One of my most outspoken Jewish friends, Steve, recently confronted me on the Gaza flotilla issue and challenged my neutral standpoint on the Israel/Palestine issue. He’s an unabashed defender of Israel, and while I think I understand where he’s coming from, I also see the plight and struggle of the Palestinians as something worth caring about and can understand why they fight.

We’ve been back and forth with many articles, arguments and videos since that debate began… and recently he sent me an article which he says:

Justin,
This guy puts into words exactly how I feel and just could not communicate to you. This is 100% the best explanation of the truth.
washington post: Those troublesome Jews

Now I know there are many versions of “The Truth” in this situation and everyone on both sides feels just as passionate about theirs… but this is a very persuasive argument and I thought I’d post my reaction to Steve after reading this article. So you might want to click here first to read the Washington Post Op-Ed by Charles Krauthammer… then proceed to my thoughts…

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel’s inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.

Yeah, this is a very good argument… by a guy I usually consider a right wing crazy (Krauthammer) but I’ll ignore that fact because I think he’s pretty much right in this case.

Israel is in a very tough position because they are simultaneous the big dog (fighter jets, navy, nukes, etc) and the underdog (everyone hates and wants them dead in the whole region)… so they must adhere to international standards, treaties, etc. while the opponent (practically all Muslims) seem to “get away” with deception, victimhood and outright hatred. I get that, trust me I do. It looks like the youth population of Israel are getting that too now, even the ones who might be sympathetic towards the Palestinians.

I also get that the frustration you must feel as a Jew, having seen many incarnations of “peace” talks and hostilities towards Israel. What I don’t fully “get” is the full historical and mental impact that all those years of fighting and killing do to a group of people. They are entrenched enemies and so many people on both sides have had friends and relatives killed by the other side that it’s unlikely that forgiveness is EVER possible…. so what to do then? That’s what baffles me.

It seems like somebody (the jews probably) should just find a different place in the world to live and be safe and happily apart from their region and their agressors. And that’s what MANY of them have done… but of course that’s not acceptable to the religious and folks who are attached to their country-state. From an outside perspective, though, that could be the ONLY short-ish term solution to this problem because i doubt you’re going to quell arab hatred toward the Jews. Nor are you going to quell it in reverse. It will probably always be an uneasy neighborhood. And that sucks. big time.

It sucks to watch. I believe that most people on both sides of this conflict are good people, reacting to external stimuli in the only way they can and/or have been taught. It’s the system and the entrenched hatred passed down over generations that’s the real problem here… and how do you fix that?

To attempt to begin to answer my own question, I suggest starting with watching a TV experiment where Arabs come to the US for a cross cultural journey of discovery and pre-conception-bending humanity. It’s called “On the Road in America” and it’s airing right now on the Sundance Channel in the Middle East. You will be able to watch it in the US soon. For now, please watch the trailer, check out the blog, and join the facebook page.

It wasn’t easy, I’m sure, for the Obama administration to release those memos that went into detail about the types of torture we conducted under Bush. That kind of information, it’s said, can make us look bad and make more people mad at us.

I would argue, and did quite strongly to one of my favorite political debate buddies today, that the “outrage” argument is easily flipped. The outrage is already there! Everyone in the world knows we’ve tortured in the past! They probably imagine it to be a lot worse than it really is… which is why the less common but more relevant argument is the “fear that it would plant doubts in foreign governments about the U.S. ability to shroud collaborative activities” is easily beaten as well.

It’s simple to me: by releasing the details of this torture we’re basically saying to the world: “We get it. We screwed up and we’re willing to make it right by being open and honest about it.” and also, perhaps even more importantly, if you’re interested enough to read details of these methods, you’ll probably be underwhelmed. My thought was “wow, that sounds unpleasant, but it’s not exactly pulling out fingernails or pouring tar on someone’s back.”

I know that last part sounds crude, but if you’re a detractor of America, you could easily spin wild tales of what we did to our detainees… exaggerating wildly. But now, we’ve put it out there and, well, they’re not that bad! Hopefully some people will get a grip and find someone else to hate…

Besides, someone needs to be held accountable. That’s just obvious.

That’s my main argument on these memos… but I wanted to make another point about Obama. When reading this Politico article just now I was struck by how awesome Obama’s decision making process was:

Seated in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s West Wing office with about a dozen of his political, legal and security appointees, Obama requested a mini-debate in which one official was chosen to argue for releasing the memos and another was assigned to argue against doing so. When it ended, Obama dictated on the spot a draft of his announcement that the documents would be released, while most of the officials watched, according to an official who was present. The disclosure happened the next day.

THIS is how it should be! Get the big dogs in an office, have them air the good the bad and the ugly of the issue… and make a decision! He did that in one sitting. He was deliberate AND decisive!

Okay, enough Obama love. Going to a play now…
justin

Newt has got it wrong. He and fellow conservatives think that we should continue to let big banks spend exorbitant amounts of money on jets and CEO compensation. He says that if the government is allowed to cap pay then the best and the brightest will go work elsewhere… and that young entrepreneurs will decide to work for the government instead.

Normally I think Newt is one of the smarter conservatives out there… but this thinking is outdated hogwash and this is why:

First of all, I’m a “young entrepreneur” just like Newt is professing to understand, and nothing about the current economic crisis, the bank bailout, or even the stimulus bill makes me want to work for someone else, not even a little bit! If I worked for someone else (including the government), I would probably have been laid off by now. There is plenty of money to be made in a slow economy and as a small business, I can adapt to the changing times faster than a bigger company or government that might hire me. That means I’ll have a better chance at getting ahead. That fact has not changed since the economic disaster… instead it’s gotten more pronounced.

Secondly, to call the CEO of a big bank an “entrepreneur” is a misnomer of epic proportions. None of these guys started the banks they work for, and most probably never started any company. They’re usually career bankers or executives sucking the silver spoon as they work their way up the ladder until they, too, can get a $1.2 million office. How nice for them. It was their stupidity (in the dubious forms of credit default swaps and mortgage derivatives) that got us into this mess and they should be held accountable! Since these aren’t just companies anymore and have become “institutions that are too big to fail” (hardly a place for an entrepreneur) we were forced to bail them out and take on a nanny role. Newt, would you rather we not have any oversight of the federal dollars? Oh, wait, you’d rather have the banks fail and experience another great depression under the new democratic administration… oh yeah, now I get it.

And lastly, Obama wants to help jump start a new economy… a green one where there is boatloads of money to be made. Your sacred free market has been extremely slow to innovate with new energy technologies because we’ve had cheap energy for so long. Well, the market doesn’t work in these circumstances, and it’s government’s job to point the free market in the right direction (in a macro way) and encourage innovation with tax credits and government grants and contracts.

So to all of you “conservatives” that think spending billions on tax cuts is better than rebuilding our ailing infrastructure, preventing mounting foreclosures, modernizing our schools, and funding alternative energy (none of which is “pork” by the way)… I say get out of the way while we clean up the mess that you created!

Get over yourself and let us try to fix the last 8 years of damage your president created!

justin

PS: stay tuned, because a new video skull session with Justin and Joel should be coming soon!

There aren’t too many good things happening for Republicans these days. Saxby Chambliss held onto his Senate seat in Georgia in his Dec 2 runoff… and they have a few appointments to the Obama cabinet… but overall their leaders look, well, non existent.

The partisan side of me kinda wants to see Sarah Palin run in 2012 because it wouldn’t be too tough to beat her and it would further discredit the party. But I’m not really a partisan and would like to see at least 2 national parties to have a healthy debate. Nate Silver of 538.com recently analyzed the numbers from the recent election and the conclusions should sober any Republican.

