with their honor intact, and honor/shame cultures often prefer to die than be shamed.

In comes Bush today. I don't know how he said it, but the news at least has reported a somewhat ultimatum-ish statement by him. Of course none of us knows what is going on behind the scenes, but I hope the British government was okay with it. Maybe they wanted him to do it.

But I doubt anyone will get the Iranians to admit they made a mistake unless they can do it and keep face. The most likely peaceful solution is to find a way for them to release the prisoners without admitting they did wrong or made a mistake, yet without the British backing off from the truth either.

Unless, of course, one or both sides wants a war!

Deeply Alarmed at Iran

2007-02-25T11:32:00.000-05:00

I get more and more alarmed about Iran. Here is a country with many things I like. It's intelligensia seems really smart and many of this "class" seem sympathetic to Western culture. (we might have said similar things about some Iraqis before the war).

But one of the secondary consequences of our invasion of Iraq, I believe, was the election of Ahmadinejad, the empowerment of the extreme right. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17327091/

The Bush administration does not have a good enough record with the truth about these things for me to trust them. But Ahmadinejad himself says enough that I don't need to trust the Bush administration to see this man as a threat.

So just when I have gotten the Arabic letters down, now I have to start on Farsi. Actually, I think it might be fun to take a stab at Farsi. The letters are very similar to Arabic (with a few predictable extras if you know Sanskrit), but it's an Indo-European language related to Sanskrit (ancient Indian language). Since I took two semesters of Sanskrit at the University of Kentucky and know how to read several other Indo-European languages, Farsi might actually be fun!

What Dan Rather and John Gibson Have in Common

2007-01-28T18:21:00.000-05:00

We all remember when Dan Rather didn't do his homework on Bush just before the election. He was then still anchor at CBS and irresponsibly aired a story about Bush being AWOL during the Vietnam War. They toasted him for it, and eventually he had to leave off being anchor.

Well, we have the first instance of it in this election. First Steve Doocy of Fox News reported that Baruch Obama had spent the first decade of his life raised by a Muslim father. This itself was a garbled version of the original article in Insight, claiming that Hilary Clinton's camp had found out that Obama had attended a madrassa or fundamentalist Muslim school during the time his mother and step-father lived in Indonesia in the 60's. Double whammy--get Clinton and Obama in one swoop.

Then Gibson repeated it on his program, still without doing his homework.

It turns out that Doocy, Insight, and Gibson were skewed on several points. Obama had only met his father once in his life, and he was an atheist. CNN actually did their homework and contacted the school, which apparently was no different from any other "public" school in Indonesia at the time.

But in the end, none of this matters in the slightest. Obama had a conversion experience in his 20's. He was only 6 at the time he was in Indonesia.

Gibson has not apologized for getting his facts wrong. Doocy at least made some correction.

I am quite comfortable with my sense of bias among the media. Fox clearly leans to the right. Even here, I respect some more than others. O'Reilly, bless his soul, is arrogant and clearly has a right inclination, but I do believe he is honest. I can't think of anyone at Fox who leans to the "liberal."

There are clearly those who lean left at CNN and MSNBC. Keith Olbermann immediately focuses on the negative of any speech Bush makes. He is a kind of left version of O'Reilly. He's honest, but clearly has a "liberal" inclination. But frankly, I can't think of anyone at MSNBC who is as skewed liberal as, say, Anne Colter or Rush Lindbaugh is to the right. And I don't see how anyone sane can really consider Joe Scarborough a liberal. He regularly features Pat Buchanan and vigorously supported the Iraq War.

My favorite media people are those that really seem to try to listen to both sides--and who really seem to listen. I can't think of any of the main reporters for NPR who wouldn't fit in this category, although clearly some of the side program hosts are liberal. I consider Chris Matthews of this sort. His brother holds local Republican office and I honestly couldn't figure out during the election whether he was Republican or Democrat.

And certainly Tim Russert is so fascinated as an observer that I have no idea what his views are. I mean this as a compliment--he is so nerdily fascinated to watch the politics that who knows what he thinks!

