Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Arghhh. There is no such thing as French Canada. The name of the province is Quebec. Many francophones live in other parts of the country. If you mean Quebec, say it. If you say French Canada, you are referring to the entire country.

This lack of precision really pisses me off for reasons I don't fully understand, no offense Hank.

Rappelez-vous Deerfield ! Descendez avec la Nouvelle France !

[sgtclub]

The Defiance County Sheriff's Office arrested Chad Staton, age 22, of Stratton Ave., Defiance, on a charge of False Registration, in Violation of Section 3599.11 of the Ohio Revised Code, a felony of the fifth degree.

The SheriffÕs Office alleges that Staton filled out over 100 voter registration forms that were fictitious. Staton was to be paid for each registration form that he could get citizens to fill out. However, Staton himself filled out the registrations and returned them to the woman who hired him from Toledo, Ohio. Deputies allege that Staton was paid crack cocaine for the falsified registrations.

Defiance Deputies along with Toledo Police Department detectives conducted a search warrant of a residence on Woodland in Toledo, believed to be the home of the woman who hired Staton to solicit voter registration. Officers confiscated drug paraphernalia along with voter registration forms from the home. The occupant of the home, Georgianne Pitts, age 41, advised law enforcement, along with Ohio B.C.I.&I., that she had been recruited by Thaddeus J. Jackson, II, of Cleveland, to obtain voter registrations. Pitts admitted to paying Staton crack cocaine for the registrations in lieu of money.

A business card provided by Pitts indicated that Jackson is the Assistant NVF Ohio Director of the NAACP National Voter Fund.

The initial complaint received by the Sheriff's Office came from the Defiance County Board of Elections. The Board had received the 100 plus registration forms from the Cuyahoga Board of Elections that had been submitted to the Cuyahoga Board by the NAACP National Voter Fund.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If the terrorists who attacked us weren't connected to SH and Iraq, how is it that you can say in one breath that it is significant that nothing has happened here since 9/11 and in the next say, Osama is planning his next attack on our shores?

The fact is, because of the type of attacks they engage in, we are not safer over here. They're just waiting til we get lazy again. But you can't live in a constant, indefinite state of fear, despite Cheney's best efforts. That's why terrorists choose these kinds of attacks. It's very difficult to defend.

After 9/11, for like 6 months, security was tight at my building. Everyone had to be credentialed to gain access. Security was visible and posted all over -- not just at every entrance. Now, I could swipe anyone's access card and go up because security just doesn't pay attention anymore. It's all bullshit anyway. If someone wanted to blow the building up, they wouldn't be trying to get upstairs. They'd plant the bomb in the areas everyone has unlimited access to.

Bush isn't taking the war overseas. He is engaging in this war to make people feel better. He is saying, "I'm going after those damn Ay-rabs," and watching people line up behind him happy in this fiction of safety. When he wants to energize them, he scares them. When he wants to build himself up, he talks about safety. People eat it up because they're stupid.

You can't fight a worldwide network by picking one location and trying to take it over. That makes absolutely no sense. After 9/11 we had the sympathy and support of the entire world. Every country wanted to help. Bush took that and turned it all the way around. If there are terrorist cells all over the world, it seems to me that the best plan would have been to take advantage of the good will that we had from other countries after 9/11 -- use it to hunt terrorists down and destroy them. You don't destroy that good will and, at the same time, create recruits by engaging in a crusade in a country that posed no imminent threat.

I don't want to hear the SH was a bad man argument. If that was the rationale for taking him out, Bush and friends would have used it as the justification to go to war before we went to war. We took him out because Bush wanted to take him out. 9/11 was the excuse.

TM

I noted the internal contradiction when I wrote that post. Bush's plan has a flaw in it - it assumes the radicals will fight in their own yard and never look over here again. To a degree, Iraq is an effective distraction to keep the crazies busy. Loads of Arabs who'd be training in camps to attack us are instead working for freelancers like Zarqawi in Iraq. Bush is betting that the extremists will always take the easier avenue. Its a short sighted plan, but it does work a quick fix for a little while.