His conclusion:

Although the Republicans face an arduous task in crafting a path to 270 electoral votes, finding 218 viable seats in the Congress might represent the more difficult challenge.

Rather than having the Republicans surge back with their current policies of social conservative driven discrimination, I’d rather see another party come and challenge both Democrats and Republicans. A more progressive party that represents a new American ideal!

justin

PS: Mark McKinnon of the Daily Beast puts it really well:

The problem with the Republican Party is there are too many wooly mammoths like me wandering around. It’s time to kill us off. Just slaughter us all. Drive us into the tar pits and move on.

He’s right. And it’s going to take a long time for the Republican message to resonate with the American people again.

Happy Belated Thanksgiving everyone!!

I hope that your holiday was spent with friends and loved ones. At one of the two Thanksgiving dinners I attended, those present took turns saying what they were thankful for over the past year. I’ve always felt better and happier after identifying all that I am thankful for in my life. One of the things I am most thankful for is this blog and all of you who read it and contribute to it. This blog has been such a blessing for me. It has provided a medium for thoughtful debate and true growth in ideas. I’m thankful to those of you who have continued to encourage us in your emails and comments.

I’d especially like to thank Justin for being a true friend and companion in this endeavor. Of all my liberal friends (and I do have a few), Justin is among the most insightful, respectful, and considerate. For that, I am grateful. Thanks Justin.

Black Friday….

I’ve never been a part of Black Friday, a fact that almost makes me prideful. I’m amazed at the intense motivation that arises in those who participate in the biggest shopping day of the year. Late Thursday, my friend’s niece informed all of us at the dinner table of her plans to wake up at 4 am down in San Diego and go shopping with her friends. I was reminded of my cousins in Irvine, CA who make it an annual routine to shop from around 4 to 8 am every Black Friday. They plan out every hour, what they want, how long they’ll wait for it, and when they are done. When I hear these stories, I can’t help but be amazed at the cultural significance of this day, and it’s all based on materialism. On the one hand, I hoped that the day’s consumption would slow down, cushion, and perhaps help turn around the decrease in consumer spending, the primary indicator of confidence in our economy. The initial results indicate that it was a good year for retailers. On the other hand, I worried about what the obsession with materialism meant for our culture and future.

My girlfriend had to work during Black Friday. Her store opened at 8 pm on Thanksgiving day and wasn’t scheduled to close again until 11 pm Saturday. When I was dropping her off, I couldn’t believe the amount of people that were at the outlet mall in Carlsbad, CA. I’d never seen the parking lot that busy…and it was just after 4 am!! I was appalled by the rudeness and downright idiocy I observed as people fought for parking spots and pushed and shoved each other on their way to the next big deal. When I went back to pick up my girlfriend at 11 am, I watched at least 10 standoffs between opposite lanes of traffic for opening parking spots. Anger, frustration, and bitterness filled the air. It was as if the benefit of a deal outweighed common decency toward one’s fellow man. This is an ugly side of cultural material obsession. Nothing could be more tragic than what happened in Long Island at a Walmart store. I found this account from the article particularly telling of the price of materialism in our culture, “When they were saying they had to leave, that an employee got killed, people were yelling, ‘I’ve been on line since Friday morning!’” Cribbs said. “They kept shopping.”

And all this for more stuff. You see, I just moved to a new apartment. For those of you who have moved before, you can understand the feeling of frustration with the amount of stuff (or junk) that you accumulate over the years. I’ve made it a point to try to reduce the amount of stuff I have. The thought of getting more stuff (even at greatly reduced prices) made me depressed. And yet, our culture pushes us toward an ever increasing accumulation of stuff.

All this said, I still couldn’t help getting caught up in the energy of the day. What did I need? A flat screen TV? I just gave my old tube TV to Goodwill. A Bose sound system? I still have a boom box. It was almost too easy to justify buying whatever I wanted to justify buying. Maybe next year I’ll plan to wake up a little earlier, practice yelling in the mirror, and head to the stores for whatever current gadget suits my fancy!

Cheers,
Joel

Is it worth saving? I’m not sure. I’m quite conflicted on this one.

On one hand, I agree with Mark Morford that GM, Ford and Chrysler have been woefully inadequate in the last several years and don’t make any cars really worth buying. They’re obsession with the SUV and the big margins they made on them got them drunk and silly… now they’ve got a hangover and we’re supposed to bail them out? NO WAY!!

But then I read articles like this with some really great ideas on ways we can transform the beleaguered auto makers with government intervention because they obviously haven’t been able to do it themselves. Thomas Friedman describes how we got here and where we might want to go from here better than anyone.

Here are some suggestions that have been put out there… and the upcoming Obama administration is probably going to do some or all of these things when they do bail out Detroit. I hope it works:

Stock goes to zero
Existing debt-holders take a hit ($0.30-$0.40 on dollar?)
Money dispensed in small amounts in return for senior convertible debt, pending the meeting of goals
Management and board gone as soon as strong replacements can be found
Union contracts torn up
Company radically downsized
Remaining employees offered new, fair employment terms (pay, benefits) which they can accept or decline at their choosing
Company commits to designing and building cars that people want.

justin

No, I’m not talking about the last two weeks in the news. I’m talking about my life over the last two plus weeks.

For those of you who are new to the blog and have only been reading Justin’s comments over the last several weeks, allow myself to introduce…myself. I am his other better half. You can think of me as the rational side of the argument. I need to very much apologize for being distinctly absent on these pages over the last few weeks. Especially over an incredible election. This blog was never intended to be a one way conversation on the issues. Justin recently told me that he believed my lack of input was due to my apathy over the poll numbers leading up to the election. I won’t say he is entirely wrong, though I would only attribute apathy to about 10% of why I haven’t been writing recently. Instead, I can attribute my absence to the ridiculous nature of my life over the last 14 days. One week before the election, I began six straight days of shooting in which my earliest call time was 5:30 am and my earliest arrival home was 11 pm. Didn’t expect that. We were shooting in a location where cell phones worked only half the time. Didn’t expect that either. I got very little sleep. After those six days, now one day before election day, I planned on sleeping in and catching up on the latest news only to discover that my landlord rented my apartment (I had given her 30 days notice in October and never rescinded it). I definitely didn’t expect this. So last week, I was forced into an emergency move which took the better part of the week. On election day, after one all-nighter, rather than staying updated on the latest poll numbers, I was stressed with trying to move my refrigerator and large bookshelf from my old apartment to my new apartment. Moving a frig sucks! Then I had a shoot that lasted into the early evening. But, at the end of the move, I found myself in a one bedroom as opposed to a studio so there is a good part to the story. Due to the move, I was without internet for a full five days! Can you imagine? No internet for five whole days!!! It’s amazing how much we rely on computers and the internet to conduct our day to day affairs. I have to admit it was kind of nice to not check my 50 plus emails a day. But it was painful to go through 250 emails at the end of the week. I now on and off contemplate moving to a remote location in order to shun all technology and cleanse my spirit. Maybe I’ll study math in a tiny little cabin and start wearing hooded sweatshirts. Just joking! Gosh, calm down.