Is David Greggory a liberal, like Snow and Fox have accused? I don't know if he is, but there is a point where the data is so clear that a person would have to be skewed even to give time to some possibilities. When the MSNBC correspondant says that the manner of Saddam's death has caused a big PR among Iraqis, isn't it possible that there is no bias here? What if it is so obvious to someone on the ground in Iraq that it would be skewed to pretend the other is even a possibility?

Bush's State of the Union Address

2007-01-23T21:45:00.000-05:00

State of the union night. I thought the beginning of the speech was good strategy. First, I think Bush is a good man with good intentions. His opening comments to Palosi and the Democrats were, dare I say, "Christian" and honorable.

I do give Bush and the economic philosophy of his cohort (including Greenspahn) credit for the quick turn around of the economy this decade. I am a Republican in my economics. I'm not competent to judge, but it seems to me that, whether we like it or not, whether it is Christian or not, economies are built when capitalists do their thing. The big economic blunder of Bush is the war in Iraq.

Some ho hum old plans. School choice. Fine, whatever. We'll see if it goes anywhere (I bet not). I'd be glad for something to shake out with health care and immigration. We'll see.

Nice things to say on shifting to alternative sources of energy. I smiled when he said "global climate change" and not "global warming." It's a way to acknowledge the issue without selling out the willful who continue to deny that the human element in global climate change is beyond reasonable doubt.

Bush's narrative of the Iraq story really leaves me speechless, dumbfounded. Is he even on the same planet as I am? Interesting subtle attempt to connect 9-11 to Iraq by calling them Sunni extremists. Again, no connection. He continues to make it sound like no one could have foreseen that these things would happen when there were a thousand voices he refused to listen to. Terrorists fear freedom, he says. I picture them laughing at him every time he says this nonsense. I don't know what the answer is but I'm glad Bush can't just continue blindly to do whatever Cheney wants anymore.

"Not the fight we entered but the one we're in"? No, we are responsible for this mess. Sheez.

Good words on Darfur. I hope he follows through.

The Iraqi Army and Police

2007-01-13T09:01:00.000-05:00

One fear I have as we embed our troops among Iraqi troops around Baghdad is the likelihood that Madi army people are in the police and the army. Bush tended to talk about these forces as if they were neutral forces that might stabilize the sectarian violence. But the army was debathified and thus heavily de-Sunnified. These forces are overwhelmingly Shiite, and some seem loyal to Al Sadr.

So do we expect them to reign in themselves? What's worse, I fear that at some point they will turn on the embedded troops!

Saddam Hanged

2007-01-04T06:23:00.000-05:00

I watched one of the cell phone videos of Saddam's hanging on YouTube. It raised various emotions. I suppose my main sense was how pathetic the situation has become in Iraq. The punishment of Saddam Hussein should have been a climactic moment--it's the current reason we invaded Iraq. We entered to topple an evil dictator and bring democracy to a people.

So for a group of hooded Shiites to lynch him in some "back alley" ceremony behind closed doors--not what Bush or Cheney would have planned as a moment of final justice! Instead, it became an act of tribal revenge.

What to do, what to do...

Gerald Ford's funeral

2007-01-02T15:14:00.000-05:00

I've been amazed at the praise that has been poured out on Gerald Ford this last week. He has been interestingly silent all these years--his opinion of Bush's invasion of Iraq only came out posthumously!

He is a man who's identity in my mind has largely amounted to three things:

1. The only president who was never elected.
2. The guy who pardoned Nixon.
3. The guy Chevy Chase made fun of the first season of Saturday Night Live by falling all over the place.

The last one is deeply ironic since Ford was one of the most athletic presidents we have ever had--one article said the most athletic.

I heard part of Kissinger's eulogy on him today. It sounds like he was a deeply virtuous person. Indeed, although I probably agree with much of what Jimmy Carter is saying these days, Ford's silent disagreement may win him a legacy of honor and virtue that surpasses Carter's.

We'll see.

