Patton Pending

Harry Potter AND MORE...!

2005-07-18T22:17:00.000-05:00

OK, bought the new Harry Potter book at midnight on the 16th; bought a second copy that afternoon because my wife and I were fighting over my copy; finished it at 2 AM on the 17th.

Great book--possibly the best of the series. Very dark. The tension is piled on from the beginning. I will not put any true spoilers here. But Ms. Rowling's cynical view of politicians is even more overwhelming in this book than in any other. She's not so negative that everyone in politics is depicted as conniving and incestuous; Mr. Weasley works for the Ministry of Magic and several of the Order of the Phoenix are Aurors (think a magical combination of FBI, CIA and Secret Service).

Ms. Rowling makes her characters increasingly interesting with each book. While there is much magic in the books--they work on many intellectual levels, they have realistic dialog, they balance fantasy and realism well--I think her characters are the key to the success of the series. The main characters are human with all of the failings inherent therein. The teenagers struggle with authority, peer pressure, relationships, etc. The adults range from over-protective to cruel and none is a caricature.

Read the books yourself; then read them with a child. The world will be a better place for it.

On Sunday, the fam went to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. We enjoyed it very much and I think it is better (and less scary) than the 1970s/Gene Wilder version. Adults laughed as much as the kids. Yes, we will be reading the book with the kids.

This Congressman displays just the kind of ignorant, macho swagger that may make for a successful country song, but bad governance and foreign policy. While the stupidity of the statement is certainly obvious to those of you reading this, should a troglodytic acquaintance of yours start defending these moronic comments or those like them, ask them this: If the Vatican were blown up, would non-radical Catholics be more or less likely to seek vengeance? If the Western Wall were blown up, would non-radical Jews be more or less likely to seek vengeance? PattonPending will be watching the Congressman's race next Fall. Let's see what the home of the Columbine tragedy does with this travesty.

Rove Controversy

2005-07-12T18:36:00.000-05:00

What I regret is the politics of smearing somebody's reputation, that's what I regret.

I want to usher in a responsibility era in America that calls upon the best of our country. It begins by a President who understands that the responsibility is to bring honor and dignity to the office, and that's exactly what I will do.

--Governor George W. Bush, March 3, 2000

But it's important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resoluting your determination.

--Governor George W. Bush, October 11, 2000

And finally, sir, to answer your question, you need somebody in office who will tell the truth.

--Governor George W. Bush, October 17, 2000

A President must be clear and a President must mean what he says.

--President George W. Bush, September 17, 2004

The President's advisor, Karl Rove, probably did not break the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act. He is too smart for that, as is now evidenced by all of the people pointing out that Time reporter Matt Cooper didn't use her name in his e-mail: No name, no foul. Even if there is other evidence that Rove knew and disclosed her name, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald would also have to prove Rove's knowledge of the fact that, in doing so, he was outing an undercover operative. As all of the debate over interpretation of the Founders' intentions in the Constitutional language regarding various social issues; intent is nearly impossible to prove without a document saying something like, "I want you to publish undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame's name so that we may discredit her husband. I don't care that it endangers her or others with whom she had dealings." Since we won't find that document, scratch the Intelligence Identities Protection Act off the list.
All of the speculation about Rover perjuring himself in the Grand Jury over the Time e-mail is just that: speculation. In fact, I submit that it is poor speculation: Might not Fitzgerald's heavy leaning on Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller indicate that in one of the three testimonies Rove gave before the Grand Jury, Rove told the jury he had talked to Cooper and Miller about Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife?

Given the information we have thus far, it is reasonable to assume that Rove was indeed a source in Chicago Sun-Times columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column. Rove will receive no jail time. He will continue to be the mastermind of the Bush political machine and many Republican campaigns for years to come. He is a brilliant man for whom power and influence is everything and ethics is just a word in the dictionary. But get used to him; we'll be hearing from him for a long time.

Unless.

Unless the President meant the words above. Unless the President comes before the nation and states that, while no laws were broken, the kind of recklessness Rove displayed has no place in the public forum, let alone from one of the President's closest advisors. Unless the Republicans denounce the legalistic parsing of words they rightly condemned in President Clinton's Grand Jury testimony with the same ferocity and ruthlessness when one of their own is the malefactor.

I'll be holding my breath.

The Scales Have Fallen From My Eyes...

2005-07-11T23:23:00.000-05:00

I have seen the light! My apologies for all of my critical comments about the War on Terrorism. How blind could I have been? Of course we should treat terrorism as we would a conventional war, retaliating militarily against terrorists! I hearby volunteer for the British Expiditionary Force. When President Bush orders the invasion of London, from where both American and British officials think the terrorists may have come, I will be there! I'm sure we'll be greeted as liberators.

My man, Mark Buehrle is the American League starter for the All-Star game tomorrow night. It is great to see one of the top pitchers in the game finally getting the recognition he deserves.

Check in tomorrow for my thoughts on Mr. Rove's situation with e-mail to Matt Cooper.

Rebuttal

2005-07-08T23:25:00.000-05:00

I received the following essay in an e-mail as a kind of rebuttal to a joke about the United Blue States of America. I will comment on the essay after you have an opportunity to read it.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and downsized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people.

The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.

Then just six short months later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into
the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes
in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked
and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bombed TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4, and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259.

Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America. In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war?

The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500

The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision.

They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are.

America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough.

America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said, "It seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

Support Our Troops and support President Bush for having the courage, political or militarily, to address what so many who preceded him didn't have the backbone to do both Democrat and Republican. This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year this is an AMERICAN thing. This is about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

I will give the author the benefit of the doubt that the grouping of all of these incidents is rooted in ignorance rather than bigotry. The 1979 Iranian embassy take-over had completely different causes than the attacks in Beirut, which had different motivations than the Lockerbie tragedy, which had nothing to do with source of bin Laden's hatred. To explain the history and motivations of each of the abominations above would result in an essay of even greater length than the original and insult your ability to read about these events yourselves; but they include American support of oppressive governments (Iran, Saudi Arabia), American support of Israel (Beirut, Achille Lauro), Arab political power plays (Lockerbie), a lone wacko (CIA) and the extreme twisting of Wahabi Islam (al Qaeda). Treating all of these acts as if they were directed by a single organization or inspired by a single ideology is factually wrong. Even characterizing all of these attacks as "terrorism" is wrong: by definition terrorism must be directed against civilians.

The essay contains the hallmark of great propaganda: shards of truth distorted by ideological, emotional arguments. For example, it infers that Leon Klinghoffer (the "American in a wheelchair" on the Achille Lauro) was killed because he was an American. By the testimony of the killer, Abu Abbas, Klinghoffer was killed because he was a Jew.

The author is right about one thing: This is an "AMERICAN thing" about "Freedom." We must take advantage of the greatest educational opportunities and freedoms available anywhere in the world and fight this propaganda. We should honor the American idea and refuse to surrender the freedoms that make us the envy of all people for the unachievable illusion of total security.

Let's take the fight to the terrorists. But let us make sure we know who we are fighting before we create more enemies.

Lighter fare

2005-07-06T17:38:00.000-05:00

As I was thinking last night about what I didn't put in yesterday:

Go Sox! I have trouble believing that the Sox are for real, even after having seen them in person, but I'll take it! Garland is pitching out of his mind, and I'm not sure that Ozzie's moving him to the three spot during the Cubs' series was wise. Garland was feasting against other "five" starters, meaning he is getting more run support.

Go Hawks! A columnist on CBSSportline has the Hawkeyes in the Rose Bowl/BCS Title Game this year and Trev Alberts (native Iowan) has Iowa in his top five. God bless Kirk Ferentz, the best college coach in the nation!

The Hiatt show last night rocked! He and the NMA played for about two-and-a-half hours. They played a song I love, but don't hear much from John live: Paper Thin from Slow Turning. They closed the main set with an especially greazy version of Riding With the King. While the two encores couldn't (and didn't) live up to that finale, they did feature some great songs and a good time was had by all; John and the band included, I think.

Time to Come Back

2005-07-05T15:27:00.000-05:00

I have been gone for a while, but now seems as good a time as any to come back and let you know what things look like here from my seat in Feingold Country.

1) I think that Feingold would be a great president, and I will be supporting him here, but I don't think he'll get the nomination. He's too Liberal for the general electorate -- and thus the DNC power structure -- and he's going through his second divorce. The nominee will be Governor Mark Warner from Virginia unless something derails him. I just spoke to some of my relatives in Virginia who lean moderate Republican and they are very enthusiastic about him. Plus Warner will have two years to campaign at the expense of nothing else. I would also like to say that I was making this statement about Warner & the '08 nomination long before Howard Fineman's Newsweek article.

2) I am not one of the Liberals calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. We invaded the country and even though Powell didn't say it, it's true: We broke it, we bought it. Liberal friends: Don't give me the crap about how Bush isn't your President and you opposed the invasion from the beginning. I opposed it too and I still think that it has done more to destabilize the Middle East, weaken America's political and moral position in the world, and encourage the zealots who hate America than anything we have done since Vietnam (possibly including Vietnam). But if you believe in the idea of America, President Bush is your president, no matter how much is angers, disgusts, shames or appalls us. Our invasion was undertaken in the name of all Americans, and we must do everything in our power to make it right. This means fixing what we broke and leaving better than we found it.

3) President Bush is weak (in Wisconsin) at the moment. Those who liked him and those who didn't haven't changed their minds, but the 'tweeners are now almost unanimously against him. The moderate Republicans I know are now publicly vocal about the reservations they whispered in '04. It's too bad they didn't stand on their convictions and speak out against extremism them and save us from further American decline.

4) While I have been taking great comfort in the poll numbers coming out of Pennsylvania in the race for the Santorum/Casey Race in Pennsylvania, I hope Liberals do not underestimate the junior senator from the Keystone state. A year ago I predicted that he would be the Republican nominee from president in '08. While that looks increasingly unlikely -- especially if he can't hold his Senate seat -- he is just the kind of religious-right-wingnut demagogue who inspires large voter turnout. If Santorum pulls out a win, he's back. If he wins by five points or more without a scandal from Casey, I return to my prediction for '08.

5) Reading between the lines from comments by Republicans on the new Supreme vacancy, look for AG Gonzales to be the nominee. Also look for a relatively smooth confirmation if that is the case. But since the President likes to buck conventional wisdom, do the opposite of what he is advised to do in public and make a bold stroke regardless of what the consequences may be, the dark horse nomination is Judge Roy Moore. God save us all if it is Moore, because any nominee will eventually win the confirmation fight.

6) For the last time (until I can't stand it any longer): White people missing, does not necessarily national news make. Local or even regional news; certainly. Help find the abductee or remains. If suspicion is that the potential abductors have crossed state lines or if the missing person is a national figure; it may warrant national mention, O.K. But let us prioritize, people! I will not find Natalee Holloway's remains in Wisconsin nor have any insight into her abduction. Stop the ghoulish voyeurism! Pray for the family and change the channel.

7) Support Gordon Hintz for Wisconsin State Assembly. While this link refers to his unsuccessful run in '04, I have it on good authority he will try for the seat again in '08. The incumbent is even weaker than last year. When Gordon gets his website updated for the '06 run and officially announces, there will be a permanent link at the right.

8) Get John Hiatt's new CD. I'm going to see him and the North Mississippi All-Stars tonight at Summerfest.

9) The Crowes show (opening for Tom Petty) at Summerfest was a bit of a disappointment. While it was nice to see the guys together again, the sound man had Steve's drums up too loud for the first part of the show, Rich and Marc don't seem to have buried the hatchet, and for as many times as they all have played Remedy (closing number) they did not seem tight. I think the fact that it was unmistakably a Petty crowd took some wind out of their sails. Still bad Crowes is better than no Crowes.

That's all for now.

Guess What!!!

2005-02-16T17:41:00.000-06:00

I know this will come as a surprise to those of you who read this site even occasionally, but the Missile Defense Scam has failed its latest test! I know, I know...You're saying: How can this be? The science is flawless! It addresses the most pressing security crisis the country faces! This is impossible!

Yes: It is impossible. O.K., maybe not impossible, but definitely unrealistic at the present time.

There is some good news. The 2006 Bush Administration budget reduces spending on the program by $1 billion. Notice, I said "some." The budget still calls for $7.8 billion in spending. While this sort of money would not alleviate the damage done to our financial situation by the Iraqi invasion and occupation or the Bush tax cuts, or pay for the privatization of Social Security or to insure the 45 million Americans (36 million working) who are without it, but it would make a dent wouldn't it?

Please, dear reader: Do not rest until this program is no more.

Oshkosh Common Council election

2005-02-13T20:47:00.000-06:00

I don't normally post more than once a day, but this has really gotten my gall up.

I received a flier from Citizens for Responsible Government endorsing a candidate for mayor and four candidates for the three vacant council positions. It made vague allusions to supposed fiscal irresponsibility by current council members and included a tasteful graphic of money and a toilet. It also said that the three endorsed non-incumbent candidates "have all gone on record as saying that they believe the Common Council needs to use common sense and sound business practices when making decisions and spending your money."

There are so many things about this flier that bother me, they are almost too numerous to list here. But I will enumerate a few of them.

1. The vague statements about "common sense" and "fiscal responsibility" are so much empty campaign pablum that do not inform or educate
2. The reason(s) the group gives for endorsing these candidates is not given other than they "WILL put your needs first." Based on what? Only one is an incumbent with a record to defend or stand upon. Only one other incumbent is running out of fourteen candidates running for three seats. Did all of the other nine candidates fail to promise "common sense and sound business practices"? I doubt it.
3. This is the most egregious violation of truth in advertising: One of the endorsed candidates was the documented spokesperson for Citizens for Responsible Government less than eight months ago. This is mentioned nowhere.

While I am no fan of the Oshkosh Northwestern as a newspaper, it is performing a great public service with this web site. If you are voting in the Oshkosh election, go there and ignore the flier. And always ignore all such fliers from anybody.

The Key

2005-02-13T08:55:00.000-06:00

When speaking about President Bush's proposal for privatizing Social Security, my former Senator, Charles Grassley (R-IA), enunciated an underlying key to understanding the current Libertarian Republican rhetoric. He said that he thinks Americans trust Wall Street more than they trust Washington, D.C. He (and the Republicans) may be right, but the evidence belies that assumption. Wall Street has consistantly screwed those who do not already have. The vast majority of politicians in Washington (Republican and Democratic) have tried to do right by people. Read and inform yourselves and others so that trust is placed in the right people.

Disgusting and disturbing

2005-02-11T21:52:00.000-06:00

This survey should chill all Americans, but especially those who mindlessly blather about America being the greatest country in the world.

Do not misunderstand me: America is the greatest country in the history of the world. But it is not so because we have the greatest economy or the largest military. It is the greatest country because of the document that these students think is no big deal.

The idea that who you are does not limit you is America. This is why people want to come to America. What allows that unique opportunity are the freedoms embedded in the Bill of Rights. Despite their economic booms, Japan and Germany did not have floods of immigrants in the 80s and 90s in the same way America had in the 20th Century. Many countries in the world (notably in Western Europe) guarantee the same freedoms as the US. So what makes the US special?

America has tried to universally live up to the ideals it represents. Once again, do not mistake me: We have not been perfect about it. There are tragic failures in that story. But we try and are sincere about it. Clinton offended that sentiment by his personal conduct. The current president offends it with his foreign policy. The next Presidential candidate who appeals to that sentiment (from either party) will win in a landslide. That sentiment is what was so electrifying about Barak Obama's speech at the Democratic National Convention.

We need to return to not only teaching and espousing American exceptionalinsm, but why America is exceptional. And then we need to live it.

Good luck in your meet this weekend, Sunshine.

Funny thing

2005-01-13T22:43:00.000-06:00

My daughter swam in her first relay on Saturday (the breast stroke leg of a medley relay.) I really enjoy the lessons of teamwork that those activities teach.

When I was surfing the net I found this link that my daughter really enjoyed. We have no relation to this young man (and she DQd in two of her three events), but it was inspirational to her.

Good luck Sunshine!

2005-01-08T08:39:00.000-06:00

I will be writing much less frequently for a while as I have a very intense class through the end of January.

But I did want to wish my little girl good luck in her swim meet tomorrow. Good luck!

Things changed on September 11, 2001

2004-12-16T20:47:00.000-06:00

The President likes to say that things changed on September 11, 2001. Really!!? Then why are we continuing to fund this absolute failure boondoggle called Missile Defense? I know I have said here that this is a technological impossibility for the foreseeable future. I know other talking heads have said it. Will people listen to physicists, perhaps? I doubt it. Screw "saving" Social Security with personal accounts: Redirect this money! Write to anyone who has anything to do with this about how moronic this is!

You've missed me haven't you?

2004-11-29T11:24:00.000-06:00

Well, I'm back. I won't be posting daily (unless the actions of idiots in the world deem it necessary), but I'll be keeping in touch.

It's nice to see that the Republican Leadership is most interested in good policy, not politics. I just wish that men like my father would admit that the Republican Party does not represent them anymore.

Every time I think that I have made progress in overcoming my prejudice against the South, they pull crap like this. Yeah, let's amend the US Constitution to ban flag burning and to "protect" heterosexual marriage, but we can't change the Alabama Constitution to get rid of segregation in education. It's all about values people!

Anyone who thinks that the Rev. Dr. Jerry Falwell is a serious thinker, theologian, or...anything other than a demagogue did not see his appearance on Meet the Press on November 28. A sampling:

Jerry Falwell: Bible Scholar

"Anyone who takes the Bible seriously believes that family is one man married to one woman."