As you can guess, this was the last way I expected to spend election week. I was, however, able to make it over to Justin’s on election night to see the speeches by John McCain and Barack Obama. I was impressed by both. For the record, I voted for John McCain. He remains to me a true patriot and American hero. But, I share in the concerns of many fellow conservatives in his distinctly negative campaign and his selection of Sarah Palin (I know I didn’t always feel this way). As it turns out, these two areas ended up hurting him in the end. It does sadden me the finger pointing I’ve heard about from the right after the election. As for the election of Barack Obama…I’m happy for him! Truly. I wish him the best. I’m happy for my liberal friends who are so energized by this event. I will say that one comment I heard on election day, “He shouldn’t be called President Obama, he should be called King Obama” made me chuckle before realizing the potential power that the people could give to this man. Just as a word of caution, we should think very clearly and carefully as an electorate, especially in this time of economic emergency, in giving too much power to any one man. Obama’s celebrity image makes it all the more likely that we will willingly give him a blank check to do as he wishes. I’ll admit this is cynical. But crazier things have happened in history. In the end, I think Obama has the potential to be a good, if not great, president. I’m happy that the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton era of race relations will now come to a close. No minority has an excuse for the “man” keeping him down as a reason to not succeed and excel in life. For this reason, I have hope for an Obama presidency. I will pray for him as I did his predecessor.

Well, my place is now less of a disaster than it was two days ago, which is saying a lot. I couldn’t even walk through my living room without stepping on bags, papers, and other stuff that I should have burned long ago. Had I needed to move into a place other than the building next door, I would have contemplated lighting a match and throwing it on the floor before I left for one of my shoots. I don’t consider myself a very materialistic person, but daggonit I have a lot of junk!

In time, I’ll respond to some of Justin’s recent comments. Stay tuned…..

Cheers,
Joel

The red/blue map of the United States we’re used to changed on Tuesday. Obama’s 50 state strategy made the electoral college work for him, unlike Al Gore in 2000. Obama won more than double the electoral votes that McCain but only 6% more in the popular vote. The electoral college doesn’t fully represent the population in each county or state and certainly not the margin by which the candidate wins. For a better look at our country scroll down…

You’re used to this one by now:

But this one looks a lot cooler:

And this? The coolest of all:

For a description of what these crazy images mean, you have to check out this project from a University of Michigan student.

cool, huh?
justin

I cried a little last night about the election. Last time my tears were not quite so happy… to say the least. My spirit is refreshed, my confidence surges and my optimism transcends. Hope. It’s infectious I guess… it’s all around. Even W seems pretty happy about it. How can one not pause and appreciate the sheer magnitude of what America did last night? This is why I love America and her democracy… it has the ability to reinvent itself. A dramatic force for justice is the US election this year… and if Obama has anything to say about it, ad infinitum.

My real kick in the ass came when I thought back to Martin Luther King, Jr. and the passionate hope filled fight he waged against intolerance and justice… and I cry again. Sob, in fact…. so proud of my country right now that I hope it will take a long time to wear off. I’m sure it has something to do with how angry I was for the last 8 years. The release is incredible… and the best part is that I know millions of Americans feel the same joy. This is an amazingly historic time to be alive and tonight I want to thank God for today.

Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. dared to dream of this day back on August 28, 1963. Many of my fellow Americans saw this speech 45 years ago. I can only imagine what they must be feeling when they think back to this moment of history from the prism of November 4, 2008:

Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado!

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California!

But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia!

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee!

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when this happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Watch the whole speech here.

justin

PS: To my gay friends: Your dream will come true, too. This is proof.

As Dr. King said: “Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

Obama won last night and America has changed for the better. We will be a more united and ambitious than even the landslide of the election shows. I have tremendous hope for our future… now more than ever.

But there was a setback for equality yesterday as well. Florida, Arizona, and even California voted to deny same-sex couples the right to get married… (but not Connecticut) and Arkansas even will deny gays the right to adopt children. Predictably, it was the bigoted Mormon church that funded Prop 8 in California and ironically it was the huge African American turnout that may have spelled its doom… but the battle has not been lost… just put off.

My favorite enigma, Andrew Sullivan, who is a conservative gay blogger supporting Obama, has has a great deal to say about this issue and no doubt will lead the fight in the future. But today, his sober thoughts:

But I realize I am not shattered. My own marriage exists and is real without the approval of others. One day soon, it will be accepted by a majority. And this initiative in California can and will be reversed, as California’s initiatives are much more fluid than those in other states; and the younger generation is overwhelmingly – 2 to 1 – in our favor. The tide of history is behind us; but we will have to work harder to educate people about our lives and loves and humanity.

To gay people across the nation, your separate but equal status will be shot down one day as it was for blacks in the 60′s. Have faith that Americans are inclusive and loving as a people… this election on a broader scale has proven that progress will come. You’re next.

justin

Just got much much tougher if you’re supporting McCain. Yet another conservative institution endorses the Obamanami!

I wish I’d seen this article earlier, but alas, I just found out about the endorsement of The Economist:

Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.

Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism.

and the persuasive closing argument:

…this cannot be another election where the choice is based merely on fear. In terms of painting a brighter future for America and the world, Mr Obama has produced the more compelling and detailed portrait. He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency.

Now, GO OUT AND VOTE! Today is the day!!!

justin

Prop 1A, on the ballot in California tomorrow, looks to me like a good, forward looking idea to create high speed mass transit between big cities in California. Imagine getting from LA to SF in an hour or two at 200mph and never leaving the ground! That is the future!

From Environment California:

The vote tomorrow on Prop 1A, the ballot measure to create high-speed rail, is expected to be really close. If California is serious about fighting global warming and cutting our use of oil and other fossil fuels we can’t let this opportunity pass us by. Join me in voting YES on Prop 1A!

VOTE YES ON 1A
justin

Dixville Notch starts voting at midnight on election day and are always the first precinct in the nation to report their results, since 1968 always votes Republican… but not this year!

CNN has just reported that Dixville Notch has voted 15-6 in favor of Obama! It wasn’t even close! Ladies and gentlemen, it’s going to be a great day for change!!!!

justin

As you head to the polls tomorrow to cast your ballot, ponder the following. I got this as a forward and have edited it for accuracy and fairness and post it here because I think it poses an important question:

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage,
including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage
daughter?

What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law
Review and Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his
graduating class?

What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a
severe disfiguring car accident to marry a rich heiress with whom
he had a long affair while he was still married?

What if Michelle Obama had become addicted
to pain killers and acquired them illegally through her
charitable organization?

What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?
(The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of
corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the
larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)

What if Obama was known to display publicly, on many
occasions, a serious anger management problem?

What if Michelle Obama’s family had made their money from beer
distribution?

What if their educations had been reversed like this:
John McCain:
Columbia University – B.A. Political Science with a Specialization
in International Relations.
Harvard – Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude
Barack Obama:
United States Naval Academy – Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:
University of Delaware – B.A. in History and B.A. in Political
Science.
Syracuse University College of Law – Juris Doctor (J.D.)
Joseph Biden:
Hawaii Pacific University – 1 semester
North Idaho College – 2 semesters – general study
University of Idaho – 2 semesters – journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College – 1 semester
University of Idaho – 3 semesters – B.A. in Journalism

If either their background or race were reversed
do you think the election numbers would be as close as they are?

We are on the cusp of history tonight, so I don’t mean to complain
or belittle anyone, but I wanted to send this to remind you that there is still prejudice in this country to overcome… and while we’re at it… those of you who live in California should stand up for progress towards equality and vote NO on Prop 8 to fight against prejudice of a different kind.

thanks,
justin

“When our days become dreary with low hovering clouds of despair, and when our nights become darker than a thousand midnights, let us remember that there is a creative force in this universe, working to pull down the gigantic mountains of evil, a power that is able to make a way out of no way and transform dark yesterdays into bright tomorrows. Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” – Martin Luther King

An amusing picture of what this might look like:

You kinda need to have seen the first one for this one to be funny, but either way it’s a powerful message that I believe will work this time:

5 More Friends

justin

Judicial watchdog group People for the American Way has produced a really great interview-based series for Obama. Here is the main one:

Find the several other videos either on their very cool site or on YouTube.