Bush and the Joint Chiefs

2006-12-19T09:03:00.000-05:00

I read a brief piece today about disagreement between Bush and the unanimous joint chiefs over sending more troops. They don't feel he has a plan for what they would do there. The chiefs feel it would simply intensify anti-American groups while Shia militias melted away until the extra US troops left. Then they simply come back in greater force and we are right back where we started from.

Bush's problem plain and simple is that he can't admit the colossal mistake he's made. At least he's stopped talking about victory in Iraq. And to think he might still be worried about his legacy... He's already established his legacy as the worst foreign policy president in the history of the United States.

I don't know what the answer is at this point. I'm not necessarily for time tables on withdrawal. But there's no point in "staying the course" because there is no course other than "let's drive around, stop any bad guys we run into, and try not to hit an IED today." Brilliant!

This is a fine mess you've gotten us into, Bushy!

John Bolton

2006-12-04T20:08:00.000-05:00

Bolton turned in his resignation to Bush today as US Ambassador to the UN. Bush accepted it, but said he wasn't happy about it.

I haven't followed Bolton much since Bush decided to appoint him as interim, working around the Democratic filibuster and I believe even some Republican opponents at the time. I heard today of a few complaints against him, but by and large he doesn't seem to have messed up significantly.

All that is to say that I don't know whether he would be okay in the UN or not.

But it does seem to be a bit of justice today to see Bush having to accept his resignation in the face of a Democratic Congress. For the first five years or so in office Bush, Cheney, and friends did whatever they pleased while Fox News and others villified anyone who dared question their will.

I was thinking of that Dixie Chick and what Fox, Scarborough, and all had to say about her. There were other Hollywood voices that protested the war (who was that actor who played the president on West Wing) and the media pretty much skewered them. Of course I have no time for Michael Moore or that woman who lost her son and went off the deep end.

But it's time for a moment of truth. If we stop for a minute, some of the things they said turned out to be true about Iraq. It hurts, but the Fox News people should be forced to eat their words now that things are shaping up, well, exactly as those "filthy liberals" said they would back in 2003... 3000 dead soldiers later.

Look at what I blogged two years ago and apparently I understood what was going on in Iraq a lot better than a man who sits in an office getting daily intelligence briefings. What does that say?!

This started about Bolton. I don't know whether he is doing fine or not. But there is a whole lot of justice in Bush not being able to just do whatever he wants without consulting others.

(he ignored, almost shamed his father in his bull headedness to go to war and do what his father didn't. Well, he did what his father didn't. He has destabilized the whole world and potentially launched us into a period of American descendency).

Now watch it Democrats. I have seen in Nancy Palosi's early attempts at appointments the same dynamic potentially at work. ... rather than go with sane moderates, appointing her own set of whacko crazies. If God didn't spare the natural branches when he grafted you in, will he spare you?

P.S. Not to say that the Republicans are the original people of God :-)

Rumsfeld

2006-11-08T21:55:00.000-05:00

OK, why did they wait till today for Rumsfeld to step down? It might have helped them win some elections, keep control of the Senate. Was there some sort of gamble? If so many seats are lost...

Frankly I don't think Rumsfeld is the main problem. Go higher up the food chain. I blame Cheney the most and Bush second. I'm sure Rumsfeld make some crucial errors but I don't know that troop numbers is the main one. We just had no idea how to win the hearts and minds, no idea how to nation build. We build buildings real well, but to understand how a different culture thinks...

Who cares about Rumsfelds resignation! It's almost a shrug. What's done is done, and I don't see anyone in this administration being able to extricate us with a good situation on the ground. This is like changing make-up. Sorry. There's just too much ungly underneath for it to do any
good.

The Election

2006-11-07T23:08:00.000-05:00

In general I have paid little attention to this election. I take a little satisfaction that the Democrats will apparently take the House. I won't stay up to see if they take the Senate. I decided today that I would vote Republican for positions having to do with money or justice and Democrat for positions having to do with society and foreign policy (at least for now)... ish. So I suppose I'd rather the Republicans have the House and the Democrats the Senate.