Because we all know that there is no polygamy (Jacob, Moses, Solomon, etc.), extra-marital affairs (David), or sex with handmaidens (Abraham) in the Bible!

Jerry Falwell: Democrat

"I'm a Democrat."
"You fought Ronald Reagan. You're just anti-America."

Well, so many Democrats equate Ronald Reagan with America...

Jerry Falwell: Historian and Legal Expert

"And I think it's unthinkable that we're debating what a family is, a man married to a woman. They've got that right in the barnyard. We've had that for 6,000 years and to think that we're trying to redefine families."

Actually, Reverend Doctor, they don't have the right of marriage in the barnyard; it's a legal status in a Church or State. And that exact right has been denied by many States and Churches due to skin color, religious profession, etc. over those 6000 years. Families have also been "redefined" several times in various cultures during that stretch (for one example, see above.)

The University of Iowa thanks Coach Ferentz as we wish we all could.

Humiliation

2004-11-17T20:38:00.000-06:00

The humiliation we have been witnessing of Senator Spector is going to get worse. He has been forced by his fellow Republican Senators to make a public statement of acquiescence. Why do we allow this farce to continue? Why do we allow these primitive public power plays to continue? I stand by my previous statement that the moderates should turn the tables on these Mayberry Machiavelis and play hardball with them. I think the Right wing of the party will find their own medicine quite bitter.

Sometimes it takes a while for me to get to all of the things that interest me. This article by Frank Rich is a prime example. While I disagree with his contention that the "Blues" are winning the culture wars (every "victory" he points to is either a false victory - I don't know any "Blues" who watch Married by America, The Simple Life, or Trading Spouses - or a statistic that could just as easily be seen as the acme of its support, such as the statistics on the support for gay partner rights), I do agree that the Democrats have to do a better job at unveiling the Republican reality and exposing the hypocrisy of the "moral values" voters (see viewers of the aforementioned shows.) The Democrats need to once again assert itself as the party of moral (not necessarily Christian) values for its own good as well as the good of the country. There is a reason that John Kerry held a lead in the polls in the Spring on the question of "Which candidate better reflects your values": He did and does. We need to have an honest discussion about morality in this country, not the demogogic attacks the Right has been leveling.

Red States and Rice

2004-11-16T23:21:00.000-06:00

So Condoleezza Rice is the President's choice for Secretary of State. She is a formidable person. She has been the Provost at Stanford University, is at least proficient in four languages, and is considered a Soviet expert; never mind her four years as NSA. She is incredibly smart. She is a player of the highest order and deserves to be considered for one of the most powerful and prestigious jobs in the country. Thus, she also deserves to have her public record and her writings scrutinized and examined as closely as anyone nominated. I am no expert on Dr. Rice's record and have never subscribed to the theory that she is a "right-wing nut job" (thank you JibJab.) But I would like better answers from her about what actions she recommended based upon the pre-September 11 Presidential Daily Briefings and the National Intelligence Estimates throughout her tenure. I have concerns about her ability to confront Rumsfeld and Cheney, let alone the President, with an opinion she holds with which they disagree. I have concerns about her views of America's role in the world, but those views are not so radical as to disqualify her. Let us see what the confirmation hearings bring.

What does this action by the Republicans in Congress (and the man in question) say about their "values"? I think it says quite a bit. I have admitted several times here and elsewhere that I think that Tom DeLay is a nasty man at best. But regardless of who the target is, it is a good rule to say: If one is indicted by a Grand Jury of a crime which could lead to a two-years or greater prison sentence upon conviction, one is not fit to lead the Republicans (or anyone) in Congress until resolution of that case. I sure am glad the "values" and "morals" party is in control!

Speaking of the values party, their treatment of Arlen Spector is abhorrent. How awful it must be to have a non-doctrinaire party member! He first came to my attention, and obviously that of the Religious Right, during the Bork hearings. (That was during the Reagan administration, kids.) Apparently his vote against the scholarly but controversial judge has never been forgiven. Perhaps we should have seen this flap coming when he was nearly defeated from the right in the primaries this year. Senator Spector is a thoughtful Conservative who has served his party, his state, and his country with distinction. He should not be reduced to begging for his opportunity to chair the Judiciary committee.

There has been much said among the chattering classes about how the "moderates" in the Republican party have lost leverage with the Republican gains in the Senate. I say that Senators Lugar, McCain, Hagel, Snowe, Collins, Chaffee, and, yes, Spector should caucus and, en masse, tell the Republican leadership in the Senate to deal with them or they will caucus with the Democrats. If my math serves, that causes the Republicans to lose their control of that house. I am not advocating that the senators leave their party: They are Conservatives and the Republican Party is the conservative party in the US. But the radical right is feeling its oats right now and any radical group outside of the Founding Fathers needs to be held in check.

Resignation Monday

2004-11-15T22:57:00.000-06:00

Secretary of State Colin Powell has resigned according to sources. While I am happy for him - rumors have abounded that he has been unhappy with the conflict between him and others in the cabinet and the marginalization of his views by the President - I am sad for the rest of us. Contrary to some of the rhetoric from some of my Liberal colleagues (and I use the term colleagues to my benefit), Colin Powell is an honest, pragmatic, thoughtful actor. The fact that the Bushies hung him out to dry so many times that he has a permanent crease through his midsection or that he tried to work from within the system to improve it rather than resign in a likely pointless piece of moral theatre does not lessen his integrity. I hope the next Democratic administration will find a place for him should he want one.

Another person I am sad to see leave, though less so than Powell, is William Saffire. Throughout most of his career he has been a Conservative intellectual Liberals could respect. While I have large problems with some of his opinions (his continued insistence that there was an indisputable link between the Hussein regime and al Qaeda, specifically through the much disputed meeting in Prague), he has been thoughtful and gentlemanly in his debate - traits sorely missing from both sides of the ideological fence.

Melinda Henneberger wrote this article last week, but I have expressed my position about Veterans' Day and it didn't exactly fit in the Middle East edition. But I think she makes many insightful points about Americans' views on strong women. She expresses well why I hope Hillary is not the Democrats' nominee in '08:

President Hillary? We're not even ready for a First Lady who deviates from the script - or, heaven forfend, has a little bit of a mouth on her.

Ms. Henneberger's is a sad but true statement on the American mindset.

I'll be speaking about electronic voting before the UW-Oshkosh's MIS Club on Thursday night at 5:30 PM at Reeve Memorial Union.

Middle East Edition

2004-11-12T16:50:00.000-06:00

I did not report on Arafat's death yesterday because I believe that Veterans' Day should be reserved for them. But today is another day.

Arafat has to be one of the most intriguing figures of the 20th Century. He was undeniably a terrorist, especially in his he earliest actions. He was arguably a "freedom fighter" for the Palestinian people and was rewarded by them with their loyalty and faith as well as political power when that became possible after the Oslo Accords. Despite that official political power and the Nobel Peace Prize, he was not a statesman. A statesman would have accepted the offer made by Barak.

Regardless how you come down on any of these issues, he has been a powerful force in the region. Unfortunately his ego and his survival instinct left us with no anointed successor to Arafat. I have heard pundits in the mainstream media mention that Abbas' ascension to head of the PLO makes him the heir apparent. Excuse my skepticism: I think that a 70-something-year-old with no natural constituency or gang of you men with guns is unlikely to be seen by "the street" as their leader. While his history as a negotiator and peace-maker may be encouraging and comforting to the West and the old guard who is tired of fighting and is ready for peace, I don't think so. I predict that someone from Fattah or, more likely, Hamas will become the de facto leader of the Palestinian people. The young have been fed too many images of brutally killed young Arabs and been indoctrinated to believe that those deaths were the direct fault of the Israelis and Americans.

Tony Blair wants repayment on his loyalty to Bush on the Iraq war with help on Israeli/Palestinian peace. We'll see if the loyalty so prized by the President is a two-way street. Blair has easily been the most eloquent and articulate spokesman for the rationale for the Iraqi invasion, and while he has often used shoddy evidence to advance the cause (Iraqi missiles reaching the British Isles in fifteen minutes), he has never tried to link the Hussein regime and the attacks of September 11. He also realizes that the pan-Arab cause that is the rhetorical fuel for terrorism is the Israeli "oppression" of the Palestinians. Blair's world view demands that he be listened to by the Bush administration. His past actions, especially regarding Iraq, should amplify his voice. Sadly, I'm not betting on it.

I find this some of the most interesting news of the day. The name Michael Scheuer probably doesn't mean much to you, but it should. He wrote a book, published anonymously, called Imperial Hubris, about the government's complete lack of understanding about the nature of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and those he inspires or of the ramifications of the invasion of Iraq. Now, many others wrote similar books during the campaign season; so what makes his book special? Well, he was the chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit. Yesterday he resigned from the CIA so that he could advance the public discourse about the threats mentioned above and the government's failure to understand that threat. Time will tell if his resignation was motivated by a desire to advance the public discourse to put pressure on our policy makers to change their priorities, to curry favor with the Bush administration so as to obtain a better job after the CIA muzzled him last Summer, or if he was hanging around in the hopes that a Kerry administration would be better able to understand the realities of the Middle East. Regardless, it is a story that bears watching.

Veterans' Day

2004-11-11T23:45:00.000-06:00

Today honor those who have put their lives at risk to protect your freedom. Defend those freedoms jealously, understand why they are special, and do not let their sacrifices be in vain.

One down...

2004-11-10T16:37:00.000-06:00

So John Ashcroft has resigned. While I believe his removal from direct influence over public policy can be nothing but a good thing, he is just the most egregious element of an ideological regime. Anyone who worries about covering the breast of a statue of Justice and anoints himself with cooking oil did not have the requisite judgment to enforce our laws. (And he lost a Senate race to a dead guy!) You will not be missed Secretary Wesson.

Richard Wolffe from Newsweek has written another excellent article, this one on Kerry's "values" problem in the campaign. The thing that makes this article excellent is that it examines Kerry's (and the Democrats') "values" problems in the overall context of the campaign.

It has started already

2004-11-09T16:46:00.000-06:00

As I was channel surfing last night, I heard Joe Scarborough give an editorial on how the Left (Democrats in particular) is attacking the Religious Right "for no other reason than the God they worship." I have heard similar lines form others on the Right vis-a-vis comments from those on the Left regarding the stunning electoral victory the Religious Right delivered to President Bush.

These allegations are the first salvos of the 2008 election or at least the 2006 mid-term elections. While there have been those on the Left that have actually attacked Christians for being Christian, the majority of the writings I have seen have come from the Religious Left - written in incredulity as to how professed Christians could cast their votes for a continuation of the policies of President Bush. An acquaintance of mine, a member of the Presbyterian Church, USA (that's mainstream Presbyterianism) clergy wrote this in an e-mail recently:

How much sense would this shit make if in front of every policy the Bush administration puts into place they had to include the words, "The Jesus Christ Memorial..."
* The Jesus Christ Memorial Tax Break for the Rich
* The Jesus Christ Memorial Pre-emptive War
* The Jesus Christ Memorial War on the Guys who didn't hit us first (this one, I think probably turns the Sermon on the Mount into some kind of Moebius Strip: turn which cheek toward which guy when...)
* The Jesus Christ Memorial Lie about WMDs

This is obviously an angry message, but hardly anti-Christian.

My friends on the Right: We on the Left are not anti-Christians or anti-Semites. And while we may not be very comfortable talking about our faith in public, and may be skeptical of those who do (mindful of all of those stories Jesus told about the Pharisees and Sadducees), this does not mean we have no faith, a weak faith or a somehow lesser faith.

I am a person who demographically should be a Republican (weekly church attending Protestant, middle-class, White, college-educated, male, from the Midwest, from a Republican family). Yet the Republican leadership and platform seems economically to help the rich predominantly. I seem to recall Jesus telling many stories about helping the poor (yet I can't find a single mention of homosexuality from the Christ.) This administration and Congress push for a breaking down of the "wall of separation" between civil law and conservative Christian theology. And in the same breath these zealots decry the undue influence of arch-conservative Islam in the governments of the Middle East. (And don't tell me that there are no Christian terrorists: Eric Rudolph, Paul J. Hill, et al) Christianity, let alone morality, is not the dominion of any political party. The "Christian" policies of the Republican Party consist of anti-abortionism and anti-homosexualism. The Death Penalty, the neglect for the disenfranchised, the glorification of the search for mammon, the war in Iraq: These are all Republican policies or realities and pretty easily definable as un-Christian. Any of the items above may be the right policy for the country or not. But if you don't have a problem with the second list, do not immediately condemn those who may not have a problem with items on the first list.

Do not let this deplorable rhetoric be allowed to continue unchallenged. Abortion and homosexuality are not the only moral issues facing our nation. And criticism of this definition of morality is not prejudice.

Short Post

2004-11-08T13:16:00.000-06:00

I have my second Accounting test tonight, so I'll just say how impressed I have been with my Hawkeyes this season. Coach Ferentz has done an excellent job with them and I agree with the glowing praise the ESPN announcers lavished on Drew Tate. Go Hawks!

Bush's Social Security Plan

2004-11-05T15:15:00.000-06:00

As if we didn't know this already: the numbers don't add up.

For those of you who can't understand this (because others and I have explained this before), the FICA tax you pay right now does not go into a governmental savings account/IRA for you. Despite the implications of that ridiculous letter you get from the Social Security Administration (SSA) indicating what your benefits will be when you retire based on what you've put into the system, the money you've put in and are putting in right now go to pay for the benefits of those receiving benefits right now. The Social Security Act of 1935 immediately started paying benefits to those who needed them. Since there had been no accumulation of money for that purpose before then and there were no extra funds (can we say the Great Depression?) it was decided that the revenues would come from those currently working. Since the number of people working always far exceeds those needing the benefits and the age limits of the "pension" portion were only slightly above average life expectancy, the taxes were not onerous. As the fund generated a surplus, especially after the baby boomers entered the workforce, Congress decided to "borrow" that money for general budget items. This practice was at its worst during the Reagan and Bush (41) administrations.

The most recent administration has combined tax cuts, an expensive war, and even greater deficit spending. So, the "Social Security Trust Fund" we all heard about saving or needing to save during the last campaign is nothing but a pile of IOUs. Making the situation even better, 37% of the Federal debt is held by foreigners - 60% of that debt is held by foreign governments or 22% of the overall debt. (But who cares what the rest of the world thinks about us, right?) These governments will hold or sell our debt as it meets their interests, not ours. If they stop financing our debt, someone else will have to or...drumroll, please...taxes go up or services get cut! Hooray!

Now Senator Kerry made the ridiculous campaign promise to not reduce benefits or raise the retirement age. That was irresponsible. But the Bush plan is worse. He proposes we allow current workers to set aside part of their FICA taxes for "Retirement Savings Accounts." Sounds great, right? You could invest your money in a common bond and get a better return than Social Security gets, right? Two teeny problems: 1) What if your investment craps out and 2) what about all of the money we need to pay the existing beneficiaries and to repay the massive Trust Fund debt (billions of dollars)? No plan. So much for "compassionate conservatism" and the social safety net.

And to those who cry foul about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme, you could have changed it painlessly and actually made it a savings program before your allies exacerbated the problem in the '80s.

Please, Mr. President.

The Blues

2004-11-04T15:10:00.000-06:00

Angry. Tired. Incredulous. Mostly sad for my country, the world, and my children.

VERY disappointed in my fellow Iowans.

I'm Going to Bed Now

2004-11-03T01:48:00.000-06:00

Update XVIII

2004-11-03T01:20:00.000-06:00

CNN declares New Hampshire for Kerry.

Bush 249
Kerry 200

Update XVII

2004-11-03T01:04:00.000-06:00

CNN declares Alaska for Bush.

Bush 249
Kerry 195

Big Update XVI

2004-11-03T01:01:00.000-06:00

MSNBC has just called Ohio and Alaska for Bush.

Bush 269
Kerry 207

More Bad JuJu

2004-11-02T23:53:00.000-06:00

I just went to 270toWin.com and I figure that we will have a 269 to 269 tie in the Electoral College. I have no faith in West Virginia's faithless elector. The House will elect Bush and the Senate will elect Cheney.

Bad JuJu

2004-11-02T23:47:00.000-06:00

I predict Bush will win Ohio and thus the Presidency.

Update XV

2004-11-02T23:46:00.000-06:00

CNN calls Oregon for Kerry

Bush 246
Kerry 195

Update XIV

2004-11-02T23:30:00.000-06:00

MSNBC calls Florida for Bush.

Bush 246
Kerry 206

Update XIII

2004-11-02T23:22:00.000-06:00

MSNBC calls Colorado for Bush.

Bush 219
Kerry 206

Update XII

2004-11-02T23:12:00.000-06:00

CNN has called Florida for Bush.

Bush 234
Kerry 188

Update XI

2004-11-02T23:11:00.000-06:00

MSNBC has called Montana for Bush.

Bush 210
Kerry 206

Update X

2004-11-02T23:03:00.000-06:00

MSNBC just called Oregon for Kerry.

Bush 207
Kerry 206

Michael's Florida Update

2004-11-02T22:54:00.000-06:00

Bush will win Florida.

Update IX

2004-11-02T22:43:00.000-06:00

MSNBC has called Washington for Kerry.