I had to post this one specifically for Joel. She makes some great points that I’ve tried to make to him:

UPDATE: Just found a nice list of Conservatives who are supporting Obama. In fact, it’s an entire blog devoted to this idea!

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Conservatives, Advertisements

Remember how I said I had gay friends who have gotten married in California? Yesterday’s “letter to her dad” was one of them. Today’s debate on CNN highlights another couple who I respect and admire and consider to be a model relationship:

Meet Rose Greene and Helena Ruffin:
(and some black mormon guy who is against gay marriage)

A good friend of mine who is getting married next week (before the election) wrote this letter to her father not long ago. It touched me and I wanted to share it with you.

justin

Dear Dad,

There is something that I would like to discuss with you, or maybe it would be better said, there is something that I am feeling that I would like to share with you. As you know I am in a 12 ½ year loving relationship with a person that up until now I did not have the legal right to marry, but very much want that right. As mom has probably told you we will be married before Nov. 4th.

Not too long ago, under the terms of marriage, women belonged to the men they were pre-arranged to marry. Less than half a century ago, people of different races could not marry. Marriage has been redefined several times over in the last hundred years, and hopefully we at least agree that most of it has been for the better.

I guess in writing this, I’m hoping that, even though you are not gay, you believe that I should have the legal rights to support my American dream, even if it looks a little different then your own. And believe me when I say, it’s only a little different. You know what’s most important to me? Beyond the plethora of financial protections afforded married couples, I want the right to sit by the hospital bed of my partner if she were to get into an accident (or vice-versa). I can’t tell you how afraid I am that one day something would happen and I would be denied the right to be that support for her and to tell her I love her one last time. Anyone who loves someone should know that the thought of being purposefully denied that is terrifying, and worthy of shouting about.

Please hear me when I say I’m not asking for a religious ceremony, or any recognition from a church. But there are over a thousand rights granted to married couples. And if there truly is a separation of church and state… something the Constitution says there is… I don’t see why my family should not be encouraged to be committed to each other and protected by law in the same way my sister family is or yours. I believe that denying my family those rights to be more cruel and unjust than granting them ever could be. Because at the end of the day, your entire life will never be turned upside down if this proposition passes, but mine could… and so could the lives of hundreds of thousands of others like me.

Voting yes on prop 8 would be voting against my family. Against me, Dad.

Your Loving Daughter

Well, the wave of prominent as well as ordinary conservatives who are favoring “the most liberal member of the Senate” over “the maverick” is growing into a tidal wave created by the Obama Tsunami… or as I’m the first to say, Obamanami. Let’s just hope it gets big enough to engulf Joel and my father into its’ lovely wave of optimism and hope.

I’ve already chronicled many conservatives who are voting for Obama and many reasons they might be doing so… and now Andrew Sullivan who is perhaps the leader of the movement from the inside, has created a fantastically effective top ten reasons conservatives should vote for Obama. Here it is, in it’s entirety:

10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.

9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won’t touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain’s plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama’s. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.

8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain’s knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran’s nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush’s first term and George W.’s.

7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.

6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially compared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.

5. Faith. Obama’s fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.

4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.

3. Two words: President Palin.

2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today’s Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.

1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excrescence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America’s reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.
Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama

While we’re at it, I’d like to re-compile my list of conservative supporters of Barack Obama into a top-ten list of my own.

Smart guys who just got smarter:

10 – Lincoln Chafee

9 – David Brooks

8 – Ken Adelman

7 – Charles Fried

6 – George F. Will

5 – Scott McClellan

4 – Christopher Hitchins

3 – Christopher Buckley

2 – Colin Powell

1 – Ordinary, thinking Americans who happen to be conservative

For an interactive rundown of the conservative and newspaper editorial rejection of Palin, check out this Talking Points Memo interactive summary of “The Palin Effect”

Honorable mentions:
William Weld.
Boris Johnson.
Joel Van Brunt?
Fred Bradshaw?
Kevin Knight?

you boys comment now… read first, then comment!
justin

Technorati Tags:
Barack Obama, Conservatives

What opponents to Proposition 8 will not tell you is that in 1999 a domestic partnership bill was signed into law that “affords families [same sex couple] the SAME rights and responsibilities as marriage.” My emphasis.

The current proposition is mostly a response to the 2004 San Francisco same-sex marriages that effectively attempted to redefine the historically accepted connotation of marriage AND the recent overturning of Proposition 22 by the California Supreme Court. For a comprehensive history of this issue in California, visit the Wikipedia article. So I will ask this question…

How is it discriminatory to define a marriage as between a man and a woman when ALL legal rights are ALREADY afforded same sex couples in California? This question underscores the fact that the opposition has the express purpose of not settling with the already fair and non-discriminatory California domestic partnership laws. Instead, they seek to eventually overthrow the culturally and religiously accepted definition of marriage claiming that this is a civil rights issue.

Let’s see where this slope leads. If same-sex marriage is allowed to become a civil rights issues, which it is not, then ANY Church that elects to not marry a gay couple can be charged with discriminatory practice similar to how doctor’s could be charged during the Civil Rights era for refusing to treat African Americans. A Church charged with discrimination is subject to having it’s tax-exempt status revoked, thereby weakening the ability of Churches to succeed in America. While many in the opposition may publicly claim that Churches need not fear any litigation as a result of this issue, it is not hard to imagine how things will continue to shift in favor of a redefinition and how Churches will be a future battleground of this issue. From the Christian perspective, this could all very quickly turn into a cultural battle against Christianity. Of course this is all good news for skeptics of Christianity and of religion in general who behind closed doors and in some public settings will champion the decline of Christian influence in our society.

What opponents to prop 8 will also not tell you is that “As of June 17, 2008, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state of California.” (from the same Wikipedia article) So same sex marriage has effectively been LEGAL for the last 5 months. This fact is a result of a 4-3 decision of the California Supreme Court that found a previous proposition (prop 22) in violation of the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. But again, how can there be a violation of the equal protection clause if same sex couples are already granted the SAME rights as heterosexual marriages under the Domestic Partnership law of 1999?

It is because of this decision that the definition of “marriage” should be written into the California constitution. This WILL NOT take away ANY legal protections and rights ALREADY afforded same sex couples.

This is clearly about the definition of marriage and not about equal rights. The equal rights already exist. Terrific! Leave the definition of marriage, which holds so much significance to the religious and culturally conservative elements in our society, alone!!!

Cheers,
Joel

I doubt it’s a very welcome one, though.

Wednesday’s Washington Post had an article stating that Al Quaeda prefers to have McCain elected as USA’s next president. For the record, I don’t put a lot of stock into this… but if the same website had expressed support for Obama, you can bet McCain would be using that in his stump speeches. You can bet that Obama will not stoop to that level, though.

The rationale for the “endorsement” is extremely interesting, though. As they sometimes do, Al Quaeda has a very logical argument for their opinion:

“The idea in the jihadist forums is that McCain would be a faithful ‘son of Bush’ — someone they see as a jingoist and a war hawk,” Raisman said. “They think that, to succeed in a war of attrition, they need a leader in Washington like McCain.”

The idea that Bush has made extremism worse by invading and inflaming the Muslim world is well supported by what they are saying. It’s also important to note that this is not just one extremist website

In any event, the comments summarized what has emerged as a consensus view on extremist sites, said Adam Raisman, a senior analyst for the Site Intelligence Group, which monitors Islamist Web pages.