But you will not find me proud of the American people today. Why? Because the same people who stupidly crammed the Congress full of Republicans last time because of Iraq are the same ones cramming the Congress full of Democrats today. Don't expect me to applaud them for something I knew three years ago. Don't expect me to think them smart when they are just as guilty as the ridiculous people they elected last time. They have no right to be angry.

The American people are just as responsible for our current situation as the government they elected while calling the rest of us stupid and unpatriotic. One week they think you're a god. The next week they stone you. One week they're laying down palm branches. The next week they want to crucify you.

Mid-term elections

2006-10-27T19:52:00.000-04:00

It is my opinion that we are witnessing pay back. This mid-term election is not about the Democrats. It's about the Republicans. It's about a hubris that thought it could do anything it wanted without having to listen to the other side. It's about riding the wave of unbridled nationalism after 9-11 that gave the Bush administration and all the most radical right wingers a blank check without fear of recrimination...

Until now. The Republicans are going to lose this election big time in the House and they may just lose the Senate as well. The truth about Bush's foreign policy is now inescapable. Any who are still holding out can wait a year to reread this post. They'll agree with me then.

"How have the mighty fallen," we will say on the evening of November 7. Humility was what was needed. A willingness to listen to those disempowered. Instead the Congress and president did whatever they pleased and ignored the other side.

This is justice and it doesn't care whether we're looking at Republicans or Democrats.

Clinton on Fox News

2006-09-25T22:23:00.000-04:00

I was watching Fox News for a second tonight, Bill O'Reilly. I really don't know exactly his take on Clinton, but there was a very conservative woman who was talking about him "losing control like her 2 year old" in his interview with Chris Wallace.

Wow. Talk about how two people can look at the same thing and have two very different reactions. Here he's just come off of a very successful fund raising tour that raised a billion I think for a good cause, but that's not really what the interview turns out to be on. Second, it's at the same time that a very important intelligence report--the highest level intelligence report--has concluded that the War in Iraq, which the Bush administration has sold as important to help with the war on terror, has actually hurt the war on terror.

Now everyone who knows anything about anything has been saying this forever. Certainly these were the kinds of things that the State department was in tension with the Pentagon over. These are the things that the UN has been telling us forever but we wouldn't listen because we are smarter than everyone else. It would not be hard to absolutely castrate the credibility of Fox News by playing back arrogant and dismissive clips from 2003, 2004, 2005 before the evidence was so compelling. Show all the snide remarks they made about those who questioned the war and who argued that it would simply make more terrorists.

I saw an intelligent man refusing to take inane accusations lying down. And "out of control"? This woman must have a 2 year old that is a leader in the making. I saw a man with righteous indignation standing up for the truth. A man who was willing to admit that he tried and failed at something. Not an administration that is trying to blame something that happened 8 months into their presidency on the presidency before.

In Clinton's words, "I got closer than anyone has ever since." And "at least I tried. This administration had 8 months to try and didn't." And "If I had been president I'd have put 20,000 troops into Afghanistan looking for bin Laden." And "I wouldn't put 1/7 of my interest in Afghanistan."

I'm sorry, if things look at all fuzzy now, our grandchildren will smile if we dare say bin Laden was Clinton's fault or that Bush was a great president. They'll smile like I did when my grandmother protested because the history books were saying that it is not at all likely historically that Washington chopped down any cherry tree.

Smile and wave, boys, just smile and wave...

NIA Confirms my claims

2006-09-24T21:16:00.000-04:00

The National Intelligence Agency has lent credence to what I've been saying all along while undermining once again the bizarre claims of the Bush administration that the war with Iraq is "taking the war to them so we don't have to fight them here."

The NIA has concluded that the Iraq War, far from decreasing jihadism around the world, has intensified it and actually helped with recruiting.

Believe it or not, I was watching Fox News tonight when they were reporting it. In keeping with their particular leanings (not denying the leanings in opposite directions elsewhere), they did their best to mollify the impact of this deeply undermining claim. Their best shots were 1) an administration official who repeated the ludicrous, "It's keeping them from coming here" thing (surely Al Qaeda can spare 4 or 5 for New York City?) and 2) that's why we need to win this war.