I think Bush's plan might have been near sighted, but I think that Iraq, combined with Afghanistan, have kept the terrorists either disjointed or on the run. Thats bought us some short term security. How long that will last is another question. My suspicion is not long.

But none of this changes the fact that we haven't been attacked in 3 years, for which Bush does deserve credit. And it cannot be disproved that the Iraq distraction did not play a part in keeping such attacks from our shores.

I disagree that Bush just wanted to make people feel happy. with this Iraq war. You allude to his real motivation in your post - Bush had this war planned BEFORE 9/11. He is guided by ideologues who really believe in this "New American Century" project, a neocons wet dream which is actually little more than the old British theory that "If you democratize the savages, they'll behave." Well, there is a case to be made that the British did civilize an awful lot of savages, but the British also left Iraq with their tails between their legs. They never got their arms around the place. No one has.

The war was not a grudge match. Its an academic notion come to life.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I think if the President had put $87 billion into uncovering terrorist cells all over the world and was successful first in the countries that couldn't wait to step up and show support, that when something like Madrid happened, it would only strengthen everyone's resolve. At a certain point, Pakistan and the Philippines cave because the whole world is putting the pressure on. Now, everyone is trying to distance themselves from us. If Iraq was the only problem, that would be fine. But how the hell are we going to find these people when they are spread all over the world and we piss on the leaders of the countries they're in every chance we get?

TM

This is my chief gripe with Bush. Why isn't our ally, Pakistan, letting us into the provinces? Why has Bush began saying bib Laden is marginalized? There's something very rotten going on in Pakistan and I can't put my finger on it. Our ally should be giving us unbridled access. We should be testing all sorts of horrific weapons on militants in the provinces and running assassination squads on AQ in the larger Pakistani cities. I know we'll never hear about the latter, but why are we not doing the former?

I believe Afghanistan, not Iraq, should have been the "swamp" where Bush "placed" the war on terror. But Afghanistan has no oil. Its got no strategic value. Nobody cares about it. As Rumsfeld said when the Joint Chiefs suggested bombing it initially after 9/11, "Afghanistan has no good targets."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But Afghanistan has no oil. Its got no strategic value. Nobody cares about it. As Rumsfeld said when the Joint Chiefs suggested bombing it initially after 9/11, "Afghanistan has no good targets."

if you're going to buy into the conspiracies, you've gotta take it all. Mike explained why Bush was in bed with the Taliban- to get a pipeline.

As to your other point, we start attacking the Paki tribesmen and pretty soon you've another Al Queda controlled country to deal with. The Paki's get to vote.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I noted the internal contradiction when I wrote that post. Bush's plan has a flaw in it - it assumes the radicals will fight in their own yard and never look over here again. To a degree, Iraq is an effective distraction to keep the crazies busy. Loads of Arabs who'd be training in camps to attack us are instead working for freelancers like Zarqawi in Iraq. Bush is betting that the extremists will always take the easier avenue. Its a short sighted plan, but it does work a quick fix for a little while.

I see it differently. It seems to me that people who were going to be flying over here aren't now rushing into Iraq to fight. There are plenty of new recruits in Iraq who no longer have a home or a family (and I'm not saying this to be a bleeding heart, but to understand why we're having such a problem) who are more than willing to do whatever to take out some Americans there.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
But none of this changes the fact that we haven't been attacked in 3 years, for which Bush does deserve credit. And it cannot be disproved that the Iraq distraction did not play a part in keeping such attacks from our shores.