Bottom line: It’s only news because it’s coming from Al Quaeda… but it’s an important argument because it’s true. We need a completely different kind of leadership in Washington… leadership that will do a better job in the complex war we’re now fighting. We don’t need another war loving maverick.

justin

UPDATE: The Times of London just listed 5 other unwelcome endorsements but somehow missed this big one. huh?

This is a great authentic and heartfelt endorsement.
Well worth a watch:

Despite our differences on the war and religion and marriage, I’m pretty sure that Joel and I can agree that enshrining the State or Federal Constitution with a discriminatory law like Prop 8 is wrong.

The Mormon church has led a bitter fight against equality in marriage in California, even including dirty blackmail tactics against corporations who support it like Apple and Google. (others include AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, PG&E and Levi Strauss) But it didn’t work… the companies went public against discrimination and for constitutional equality:

Apple:

Apple is publicly opposing Proposition 8 and making a donation of $100,000 to the No on 8 campaign. Apple was among the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to our employees’ same-sex partners, and we strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights — including the right to marry — should not be affected by their sexual orientation. Apple views this as a civil rights issue, rather than just a political issue, and is therefore speaking out publicly against Proposition 8.

Google:

While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 — we should not eliminate anyone’s fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.

I agree with Apple and Google that this is a moral issue about fundamental equal rights that no one has the right to take away from anyone, including homosexuals. I know several same-sex couples, including a few who have gotten married recently and a few who raise children. They are just as loving, if not more so, to their children and their partners than any heterosexual couple I know. Isn’t love what people and especially children crave? Love and a stable home environment does wonders for children and, FYI, having gay parents does not make you gay.

It’s pure discrimination. Don’t vote for it.

Check out this great TV ad they recently came out with that is a spoof on Apple’s “Get a Mac” ads:

More great No on Prop 8 Videos

thanks,
justin

“The message today seems more like: Ask not what you can do for yourselves or your country, but what your country must do for you.”

In this statement, Clarence Thomas has summed up a lot of the “progressive” American mentality. Nothing illustrates this more than Obamanomics or the future redistribution of wealth that we are likely to see under an Obama administration.

We’re all familiar with the “Joe-the-plumber” redistribution of wealth quote. At least Obama was honest in this situation of his intent for his future tax policy. Interestingly, this is the only occasion where he’s come clean on his intensions. Why? Why not tell it like it is to everybody? I guess that’s not very politically popular amongst potential supporters.

Let’s look at how Obama has been wrong on government spending.

1. Obama claims that there is a federal “investment deficit” in many needed federal programs. I’d like to know what he means given the following information.

“Over the past eight years the federal budget has exploded by more than $1.1 trillion, much of it for the very programs that Democrats want to spend more on. Let’s start with infrastructure. Three years ago Congress passed a transportation bill of more than $286 billion. The transportation budget is up 22% after inflation in the past eight years…How about aid to local communities? That spending has soared by 91% after inflation in eight years. The education budget is up 57%. Welfare programs are up 30%. Only two years ago Democrats were calling the Tom DeLay Republicans spendthrift. Now they say there’s an “investment deficit.”"

So with all this increased spending over the last eight years (an issue I have with the administration), where is this “investment deficit”? How much more does Obama want to increase these budgets given his 1 trillion in proposed new spending?

2. Obama’s plan proposes to raise taxes on the top 5% while lowering or keeping the same taxes on the rest of us 95%. If this is not redistribution of wealth, I don’t know what is. While I directly benefit from this, I do not think that this system is “fair” as Obama claims it to be. As Adam Lerrick from Carnegie Mellon points out…

“In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million — 40% — paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama’s cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What’s more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes — less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama’s plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.”

As this article says,

“Our tax system is designed so that only the people in the top three tiers (or tax brackets) actually pay income tax. When you hear a politician talk about lowering you taxes what they really mean is adjusting the bracket percentages down. They also like to call tax credits “lowering your taxes”. But what they really mean is they are going to take more money from someone else (those that don’t get the credit) and give it to you.”

But tax credits carry with it severe risk as pointed out here by J. Kenneth Blackwell.

“Of course, Obama knows that the term “socialist” would kill his plan, so he calls it a “refund” instead. But there’s no way it’s not socialist; he’s either:
* Giving a “refund” on taxes people never paid to start with,
* Moving us drastically closer to the day Social Security and Medicare go bankrupt, requiring a massive bailout by other sources of taxation,
* Or outright turning the core federal retirement funds into welfare programs.

The deficit now runs hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Yet Obama proposes almost $1 trillion of new spending – and promises to also give “rebates” to the 38 percent of us who pay no income tax. Where is that money coming from?”

3. Obama and company seem to believe that the rich no longer pay their fair share because of the Bush tax cuts. But as Dick Morris, the former advisor to Bill Clinton, points out, those very Bush tax cuts lead to higher percentages in federal income tax paid by the rich.

“It is true that the richest Americans are getting richer a lot faster than the rest of the country. The top 10 percent experienced a real (after inflation) income growth of almost 50 percent in this decade. The rest of America saw its income rise, but by less than 5 percent after inflation.
But it wasn’t Bush tax cuts that fueled the growing inequality. The top 1 percent of American taxpayers now pay 40 percent of the taxes (compared with 33 percent in 2003 and 24 percent in 1986).”

So, Obama wants to increase the tax burden on the most successful individuals, give tax “rebates” to the bottom 90% equating to a hand-out, and spend a lot more money on programs that have already drastically increased in the past several years. And I haven’t even touched on health care.

Why again is this what’s best for the country? Where’s the fairness? Perhaps I’m missing his message of hope and change that everything will be better as long as he becomes president. I hope for his sake and ours that he doesn’t take his tax proposal seriously.

Cheers,
Joel

The momentum is picking up! More and more conservatives are coming out for Obama… and making amazing arguments for him! (is my dad listening?)

Seriously, this is amazing. Everywhere I look there are more of them… not just the pundits and Colin Powell but everyday americans who happen to be conservative seeing that the best direction for this country is Obama. There is a whole website devoted to it called Conservatives for Change

Here is their video:

Eric Hirschberg from the Huffington Post, who put together the site, makes a great observation about this video and the others on the site:

This is what democracy is supposed to be. These people actually listened, considered and were open to the possibility of change. They didn’t support a candidate. They actually chose one. And while I’m happy this year they are voting for “my team,” they also inspired me to be more open in my own political life.

I thought we were making an ad campaign about Obama. But I think we ended up making an ad campaign about the essential ingredient that makes democracy work: an open mind. We don’t belong to our political parties. Our political parties belong to us.

Bless you, everyone with an open mind. YOU make democracy. We here at Skull Sessions thank you for using that open mind to visit our site and contribute to our mission of civil, open-minded debate!

justin

PS: and to my dad, if you’re reading this: Please don’t vote for the libertarian this year. He’s going to lose anyway. Your vote in Georgia matters more than ever… and Norman Rockwell got it right when he said your vote matters because you matter, especially to me. I know you to be an open minded intelligent guy who does the right thing regardless of ideology… so it’s for you that I lay out these myriad of posts and arguments by conservatives like you in support of Obama!

UPDATE: Another prominent conservative, Charles Fried who was appointed Solicitor General by Reagan and a Harvard Law Professor who used to actually be an advisor for McCain… has shockingly announced that he’s already voted for Obama via absentee ballot! For more on him, check out his Boston.com profile.