I'd be glad for us to "win this war." But let's admit that the Bush doctrine, with Iraq as its primary example, has proved to be a failure. Let's not try that again.

The Pope Vs. The Middle East

2006-09-22T18:38:00.000-04:00

This is for you, Craig.

Is the bulk of the Middle East Muslim world mad? The Pope quotes someone who takes parts of the Quran to advocate violence. Then in protest to what he said, they burn churches and Al Qaeda targets him!

If it weren't so serious, it would be funny! Actually, from where I sit in northern South Dakota, it is pretty darn funny. But I noticed Leno didn't go for the juggler--probably for fear of death threats and such. You can make fun of Christians all you want... but be careful about making fun of Muslims!

What were they thinking? We'll show the Pope is wrong about some Muslims being violent by burning churches? We'll show the Pope is wrong by killing him?

Clearly it's not about being right or wrong. It's about daring to critique them. Of course these protesters do not represent all Muslims.

Some are upset that the Pope has not withdrawn his comments, only apologized for offending them. But if the Pope believes that what he said is true, he can't withdraw his comments. He has to speak the truth. You or me, we might say, "You know what, I must have misunderstood." But the Pope can't deny what he believes is the truth... he's the Pope.

Sometimes it's good to be Galileo. Sure, sure, the sun goes around the earth...

Early Days in Iraq

2006-09-17T10:42:00.000-04:00

I was reading a piece on msnbc.com this morning:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14868608/from/ET/

I cannot know to what extent this is accurate or not. It would have been perfectly appropriate for the Bush administration to appoint some people who were loyal to his ideas and administration. But this article suggests that the practice was so dominating that it became a touchstone over expertise.

Again, just because it's in an article doesn't mean it's true. But of course it plays into my own impressions of the Bush administration. That his venture in Iraq was a test of neo-conservative ideology and of the conservative think tanks in Washington. Let's forget for a moment that the actual lives of thousands upon thousands of people were involved for a moment, including over two thousand dead American soldiers. Instead, let's take the Iraq war as an experiment in neo-conservative foreign policy.

Okay, the experiment isn't quite done yet, but we have enough data in to draw firm conclusions.

IT FAILED. Waiter, we'll have several plates of humble pie for the Bush administration and also for the fundamentalists and neo-cons who supported this "experiment." And for dessert, could you elect people next time who actually know how the world works rather than operating from some simplistic enculturated paradigm with superficial religious sprinkles.

Bush's push for secret prison legislation

2006-09-16T03:04:00.000-04:00

Bush has recently come out with acknowledgement not only that secret CIA prisons exist but he has implied that they sometimes used techniques that "cross the line" of what is currently officially allowed. He has urged Congress to pass legislation that will allow for interrogation that does not fall within the generally accepted understanding of the Geneva convention.

First, I doubt many of us are sympathetic to the kinds of persons that are likely taken to such camps. We've been raised on Dirty Harry and action films where the good guy (or gal) has to break a few eggs to make the omelet of justice. But in these missions impossible, the good guy always is told that "if you are caught, the secretary will disavow knowledge of your existence." The purpose of plausible deniability and unknown knowledge was to hold two or three apparently irreconcilable necessities in tension.

The Geneva convention, I believe, is ultimately not a matter of human decency or morality. Don't fool yourself. It's about tit for tat. It's an agreement that we won't torture yours if you don't torture ours. I think Bush has questioned in the past whether the Geneva convention applies to terrorists, since they do not represent a sovereign nation and are not part of any such agreement. Frankly, we can question whether nations who have no intention of abiding by such rules are a part of the deal. But it remains an important symbol, a statement that a nation is morally upstanding. If America were blatantly to disregard the Geneva convention, we can kiss any trace of pretense to moral status in the world goodbye.