Bush 207
Kerry 199

Patton the Prognosticating Pundit

2004-11-02T22:20:00.000-06:00

The "gimmes" are almost gone. You can give Montana and Alaska to Bush right now. I suspect that Washington, Oregon, and New Hampshire will be Kerry country. Eberything else is at least somewhat in play. I think in the final tally Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Hawaii, and New Mexico will be Kerry country. I think Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado will be Bush's. I have no idea about Ohio and Florida.

Daschle will lose. Salazar will win in Colorado.

Update VIII

2004-11-02T22:05:00.000-06:00

While I was driving home from class and getting groceries, CNN declared that Bush won Idaho, Missouri, and Arkansas and Kerry won California. MSNBC said Bush won Arizona and Kerry won Pennsylvania.

CNN
Bush 197
Kerry 188

MSNBC
Bush 203
Kerry 133

Update VII

2004-11-02T21:03:00.000-06:00

CNN has called Wyoming and Utah for Bush.

Bush 176
Kerry 112

Update VI

2004-11-02T20:37:00.000-06:00

CNN has called Mississippi and Louisiana for Bush.

Bush 170
Kerry 112

Update V

2004-11-02T20:03:00.000-06:00

Hoo boy! CNN has called North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Texas, and Wyoming for Bush and New York and Rhode Island for Kerry.

Bush 155
Kerry 112

Minor Updates

2004-11-02T19:55:00.000-06:00

George Clooney's dad has lost in his bid for the House. Obama is slamming Keyes. Bunning is losing for the Senate in KY. Dr. Coburn beat Carson handily for the Senate in OK.

Update IV

2004-11-02T19:41:00.000-06:00

CNN has called North Carolina for Bush.

Bush 102
Kerry 77

Update III

2004-11-02T19:33:00.000-06:00

CNN has called Virginia and South Carolina for Bush.

Bush 87
Kerry 77

Update II

2004-11-02T19:17:00.000-06:00

During our class activity CNN called West Virginia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Alabama for Bush and Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Illinois, and DC for Kerry.

Bush 66
Kerry 77

I'm blogging during my Systems Analysis & Design Class

2004-11-02T18:07:00.000-06:00

CNN & MSNBC have called Indiana, Georgia, and Kentucky for Bush and Vermont for Kerry.

Bush 34
Kerry 3

Vote Damn It!!!

2004-11-01T13:50:00.000-06:00

I am done campaigning (here - I'll be volunteering for the Democrats tomorrow). I've said all there is to say: Anyone who is not a multi-millionaire, a neo-Con, or a Fundamentalist Christian can not logically vote to re-elect George W. Bush.

But you must vote! The letter below was sent to Altercation by Major Bob Bateman at the Pentagon. It is posted here without permission. I have no way to verify the authenticity of the letter or the author, but would it lessen the veracity of the assertions if he was not who he says he is? Here it is in his entirety. (FYI: Eric and Pierce are the author and a regular correspondent of Altercation, respectively.)

Too many of us have died for any American to abstain from making a decision.

Vote.
Unlike Eric and Pierce, I will not advocate a political preference. It is wrong for an Army officer to do so. (Not to mention the fact that it's also a crime.) Who you vote for is your business. That you vote, well, that's closer to mine. Excuse me, but this is an emotional issue for me.

I want the sacrifices made, by generation after generation, to matter. I want the death of some of my soldiers, men I knew or taught or led, to matter. I want the wounds suffered by dozens more of my peers to be validated. It matters if you exercise the right that we joined the military in order to defend.

We, of course, are not the only ones with a vested interest in this process. Many others give selflessly to enable this democracy. Schoolteachers and lawyers (well, some lawyers), professors and politicians, and many others dedicate their working lives to making the democracy what it is. But there is a limit.

Too many of us have fought, explicitly and implicitly, to sustain this animal we call the United States. Too many in history, and too many today, have laid it on the line for you to ignore the privilege. Voting is a precious gift. It wasn't created by soldiers, but it was sustained. Revolutionary War soldiers and those from World War Two, Korean War soldiers and those who fell in the Civil War, all stretching back through the years defending one thing: our Democracy. The most salient element of which is the right to express your political choice. That is what millions died for. Do not forget. Do them the honor.

Vote.
We join the military because we are believers. Idealists. Romantics. We think that if we try hard enough, we can protect this 228 year-old experiment. And with every day, more blood flows to ensure that this experiment in democracy will continue. You may not agree with the present conflict. You may believe that it is wrong. But that does not negate the motivation of those fighting the war. (In this country the Army doesn't decide who, when, or where we fight. Your votes pick the people who make those decisions.)

Vote.
Oh, and when you vote, realize that we in uniform are not of the left, or of the right. We are not blue states or red states, we are green. As in camouflaged green. And if you listen you can hear that.

Vote.
It's not a joke. It's not a "retro vs. metro" thing for us in uniform. It's not country music and a barbeque versus Moby and Haute Cuisine. It is not about polls. What matters to us in uniform the most is that you use the privilege. Your vote matters, regardless of your state. If you choose not to vote, you invalidate the core reason for which each of us in uniform today decided to make a commitment and, if necessary, place our lives on the line.

Oh, and on an unrelated note: Some people think that it's enough just to pose. This pisses us off. Don't do this.

Well said Major Bateman. Patton Pending salutes the service and sacrifices of all who have served this country.

Now, dear reader, go serve your country and vote!

(I plan to have multiple posts tomorrow after 8 PM CST as the results come in.)

Special Sunday Edition

2004-10-31T14:15:00.000-06:00

The text of my minister's sermon today follows. Amen.

“President Lincoln’s Declaration of a National Day of Fasting” October 31, 2004, The Reverend Thomas C. Willadsen, First Presbyterian Church, Oshkosh, Wisconsin, Jonah, 3, Matthew 5:43-48

For months now I have been alarmed by the division in our nation. We have prayed for our nation each week during worship since September. I have tried to conceal my own political opinions when in the pulpit for some very good reasons:

First, if I stand here and tell anyone how to vote, the church could lose its tax exempt status.

Second, I don’t think it’s fair for someone like me--who has the only career I know of that is able to speak for 20 minutes without being interrupted--to advocate any particular side in an election without giving equal time. Since I’m not willing to give equal time, I strive to be not only fair and balanced, but downright ambiguous at times, while preaching.

Third and finally, I agree with one of the foundational principles of Presbyterianism, found in the Book of Order: “...we (also) believe that there are truths and forms with respect to which men [and women] of good characters and principles may differ. And in all these we think it the duty both of private Christians and societies to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.” [BoO G-1.0305]

Which is a long-winded way of saying, our disagreeing with one another need not sever our community. We believe it’s possible to stay together in spite of and in the midst of disagreement. Still, I am alarmed, distressed and troubled by the polarity which I observe as Tuesday’s election nears. And it’s the tone of the conversation that I find so distressing. I do not think for one second that the election has caused the division, rather, this is the vehicle through which two radically different worldviews are being expressed. These world views are being expressed, but are the different sides listening to each other?

I heard an interview on the radio the other day. Members of the editorial board of the Philadelphia Enquirer were being interviewed because they had decided to do something unprecedented. They were running 21 consecutive editorials backing John Kerry for the presidency. At the same time, they had sought 21 authorities, backers of President Bush, to write editorials as well. Such that on day 17, say, when The Enquirer’s editorial was about Kerry’s plan for homeland security, Tom Ridge, former governor of Pennsylvania, and Secretary of Homeland Security would have a guest editorial published. This seems fair to me. And much fairer than a newspaper has to be. TV and radio stations have to offer “equal time” because they broadcast over the publicly-controlled airwaves. The First Amendment assures that anyone who can afford a printing press can print a newspaper and write whatever they want.

Someone spread the word over the internet that the Philadelphia Enquirer was running 21 consecutive pro-Kerry editorials. That’s true. What’s also true is that they are simultaneously running 21 rebuttals--that part wasn’t mentioned over the internet. One of the members of the editorial board contacted the Bush campaign and asked, “Does it seem fair that you didn’t mention the 21 rebuttals?” The response was, “It’s not my job to be fair, it’s my job to re-elect the President.”

I see the same kind of reasoning from the Kerry campaign as well.

Both sides--both sides in this campaign have been inaccurate and unfair to the other’s positions. For example, I do not think it’s fair for the Kerry campaign to blame the current administration for the shortage of flu vaccine. Accidents happen, no company wants to produce and distribute tainted and potentially dangerous medicine. The Kerry campaign is playing to our fears and using this error--for which the current administration cannot possibly be responsible--as an argument that the current administration is unable to protect us from terrorism. That’s not fair!

I am not only distressed by the polarity and enraged by the unfairness displayed on both sides, I believe this kind of discussion is dangerous to our nation’s future.

The following quote appeared in this week’s Christian Century:

Pastor Jay Geisler “rejected both election-year stereotypes of ‘godless liberals out to destroy the family’ and ‘quasi-fascists dropping bombs for Jesus.’ This polarization is tearing churches apart, tearing our country apart. Each side wants winner-take-all. We don’t seem to want to see win-win anymore.”

Whichever party wins the White House, the sun will rise on November 3. We need to be ready to live together--and not be torn apart.

Where are the bridge builders? Where is the humility? Can anyone walk the fine line between being decisive and rigid or the equally fine line between being flexible and wishy-washy? It wasn’t long ago that candidate Dole said, “My adversary is not my enemy.” But it feels like ages, doesn’t it?

I have found two approaches that I believe will help us not just to be civil to one another, and not just fair, but two approaches I believe will help us to be a stronger, kinder, better nation. I hope the nation is listening.

First, as the gospel lesson states, we must pray for our enemies. We must pray for those who seek to persecute us and do us harm. This kind of prayer changes hearts. Now I don’t for a minute think that Republicans and Democrats are enemies. Necessarily. But the passion that extremists on both sides have displayed sure makes them sound like enemies.

Second, we must also recognize our own sin--and not merely give our attention to the sins of the other side. In American history there has been no leader who better articulated this concept than President Lincoln. In the midst of the Civil War, he made this proclamation appointing a national fast day. In an ominous echo of the words of the King of Nineveh in Jonah 3:7-8, from this morning’s Old Testament lesson, Lincoln made this proclamation.

Washington, D.C. March 30, 1863
By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.
Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.

And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.
And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.

All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

I’ll conclude with a few comments on President Lincoln’s proclamation. First, the Civil War was a situation very different from our current situation. It really is remarkable how little violence there is even during this campaign season. Even four years ago when the outcome of the election came 6 weeks after the polls closed, there was no rioting in the streets. Our instinctive civility, tolerance and forbearance are strong--remember the outraged letters to the editor in the Northwestern a few weeks ago about vandalized campaign signs! Still, I believe we are doing violence to one another in not listening and in hardening our hearts.

Second, there is no way a modern President could issue such a proclamation! It violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause--as we currently interpret it. Even though the President doesn’t--and can’t--command citizens to go to church abstain from working, defenders of the separation of church and state, I among them, would be outraged by any president issuing such a proclamation.

Still, still, I am convinced that we need to hear this voice. We need to hear President Lincoln as we go to the polls Tuesday and we will desperately need to hear this voice Wednesday morning, when the results may be announced. Lincoln calls for prayers of pardon for our national sins. Not individual sins, not prayers of confession, but for the sins of “we the people.” Then Lincoln calls for prayers for national unity.

Christians know that none of us is perfect--even as we strive to be--all of us sin and fall short of God’s glory. Nations also, even nations that claim a noble history of freedom and tolerance err, stray and sin. If we believe we’re incapable of sin we have deceived ourselves.

Lincoln believed that the Civil War was God’s judgment against the United States for the national sin of slavery. He stated this plainly in his second inaugural address. Even as the North was on the verge of winning a war whose savagery and duration Lincoln called “astounding,” he was calling for both sides to recognize their common humanity, their common national identity and the Sin that binds us all.

The task of rebuilding a fractured nation was a literal reality in 1864. Achieving national unity will look very different in 2004 and beyond. With malice toward none and charity toward all, let us resolve to be the bridge builders and healers Christ calls us to be.

Separate Reality

2004-10-29T20:19:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration has demonstrated time and again that its grasp on reality is tenuous at best. But let me lay out two items that should give any undecided voters or Bush backers pause.

First, the US State Department as late as February 9, 2004, displayed a list of "Countries Where al Qaeda Has Operated" along with a color coded map. The list of forty-five countries included Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, the UK, and the US. Any guess as to which news-worthy country the administration likes to cite as central to the "War on Terror" was not in the list? That's right: Iraq was not a country in which the State Department said al Qaeda operated. They have since removed the page from their web site, but thanks to the folks at WayBackMachine.com, I typed in a query for the broken link and found this archived page. They probably didn't think it was a good idea to let those of us delusional people who think that Iraq has/had nothing to do with the "War on Terror" that they didn't think that al Qaeda was there either.

More recently (this week), the IAEA informed the UN that hundreds of tons of explosives were missing from a munitions dump in Iraq called al Qaqaa. This raised the distinct possibility that the weapons were stolen from the cache since the US invasion, as UN inspectors had been on the ground until days before the invasion. The administration said that the explosives were probably moved by Saddam and quickly trotted out satellite photos showing trucks there. Yesterday, NBC reporters from Minneapolis released a time-stamped tape they had made when they were embedded with troops at al Qaqaa showing the soldiers breaking seals on drums of explosives of the types missing. Several state-side weapons inspectors have said that the Iraqis never sealed anything so that the seals themselves are indications that they were IAEA monitored weapons.

But facts have never stopped this administration from disseminating the information they want Americans to hear. Secretary Rumsfeld and Paul Bremmer both referred to the satellite photos as evidence that it was the Hussein regime that removed the weapons. Today they brought out a soldier who said he and his troops destroyed similar explosives from al Qaqaa, but when presses he admitted that what they destroyed was not in the volume that is missing and was not sealed.

These two incidents point to the fact that this administration has not kept Americans safer. They attacked a country which had no link to the most dangerous terrorist group in the world (and the one which attacked us) and executed that invasion with a plan(?) that apparently didn't include guarding a munitions depot the size of Manhattan. If their logic(?) was correct about Iraq being a terrorist haven before the invasion, don't you think an even grossly incompetent bunch of managers would have had the foresight to guard thousands of tons of weapons of the type that have brought down airliners? I do. But this shows that the Bush administration goes beyond gross incompetence.

Business As Usual?

2004-10-28T23:07:00.000-05:00

Since the FBI is investigating the no-bid contracts to Haliburton in Iraq, maybe it wasn't business as usual as the administration has been implying.

In the continued attempt to keep you up to date with my correspondence with undecided voters, here is a letter to my friend Nicole, the former "one-issue voter: Taxes," who has found a second issue.

John Kerry has been consistent in his position on America's place in the world and in the War on Terror. I encourage you to read all of Kerry's speech in the Senate when voting for the resolution to cede power to the President to use force on Iraq, but since it is really long, here is an important excerpt:

I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out. [. . .]

As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime. [. . .]

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize "imminent"--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.

John Kerry will use American force in the American way: with Justice. We will seek out those who intend us harm and bring them to justice. This may mean using force. (Afghanistan, etc.) This may mean using police/intelligence forces here and abroad (Millennium bombers, etc.) In a just cause (Afghanistan), there is no need to cede "authority to foreign capitals" as Bush alleges or even to "build" coalitions, because the justice speaks for itself. The much maligned French have troops on the ground in Afghanistan because the cause is just. And George "Freedom Fries" Bush has the temerity to accuse Kerry of maligning our allies.

President Kerry will be guarded by common sense, not ideology. President Bush and the neo-Conservatives who are crafting our foreign policy (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, "Scooter" Libby, Elliot Abrams, etc.) have a vision of a free Iraq being a beacon of hope and freedom for the Middle East, causing a domino effect of toppled authoritarian states, much as we saw in Eastern Europe at the end of the Cold War. While this is possible and would be the greatest event for world peace since the creation of the UN, it is unlikely for several reasons:

1. The Iraqis don't own the overthrow: there is no doubt in Iraq and around the world that Saddam's ouster and the ensuing Iraqi "democracy" were America's doing. There reason Democracy spread like wildfire in Eastern Europe rather than molasses in January is that people there saw other common people overthrowing their oppressors. Communism is a wonderful theory as well (Kibbutzes in Israel), but doesn't work when imposed by gun (Soviet Union).

2. They've completely botched it: The administration members were such true believers in their view of the world, they were unprepared for the lack of de Gaulle-in-Paris adoration from the Iraqis.

3. We continue to support corrupt and or repressive regimes: the Saudis, Egypt, Pakistan, etc.

4. We have done nothing to counter the years of anti-American rhetoric: we are seen as a conquering, imperial power in the Middle East while we have done nothing to either stem the virulent anti-American madrasses nor have we launched our own Radio Free Europe-like propaganda campaign that helped so much in advertising the benefits of Western life and freedom during the Cold War

A President Kerry will counter anti-Americanism, the true source of terror. He understands that our allies know that terrorism is their problem, too (remember the French in Afghanistan?) France, Germany, and Russia have large Islamic populations; do you think that radical, fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations are good for them? Do you think they think so?

President Bush either is or has been blinded by radical ideologues. Radical ideologues also run Iran and North Korea. Radical ideologues do not live in the real world with the real dangers. We do not pose a threat to the peoples of Iran or North Korea. Iraq did not pose a real threat to us. Al Qaeda does. Radical, religious fundamentalism does. President Kerry will fight all enemies, foreign and domestic, at a place and time of our choosing. And because our causes will be just, and obviously so, the world will follow. We need President Kerry to help America lead the world again, not bully it. And we know he will lead, because he has done so: in battle and under fire.