Boston.com has an article called “Crossing party lines” where they profile several people who are doing just that. The only one that is crossing toward McCain is Joe Lieberman (who is technically not a democrat anymore anyway). The rest that I haven’t already mentioned on Skull Sessions who are flocking to Obama… including William Weld (former Mitt Romney supporter), Scott McClellan (former Bush press secretary who wrote a devastating book about the inside of the White House),

… and Charles Krauthammer is screaming about it all! But at least by reading Krauthammer’s article, I learned that Christopher Hitchens (Bush apologist and Clinton basher) is yet another conservative that can’t vote for McCain/Palin. And this quote from this article is priceless:

I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilization against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that “issue” I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity. Obama is greatly overrated in my opinion, but the Obama-Biden ticket is not a capitulationist one, even if it does accept the support of the surrender faction, and it does show some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience. With McCain, the “experience” is subject to sharply diminishing returns, as is the rest of him, and with Palin the very word itself is a sick joke. One only wishes that the election could be over now and a proper and dignified verdict rendered, so as to spare democracy and civility the degradation to which they look like being subjected in the remaining days of a low, dishonest campaign.

UPDATE 2: McCain has also lost the vote of the Goldwater legacy, CC Goldwater:

Nothing about McCain, except for maybe a uniform, compares to the same ideology of what Goldwater stood for as a politician.

UPDATE 3: David Frum, one of my favorite conservatives, has written a devastating argument for consolidating Republican losses by abandoning the presidential race in favor of the senate. He also acknowledges that the choice of Sarah Palin was a huge strategic blunder since it’s lost them the independent vote McCain’s candidacy was predicated upon.

UPDATE 4: Several new (to me, at least) Republican endorsements are mentioned by Politico.com: James A. Leach, Wayne Gilchrest, Lincoln Chafee, Arne Carlson and Larry Pressler. Some cite his flip-flopping, some his Palin swing to the right, some his negative campaign,

Pressler even said this:

“The Republican Party I knew in the 1970s is just all gone,” he said, explaining that he preferred Obama’s economic plan.

It seems that the only “mavericks” left supporting McCain are Sarah Palin, Joe Lieberman and Lindsay Graham.

and Chafee just admitted there are many more moving towards Obama:

Chafee suggested there may be more Republicans supporting Obama without advertising it.
“The Obama campaign has had me call different leaning Republicans and asked them to publicly support [Obama and Biden],” Chafee said. “They’ll tell me privately, ‘I’m going to vote for them.”

Don’t you want a leader who has the ability to listen and learn as well as back up his own decisions? We certainly value civil debate here on Skull Sessions and TIME magazine’s Joel Klein just laid out a great example of when David Petraeus briefed Obama on the war… despite their disagreements, Obama asserted himself WHILE respectfully taking in what Petraeus had to say:

A “spirited” conversation ensued, one person who was in the room told me. “It wasn’t a perfunctory recitation of talking points. They were arguing their respective positions, in a respectful way.” The other two Senators — Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed — told Petraeus they agreed with Obama. According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting — which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing — ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama’s perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic. Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible.

Barack Obama has prospered in this presidential campaign because of the steadiness of his temperament and the judicious quality of his decision-making. They are his best-known qualities.

And he not only speaks with inelligence, he speaks to us like adults! Do you remember Obama’s big speech on race? It was an inspired response to Jeremiah Wright and pretty much put the issue to rest for all reasonable people. Here is how Obama described it:

“My gut was telling me that this was a teachable moment and that if I tried to do the usual political damage control instead of talking to the American people like … they were adults and could understand the complexities of race, I would be not only doing damage to the campaign but missing an important opportunity for leadership.”

And if you’ve known me or watched the video Skull Sessions, you know that I strongly believe we need a Manhattan Project-like effort to combat global warming and wean us from oil over time… and it couldn’t excite me more to see Obama talking about that as his #1 priority!

He wants to launch an “Apollo project” to build a new alternative-energy economy. His rationale for doing so includes some hard truths about the current economic mess: “The engine of economic growth for the past 20 years is not going to be there for the next 20. That was consumer spending. Basically, we turbocharged this economy based on cheap credit.” But the days of easy credit are over, Obama said, “because there is too much deleveraging taking place, too much debt.” A new economic turbocharger is going to have to be found, and “there is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy … That’s going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office.”

Most of all, what a President should be able to do is inspire the nation to do great things. Now, more than ever, we need that leader! Klein puts it quite well to finish up his article:

If he wins, however, there will be a different challenge. He will have to return, full force, to the inspiration business. The public will have to be mobilized to face the fearsome new economic realities. He will also have to deliver bad news, to transform crises into “teachable moments.” He will have to effect a major change in our political life: to get the public and the media to think about long-term solutions rather than short-term balms. Obama has given some strong indications that he will be able to do this, having remained levelheaded through a season of political insanity. His has been a remarkable campaign, as smoothly run as any I’ve seen in nine presidential cycles. Even more remarkable, Obama has made race — that perennial, gaping American wound — an afterthought. He has done this by introducing a quality to American politics that we haven’t seen in quite some time: maturity. He is undoubtedly as ego-driven as everyone else seeking the highest office — perhaps more so, given his race, his name and his lack of experience. But he has not been childishly egomaniacal, in contrast to our recent baby-boomer Presidents — or petulant, in contrast to his opponent. He does not seem needy. He seems a grown-up, in a nation that badly needs some adult supervision.

justin

In light of the myriad of recent endorsements of conservatives for Obama (Obamacons), with a main reason being Sarah Palin, one has to wonder what the future of the Republican Party holds. Is it going to be a James Dobson religious right who deny Democratic voters (even republican ones) communion or a more moderate and fiscally conservative Colin Powell-like party?

Max Blumenthal makes a great case for this. Here’s an example of how James Dobson helped cost McCain the election by essentially forcing him to nominate someone like Sarah Palin:

Powell might well have supported McCain’s bid for the presidency had things turned out differently. McCain yearned to select his friend, the turncoat Democrat, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, as his running mate. Lieberman, who shared Powell’s positions on domestic policy, would have made the Republican ticket the most moderate since the pre-Goldwater era. But opposition from the Christian right―especially from Dobson―threatened a fight on the floor of the Republican convention, rendering the Lieberman option impossible. And so McCain chose Sarah Palin.

And it makes you wonder if they’re going to put her up as president against Obama in 2012. That will be great for the Democrats, I predict, but bad for the country as a whole.

justin

Oh, and if you want an Obamacon perspective, PhDiva puts it very very well:

We need change – not another Clinton. Senator Obama may not be able to deliver it, but hope can be just as powerful and he has successfully harnessed that. America needs a regime change to restore its standing in the world, and Barack Obama seems to be the best option.

Andrew Sullivan is more lucid in his thoughts, so if you’d like to read why he, as a conservative, supports Obama, I recommend -
Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters.

One of my favorite tech shows, net@night had a semi-political show this week… and they tacitly supported Skull Sessions by favoring civil debate and being well informed!

“If it’s taboo to talk about politics, we’re doing ourselves a disservice.”
Amber MacArthur

Go to this link and either subscribe to listen in iTunes, or listen right on the web page. The good stuff is between 24:50 and 27:50.

justin

The framers of our constitution set up a republic in order to protect against mob rule. Thus we have checks and balances not only between the three branches of government, but also between the federal government and the states. The electoral college system and the Senate make sure population centers like New York, California, and Texas don’t decide policy for the whole country and that the voice of smaller population centers is still given consideration. The two major political parties interestingly provide a good check and balance with each other. As history has shown, seldom does one party control both the legislative and executive. Rather, the opposing party usually gains control, or has a great influential minority, of the opposite branch. At this time in our history, we face a Democratic controlled executive and legislative that hasn’t been seen since the 1930′s. Many economists have argued that the length and depth of The Great Depression was made worse by this Democratic control and that the prior administrations were blamed for the lack of economic progress.