Then there is the "break the eggs" truth. Can we stop terrorists, find terrorists, etc... without someone breaking eggs somewhere? Many would say that we can. Yet I am sympathetic to those who believe that our justice system inappropriately favors the guilty in the face of their victims. Our fears that evil men would sue and otherwise make a mockery of our system make it all too easy to sympathize with those who secretly would work for good by questionable means. These are difficult issues for which I have no real solutions.

The problem with Bush is that he is disavowing nothing--likely because he can't. He is trying to unify the irreconcilable. And of course one suspects that there are two other real reasons to explain what's really going on here:

1. It's going to come out anyway. Bush is headed for a big crisis because the people from these secret interrogation prisons are now visible and they will be heard. They are detestable, but they will be heard. The attempt to pass legislation is an attempt to cover his buttocks in the ensuing thunderstorm that could even lead to impeachment.

2. Second, it is an attempt to polarize Congress into two camps: Republicans as those strong on defense and Democrats as soft on terrorism. Clever to try to leave Congress in this state just before mid-term elections. When the Democrats control Congress, the possibility of impeachment or at the very least an even lamer duck looms large.

Bush's problem is of course that the old shtick just isn't working as well as it used to and even more significant, his own party isn't going along with him completely. He will not be able to paint the Republican/Democrat divide as he had hoped.

So I'm going to be the first to use the word impeachment, at least I haven't heard anyone else use the word. I say this not because I hope Bush is impeached. I don't actually hope for that. But I am suggesting that there is a real possibility that Congress, led by a new Democrat majority, will attempt to impeach President Bush in the last two years of his administration. I've said it before and will say it again. The history books will evaluate President Bush as one of the worst presidents in American history.

IAEA and the House Intelligence Committee

2006-09-14T23:51:00.000-04:00

There was something strangely familiar today when the IAEA strongly disagreed with the report of the House Intelligence committee on the state of Iran's nuclear program. Basically the IAEA says Iran isn't nearly as far along as the House committee thinks it is.

I remember this one. Remember when we were "poo poo-ing" Germany for saying things like "I just don't see the evidence for WMD in Iraq." I remember what I thought at the time: "Of course there are WMD in Iraq." We made fun of the Germans and especially the French. Now, mind you, maybe the French did have personal interests in Iraq that made them less than objective. But what no one seems to remember--and what you will never hear on Fox News--is that the French, Germans, and Russians were right!

Sure the Russians and French may have had ulterior motives, but their arguments against us that we had not made the case for WMD turned out to be right!!!! We should really be sheepishly embarrassed for not having listened to them. But we've conveniently forgotten how this all came down.

Bush barrelled ahead--he was like the child that ignores the parent's advice thinking it will all turn out okay. And then it doesn't. It messes up just like the parent told the child it might. That's what happened in Iraq and we're too forgetful to remember that all their predictions came true!!!

But this post was meant to be about Iran. Once again, I am asked to make a choice on who I will trust. I trusted Bush last time over Europe and the UN, and it turned out that I made the wrong decision. So I am not going to trust the House intelligence committee this time on Iran. Could the IAEA be lying to try to keep the US from doing something rash again? Sure. But fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. You're going to have to over prove something like this to me this time. You've blown the trust factor.

This is a big problem for the Bush administration with people like me. All along they have asked us to trust them. Take the spying on us and the secret prisons and Guantanamo. They ask us to trust them to do the right thing. If we tell you everything we're doing, it will compromise American security. Maybe. But you've long since lost my trust.

The Blog Beginneth

2006-09-11T22:45:00.000-04:00

My political views are distracting enough to so many who look at my primary blog, Schenck Thoughts that I've decided to create this blog for more "real world" issues such as world events and politics. Not that I won't sometimes post these kinds of things on my other blog. But this way I can let posts with greater gravitas simmer longer over there and posts here can vent my frustrations with things like President Bush's speech tonight.

I heard very little of it, but the 10 minute swatch I heard was trash. As if we have brought freedom to Iraq. What a disgrace, with top CIA operatives reporting to the Pentagon that we have lost Anbar Province to Al-Qaeda in Iraq. My impression of the classified report that I haven't read obviously is that in that province, we have already reached "Vietnam status."