If this is not convincing enough, I have more.

The Biggest Under-Reported Story

2004-10-27T23:33:00.000-05:00

Yassir Arafat's health (or lack thereof) should be the biggest story today. When he dies, the succession fight will make the Palestinian Authority even more unstable. If the Hamas leadership succeeds him politically as they have already done spiritually, the dream of peace in Israel/Palestine will become nearly impossible and make the current issues regarding the Wall and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza look like child's play. Bookmark this prediction for two years from now. (Damn I'm bold!)

Congratulations to the BoSox. Hopefully, my ChiSox will be next (yeah, right!)

Our Good Friend, President Allawi

2004-10-26T23:12:00.000-05:00

If this is what your friends and allies whom you put in power say about you, you have things to worry about.

Does this statement leave a Bush victory a week from today "up in the air"? What I find at least as interesting as Bush's most controversial statement in this interview is that this transcript leads with the following:

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: Let me ask you in this sense — nobody thought what happened on 9/11 could ever happen here...

BUSH: Yes.

I'm sorry, but people did think that it could happen here and said so. This is just another example of the administration and its flunkies making assertions that the facts do not support.

The AP ran a story on Bush's military record again today. Here's my opinion as to why it has no legs: People assume it's true. Just as the stories of Clinton's peccadilloes didn't raise too many eyebrows, the Bush military and drug stories don't either because people believed those things about the man from the outset because the stories have been around for so long. The outrage about Ms. Lewinsky for the majority of Americans wasn't that Clinton diddled an aide, but that he did it in the White House and lied about it to the American people. If Mr. Bush was found to be using drugs while President: that would move people. But we all assume he used his family influence during Vietnam and that he did drugs into his thirties and merely roll our eyes at his denials as we would a teenager who claims he hasn't been drinking out of the liquor cabinet while smelling of scotch.

Give it up people: Bush did everything he's accused of and it won't make a difference.

Uncivil Wars of Words, Bad Weekend, & Milestone

2004-10-25T21:46:00.000-05:00

Thane Peterson wrote an excellent article for Business Week about the lack of civility in our political discourse. I hope that for all of the passionate partisanship that Patton Pending displays, we have failed to fall to the levels described in Peterson's piece. Now: On to the meat!

Where to begin? Should it be with the ill Chief Justice? As much as I disagree with his ideology and the stripes on his robe, I think he has served the Court and the country well in toto. Our prayers at Patton Pending are for his speedy recovery.

Chief Justice Rehnquist's situation outlines the importance of this election on the Judiciary. The next President seems destined to name several Justices and scores of Federal judges (where the majority of the real decisions that effect precedents are made); even more so if Kerry gets two terms. There is nothing inherently wrong with Conservative judges. I have great respect for Justice O'Connor's body of work and even Justice Scalia's legal mind. One can not deny either their Conservatism or their rightful places on the Court. But President Bush has demonstrated in both word and deed that he prefers doctrinaire Conservatism over the interests of the Judiciary. I point to the appointments that have been filibustered by the Senate. We need someone who understands the need for balance and moderation in the Judiciary. I suspect that Bush's immoderation is one reason there have been no retirements during his term.

Or should we have started with the hundreds of tons of explosives missing from Iraq? The irony of the current administration claiming that Senator Kerry does not have the qualifications to be President is nearly intolerable. This is the second time the administration failed to guard enormous quantities of Iraqi munitions appropriately. To paraphrase the President's applause line in his stump speech vis-a-vis Zarqawi: "Does President Bush think that these explosives will be used by productive small-business owners?" The Administration has completely botched the handling of an invasion whose outcome was dicey with the most expert implementation. They need to be dismissed before they compound their errors or commit new ones.

Friday's post was Patton Pending's 100th. Thank you to all of my readers, occasional and regular. Thank you to my colleagues (I use that term to their detriment and my advantage) Jay at Folkbum, Larime at the Iron Blog and Eric at Altercation for the inspiration. But most of all thank you to my wife for putting up with my ranting - both on- and off-line.

I do not know if Patton Pending will survive the election in its current daily form, but I have enjoyed being able to at least fantasize that my views - no matter how ineloquently stated and trivial - have helped some of you see the light about the damage this administration has done to America or been better able to speak to others about it.

Peace.

Correspondence w/ Undecideds

2004-10-22T20:02:00.000-05:00

Before we get to the letters, may I just say...Dang! BoSox/Cards series. I am looking forward to this!

I have had occasion to write to two undecided voters (my sister-in-law and a friend) recently regarding the presidential election. One had defense as a primary concern; the other had taxes as a prime mover. The letters are long, but germane.

Carmel (& Rory)--

I know that you have all but decided to vote for the President in two weeks, but I would like to take one more opportunity to lay out the case why it is the wrong choice. For the ease of readability and the already extended length of this argument, I have not included links or citations. They can be provided as needed. All information is from US government documents, mainstream US news organizations, or major educational research - no think tanks, no "special interest groups," no blogs.

DEFENDING AMERICA ABROAD

I know that it feels good for America to flex its muscle and show Saddam "what for" for thinking he could mess with us and defy International law. As best as I understand your position, this is why you support the President. You also think that Kerry wouldn't have responded to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

While I will admit that Kerry can appear to be a panderer and a "sway with the wind" politician, he has a proven track record for defending the US when it matters: Vietnam (volunteered: not drafted), Afghanistan, Patriot Act, etc. There is not a serious politician on the Left or the Right that did not wholeheartedly advocate going after the terrorists who attacked us wherever they are.

President Bush has a proven track record using the American military to further America's interests, so that issue is moot for him. But let us examine how he has used the military.

Americans are 9-10,000 out of 18,000 total troops (about 50%) from twenty-one countries (including France) in Afghanistan. Afghanistan has a population of approximately 18.4 million people, the vast majority of which live in small villages in the mountains. That means that there is a 1000:1 ratio of Afghanis to troops. The Afghanis have welcomed coalition troops as liberators for the most part and have been cooperating when they have not felt that the local warlords they fear would retaliate against them. We have lost 137 US troops there in three years. Many countries are donating financial aid to help rebuild the country. We have done an excellent job there capturing or killing al Qaeda operatives and leaders with the help of the population. Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri, are still at large in either Afghanistan or just across the border in Pakistan.

By contrast, Americans are 120,000 of 150,000 troops in Iraq (about 80%). Iraq has an estimated population of 24 million people. That means there is a troop ratio of 160:1. That implies that Iraq was between five to twelve times the threat to the US as was al Qaeda in Afghanistan. (Five times the total troop ratio; twelve times the number of US troops.) We have lost nearly 1100 US troops there in a year and a half. Almost no country that does not have troops on the ground is donating rebuilding funds. No company from a country that did not immediately sign on to the "coalition of the willing" is allowed to bid on reconstruction contracts.

There was never any link between the Iraqi government and the attacks on America (reported on several occasions by several sources - the latest being the 10/6/04 CIA report) and a tenuous link at best between the Iraqi government and al Qaeda. The only terrorist that has a proven link to the Iraqi government was Abu Nidal, and he has been dead since August 2002. At the time, he was likely to be convicted by Saddam's government for treason. The last successful attack by Nidal's organization was in the late 1980s. All of this was known before the invasion. No al Qaeda leader has been captured or killed in Iraq. No known terrorist has been captured or killed in Iraq.

While our invasion of Iraq was a roaring success, our occupation of Iraq has been a failure. We did not guard the ammunition dumps after routing the Iraqi army, allowing them to be looted by who-knows-who. We disbanded the army summarily; sending tens of thousands of angry, unemployed armed men home to stew. At least two generals in charge of troops on the ground (Shinsheki and Sanchez) in Iraq asked for more manpower or support and were denied - despite the President's claims to that the generals can have whatever they need. We tried to impose a convicted fraud (Chalabi) upon the Iraqis as their ruler. When that was obviously not going to be acceptable even to our hand picked council, we worked out a deal to have a former US and British spy (Allawi) elected Prime Minister. We have since ceded authority over our troops to his government (the thrice failures of Fallujah - American generals were told when to go in and when to back off by the Iraqis). We have had troops mutiny because they were under equipped. We have failed to train enough Iraqis well enough to defend themselves, let alone others. Just today the Washington Post reported: "The United Nations has failed to fully staff its operation in Iraq, imperiling the timing and quality of the elections there and forcing inexperienced Iraqis to take the lead in preparing for the country's first democratic balloting, due in January, U.S. officials and election experts said. Of the 35 U.N. officials in Iraq, only four or five are election experts, U.N. officials said. In Afghanistan, which has a similar-size population, the U.N. had 600 international staff, including 266 election experts, for the first democratic poll this month. A major increase in Iraq is unlikely soon because of deteriorating security and the U.S. failure to quickly mobilize Georgian and Fijian troops for a protection force or provide an acceptable alternative, U.S. and U.N. officials said."

During the time since September 11, 2001, North Korea - run by a true mad man, not just a despot - has disabled UN monitors and created a nuclear weapon; and Iran - run by the same radical Islamic fundamentalists that fuel al Qaeda's zealotry and have sponsored terror for decades - has ratcheted up its nuclear program and defied UN resolutions and inspectors. Negotiations with North Korea were stopped completely for over a year (and the situation deteriorated) because the administration refused to join in bilateral negotiations, despite the urgings from Japan and South Korea to do so. At the time America invaded Iraq, we had UN inspectors on the ground, had economic sanctions imposed on the Hussein regime, and controlled the air space over Iraq. The administration points to Libya and A. Q. Khan as success stemming from the Iraqi invasion. The problem is that Libya started negotiating with the Clinton administration and A. Q. Khan was not only pardoned by Pakistan, but in his pardon was called a national hero by President Musharraf.

Meanwhile, nearly nothing has been done to secure the nuclear weapons and materials in the former Soviet Union member countries, some of which "provide aid and comfort" to radical Islamic organizations like-minded with al Qaeda. We have no organized plan to build and fund schools to compete with the madrasses that fuel anti-American sentiment. Due to Bush's unquestioning support for the policies of the Sharon government, we are no longer seen as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Al Qaeda has expanded its presence to over 70 countries.

Freeing Iraqis from the boot of Saddam was unquestionably a good thing, but was the way we did it/are doing it worth the price we are paying and will continue to pay in the future as the young in the Middle East grow older?

DEFENDING AMERICA AT HOME

In 2003, Wyoming got $42.80 per citizen in preparedness funds while New York state got $17.23 per person (NYC got even less) and the National Capital Region got $4.79 per person.

In 2004, Wyoming got $37.60 per citizen in preparedness funds while New York state got $9.55 per person (NYC got even less) and the National Capital Region got $2.40 per person.

After two years, the Department of Homeland Security computers still don't talk to each other.

The government has not forced oil refineries and chemical plants (likely and catastrophic terrorist "soft targets") to reveal their security plans and vulnerabilities.

Even though more than 95% of our non-North American foreign trade arrives by ship, the administration's actions and plans for security of our ports are woefully undermanned, under-equipped, and underfunded.

Almost nothing has been done to increase security on our rail lines, including those that carry commuter traffic.

A 1981 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) environmental impact statement estimated that a"worst-case" disaster, perhaps caused by a large truck bomb attack on a nuclear reactor or its spent fuel storage area, could produce 130,000 fatalities in a nearby heavily populated area. Almost nothing has been done to improve security since then.

The Patriot Act and the Patriot Act II as is are being rejected by many mainstream Republicans as too intrusive to civil rights. The Administration thinks their powers should be expanded.

The Administration likes to brag that their actions have been enough since there has not been another attack. There were over eight years between successful US attacks (February 1993 to September 2001), so a three-year window is not a good measure of efficacy.

First President since Reagan to investigate creating a new class of nuclear weaponry
Proposed cutting the battle pay for troops in Iraq

ECONOMY

First President since Hoover to preside over net total job loss

1.3 million private-sector jobs lost since inauguration 2001: 908 jobs have been created since January 2002 (eliminating loses the administration attributes to the attacks), but 3.6 million have entered the workforce.

Four consecutive years of actual budget deficits, not including billions in "off budget emergency" costs

Did not include numbers for prosecution of Iraq invasion and occupation in 2003 budget numbers

National debt has risen from 57% to 65% of GDP in three years, one of only three administrations since WWII that has seen an increase (Reagan & G.H.W. Bush being the other two)

National spending increases every year despite tax cuts and Republican control of both houses of Congress

Continues to strongly advocate for $10 billion year on the missile defense shield, despite fact that terrorists will not have ICBMs and the technology is decades if not centuries away from viability.

ENVIRONMENT

President's Clear Skies Initiative allows 68% more nitrogen oxides, 125% more sulfur dioxide and 420% more mercury in the air than the existing Clean Air Act

Bush's EPA has filed 75% fewer lawsuits against polluters than in the three preceding years

Bush's Interior Department will allow up to 720 snowmobiles per day in Yellowstone, reversing a plan to phase them out

Advocates drilling in ANWR

Immediately pulled the US out of the Kyoto Accords upon inauguration

Has allowed Superfund to go nearly bankrupt

Has proposed only a 1.5 MPG standards increase over five years despite the situation in the Middle East and economically viable current technology that allows for much more

Boasts of reducing greenhouse gas intensity while actual amounts rise

Ignored a National Academy of Sciences study it commissioned saying global warming is happening and will have consequences and created new commission loaded with "scientists" known to be disbelievers in global warming

Has not pushed for enactment of Renewable-Energy, Hybrid, and Fuel-Cell tax incentives despite their prominent place in the 2004 State of the Union address and billions of dollars in cuts elsewhere

HEALTH CARE

Increase in uninsured Americans from 4 million to 44 million over three years

Contrary to the claims of the administration; 200,000 more children are insured due to Bush policies, not 2.6 million

His $158 billion Medicare prescription drug package will actually cost $564 billion and still leaves millions uncovered

Of the "more than 4 million" seniors enrolled in the above plan, 2.2 million were enrolled automatically and may not receive benefits until 2006.

The "frivolous lawsuits" that the administration says are the cause of high rates for high-risk procedure doctors are actually only .5% (1/2 %) of the total costs

Administration mismanaged flu vaccine

Has blocked importation of drugs from Canada and Britain

Against expanding lines for embryonic stem cell research; imposed severe restrictions on existing lines

"Personal Health Savings Accounts" ignore that those that most need them, can't afford them

I'm tired of writing (and researching) and I'm sure you're tired of reading if you've gotten this far. I didn't even touch on Bush's treatment of veterans, the consequences of his education reforms, his push to Christianize our society and laws, the debasement of the political discourse he champions, the increased secrecy of public policy decision making, and the gross distortions of the truth his administration foists upon the American public daily. I will admit I don't respect the man, let alone like him. But I have the greatest respect for the Office of the President. George W. Bush has done as much to sully that office as Clinton did. I have not tried to convince you of Kerry's worthiness because it is immaterial: he could not possibly be worse for American than our current president. President Bush often says of Kerry's record: "He can run, but he can't hide." He once also said that of Osama bin Laden - do we know where his is? Bush can't hide from his record either. These numbers and facts are not spun. Where my opinions occur above, they are clearly opinions (with words like woeful). The effects of the four years this administration will have occupied the White House will be felt by Americans and the world and will take decades to overcome. Another four years will be catastrophic. I do not use that word lightly. If you wish to abet that catastrophe, I will pray for you because you will have known better. Vote with your head and the facts on November 2.

Nicole--

I understand you are a "one issue voter: taxes." So let me ask you a question: Do you pay your credit card completely every month? Mr. Bush doesn't...to the tune of $800 billion more this year. This amount, which will have to be paid at some time by...anyone...taxes!...,is primarily the direct result of Bush policies. Now I know he isn't responsible for the entire deficit (and the $800 billion is the deficit or amount we overspend in one year, not the debt which is the accumulation of the deficits). I can buy the argument (though I disagree with it) that his initial tax cuts merely "gave the people their money back" from the budget surpluses that had grown during the Clinton administration. (Once again that is a budget surplus, we still had over $5.6 trillion in debt to pay off. But even after the economy sagged, we were attacked in September of 2001, and we went to war, Bush continued to not only support tax cuts, but also increased spending. Now I know you work for a bank, but let me review: less income from bad economy, less income from tax cuts...let's spend more! And he was even disingenuous enough to not even attempt to budget for the Iraq invasion/reconstruction spending. (Mr. Rumsfeld famously said, "We don't know what we don't know.") Now, I do not have a business degree (yet), but I know that you make at least a SWAG at expenses you are unsure of when budgeting...not our CEO President Mr. Bush!

As if this weren't bad enough, let's look at some of the things on which he has chosen to spend "your" money (isn't that the way Republicans always portray taxes - "your money"?):

Missile Defense Shield: It is, at best, a pipe dream. It has never passed a truly blind test. The majority of scientists working on it say the technology to make it work is decades if not centuries away. No terrorist (or rogue nation) is going to launch an ICBM at the US. And yet our "fiscally responsible" President will spend $10 billion on it each year!

Homeland Security Preparedness: The Republican controlled Congress and the Department of Homeland Security has sent over three times as much money to Wyoming as to New York State (let alone NYC) and over ten times as much money to Wyoming than to the National Capitol Region - for two years in a row. Now I think Yellowstone is a national treasure, but if a car bomb detonates in the forest and no one is there to hear it...?