In general, as this article by Cal Thomas points out, government has failed miserably at being the solution to people’s problems. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as John Stossel points out through Thomas’s article, is an example of this. We should seriously consider the benefit of a liberal agenda being pushed through by a Democratically controlled executive and legislative. Many on the left think this is exactly what the country needs. I respectfully and profoundly disagree.

Joel

If you’re in for a good long read about the intricacies of this race, and how race might play into it, Matt Bai of the New York Times has nailed it for you.

Will Obama be a transformational candidate and change the electoral map forever, as Colin Powell suggests and progressives like me yearn for? Or will he simply be another “50 plus 1″ president with a slim majority, no clear mandate, and a continually divided country to lead?

We’ll see… but my money is on the guy who beat the Clintons!

On the reality of rural white voters who see Obama as “different”:

Obama’s strategists accept that there will be some number of voters — particularly white men — who will reject Obama solely because he is black. But they are betting, first, that most of these voters wouldn’t have voted for a Democrat in any event and, second, that the groundswell of black support for Obama will produce enough new African-American votes in a lot of states to offset them.

Obama on the potential of his campaign:

“If I’m able to change this,” he told me on his plane, meaning the cultural breach in our politics, “then it’s probably going to be most powerful after I’m elected, when you’re no longer in the context of day-to-day battle, and I can prove it by what I do.”

… and Obama on FOX news:

“I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls,” Obama told me. “If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn’t vote for me, right? Because the way I’m portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that?

Overall, a great read, if you’re into the nuance that makes politics interesting…

justin

I just read a VERY interesting essay about our natural tendency to take offense to things. There have been many “indignities” in this campaign, as with every political race, and there will always be. But why? Why do we respond with a lack of reason to perceived injustice? Well, read this article for a glimpse into an answer… and enjoy the quotes below:

Humans’ sense of indignation is not just limited to violations against us. Even if you’re able-bodied, think of how offended you feel when you see another able-bodied person pull into a handicapped parking spot. Most of us will just walk on, quietly irate, but a few will yell at the driver. These moral enforcers are vital to society. Frans de Waal writes that experiments with macaques show that if you remove the individuals who perform this policing function, hostilities increase among the entire band.

The presidential candidates present us with two stark leadership approaches: the cool, slow-to-anger reserve of Barack Obama; and the aggressive, man-of-honor style of John McCain. People instinctively weigh whether a leader who’s laid back makes them worry that he won’t stand up to enemies. And they consider that a hot-headed leader may be intimidating to foes, but that he also might create more of them.

“The more attached you are to your sense of self, the more you see forces trying to attack that self. If you have a more Buddhist view, and are less attached to self, you are less likely to see offense.”

justin

Now THIS is a great example of how businesses should contribute to the public discourse. Gap just hit it out of the park with their new ad campaign. It’s funny, it’s heartwarming and it’s incredibly important that this election be a renewal of the democratic process.

I know that every year lots of celebs and marketers do their part to “get out the vote”… but doesn’t it feel different this year? Like we’re on the cusp of something huge?

Enjoy Norman Rockwell’s insight. I did…

and if you like Bill Maher, this one you’ll love.

and I like this one a LOT!

justin

I got a kick out of this video and thought it was a great comedic example of the vitriolic and ill-informed attacks that Joel and I are trying to avoid with our Skull Sessions:

justin

PS: “Moon” on the right is a friend of mine. They’re a funny pair. Check out more of their stuff on their website.

Well, here we go again. Another post, another conservative supporting Obama… and it’s not just because I agree with Christopher Buckley and Colin Powell, it’s that they articulate a variety of reasons Obama is the best choice for this country right now:

We’ve got two individuals — either one of them could be a good president. But which is the president that we need now — which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time.

And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.

The non-partisan site Politico.com has a good article about it too, and this is my favorite quote from it:

Kevin Madden, a GOP veteran who was the press secretary for Mitt Romney’s presidential bid, said that “Colin Powell was a proxy for our party’s ability to persuade Democrats and independents to join a center-right coalition of ideas built around economic conservatism and a strong national defense. The endorsement is emblematic of the challenges we face as a party when it comes to winning back these voters.”

I mean, most people had not even heard of Christopher Buckley before last week, but who in their right mind doesn’t respect Colin Powell? If you go see the biopic “W” you will see that he was the one voice of reason in a Bush cabinet that beat the drum to war and he should be respected for his choice to resign as Secretary of State when he profoundly disagreed with the course of the administration.

Thank you, Secretary Powell, for giving another intelligent voice to this extraordinary movement to change our country and its’ direction in 2008. You were and continue to be a true patriot.

justin

UPDATES: Dick Polman wrote a great article about Powell’s endorsement too.

More conservative endorsements keep popping up!

Ken Adelman, a “lifelong conservative Republican” who is practically, but not really, a neo-con, is also voting for Obama! for reasons of “temperment and judgement”.

David Frum, one of my favorite conservatives (for his many appearances on “Left, Right and Center”) might not actually vote for Obama, but he certainly disapproves of Palin.

Fareed Zakaria, though not necessarily a lifelong conservative, also puts forth a great argument for Obama.

This is the case for Obama on substance, which is the most important criterion. But symbolism is also a powerful force in human affairs. Imagine what people around the world would think if they saw America once again inventing the future. And imagine how Americans would feel if they saw their country once again fulfilling its founding creed of equal opportunity, if they saw that there really were no barriers in their country, not even to the highest office in the land, not even for a man with a brown face and a strange name.

Oh, and lest we forget that newspapers around the country whose endorsements went slightly in favor of Kerry (213 to 205) are coming out in droves for Obama (112 to 39 so far) and that includes many papers that were Bush in 2004.

In a real shocker, two solid Bush papers in 2004, the Houston Chronicle and Austin American-Statesman, also came out for Obama on Sunday.

First of all, I, Justin Bradshaw, am not a conservative.
I believe in progress and not in keeping things the way they are (or were).

But I respect my conservative friends for their convictions and defend their right to have them… but it’s here that I see a widening gap and a higher difficulty of my own to actually respect some “conservative” viewpoints. Let me explain:

I thought that conservative meant that you believed in small government and objectivist notions like personal responsibility and fiscal restraint. That’s what Ronald Reagan and William F Buckley believed in at least. That’s what my true conservative friends seem to stress when they talk about politics. And guess what? I hold a lot of those convictions too! I, too want a government that runs like an efficient business (minus the ruthless pursuit of profit) and I, too think people should take responsibility for themselves and not ask for handouts from the government. But I feel like over the past 6-10 years with Bush, Cheney etc that we’ve lost that Buckley/Reagan sense of conservatism. This has a name, by the way: NeoConservatism… and it’s led us into pre-emptive and misguided wars, deregulated the banking system to point of failure, and neglected our future environmental interests in favor of short term business profits. But most of all, this Bush movement has favored the social conservatives over the fiscal conservatives: We’ve been led by a guy who thinks he speaks to God and honest churchgoing people have been rallied to the Republican side in droves for fear of gays, abortion and all kinds of real and made-up issues.

It all came to a head with the nomination of Sarah Palin. McCain wasn’t getting the “evangelical” vote so he had to pick a person who would. He wasn’t getting the woman vote so he had to pick a person who would. This is a sad gimmick that isn’t going to work… because this time the true conservatives are actually standing up against it instead of blithely defending her and her lack of experience.

Now you’re probably thinking, what’s so new about this? Why write about this now? Well I believe that the pendulum is shifting to the left in this country in a big way with this election and that this is one of the biggest reasons. We’re sick of Bush and the evangelicals running our country! We’re sick of ideology and god-fearing-ness trumping intelligence and experience!