So, the missile Clinton shot off after the first attempt on the WTC was equally as effective as Bush's war? I don't buy it. Just because we haven't been hit again doesn't mean Bush gets credit for it. It seems clear that they hit us and have turned to convincing other countries to back away from us. I'm not going to give Bush credit for influencing their strategy -- especially when, as you and Hank said, it is so easy to hit us here in the states. Hell, we've lost over a thousand soldiers in Iraq. For all any of us know, Osama puts this in his win column. They haven't gotten him and he's directly and indirectly responsible for the death of 4,000 people and counting. And everyday, another Osama clone pops up beheading people or blowing somebody up.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Confounding all sages
Battles of curses and kings
Warriors stride onward

Excited about the Mike Montgomery era in Oaktown, are we?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
Arghhh. There is no such thing as French Canada. The name of the province is Quebec. Many francophones live in other parts of the country. If you mean Quebec, say it. If you say French Canada, you are referring to the entire country.

This lack of precision really pisses me off for reasons I don't fully understand, no offense Hank.

I'm no geo-politician. All I know is heading east, at first I can go into a Tims, order an angel cream, and get no lip; just a nice pastry. Then somewhere past Toronto, I start hearing them sputter about "creme de la ange." That's where I'd draw the line.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
That evil, hypocritical motherfucker. Is he going after (Catholic) Governor Jeb Bush for signing death warrants in Florida?

(I won't even mention all of the violations of the "social justice" teachings by economic conservatives.)

It has been explained to me by intelligent devout conservative Catholics that the death penalty is OK if there are not effective alternative means of justice (e.g., no imprisonment or whatever available). They acknowledged (I think) that the death penalty is inappropriate in the US. I think there is a general feeling that murderers are damned so it's less bad to kill them than to kill innocent babies.

I have some sympathy with getting people who are pro-choice or pro-death penalty or OK with people being gay out of the Catholic church. I mean, seriously, such people are like my stupid college roommate who said she was a vegetarian except she ate chicken and seafood. That's just not a vegetarian. That's someone who doesn't eat red meat.* If you are pro-choice and want the ceremony, go be Episcopalian.

*"Pork, the other white meat" is bullshit crap advertising. Pork is red meat.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Thurgreed Marshall
After 9/11 we had the sympathy and support of the entire world. Every country wanted to help.

Help how? What precise help are you upset about losing and from which countries? I don’t recall any country in a position to send us money to help rebuild our towers so I’m thinking you mean countries were willing after 9/11 to search harder for terrorists in their countries. If so, nabbing terror cells in one’s country benefits one’s own country and not just Americans.

Anyways, if you are saying Bush lost this “help” by going to war in Iraq, what do you perceive as the consequences? A particular country will get lax in searching for terror cells because the country is pissed off that Bush went forward without full UN backing in Iraq? Well, that’s really smart of the country. They’ll sure show US, won’t they?

Before I hear any more sob stories about how bad it sucks that Norway no longer feels sorry for us (The Horror!) and how important it is that France and Russia think our President is “Not Diplomatic” why don’t you all finally tell us what exactly you want from these countries. List it all out by country – France, Russia, Sweden, Spain... Probably, you’ll think about it and decide to skirt the issue by joking about how awful a cheese/wine ban would be. Because I have yet to hear anything beyond “Diplomacy is good” and “everyone really liked us after 9/11 and now they don’t.” Or anyone explain why being felt sorry for is a good position to be in, as opposed to a strong position.

[NotFromHere]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
On the other hand, I do like Catholic rituals. What do you wear to your own excommunication?

A pentagram?

My husband, the Catholic, married a self-proclaimed heathen. His mother looks down her nose at me because I do not want a "house full of children" for her.

In other news, Arnold Schwartzenegger, who has been conspicuously absent from "Republican events" thrown in Kaleeforneea, has chosen stem cell research.

SAN FRANCISCO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed a $3 billion bond measure that would fund human embryonic stem cell research, breaking with California’s Republican Party.

The endorsement will also put Schwarzenegger at odds with the state Republican Party, which officially opposes Proposition 71, and perhaps the Bush administration, which has limited funding of the research.

Schwarzenegger has said he supports the technology. His father-in-law, Sargent Shriver, is in the early grips of Alzheimer’s disease, which supporters of the measure say could someday be treated with stem cells.