Medicare Prescription Drugs: Republicans crowed with delight when the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits was passed because they thought they had taken away the Democrats' best issue. I will not debate the quality of the bill here. But I will point out that the bill explicitly forbids Medicare from using its buying power to negotiate lower prices with pharmaceutical companies, even though the VA does just that. We will pay billions more in taxes (Medicare comes from your FICA payroll tax) due to this ridiculous gift to the pharmaceutical industry.

Kerry was right when he said, "Being lectured by the president on fiscal responsibility is a little bit like Tony Soprano talking to me about law and order in this country." Bush is the only president not to raise taxes to cover the costs of war. The independent CBO reports that two-thirds of the 2004 deficit is a direct result of Bush's tax cuts. John Kerry has always (back into the late Eighties) supported PayGo (Pay-As-You-Go) spending. He has publicly said he would pare-back programs to reduce the deficit. He is the fiscal Conservative in the race. I urge you to read this dispassionate, independent (though not very flattering) assessment of the Bush's performance using business measures. No honest fiscal Conservative can vote for Bush in good conscience, let alone one who disagrees with his social agenda. You still have time to get the facts straight and change your mind and your vote to coincide with your beliefs.

***All of this information has come from traditional news organizations and governmental papers.*** I will send you links to any piece of information for verification.

My Favorite Bush POS Policy

2004-10-21T21:59:00.000-05:00

Yes, the missile defense shield is back on Patton Pending. You know, there's nothing like wasting $10 billion (with a "B") a year on a Reagan-era, Cold War, DoD-wet-dream program that the American Physical Society says won't work while simultaneously accusing the opposition of a "pre-9/11 mentality." Priceless!

Leave The Smartest Child Behind?

2004-10-20T15:10:00.000-05:00

President Bush likes to point to his "No Child Left Behind" educational policy. But a recent study from my alma mater, the University of Iowa, says that the best and the brightest - particularly those from the worst economic conditions - are often neglected and drop out from boredom. The report is appropriately entitled A Nation Deceived.

Mary Cheney

2004-10-19T22:14:00.000-05:00

I've been thinking a lot about the political football that is the Mary Cheney flap. For those of you who have been living under a rock since the third presidential debate, John Kerry very clumsily referred to Mary Cheney while answering a question about homosexuality being a choice. The question was originally posed to the President. The original question and Senator Kerry's full response follow:

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let's get back to economic issues. But let's shift to some other questions here.

Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it.

And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands or vice versa when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them.

I think we have to respect that.

The president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.

But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people.

You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.

Now, with respect to DOMA and the marriage laws, the states have always been able to manage those laws. And they're proving today, every state, that they can manage them adequately.

Now, I agree with the assessment that the senator's response was unartful, and said so as much here. But would someone please explain to me why it was hurtful to Mary Cheney or her family? She is openly gay and has been for years (open about it, that is - she's been gay her whole life.) Her mother and father have talked about her on the campaign trail. She was discussed during the Vice Presidential debate a week earlier. She is the Director of Vice Presidential Operations for BC04, so is hardly a non-political, private figure as Chelsea Clinton and the Bush twins - the favorite analogies of the Right at the moment - were.

So if she has no issues with her sexuality and her parents don't and are proud of her: what's the big deal?

The big deal is the vast majority of Americans are homophobes - some more vociferous than others. The bigger deal is the most vociferous of them are those to whom the Republicans have been cynically appealing for years. So when the opposition reminds those same voters that the Administration is not ashamed that one of their own is one of "Them," they think it is dirty pool.

I'm sorry, but it is the chickens coming home to roost at best and the grandest and most vicious kind of hypocrisy at worst. May the gods of irony do their worst to Mary Cheney's mother: Mary was not attacked and you did nothing to defend her to those who really wish her ill. Shame on you!

Similarly, the Adult Forum at my church invited our state senator to address the group about a state constitutional amendment she is sponsoring to completely outlaw civil rights for gay couples. The exchange was what one would expect between such a politician and a group that predominantly had the opposite view. But the best question of the morning came from one of my Sunday school students who had been invited to join the adults for this session. He asked her if she believed that marriage was a "right." (Others say they heard him ask her if she believed in human rights.) Regardless, she said yes. He then asked her how she could justify denying that right(s) to these citizens. She stumbled for a few seconds before giving him a condescending answer about how it was "more complicated than that" and that "with rights come responsibilities." He had stumped her. Rights by definition are inalienable, thus differentiating them from privileges. And the "responsibilities" statement was an absurd non sequitur.

What impressed me most about Nick Zillges' question was not the premise it came from, but its depth of thought; a depth fathoms beyond that the senator had given it. I still have hope for the future of our country.

All the Generals Have to Do Is Ask.

2004-10-18T22:12:00.000-05:00

"If they're lacking equipment, we'll get them equipment. If there needs to be more intense training, we'll get more intense training."
--President Bush, National Prime Time Press Conference, April 13, 2004

"Just like I've said all along that when our commanders say that they need support, they'll get support, because we're going to succeed in this mission."
--President Bush, Joint Press Conference with Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi, September 23, 2004

President Bush: Please explain.

I know that ideologues will not listen to anything from the New York Times, the "Liberal" newspaper that published false reports on Iraqi weaponry and never printed a true retraction or disciplined the reporter. But for those of you who don't immediately discard information from an award-winning mainstream newspaper's award-winning columnist and economist, here is an excellent article about Republican voter suppression efforts. Thank you to reader John Magill for sending me the link.

Politics in NE WI

2004-10-15T23:26:00.000-05:00

FOLLOW-UP TO YESTERDAY'S ENTRY:
Someone in the Bush campaign on the ground here must have some political ear, because the President landed in Oshkosh rather than in Appleton. The change came some time this morning. Do you think they're reading Patton Pending?

As I indicated yesterday, I went to the Kerry rally tonight. I need to extend my great thanks to my former landlord, Grant Withers, for upgrading my tickets to VVIP and for being my travel partner. I got to be in the front row behind the stage and was able to shake the candidate's hand and have a brief exchange with him afterward. He is a very impressive presence in person: there is a charisma there that is not detectable on television. All-in-all it was worth standing outside for five and a half hours.

The band that played before Kerry arrived, The Wandering Sons, told the following story: They had been booked to play the Kerry rally for free when the Bush campaign called and asked them to play his rally in Oshkosh. When they explained that they already had a gig, they were offered $4000. The band told the Bush campaign that they could keep their money and that the members of the band were Kerry supporters.

I wasn't prepared for the theater of the rally. There were red, white, and blue pillars of light on the gymnasium building to the north of the stage. The stage had writing on the floor. There were two huge American flags framing an equally huge banner reading "Wisconsin is Kerry Country." And this was the stuff that the TV cameras couldn't see! When Kerry was done speaking, four cannons sprayed the crowd with confetti. All I could think of was: What a pain to clean up!

I case you were wondering what song Kerry would have to match Clinton's "Don't Stop" by Fleetwood Mac, it appears to be "Pride (In the Name of Love)" by U2.

Since I won't be blogging tomorrow: Happy Birthday Booger! I love you and am very proud of you!

Innnnnnnnteresting...!

2004-10-14T23:06:00.000-05:00

I will be going to see Senator John Kerry speak tomorrow night in Appleton, WI. President Bush will be speaking at the EAA AirVenture Museum in Oshkosh. For those of you unfamiliar with Wisconsin geography, the two cities are about twenty miles apart; Appleton connected to Oshkosh to the south by US Hwy 41. The airport in Oshkosh has two of the largest runways in the US: I've been told that it is one of three places in the US the space shuttle can land. I know the Concorde landed there several times. So since the President will be speaking a few hundred feet away from an airport that for a weekend every Summer is the busiest in the world but is otherwise quiet, you'd think Air Force One will be landing there. To use the President's favorite language: Au contraire!

The President will be landing in Appleton and cruising down US 41 during evening rush hour, causing it to be effectively shut down during that time. This will not only inconvenience thousands of commuters, but also hundreds more going North to their weekend cottages. Even for the "security" concerns cited in the article, why would the President blow this photo op and PR opportunity and risk alienating hundreds of voters in a critical swing state? What did I say in the first part of this entry? Oh, yeah...Kerry will be in Appleton...at the same time! The President's gambit will make it very difficult for those in the Fox Valley to attend the Kerry rally. How conveeeeeeeeenient!

More people of faith who disagree with the President.

And then there were four...

Go Cards and BoSox!

The Debates Are Over

2004-10-13T23:16:00.000-05:00

Some of the best, short political commentary right now is happening on NPR on Wednesday afternoons between E. J. Dionne of the Washington Post and David Brooks of the New York Times. Listen when you can.

The two biggest pre-debate stories are: James Baker III and the Nevada voter registration allegations. The October Surprises have begun.

I think Kerry won this one on points. Bush was hamstrung by the format - he is a lousy "podium" debater. He was unable to project the energy he displayed from the last debate. I did particularly like his answer regarding strong women although - Barbara (mom) - HELLO! His attempt at a CBS joke was abysmal - does he not know for who Schieffer works? Bush really needs to feed off of a crowd, and this format doesn't give him that opportunity.

Kerry was solid, as he was in the first two. His answer including Cheney's daughter was awkward as was his humor regarding his "marrying up." His line about the President and Tony Soprano was good. He could have done a better job explaining his Pell Grant statement.

All in all, I think they played it too safe. We shall see.

What's on TV at 5:00 AM

2004-10-12T17:20:00.000-05:00

I woke up at 4:45 this morning and couldn't get back to sleep. This excellent show on C-SPAN. From C-SPAN's web site (edited):

Speakers David Boies, Attorney for Vice President Gore during the Post-2000 Election Lawsuit; Kieran Mahoney, Republican Strategist; Mario Cuomo (D-NY), Former Governor of New York; Bill Weld (R-MA), Former Governor of Massachusetts; Howard Wolfson, Democratic National Committee Senior Adviser; John Ellis, Columnist for the Boston Globe and Cousin of President Bush; and moderator Richard Reeves, Columnist and Presidential Biographer, hold a discussion on "Campaign X-Ray, 2004: Stripping the Surface of the Bush-Kerry Race."

My thoughts on tomorrow's debate:
Kerry needs to be at least as good as he's been in the last two debates and he should really take it to the President. People need to be convinced that even though Bush's strong talk and "resoluteness" makes them feel good, his administration has been a failure across the board and that anyone would be better.

The President needs to display the same energy he showed in the second debate, but in a controlled way. His answers need to be articulate, but not eloquent. People know that he has only a nodding acquaintance with proper English and will give him a pass on fluency. His strength has always been speaking simply. He needs to avoid parroting talking points as he did in the first debate.

Both men have a lot to lose and little to gain from their performances. That being said, they both need to be aggressive. Both men are akin to the basketball team that comes out like gangbusters - building a big lead and momentum - who lose the game when they try to run the clock out rather than continuing to pour it on.

Post Debate II

2004-10-11T17:30:00.000-05:00

I will break with the Liberal chattering classes and the polls and say that the Midwest swing voters and say that the President won debate II "on points." He was much more confident in his bearing and answers. I think that he answered the questions in a way that connected with the aforementioned voters. He seemed to connect on an emotional level - a gut level. My sister-in-law is leaning toward voting for the President. She agrees with him on none of the major issues, save the removal of Saddam. She basically likes his tough-guy swagger and braggadocio. I interpret her position as: "I know its wrong, but it feels so good." Kerry has to do a better job at connecting to the voters' feelings. He did a great job at getting the voters to feel he could be the Commander-in-Chief in the first debate and did a decent job getting the voters to feel he was presidential in the second one. But the President did a better job of that than Kerry did.

Kerry rambled more in the second debate and his answers weren't quite as sharp and he missed stellar opportunities. For example: When the lady asked about non-embryonic stem-cell research, Kerry immediately jumped into an intelligent dissertation on the virtues of embryonic stem-cell research. But he should have made clear that it is not an either/or choice - that ignoring a potential scientific breakthrough because it is potential is irresponsible. He should have said something like: "Instead of just throwing those embryos away and destroying two lives, let us use then to give renewed life to someone's father, mother, sister, brother."

He should have also used Bush's "You can run, but you can't hide" line against him in his closing argument. (Yes, I know the closing arguments are scripted, but this was too good an opportunity to pass up.) I would have said something like this:

"The President has said twice tonight: 'You can run, but you can't hide.' He is absolutely right! I ask you, my fellow Americans, how has this administration's record left you? Do you feel safer than four years ago? Is your job more secure than it was four years ago? Is there more money in your retirement account than there was four years ago? Is the air cleaner than it was four years ago? Are we as respected in the world as we were four years ago? Are our freedoms and rights as secure as they were four years ago? No, Mr. President, you can run, but you can't hide. There may be undisclosed locations for Vice President Cheney and secret meetings for energy policy, but not for the failures of your administration. I not only see a better America, I not only promise a better America, I guarantee a better America. An America where..."

The upside was Kerry had the best line of the debate by far: "The military's job is to win the war. A President's job is to win the peace."

DeLay'd Gratification

2004-10-08T16:13:00.000-05:00

We now know why Tom DeLay has been reprimanded twice this week by the House Ethics committee: He couldn't see what he was doing! It all makes sense now! There are very few people in the public sphere whom I hate. How can I hate someone I don't know? I have made an exception for Mr. DeLay. Every action he makes in the national sphere is of the lowest form. When I am watching political coverage and my three-year-old calls someone I disagree with a "bad man," I correct him saying just because we disagree doesn't make them bad. I don't correct him about Mr. DeLay. I realize this attitude toward Mr. DeLay is un-Christian, and I work at growing. But I'm not even close to being there yet.

On the morning of the second debate, I print my friend Glen's thoughts on the first two debates (I forgot to do it yesterday):

In a nutshell I think Kerry was a better performer. He is more polished and probably a better debater. Bush has never been accused of being eloquent. Personally I don’t care if he is except for the benefit of having him appear to be more presidential to some –reference Bill Clinton. I find it ironic how those that constantly make fun of Bush for not being able to speak, for mispronouncing words, for not expressing himself as well as he might like, also now act so surprised at the debates. Those people should have expected exactly this outcome but instead they are jumping on it as a measure of Bush somehow being incompetent. He isn't. So fine – if one's measure of winning is style, Kerry wins the first one.

Cheney clearly won the VP debate. To use the liberals measure of appearance, Edwards was cuter but Cheney appeared to be much more mature, controlled, and in charge. I also think Cheney won on content. When I look at Cheney I feel comfortable that he has the qualifications to become president. I don’t get that impression at all from Edwards. To paraphrase Kerry himself regarding Edwards, ‘this is not the time for on the job training.’

I hope to share Glen's viewpoints here after tonight's and next week's debates.

This is a couple of days old, but I think it bears posting with the debate tonight. Look to hear Mr. Bush use the same excuses. When the real reasons are no good, make up new ones after the fact!

Speaking of Bush and the debates, the Dems now have their own conspiracy theory about the last debate to match the one the Republican's had earlier. Can we stick to reality people!?

I will be interesting to see how the job numbers influence the polls next week. Will the fact that consumer confidence is dropping again and that oil is now over $50/barrel and reflected at the pump override the administration's spin on the jobs statistic? As I have said here before, when people "vote their pocket book," it is just that - their pocket book. If they don't personally have the experience of an improved job, they don't care about the economy in Las Vegas or Milwaukee.

Correction

2004-10-07T23:36:00.000-05:00

My friend Glen, he of IHateLiberals.com, informed me yesterday that my rhetoric about Fox News was overheated. From his e-mail:

From your website… In case you hadn't heard (and if you've been watching Fox news or listening to members of the Bush administration, you haven't), there were no "weapons of mass destruction" and there was no link between al Zarqawi and Saddam.

This was accompanied by a screen shot of FoxNews.com at 9:57 ET with the upper-right box devoted to Report Finds No Iraq WMD After '91. While PattonPending has never claimed to be balanced, I am fair. I apologize for my incorrect statement.

I would like to point out that thirty minues later, when I went to FoxNews.com, the space taken by the headline above had been replaced by stories about debate prep by the two candidates and the story that had been there was much further down the page. So much so that I had to scroll to find it and I have a 1600 x 1200 resolution screen. But a link to Cheney: WMD Report Justifies Iraq War was neatly tucked under a picture of US forces in Iraq in the center of the page. An hour after that, the story Glen had sent me was gone completely from even the secondary pages at the Fox site.

I saw Bill O'Reilly's interview on The Daily Show last night. I was as surprised as Stewart that he wasn't a complete prick. It is too bad that he can't run his own show like he ran his interview last night.

Saw the new JibJab cartoon on Leno last night. Not quite as funny as the first one, but still very good!

What the President and the Right Won't Tell You

2004-10-06T16:21:00.000-05:00

[The pictures from Abu Ghraib] represent the actions of a few people...In our country, when there's an allegation of abuse -- more than an allegation in this case, actual abuse, we saw the pictures -- there will be a full investigation and justice will be delivered...we do not tolerate these kind of abuses.

--President George W. Bush, May 5, 2004, in an interview with Al Arabyia

Ladies and Gentlemen, though there are no pictures yet, let's prove the President "means what he says" and not tolerate these kinds of abuses by bringing these few people who would commit torture to justice.

In case you hadn't heard (and if you've been watching Fox news or listening to members of the Bush administration, you haven't), there were no "weapons of mass destruction" and there was no link between al Zarqawi and Saddam.

So, let's see: only ambitions for unconventional weapons, no credible link to any terrorist other than Abu Nidal, weapons inspectors were on the ground, we controlled the skies over most of the country...so what was the urgency to invade Iraq again? Oh, yeah! Saddam was a bad man! Bad man! No cookie for you! Thank goodness there are no other bad men that posed a greater danger to the US! Other than maybe Ossama bin Laden...or Kim Jong-Il...or Mullah Omar...or Ayatollah Khamenei...or Fidel Castro...oh...Four More Years!

So Much to Say

2004-10-05T23:10:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration sure has a hard time keeping former members on message. O'Neill, Clarke, Shinsheki, and now Paul Bremer. The inability to state the obvious should disqualify the President from re-election.

What's more, the current members of the administration can't keep their stories straight.

I received the e-mail about this topic the other day. I did my civic duty and corrected the record. But it sure was tempting to let this story linger.

The VP debate is over. As I had class tonight, I had to watch it on tape. Cheney won. But not by as much as the pundits are saying. (I tend to agree with Keith Olbermann's take.) And I don't think it'll move many people that won't be moved again over the next weeks. We aren't voting for Vice President, people: They're along for the ride.

Edwards highlights: Attack on first statement. Decoupling of "War on Terror" and Iraq. Defense of "Global Test" mischaracterization. Administration policy inconsistencies. Iran: Axis of Evil charge. Haliburton and Iran connection. Cheney's record in Congress. Poverty/jobs under Bush. Closing statement. General standing up for Kerry.

Cheney Highlights: Attacks on Kerry's voting record. Afghan elections. Coupling of "terrorists" (especially Zarqawi and Abu Nidal) and Iraq. Edwards' attendance in the Senate. Defense of position on "liberty" and homosexual marriage. Thanking Edwards for comments about family. Malpractice and cost of health care. Correction of Medicare increase mischaracterization. "Im not worried about what some precinct committeemen in Iowa were thinking of me with respect to the next round of caucuses of 2008." "...George W. Bush would be a better commander in chief. He's already done it for four years." Pre-emption of Edwards' "poorer-than-thou" spiel. General command of self.

Both men failed miserably to address Ifill's question about AIDS in African-American women. Edwards dropped the ball on being too overt in his role as a shill for Kerry and for going back to the previous question in a new answer time. Cheney lied about never having tried to link Iraq with 9/11 and about never having met Edwards before tonight. He also said that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court told the legislature that it had to change the constitution: wrong! I also think the American people realize and expect those campaigning for the White House to miss out on many of their "day jobs." It would also be interesting to see the Senate attendance comparison between Cheney and Edwards and Kerry.

Hypocracy Abounds!

2004-10-04T20:34:00.000-05:00

I have heard some Conservative voices make hay about Kerry's alleged denegration of allied participation in Iraq. Yet none of these people seem to have a problem with sneering at the French, serving Freedom Fries in the Capitol, etc. Huh! I thought the French were some of the first to send troops to Afghanistan. Oh, wait...they were!

And people accused Kerry of pandering to the Ethanol crowd in Iowa! What was so special to Iowa about the tax cut bill Bush signed there? Answer: Nothing.

SNL has lost a lot of its bite since the great parody of the Bush 41/Dukakis debate, but there were a few good lines in their parody of Thursday's debate.

Bush (Will Forte): "It's hard!" (Over and over!)

Kerry (Seth Meyers): "It's not flip-flopping: It's pandering, and Americans deserve a President who knows the difference!"

The Other Side of the Debate

2004-10-01T19:13:00.000-05:00

First let me thank Joyce, Jeff, and Carl for the view from the other side. It is important for all of us not to live in the echo chamber of people who agree with us. Even in today's world of Crossfire/Hardball/Talk Radio it is possible to have a conversation - even a spirited one - without being uncivil and personal.

Joyce - who I took to register to vote - is "undecided, leaning Bush" with definite Conservative tendencies. She is 22, a recent college graduate (Human Resources), a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and unmarried. She hadn't really followed the issues or the campaign until a few weeks ago. In the MSNBC quiz on 17 issues, she agreed with Bush 11 times and with Kerry 6. She had the debate on for the entire time, although she was doing other things at times while listening (putting dishes away, etc.). She was not impressed with either candidate. She thought it sounded like side-by-side campaign ads.

Jeff, in his late 30s, is a rabid Republican who listens to Rush and Hannity regularly and is a Fox News watcher. He does not attend church regularly, grew up in a relatively well-to-do suburb of Milwaukee, is married with two young daughters, is a do-it-yourselfer (thanks for the help with my car and sink!), has a degree in Industrial Engineering, and is the Plant Manager where I work. I would say he comes from the Libertarian branch of the party. He thought Kerry beat Bush rather soundly and said the talking heads on Fox afterward thought so as well. He also said that Bush's constant repetition of the flip-flopping charge was annoying.

Carl is a Christian, married, father of five who works in our Estimating department. I do not know him well, but he has told me he is a Bush supporter. He too thought Kerry looked good and that Bush looked awful.

I have not had a chance to talk to my friend Glen, yet. He would be the true barometer of what the true-believer, Kerry-hater thinks. If I get the chance I will post his reaction here.

Debate Recap

2004-09-30T22:33:00.000-05:00

I hate to say it, because I try to be a "realist," but I think that Kerry won the debate handily. Kerry was clear, strong, and "Presidential." Bush showed in 1994, 1998, and 2000 that one needn't to have Mario Cuomo's mastery of the language to be an effective debater, but he seemed to me tonight to be rattled. What some of the talking heads referred to as his showing "anger" early in the debate, seemed to me to be more exasperation. I think some of his responses were exasperated as well (on PBS, historian Richard Smith said that Bush looked like a frustrated teacher.) It seemed to me that when Bush was forced to move beyond his talking points, he didn't have a lot to say. As I watched him stumble over the same pat phrases, I kept hearing the SNL parody of his father against Dukakis in 1988. He also seemed to get bored with the process. Toward the end, especially the last thirty minutes, he would sometimes end his comments with fifteen seconds or more left.

What I found most amazing, was listening to Republicans afterward (I heard C. Boyden Gray, Rudy Giuliani, and David Brooks). They kept talking about how clear the President was and how they still didn't know where Kerry stood on Iraq and that Kerry kept saying that "the war in Iraq was a mistake." Were they watching the same debate I was? Not once did Kerry even approach that sentiment let alone those words. Jon Stewart's interview of Giuliani was refreshing in that he didn't let Rudy get away with distorting Kerry's actual words. It will be interesting to see how main stream media report on the debate; if they continue to let each side just spit out their talking points without actually checking the facts.

I look forward to hearing what my Conservative and undecided friends have to say about the debate. I'll report their comments here tomorrow.

My wife had me call my undecided sister-in-law after the debate. (Hey Carmel!) She only saw the last half hour and thought it was a draw. She said she's "still not sure about Kerry." Her big issue is that Saddam was a "bad guy" and needed to go. Kerry needs to articulate his position on this--yes, Saddam is bad, but leading is about priorities--as clearly the rest of the way as he did tonight. This election needs to be about Bush's record over the last four years. Because other than the speed with which we responded in Afghanistan after September 11, every single decision this administration has made has been either completely wrong (missile defense) or grossly misprioritized (removal of Saddam vs. finishing the job in Afghanistan or Iran or North Korea).

Help the Iron Blog!!!

2004-09-29T16:35:00.000-05:00

One of the few Blogs I read with regularity is in dire need. The Iron Blog is in need of judges (I am one) and Challengers for its substantive issue debates. This is not a place of Hannity & Colmes/Crossfire, name-calling, talking-points rants. The people here think about their positions, do their research, and listen to the other side. This is not to say that passionate opinions are not expressed. But this is the type of civil Civic discourse we should be having in this country. Read it and participate please!!!

Here's another article about my favorite issue with the Bush administration. It encapsulates all of their faults in one issue! The Interceptor system is 1)fiscally irresponsible, 2)misdirecting military resources from the war on terror, 3)a sop to the military industrial complex, 4)fighting the last war (not the war on terror), and 5)environmentally unsound. And IT DOESN'T WORK AND LIKELY NEVER WILL! Let's re-elect, shall we?

Maybe I'm a pessimist, a whiny Liberal, or whatever, but I have bad ju-ju about the debate tomorrow night. I hope for our country I'm wrong.

A Republican friend of mine told me he is likely to vote for Feingold over Michels! There is hope!

Good news, bad news

2004-09-28T17:30:00.000-05:00

I received some good news and some bad news from my father Sunday night. The good news: He is unlikely to vote for Bush (he thinks Bush is "an idiot"). The bad news: He is unlikely to vote for Kerry (he thinks Kerry is "wishy-washy"). He may vote the rest of the ballot and leave the Presidential contest blank.

To my father and those like him: Please reconsider. I realize neither candidate is the ideal (or even close, frankly). I realize you are discouraged with the lack of leadership, integrity, and intelligence displayed by the vast majority of those running for office at any level. I know you just want to say: "To hell with them all!"

But the reality is every vote not cast for a candidate (say Kerry) is in nearly equal to a vote for his primary contender (Bush), as that is one fewer vote the contender needs to win. If there is an executive employee who consistently makes the wrong decision, you fire that employee even though the replacement employee may not be a Rhodes Scholar, MBA from Harvard. George W. Bush deserves to be fired for his performance in office. In our system the only way to do that is to hire someone else.

Dad -
You and I have disagreed on general politics ever since I was in high school. I know you think that, "When in doubt; vote Republican." I know you sometimes think that I get "uppity" in my language. But you also know who I am. You know what I believe and how I live my moral life was formed by the words you said and the life you live. This is election important to Ryan, Deb, Caitlin, Teagan, and I. Two US Supreme Court justices will likely be nominated in the next four years. We will likely have a serious national discussion about the draft because of how the next President decides to use your military might. Please look at where those in power in your party want to take the nation and how that vision compares to your beliefs. Please really think about all of these things before you vote.

A sad commentary on our society (from MSNBC @ 3:28 CDT):

Who do you trust for news on campaign 2004? * 9248 responses

Jon Stewart 42%

Tom Brokaw 19%

Jay Leno 3%

Dan Rather 8%

David Letterman 3%

Peter Jennings 9%

Dennis Miller 10%

Aaron Brown 7%

That's right: Two comedians (Jon Stewart and Dennis Miller) beat three of four major newsmen in the trust department for campaign news. And Brokaw lost handily to Stewart even though he beat Miller.

Christian Democrats

2004-09-27T21:10:00.000-05:00

The Bush administration is actively campaigning in churches across the country; whether by working to get polling places set up in churches in Iowa, by encouraging ministers to endorse the President from the pulpit, or by merely pamphleting cars in church parking lots. They think (I'm afraid with good reason) that Christians in particular a string constituent base for them. It is well known that those who attend church regularly voted for the current President in overwhelming numbers in 2000.

As an active, practicing Christian: I don't get it.

The teachings of Jesus are if nothing else about peace and love: Turn the other cheek, etc. This President is continuously reminding us he is a born-again Christian and that Christ's teachings guide his every decision. While I can buy the argument that a President has to defend the nation regardless of his personal beliefs, there is a strong (overwhelming in my opinion) argument that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with national security/defense.

Jesus constantly warned us about the corrupting power of wealth and was a champion of the poor: Camel through the eye of a needle/Rich man into heaven, etc. Bush's policies without exception benefit the wealthy and powerful.

He spent an average of fifteen minutes reviewing death penalty cases as governor of Texas, the state with the highest execution rate in the US. No less of a religious authority than the Pope has condemned the invasion of Iraq.

Some will argue that his championing the "rights of the unborn" and his party's advocacy of increasing involvement of religiosity in the public arena should trump these other decisions. They are entitled to that position, as misguided as I and other Christians may think it is.

But that is the point. People of good faith and Faith may reasonably come to different conclusions. As is probably evidenced in your home town, possibly even your house, Christianity is not monolithic. Its presentation of such, either by practitioners or outsiders, is ignorant at best and nefarious at worst.

I am grateful that my parents took me to church - made me go at one point - every Sunday. The lessons that I learned there, taught by Liberals and Conservatives alike, shaped who I am and how I see the world. To paraphrase the President, I do not know the contents of his heart, or John Kerry's for that matter. I can only cast my ballot based on their respective records in office and their parties' platforms. Voting should in part be a moral decision. My morality is shaped by my Christianity. My morality tells me that a vote for George W. Bush's policies is wrong.

Kerry and morals

2004-09-24T23:07:00.000-05:00

Melinda Henneberger shows why Kerry is in more trouble than he shoud be: He is connecting morally with voters. I'll have more to say on this next week.

Iraq - Vietnam issues

2004-09-23T21:59:00.000-05:00

Richard Wolffe skewers the logic that there are simple answers to the issues facing us in Iraq, just as there were no simple ones thirty-five years ago in Vietnam. Whereas Kerry may not be the best at articulating those complexities, does anyone really doubt that he sees them better and is better equipped to handle them than this President?

Republicans and campaign money

2004-09-22T16:13:00.000-05:00

I survived the kids at church, but school and work are about doing me in. Sorry for missing two days.

For all of the b****ing the Bush camp has been doing about the 527s, they are doing something far more underhanded. A loophole (in a campaign finance law -- REALLY!) is being leveraged by the BC04 campaign to use RNC money to directly campaign for the President - money that McCain-Feingold tried to limit. They are doing this by including the words "our leaders in Congress." By doing so, they are arguing that these ads are for all Federal Republicans running, not just BC04. Naturally the Democrats will be doing the same now, though they have far less party money than the RNC.

I had noticed one of these commercials because the "Congressional leaders" phrase jumped out at me. I am not saying that I thought anything untoward was happening: I thought they were trying to coattail. I love politics, but what we have today - on both sides of the aisle - is discouraging. For all of the Conservative blather about not wanting to impede free speech with campaign finance regulations, this move shows what a game they think this is. It is not unreasonable to argue that 527s are a better example of the public exercising free speech than a party apparatus is.

Pray for me

2004-09-17T17:26:00.000-05:00

I have been asked to teach 8th and 9th grader Sunday school. Oy vay! If anyone out there has any ideas for curricula, please let me know.

Serious Consequences

2004-09-16T22:32:00.000-05:00

Despite George W. Bush's (and many other Republicans') disdain for the UN, part of his rationale for the just-ness of the Iraqi invasion is the Security Council resolution threatening "serious consequences" to the Hussein regime if they did not disclose information about their unconventional weapons. So it is more than a littl eironic that the Secretary General of the UN today called the invasion "illegal". You may recall that I (and others) have said similar things earlier, but as I am not an international lawyer I did not deign to use such terminology. It should not take such a statement from Mr. Annan to bring an informed person to that realization, but it sure doesn't hurt.

Better than nothing

2004-09-15T19:10:00.000-05:00

This is no substitution for really educating yourself about the issues, but it's a start.

Oops, I forgot yesterday

2004-09-14T17:00:00.000-05:00

Iowa 17 - Iowa State 10

May I see your papers?

2004-09-13T09:42:00.000-05:00

Let's face it America: If we are truly going to make any security system work, we are going to need a National Identification Card. I think it is a relatively minor freedom (the freedom of anonymity) to relinquish. We already submit to similar things regarding our Social Security number and payroll deduction.

But if we do submit to this, we must be better stewards of Democracy and watch what our leaders are doing so that this database is not used for purposes other than for those it was designed. This means no more John Ashcrofts or Patriot Acts people!

Please remember...

2004-09-10T16:44:00.000-05:00

Three years ago tomorrow, a group of terrorists from al Qaeda hijacked four American passenger jets and perpetrated the heinous act that opened the eyes of the majority of Americans from their collective blindness to the realities of the world outside. Too many good people died. Do not forget them. Do not forget who perpetrated this act. Do not forget to search for true justice for these souls.

Bush's record

2004-09-09T18:48:00.000-05:00

Here are some more numbers that aren't exactly flattering to the Bush administration. But what are cold facts against the fantasy world in which this administration lives? (I have incuded an excerpt below for those who do not wish to purchase the article.)

1 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security issued between 20 January 2001 and 10 September 2001 that mentioned al-Qa'ida.

104 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned Iraq or Saddam Hussein.

101 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned missile defence.

65 Number of Bush administration public statements on National security and defence in the same period that mentioned weapons of mass destruction.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden in his three State of the Union addresses.

73 Number of times that Bush mentioned terrorism or terrorists in his three State of the Union addresses.

83 Number of times Bush mentioned Saddam, Iraq, or regime (as in change) in his three State of the Union addresses.

$1m Estimated value of a painting the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, received from Prince Bandar, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States and Bush family friend.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned Saudi Arabia in his three State of the Union addresses.

1,700 Percentage increase between 2001 and 2002 of Saudi Arabian spending on public relations in the United States.

79 Percentage of the 11 September hijackers who came from Saudi Arabia.

3 Number of 11 September hijackers whose entry visas came through special US-Saudi "Visa Express" programme.

140 Number of Saudis, including members of the Bin Laden family, evacuated from United States almost immediately after 11 September.

14 Number of Immigration and Naturalisation Service (INS) agents assigned to track down 1,200 known illegal immigrants in the United States from countries where al-Qa'ida is active.

$3m Amount the White House was willing to grant the 9/11 Commission to investigate the 11 September attacks.

$0 Amount approved by George Bush to hire more INS special agents.

$10m Amount Bush cut from the INS's existing terrorism budget.

$50m Amount granted to the commission that looked into the Columbia space shuttle crash.