And I'm sure that Nancy Reagan fully supports him on this. So is this a Republican trend? More R's for stem cell?


link to entire article

eta, that he never really seemed like a Republican. He's a pro-choice, pro stem-cell Republican. Maybe it's the Shriver influence. I think he should switch parties.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
One of my prescriptions for social security would be on the funding side rather than the expenditure side. I think the fact that social security is funded solely from the wage base has a decided impact on our competitiveness (it's a cost business abroad often don't bear) and results in a regressive tax. I'd take the cap off and apply the tax to unearned income as well, and either use the additional funds to lower the tax rate or to remove the employer side wage tax. Of course, Moynihan fought this battle for years, with very little to show, so I'm probably not heading for Congress, either.

In most other industrialized countries, businesses and individuals bear a higher tax burden. That's in part because they have federally funded retirement benefits. It's also because these states have much higher welfare benefits. So in essence, whether you look at funding or payment out, broad-based or universal benefits result in a higher tax burden.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Despite my not really setting foot in a Catholic Church for non-wedding masses in the last 15 or so years, I sorta still consider myself a Catholic. No more. There are efforts in the works to hunt down and excommunicate pro-choice Catholics, and there's apparently support from the Vatican on this.

I'm sorta shocked. I'm not sure that this is a can of worms that the Catholic Church really should open. Attendance is down as it is.

On the other hand, I do like Catholic rituals. What do you wear to your own excommunication?

The bottom line is most American Catholics (barring recent immigrants) aren't truly Catholics any more. The religion has a core set of basic, non-negotiable principles. That is, actually, a reasonable position for a religion to take. If you don't believe, you're not in the club. Amen.

In sum, while this is a nasty process that would make lots of people feel bad, I actually think this is an admirably principled stand by the Church (and no doubt led by non-Americans). J2P2 is a hard-core, conservative, traditionalist, principled guy. He actually IS a "compassionate conservative" in a way that puts pretenders and corporate whores like our President to shame.

I'd kind of hate to be excommunciated, but I'd just formally join the religion of the church I'm a member in anyway.

S_A_M

[edited to remove random words.]

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This is my chief gripe with Bush. Why isn't our ally, Pakistan, letting us into the provinces? Why has Bush began saying bib Laden is marginalized? There's something very rotten going on in Pakistan and I can't put my finger on it. Our ally should be giving us unbridled access. We should be testing all sorts of horrific weapons on militants in the provinces and running assassination squads on AQ in the larger Pakistani cities. I know we'll never hear about the latter, but why are we not doing the former?

Some blogger, and I can't remember which one, was suggesting that the smartest move for the Pakistani government would be to quitely kill bin Laden and hide the body. That way, they've fulfilled their mission on an international scale, but they don't get the backlash from home. More of the population there, it seems, sympathizes with bin Laden than the US.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you are pro-choice and want the ceremony, go be Episcopalian.

Exactly. And while you are at it, stop by the local Catholic Church and nail your protests to the door. Except, I'm not so sure the Catholic Church is so totally opposed to gay people per-se or in favor of the death penalty. In fact, I seem to recall some anti-death-penalty bias in the Catholic church.

Hell, I'm not even in favor of the death penalty in this country with the way its out (on fairness grounds). I'm anxiously waiting for the day that Texas and Illinois lawyers take some responsibility for cleaning up the insanity in their respective states.

Atty says 50% would leave. Others here say 40% will leave. I'm guessing its going to be about 10-15%, and not the ones who go to Church anyways. Ya know something else? I heard a few other major denominations want back in. Hell, I'll bet some conservative Jews would reconsider their religious beliefs if the Catholic church ends the hypocricy and kicks out the Kennedys and Heinz-Kerrys.

Between this, my Dimetapp and having the NYT describe loud Rage against the Machine music as torture, this is truly a blessed and joyous week.