$5m Amount a 1996 federal commission was given to study legalised gambling.

7 Number of Arabic linguists fired by the US army between mid-August and mid-October 2002 for being gay.

George Bush: Military man

1972 Year that Bush walked away from his pilot duties in the Texas National Guard, Nearly two years before his six-year obligation was up.

$3,500 Reward a group of veterans offered in 2000 for anyone who could confirm Bush's Alabama guard service.

600-700 Number of guardsmen who were in Bush's unit during that period.

0 Number of guardsmen from that period who came forward with information about Bush's guard service.

0 Number of principal civilian or Pentagon staff members who planned the war who have immediate family members serving in uniform in Iraq.

8 Number of members of the US Senate and House of Representatives who have a child serving in the military.

10 Number of days that the Pentagon spent investigating a soldier who had called the President "a joke" in a letter to the editor of a Newspaper.

Saviour of Iraq

1983 The year in which Donald Rumsfeld, Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East, gave Saddam Hussein a pair of golden spurs as a gift.

237 Minimum number of misleading statements on Iraq made by top Bush administration officials between 2002 and January 2004, according to the California Representative Henry Waxman.

10m Estimated number of people worldwide who took to the streets on 21 February 2003, in opposition to the invasion of Iraq, the largest simultaneous protest in world history.

$2bn Estimated monthly cost of US military presence in Iraq projected by the White House in April 2003.

$4bn Actual monthly cost of the US military presence in Iraq according to Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld in 2004.

$15m Amount of a contract awarded to an American firm to build a cement factory in Iraq.

$80,000 Amount an Iraqi firm spent (using Saddam's confiscated funds) to build the same factory, after delays prevented the American firm from starting it.

2000 Year that Cheney said his policy as CEO of Halliburton oil services company was "we wouldn't do anything in Iraq".

$4.7bn Total value of contracts awarded to Halliburton in Iraq and Afghanistan.

$680m Estimated value of Iraq reconstruction contracts awarded to Bechtel.

$2.8bnValue of Bechtel Corp contracts in Iraq.

$120bn Amount the war and its aftermath are projected to cost for the 2004 fiscal year.

35 Number of countries to which the United States suspended military assistance after they failed to sign agreements giving Americans immunity from prosecution before the International Criminal Court.

92 Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2002.

60 Percentage of Iraq's urban areas with access to potable water in late 2003.

55 Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who were unemployed before the war.

80 Percentage of the Iraqi workforce who are unemployed a Year after the war.

0 Number of American combat deaths in Germany after the Nazi surrender in May 1945.

37 Death toll of US soldiers in Iraq in May 2003, the month combat operations "officially" ended.

0 Number of coffins of dead soldiers returning home that the Bush administration has permitted to be photographed.

0 Number of memorial services for the returned dead that Bush has attended since the beginning of the war.

A soldier's best friend

40,000 Number of soldiers in Iraq seven months after start of the war still without Interceptor vests, designed to stop a round from an AK-47.

$60m Estimated cost of outfitting those 40,000 soldiers with Interceptor vests.

62 Percentage of gas masks that army investigators discovered did Not work properly in autumn 2002.

90 Percentage of detectors which give early warning of a biological weapons attack found to be defective.

87 Percentage of Humvees in Iraq not equipped with armour capable of stopping AK-47 rounds and protecting against roadside bombs and landmines at the end of 2003.

Making the country safer

$3.29 Average amount allocated per person Nationwide in the first round of homeland security grants.

$94.40 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in American Samoa.

$36 Amount allocated per person for homeland security in Wyoming, Vice-President Cheney's home state.

$17 Amount allocated per person in New York state.

$5.87 Amount allocated per person in New York City.

$77.92 Amount allocated per person in New Haven, Connecticut, home of Yale University, Bush's alma mater.

76 Percentage of 215 cities surveyed by the US Conference of Mayors in early 2004 that had yet to receive a dime in federal homeland security assistance for their first-response units.

5 Number of major US airports at the beginning of 2004 that the Transportation Security Administration admitted were Not fully screening baggage electronically.

22,600 Number of planes carrying unscreened cargo that fly into New York each month.

5 Estimated Percentage of US air cargo that is screened, including cargo transported on passenger planes.

95 Percentage of foreign goods that arrive in the United States by sea.

2 Percentage of those goods subjected to thorough inspection.

$5.5bnEstimated cost to secure fully US ports over the Next decade.

$0 Amount Bush allocated for port security in 2003.

$46m Amount the Bush administration has budgeted for port security in 2005.

15,000 Number of major chemical facilities in the United States.

100 Number of US chemical plants where a terrorist act could endanger the lives of more than one million people.

0 Number of new drugs or vaccines against "priority pathogens" listed by the Centres for Disease Control that have been developed and introduced since 11 September 2001.

Giving a hand up to the advantaged

75 Percentage of Americans unaffected by Bush's sweeping 2003 cuts in capital gains and dividends taxes.

George Bush: Money manager

4.7m Number of bankruptcies that were declared during Bush's first three years in office.

2002 The worst year for major markets since the recession of the 1970s.

$489bn The US trade deficit in 2003, the worst in history for a single year.

$5.6tr Projected national surplus forecast by the end of the decade when Bush took office in 2001.

$7.22tr US national debt by mid-2004.

George Bush: Tax cutter

87 Percentage of American families in April 2004 who say they have felt no benefit from Bush's tax cuts.

39 Percentage of tax cuts that will go to the top 1 per cent of American families when fully phased in.

49 Percentage of Americans in April 2004 who found that their taxes had actually gone up since Bush took office.

88 Percentage of American families who will save less than $100 on their 2006 federal taxes as a result of 2003 cut in capital gains and dividends taxes.

Employment tsar

9.3m Number of US unemployed in April 2004.

2.3m Number of Americans who lost their jobs during first three Years of the Bush administration.

Friend of the poor

34.6m Number of Americans living below the poverty line (1 in 8 of the population).

6.8m Number of people in the workforce but still classified as poor.

35m Number of Americans that the government defines as "food insecure," in other words, hungry.

$300m Amount cut from the federal programme that provides subsidies to poor families so they can heat their homes.

40 Percentage of wealth in the United States held by the richest 1 per cent of the population.

18 Percentage of wealth in Britain held by the richest 1 per cent of the population.

George Bush and his "Special Friend"

$60bn Loss to Enron stockholders, following the largest bankruptcy in US history.

$205m Amount Enron CEO Kenneth Lay earned from stock option profits over a four-year period.

$101m Amount Lay made from selling his Enron shares just before the company went bankrupt.

$59,339 Amount the Bush campaign reimbursed Enron for 14 trips on its corporate jet during the 2000 campaign.

30 Length of time in months between Enron's collapse and Lay (whom the President called "Kenny Boy") still not being charged with a crime.

George Bush: Lawman

15 Average number of minutes Bush spent reviewing capital punishment cases while governor of Texas.

46 Percentage of Republican federal judges when Bush came to office.

57 Percentage of Republican federal judges after three years of the Bush administration.

33 Percentage of the $15bn Bush pledged to fight Aids in Africa that must go to abstinence-only programmes.

A health-conscious president

43.6m Number of Americans without health insurance by the end of 2002 (more than 15 per cent of the population).

2.4m Number of Americans who lost their health insurance during Bush's first year in office.

Environmentalist

$44m Amount the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and the Republican National Committee received in contributions from the fossil fuel, chemical, timber, and mining industries.

200 Number of regulation rollbacks downgrading or weakening environmental laws in Bush's first three years in office.

31 Number of Bush administration appointees who are alumni of the energy industry (includes four cabinet secretaries, the six most powerful White House officials, and more than 20 other high-level appointees).

50 Approximate number of policy changes and regulation rollbacks injurious to the environment that have been announced by the Bush administration on Fridays after 5pm, a time that makes it all but impossible for news organisations to relay the information to the widest possible audience.

50 Percentage decline in Environmental Protection Agency enforcement actions against polluters under Bush's watch.

34 Percentage decline in criminal penalties for environmental crimes since Bush took office.

50 Percentage decline in civil penalties for environmental crimes since Bush took office.

$6.1m Amount the EPA historically valued each human life when conducting economic analyses of proposed regulations.

$3.7m Amount the EPA valued each human life when conducting analyses of proposed regulations during the Bush administration.

0 Number of times Bush mentioned global warming, clean air, clean water, pollution or environment in his 2004 State of the Union speech.

1 Number of paragraphs devoted to global warming in the EPA's 600-page "Draft Report on the Environment" presented in 2003.

68 Number of days after taking office that Bush decided Not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases by roughly 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The United States was to cut its level by 7 per cent.

1 The rank of the United States worldwide in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

25 Percentage of overall worldwide carbon dioxide emissions the United States is responsible for.

53 Number of days after taking office that Bush reneged on his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

14 Percentage carbon dioxide emissions will increase over the next 10 years under Bush's own global-warming plan (an increase of 30 per cent above their 1990 levels).

408 Number of species that could be extinct by 2050 if the global-warming trend continues.

5 Number of years the Bush administration said in 2003 that global warming must be further studied before substantive action could be taken.

62 Number of members of Cheney's 63-person Energy Task Force with ties to corporate energy interests.

0 Number of environmentalists asked to attend Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings.

6 Number of months before 11 September that Cheney's Energy Task Force investigated Iraq's oil reserves.

2 Percentage of the world's population that is British.

2 Percentage of the world's oil used by Britain.

5 Percentage of the world's population that is American.

25 Percentage of the world's oil used by America.

63 Percentage of oil the United States imported in 2003, a record high.

24,000 Estimated number of premature deaths that will occur under Bush's Clear Skies initiative.

300 Number of Clean Water Act violations by the mountaintop-mining industry in 2003.

750,000 Tons of toxic waste the US military, the world's biggest polluter, generates around the world each Year.

$3.8bn Amount in the Superfund trust fund for toxic site clean-ups in 1995, the Year "polluter pays" fees expired.

$0m Amount of uncommitted dollars in the Superfund trust fund for toxic site clean-ups in 2003.

270 Estimated number of court decisions citing federal Negligence in endangered-species protection that remained unheeded during the first year of the Bush administration.

100 Percentage of those decisions that Bush then decided to allow the government to ignore indefinitely.

68.4 Average Number of species added to the Endangered and Threatened Species list each year between 1991 and 2000.

0 Number of endangered species voluntarily added by the Bush administration since taking office.

50 Percentage of screened workers at Ground Zero who now suffer from long-term health problems, almost half of whom don't have health insurance.

78 Percentage of workers at Ground Zero who now suffer from lung ailments.

88 Percentage of workers at Ground Zero who Now suffer from ear, nose, or throat problems.

22 Asbestos levels at Ground Zero were 22 times higher than the levels in Libby, Montana, where the W R Grace mine produced one of the worst Superfund disasters in US history.

Image booster for the US

2,500 Number of public-diplomacy officers employed by the State Department to further the image of the US abroad in 1991.

1,200 Number of public-diplomacy officers employed by the State Department to further US image abroad in 2004.

4 Rank of the United States among countries considered to be the greatest threats to world peace according to a 2003 Pew Global Attitudes study (Israel, Iran, and North Korea were considered more dangerous; Iraq was considered less dangerous).

$66bn Amount the United States spent on international aid and diplomacy in 1949.

$23.8bn Amount the United States spent on international aid and diplomacy in 2002.

85 Percentage of Indonesians who had an unfavourable image of the United States in 2003.

Second-party endorsements

90 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2001.

67 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 26 September 2002.

54 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 30 September, 2003.

50 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president on 15 October 2003.

49 Percentage of Americans who approved of the way Bush was handling his job as president in May 2004.

More like the French than he would care to admit

28 Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2003, the second-longest vacation of any president in US history. (Record holder Richard Nixon.)

13 Number of vacation days the average American receives each Year.

28 Number of vacation days Bush took in August 2001, the month he received a 6 August Presidential Daily Briefing headed "Osama bin Laden Determined to Strike US Targets."

500 Number of days Bush has spent all or part of his time away from the White House at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, his parents' retreat in Kennebunkport, Maine, or Camp David as of 1 April 2004.

No fool when it comes to the press

11 Number of press conferences during his first three Years in office in which Bush referred to questions as being "trick" ones.

Factors in his favour

3 Number of companies that control the US voting technology market.

52 Percentage of votes cast during the 2002 midterm elections that were recorded by Election Systems & Software, the largest voting-technology firm, a big Republican donor.

29 Percentage of votes that will be cast via computer voting machines that don't produce a paper record.

$185m Amount raised by the Bush-Cheney 2004 re-election campaign, to the end of March 2004.

$200m Amount that the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign expects to raise by November 2004.

268 Number of Bush-Cheney fund-raisers who had earned Pioneer status (by raising $100,000 each) as of March 2004.

187 Number of Bush-Cheney fund-raisers who had earned Ranger status (by raising $200,000 each) as of March 2004.

$64.2mThe Amount Pioneers and Rangers had raised for Bush-Cheney as of March 2004.

69 Percentage of Americans who believed the White House's claims in September 2003 that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the 11 September attacks.

34 Percentage of Americans who believed in June 2003 that Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" had been found.

22 Percentage of Americans who believed in May 2003 that Saddam had used his WMDs on US forces.

30 Percentage of Americans who believe that "politics and government are too complicated to understand."

This is an edited extract from What We've Lost, by Graydon Carter, published by Little Brown on 9 September

Fudging the Numbers

2004-09-08T16:35:00.000-05:00

Here's some shocking news for you: Bush's statements about
al Qaeda members killed or captured may not be completely true!

White House and U.S. intelligence officials declined to provide any back-up data for how they developed the new number—or even to explain the methodology that was used, which they said was classified. The absence of any explanation, as well as the timing, prompted some counterterrorism experts to deride the figure as “meaningless” and predict the revision could fuel allegations that the administration is massaging terrorism data for political purposes.

Ya think!? Does it even matter to the administration any more that the REALLY big fish are still out there? Wasn't it al Qaeda that attacked us?

Jenna and Barbara Redux

2004-09-07T16:55:00.000-05:00

Both my mother and my wife thought that the Bush twins' comments about their grandparents and "Sex in the City" were disrespectful. While I don't think that they were a hit (especially with that audience) I wouldn't call them "disrespectful." The women were poking fun at a hang-up some people have (we don't even know for sure that the Bush elders have that hang-up). Just as my wife pokes fun at my hang-up with certain Disney movies for their lack of historical perspective (Pocahontas) or blatant disregard for the story (The Little Mermaid). The Bush daughters were irreverent (and not funny). While we should revere the work that fire-fighters, soldiers, and law-enforcement officers do, we should not revere the people. The same is true of family. I love and revere my parents' and grandparents' lives and I will have considered my life a success if I live half as well. But they are people with human foibles. And while I would not have chosen that line with that audience, it was not the beginning of the end of civilization either.

RNC Review - Day 4

2004-09-03T16:57:00.000-05:00

The only sign of discord at the RNC came from the Log Cabin Republicans (their largest homosexual activist group) and Pro-Choice Republicans. The Pro-Choicers won;t abandon Bush or make a stink this year (or ever?), but the Log Cabiners might. The best thing that could happen to American is for the Republican moderates to take back the party.

Onto DAY 4

Mel Martinez, US Senate candidate (FL) -- O.K.
Gen. Tommy Franks -- Did what he needed to do for the President: Gave him cover on Iraq.
Gov. George Pataki (NY) -- A Moderate who wants the nomination in '08, but who will get spanked if he gives more speeches like this.
The President -- A solid performance. He didn't hit it out of the park (he is George W. Bush after all), but he did what he needed to do.

On the whole I'm worried. Those undecideds who watched both conventions (or even just this one) on network TV will have an overall positive image of this president and his administration. Each Republican Prime Time speaker beat or tied his Democratic counterpart, with the glaring exception of Miller v. Obama. But that even worked to the Republicans' advantage as Miller's speech made Cheney look good and Obama over-shadowed everyone else. Bush will be ahead by 7 - 10 points next week. I didn't think there was that much elasticity a month or more ago, but the Swifties and this convention have done their jobs. It'll come back to Kerry, but he's got an uphill climb from here. Here's hoping for Kerry thrashing Bush in the debates.

RNC Review - Day 3

2004-09-02T17:56:00.000-05:00

Sen. Rick Santorum (PA) -- 2008? He'll need to give better speeches if he wants to win it.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (KY) -- It's a good thing for the Republicans that no one watches C-SPAN.
Elaine Chao, Sec. of Labor -- Ditto here for Mitch's wife.
Lurita Doan and Patricia Stout, business women -- Hey, they don't normally speak before a national audience. O.K. job ladies.
Rep. Paul Ryan (WI) -- Nice "hick-from-the-sticks" background! His earnest, high-school-debate-team delivery reinforces the notion. Between him and Tammy Baldwin at the DNC, people are going to think all Wisconsinites talk like that.
Michael Reagan, talk show host and son of Pres. Ronald Reagan -- Your lil' bro showed you up.
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey (MA) -- Nice "Kerry" name jab, but waek otherwise.
Gov. Mitt Romney (MA) -- A two-fer on being from Massachussetts and wanting to run in 2008(?) The Moderate-Most-Likely-to-Succeed in '08 other than Rudy. Blink man!
Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) -- Wow! The more times I watch this, the more insane he looks! I think he was there to do two things: a) tout Bush's "crossover appeal" and b) make Cheney look acceptable.
Lynne Cheney -- Solid.
Vice President Dick Cheney -- Vintage Cheney. If you didn't like him before, you still don't. If you did, you still do.

RNC Review - Day 2

2004-09-01T17:34:00.000-05:00

Sen. Norm Coleman (MN) -- Not impressive.
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (NC) -- Disappointed. Lame convention speech. And what was with the hunching over the microphone?
George P. Bush, nephew -- He's pretty, but sounds like a "politician."
Sen. Sam Brownback (KS) -- Aaugh! Scary zealot on my TV, Daddy!
Majority Leader, Sen. Bill Frist, M.D. (TN) -- Now I know who did Mr. Ed's voice-over!
Rod Paige, Sec. of Education -- Weak.
Lt. Gov. Michael Steele (MD) -- Solid performance. Articulate and relaxed.
AH-NOLD -- Electrifying! The Republicans know who to put in Prime Time! Two-for-two with him and McCain.
The Twins -- Oh...my...Gah! Say what you will about the candidates, the Democrat kids can clean the clocks of the Bush kids.
First Lady Laura Bush -- An O.K. speech, but she's not a professional politician. Did what she needed to do. But would someone please teach her how to wave!

RNC Review - Day 1

2004-08-31T17:19:00.000-05:00

Continuing the pattern I established during the Democratic National Convention, I will be posting my thoughts on the speeches and overall impressions of the Republican National Convention. Only the speeches I saw will be reviewed (obviously!)

DAY 1
Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert (IL) -- Public Speaking R NOT Us
Ron Silver -- Love your film and TV work: Don't give it up for politics. You come across as a little angry and crazed.
Bernard Kerik, former NYC Police Commissioner -- Solid job.
Jason Sehorn and Angie Harmon -- PLEASE!
Sen. Lindsey Graham (SC) -- Solid.
Sen. John McCain (AZ) -- Damn good speech. I wish he hadn't sold his soul for a run at the nomination in 2008. They won't give it to him or let him earn it. I think he'll regret this year in his later years.
Rudy Guiliani, former Mayor of NYC -- I expected more. Not awful, but not as bad for Kerry as it could have been. Came off a little like the old, petty, petulant Rudy pre-September 11.

What Iowa means

2004-08-30T17:18:00.000-05:00

This is why I am proud to be from Iowa. This town is not far from where I grew up and is typical of towns in that area: relatively poor (lower-middle-class), agricultural and a community! In Iowa, we care about each other, even if we don't always like each other. For all of the condescension the provincial coasters show to those of us in fly-over territory, they sure like to talk about our community and work ethic, even if they ignorantly think it "quaint." While I love living in New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and D.C., they can't hold a candle to Iowa for being a "home."

I give up -- Joyce wins.

2004-08-26T17:57:00.000-05:00

I have officially failed in my summer reading project: Ulysses has defeated me. I finished the first two chapters. I will try again some other time. In the mean time, I will have plenty of reading for school coming up as well as What Happened to Kansas?, All the President's Spin, Obliviously on He Sails, and The Book on Bush. Hey, no books from Regnery! Huh!

I recommend getting Todd Snider's new CD, East Nashville Skyline. For those of you who may be loathe to plop down $15 for an artist with whom you are not familiar, a better introduction to his work is his live disc, Near Truths and Hotel Rooms, where you can also get a feel for the between-song-banter that make his shows that much more enjoyable.

Swift move

2004-08-25T17:45:00.000-05:00

Why is the Kerry campaign letting its head get bashed-in by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (an unintentionally ironic name if there ever was one)? Those even moderately acquainted with the facts know that these allegations are crap, but most swing voters aren't moderately aquainted with the facts. I realize that the campaign has filed a grievance with the FEC, but the charges need to be attacked in the same place they are getting aired: swing state TV ads. Hey Lib 527s: get on it!

Lax Abu Ghraib oversight

2004-08-24T17:39:00.000-05:00

The Pentagon has come to the realization that top brass was lax in Abu Ghraib oversight. Really! Thank God for that military insight! I realize that this report is important in that it debunks the notion that the Abu Ghraib calamity was solely the responsibility of the enlisted perpetrators. But, please...if common sense didn't bring people to that conclusion already (where did the soldiers get all of the S&M toys?) they aren't paying attention.

I'm back ranting about the Missile Defense System

2004-08-23T17:15:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the missing posts: Was terribly busy thre rest of the week of the 10th and was in Atlanta on business last week. But I'm back baby!!!

The President accuses Kerry of not realizing that things have changed since September 11, 2001, and he then keeps trying to get funding for this! This was the greatest boondoggle in history before September 11 and is even more ridiculous since! This program is proof positive that this administration doesn't get it. I don't know what else to say: the technology to implement this is farther away than Saddam Hussein's current ability to make nukes, we could track a launching point and wipe it out completely, and the terrorists who attack us won't use ICBMs. Never mind that the Bush Leaguers are doing next to nothing to secure the existing nukes in the former Soviet Union.

Some have been curious as to my scoring for last weeks IB (Iron Blog) debate. Here it is:

Challenger Opening:
Case:
Substance: 3
Structure: 4
Bonus: 2Reasons: Easy read, going from point to point smoothly. Solid argument, but nothing ground-breaking. Bonus points for clear presentation of position and an argument that stands alone.

Style: 2

Reasons: Solid, but not interesting. Workman-like.

Facts:
Sourcing: 2
Education: 2Reasons: Just the right number of links. As stated earlier, no information presented that in ground-breaking, but still educational to a new arrival to the issue.

Summary:
A solid but unspectacular opening for the Challenger. The "Whites Only" reference illustrated the discriminatory aspect nicely. I had trouble with the reference to the Declaration of Independence reference. While I agree that the statement cited is "the American idea," it isn't and never has been law, which is what the AA debate is about. Although I get the reference to the Chairman's introduction, saying AA is an "institution" is a strong statement and will have to be backed up in rebuttals and closing to make it valid. The Challenger's post wandered into prejudice by stating "minorities, who apparently are not able to make it into good schools and good jobs on their own merits," thus undercutting his argument. The typos were annoying. That said, the Challenger has a solid foundation from which to build.

IB Opening:
Case:
Substance: 3
Structure: 2
Bonus: 2Reasons: Average substance: I know her position and can see clear holes she will have to fill in later. Too many links (and long ones at that) made this argument hard to read. Bonus points for clear presentation of position and tackling "meritocracy" argument.

Style: 2

Reasons: Would have been a three but for the links distraction.

Facts:
Sourcing: 2
Education: 2Reasons: If I complain about the number of links, I can't very well give less than a two in sourcing. Educational to a new arrival to the issue.

Summary:
An O.K. opening from the IB. I was struck by the correction of the origin of the phrase "affirmative action" from a web site that the Challenger referenced in his first link--well played! The IB did not note until the third paragraph that she would limit herself to "race" AA based upon the Chairman's introduction, even though the Challenger had alluded to gender in his post. This tactic took an arrow out of her quiver needlessly. She also relies predominantly on sources that have an intrinsic bias to her position which casts doubt on the validity of their statistics and assertions. I look forward to the way she tackles the Challenger's assertions.

Challenger 1R:

Case:

Substance: 2

Structure: 2

Bonus: 2

Reasons: I am unsure of where he stands on “White Privilege” as a result of the KC Biz Journal link. Nowhere near as structurally sound as the opening. Two bonus points for rebuttal of IB.

Style: 4

Reasons: Much more provocative than first post even though position hasn’t changed.

Facts:

Sourcing: 1

Education: 2

Reasons: Light on the links this time. Over-reliance on Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. KC Biz Journal link confusing.

Summary:

The Challenger presented a more entertaining, but overall weaker posting than his opening. The use of the term “racist” to describe scholars is intellectually weak. His link to the Kansas City Business Journal article really confused me as to where he stands on the concept of “White Privilege”, which is at the core of the IB’s position. Challenger is obviously enamored of the writings of Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams, but relies too heavily on them. It showed very bad form to quote heavily from Shelby Steele and then call him Sydney. Challenger is wandering off the reservation on this one.

IB R1:

Case:

Substance: 4

Structure: 3

Bonus: 3

Reasons: Still too many links, but better use of “neutral” sources. This made for a much more persuasive argument. Still not as tightly structured as I would like. Bonus points for rebuttal and turning a Challenger point against him.

Style: 4

Reasons: Much more engaging piece.

Facts:

Sourcing: 2

Education: 3

Reasons: If I complain about the number of links, I can't very well give less than a two in sourcing. A nicely diverse offering of information.

Summary:

This post was a major improvement from the opening. The IB clearly illustrated the discrepancies at the high-end of the institutional authority spectrum with her second link. While I credit her point that the entertainment industry (in which I include sports) is probably not the best measure of meritorious success in America, I do wonder which two of the list of Cosby, Chappelle, Combs, Simmons, Woods, and Williams she is excluding in her count of four of the eight. Her reference to the Challenger’s use of the Justice O’Connor ruling as contradictory to his argument strikes me as “spinning” since he preceded his reference by disagreeing with the “sunset” proviso. I was disheartened by the insinuated attack on the Challenger’s motives/character in her paragraph containing the Bell Curve link as I expect all debaters here to argue the merits of their respective cases—especially IBs. A much better posting overall, though.

Challenger R2:
Case:
Substance: 3
Structure: 3
Bonus: 2Reasons: Nothing remarkable from the Challeger here. Five of seven links broken is not good.

Style: 2

Reasons: Solid, but not interesting. Workman-like.

Facts:
Sourcing: 1
Education: 1Reasons: Skimped on the links and the vast majority of those were broken.

Summary:
The Challenger's post itself was of average value, but broken links were very distracting. He was well within his rights to call out IB on her ad hominem attack and her misrepresentation of his position regarding Justice O'Conner's decision in Gratz v. Bollinger. His stance of individuality as the accepted measure does not address IB's statistical questions about current status of many minorities. The Challenger brings up excellent points vis-a-vis Asian minorities that I would like to see the IB take on.

IB R2:
Case:
Substance: 4
Structure: 3
Bonus: 3Reasons: Best show so far. Is still relying too heavily on biased sources.

Style: 3

Reasons: Her links are distracting, I say!

Facts:
Sourcing: 2
Education: 2Reasons: Still too many links.

Summary:
On the whole the strngest post from IB. She rebuts the Challenger solidly point-by-point. Its is not a perfect rebuttal: IB refutes the Challenger's assertion about "middle-cllass Black men" with four links; of which possible two are specifically germaine to the "middle-class" aspect. But on the whole well done. The throw-in-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink method of reference generally detracts, however.

Challenger Closing:
Case:
Substance: 3
Structure: 4
Bonus: 2Reasons: Eloquently restated his thesis and reasoning.

Style: 3

Reasons: Eloquent, but not dazzling.

Facts: 4

Reasons: Gave no ground to the IB and stated his case clearly.

Summary:
An eloquent closing, though a bit defensinve. The Challenger stated his case well. I must say, though; if one is inclined to question the logic of "because we say now we're not going to discriminate anymore, all things are now equal," the Challenger has no case.

IB Closing:
Case:
Substance: 3
Structure: 3
Bonus: 0Reasons: Nice reiteration of position with "food for thought" added. Since links and concept of "representation" was added, no bonus points.

Style: 2

Reasons: Still attacking Challenger for position. Not good.

Facts: 4

Reasons: Still too many links and a bit preachy, but never backs down.

Summary:
The IB has given a solid closing but has fallen far short of the standards she set in her rebuttals. She introduces the concept of "representation," and the IB is still attacking the Challenger while apologizing for it. She still uses too many links and was overly wordy in this post. She may pull it out, but this didn't help much.

Item 7: The Deficit and the Debt

2004-08-10T17:35:00.000-05:00

Item 7: The Deficit and the Debt

For those of you who don't follow this a rigorously as you should: The Federal Deficit is how much more the US government spends than the IRS takes in. The Federal Debt is the accumulation of those deficits, i.e. How much we owe in total. Both of these numbers have increased greatly under the Bush administration.

In 2000, the Federal government did not have a deficit and the debt was at $5.7 trillion. This year we will have a record-setting $477 billion deficit and the debt is $7.4 trillion. The Bush administration claims that this is due to the economic recession it inherited from the Clinton administration, the economic decline following the Attacks of September 11, and the costs of Iraqi invasion.

It is true that none of those things helped. But the recession, if there was one, was the mildest in history and the Iraqi invasion was low-balled from the beginning. All of these costs were exacerbated by Bush's solution-for-all-economic-situations tax cuts. Bush and the Republican-controlled congress have also increased discretionary (non-SSA and non-debt-interest-payment) spending more than any Democratic administration. Who'll pay for these things? We will...Now or later.

The Kerry campaign promises to reinstate the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules to eliminate the deficit. His congressional voting record backs this assertion in spite of Republican spin. Can ten Nobel economists be wrong?

Item 6: Social Security

2004-08-09T17:49:00.000-05:00

Item 6: Social Security

We'll start the week fresh; with a topic where both of the campaigns fail the American public.

George Bush has only done one remarkable proactive thing regarding the social safety net: his administration passed a bill that added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare. It is less than a great solution as it is a sop to the pharmaceutical industry. You'd think that "our first MBA president" would understand market forces enough to know to let Medicare use its bargaining power to get better prices, but...Oh well! His latest proposal to save Social Security is to create "personal retirement accounts" where some of your FICA taxes would go into an IRA-like account that you could invest in any way you choose. The problems with this proposal are that: a) the FICA money being collected now is not put aside until the payers retire; it pays out benefits today, b) the Federal budget deficit is made possible by the "loans" Congress has been taking from the "Social Security Trust Fund" for years; we still need to pay those funds back, and c) there is no safety net for those who lose their investment money. This choice is the greater of two evils.

The other evil is the Kerry plan. He promises not to cut benefits or to raise the minimum age (as does Bush). Kerry claims that we can save Social Security by merely increasing FICA revenue through better employee pay (FICA being a payroll percentage.) This is just passing the buck.

Social Security's minimum age needs to be raised at the least. When the program was implemented in 1935, American life expectancy was not quite 62. Today it is over 77 and those extra years are expensive; as medical costs rise and we cling to life longer in heavily medicated and cared-for locations. Benefits may need to be cut for those 55 and younger (this includes me.)

Jobs report a key for election

2004-08-06T21:35:00.000-05:00

MSNBC has 19 things for you to watch between now and election day, including job numbers.

Item 5: The Environment

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration doesn't have much to say about its environmental record. That is about the smartest thing they've done in four years: not talk about their environmental record. They want to drill in ANWR. Not only have they done nothing to push for better emissions standards in automobiles, they sided with the automakers in a suit against California. They gutted the Clean Air Act. ‘Nuff said.

One thing John Kerry has been known for throughout his Senate career is fighting for the environment. The Kerry administration will invest heavily in renewable energy research and expand the Production Tax Credit for wind and biomass energy. There are several other programs that he has proposed, but it's Friday and I am tired of writing about a topic where the differences are so enormous.

Item 4: Education

2004-08-05T22:57:00.000-05:00

Item 4: Education

President Bush claimed in his 2000 campaign that he intended to be the “Education President” and likes to joke (brag?) that he sleeps next to a teacher every night. He appointed Rod Paige as Secretary of Education, praising the work Paige had done as Superintendent of the Houston School System. The most heralded (and nearly sole) initiative to come from this “Education President” is the originally bi-partisan No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. This piece of legislation was designed to hold individual public schools responsible for the academic success of children by requiring that they:

a) Administer standardized tests in reading and mathematics at grade levels 3-8; in science at least once in elementary, middle, and high school; and that those test be aligned with “state standards” through the use of sample students in each state taking the National Assessment of Educational Progress exams in grades four and eight
b) Meet “adequate yearly progress” targets each year on state tests until the 2013-14 school year when every student must achieve the “Proficient” level
c) Provide “Report Cards” showing a range of information, including student-achievement data broken down by subgroup and information on the performance of school districts as well as individual schools
d) Employ only “Highly Qualified” teachers in core content areas by the 2005-6 school year
Schools that do not meet the “adequate yearly progress” targets two years in a row must be provided “Technical assistance” and their students given the opportunity to change schools. A third consecutive failing year requires the schools to offer supplemental educational services such as private tutoring. A fourth (or more) year would subject the schools to outside corrective action, including possible governance changes.

It turns out that the “Texas Miracle” for which Ron Paige was responsible and the Bush administration crow about is a lot less than miraculous. At least now we know that math is a problem at places in Texas other than Enron. The No Child Left Behind Act is such a joke that even such notoriously Liberal, urban, minority-flooded places like Utah are refusing to help the president. Despite all of Bush’s rhetoric about “the soft bigotry of low expectations” (which is a great line!), the Republicans have done nothing to really improve public education. And their maniacal focus on testing as a way of measuring efficacy shows how little they know about education.

The Kerry/Edwards plan will focus on improving the input, rather than just demanding better output. They will invest federal dollars in improving teacher pay, knowing that the altruism of teachers only goes so far in feeding the family. They will also require rigorous testing and clarified plans for the removal of underperforming teachers.

The Kerry team will also address on an area they Republicans have not: higher education. In addition to the educational initiatives tied to national service, a $4000 tax credit, increased investment in math and science, a restructuring of the financial aid system, and real investment in adult workforce re-training/re-educating will be foremost on the agenda in the Kerry administration. The ability to find a steady, well-paying job with just a high school diploma is no longer real. By not educating our children or helping our current work-force come up to speed, we are squandering our future.