And the best part? I now get to include some very prominent Republican conservatives in this list! We already saw Ron Reagan, Jr. speak at the Democratic convention and openly support Obama. We’ve also seen Andrew Sullilvan, George Will, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer and more express severe doubts about Palin, and McCain. But now, praise jesus, the legacy of the greatest icon of modern conservatism change: William F. Buckley’s son, Christopher Buckeley, just endorsed Obama! If you don’t believe me, or want to know why, just read this brilliant post of his: “Sorry dad, I’m voting for Obama”.

To me, it seems like the nail in the coffin for John McCain and the NeoConservative “movement” and begs the question of my Republican friends: Which kind of conservative are you?

Please comment on this one!

justin

UPDATE 1: From the New York Magazine, here’s a great overall look at the Buckley phenomenon I’m now obsessed with. Maybe it will help moderate Republicans like my Dad see that he should vote with his liberal son on this one!

The former Reagan economic adviser Bruce Bartlett predicts, indeed, that the Republican primaries will turn into a Palin/Gingrich steel-cage death match

The capper cracks me up. I want to meet Christopher Buckley, he sounds like an awesome guy:

“The smart ones in the movement should get together right after the election at the Greenbrier or the Homestead, you know, where they typically have these kinds of get-togethers, and have a long dark night of the soul,” he says. “And I’ll tell you what the conference should be called: Conservatism—What the Fuck?”

UPDATE 2:
London’s Mayor, Boris Johnson lays out another good case for Obama:

If Obama wins, he will have established that being black is as relevant to your ability to do a hard job as being left-handed or ginger-haired, and he will have re-established America’s claim to be the last, best hope of Earth.

Between the surprisingly non-conservative 300 billion dollar government mortgage buy-up that John McCain proposed on Tuesday night and the neo-conservatism light in Sarah Palin, it’s no wonder that people who are conservative for the “right” reasons are losing faith in their party and this election. I mean, we just broke the debt clock!

Consider this reader comment to The Atlantic “Daily Dish” blog… which by the way used to support McCain and now is pushing for Obama quite openly. This reader is going to forgo his right to vote because he can’t support McCain and would never vote for Obama. He also isn’t fooled by Sarah Palin:

But I think the first moment that I ever squared with it was when McCain announced Palin as his VP candidate. My thought at the time was, “this sure will mobilize the base, but it is not a base I want anything to do with.” The succeeding month has only proved this initial notion terribly correct.

I’d love to hear where Joel stands on this issue. Are you a core-fiscal conservative like Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan or does he really base his vote on social issues like abortion and gay marriage like this Republican is lamenting?

justin

I’m glad Joel links to the New Yorker Magazine so much. It gives this newest Obama endorsement even more credibility and excitement for me.

After reading this opinion article this morning, I was surprised I hadn’t written it first. Pretty much every point seemed right on to me and the farther I read the more clear this choice become.

If you’re an Obama supporter, read this article to brighten your spirits (or just take a look at the latest poll numbers).

If you’re a McCain supporter, I’m sure you’ll have rebuttals for certain things, but I’d like to hear an answer to the larger philosophical conclusions the New Yorker staff has come to:

At a moment of economic calamity, international perplexity, political failure, and battered morale, America needs both uplift and realism, both change and steadiness. It needs a leader temperamentally, intellectually, and emotionally attuned to the complexities of our troubled globe. That leader’s name is Barack Obama.

And if you’re still undecided in this race, PLEASE read this article. It is fair, thoughtful and thorough and deserves consideration. It’s no accident that The New Yorker took so long to endorse a candidate. They didn’t jump to conclusions and this article shows their independent minded approach which appeals greatly to people who value deliberation and knowledge over… well, you know, ideology.

And now, if you don’t mind, I’ll share a few of my favorite segments of the article in case you’re too lazy to read the whole thing!

On Energy:
(and related to another post of mine today on energy policy)

Opening up America’s coastal waters to drilling would have no impact on gasoline prices in the short term, and, even over the long term, the effect, according to a recent analysis by the Department of Energy, would be “insignificant.” Such inconvenient facts, however, are waved away by a campaign that finally found its voice with the slogan “Drill, baby, drill!”

On the Supreme Court:

McCain cites Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, two reliable conservatives, as models for his own prospective appointments. If he means what he says, and if he replaces even one moderate on the current Supreme Court, then Roe v. Wade will be reversed, and states will again be allowed to impose absolute bans on abortion. McCain’s views have hardened on this issue. In 1999, he said he opposed overturning Roe; by 2006, he was saying that its demise “wouldn’t bother me any”; by 2008, he no longer supported adding rape and incest as exceptions to his party’s platform opposing abortion.

On Habeas Corpus:

While McCain voted to continue to deny habeas-corpus rights to detainees, perpetuating the Bush Administration’s regime of state-sponsored extra-legal detention, Obama took the opposite side, pushing to restore the right of all U.S.-held prisoners to a hearing. The judicial future would be safe in his care.

On Iraq:

In Iraq, McCain seeks “victory”—a word that General David Petraeus refuses to use, and one that fundamentally misrepresents the messy, open-ended nature of the conflict.

Asked during the first debate to outline “the lessons of Iraq,” McCain said, “I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear: that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict.” A soldier’s answer––but a statesman must have a broader view of war and peace. The years ahead will demand not only determination but also diplomacy, flexibility, patience, judiciousness, and intellectual engagement. These are no more McCain’s strong suit than the current President’s.

On “Yes We Can”:

The modern Presidency is as much a vehicle for communication as for decision-making, and the relevant audiences are global. Obama has inspired many Americans in part because he holds up a mirror to their own idealism. His election would do no less—and likely more—overseas.

On Sarah Palin:

We are watching a candidate for Vice-President cram for her ongoing exam in elementary domestic and foreign policy. This is funny as a Tina Fey routine on “Saturday Night Live,” but as a vision of the political future it’s deeply unsettling. Palin has no business being the backup to a President of any age, much less to one who is seventy-two and in imperfect health. In choosing her, McCain committed an act of breathtaking heedlessness and irresponsibility.

On Obama’s temperment:

Yet it is Obama’s temperament—and not McCain’s—that seems appropriate for the office both men seek and for the volatile and dangerous era in which we live. Those who dismiss his centeredness as self-centeredness or his composure as indifference are as wrong as those who mistook Eisenhower’s stolidity for denseness or Lincoln’s humor for lack of seriousness.

On Obama’s eloquence:

Although his opponents have tried to attack him as a man of “mere” words, Obama has returned eloquence to its essential place in American politics. The choice between experience and eloquence is a false one––something that Lincoln, out of office after a single term in Congress, proved in his own campaign of political and national renewal. Obama’s “mere” speeches on everything from the economy and foreign affairs to race have been at the center of his campaign and its success; if he wins, his eloquence will be central to his ability to govern.

I could go on, but it’s better if you just read the article!

justin

McCain’s talk about renewable energy and ending our dependance on foreign oil may be in earnest… but if it is, the way he plans to do it is pretty scary: Give the big oil companies more tax breaks and leverage to drill, baby drill.

justin

PS: This article about recent oil spills from Hurricane Ike explains why I’m against offshore drilling. And this article shows how foolish it is to pin our independence hopes on simply drilling.

Do you care enough to click on this link?

Or watch this video?

At the suggestion of Justin, I watched the Larry King Live interview of Bob Woodward for his new book, The War Within, which took place several Mondays ago. Additionally, I watched the 60 Minutes interview from the night before. I have to admit upfront that I have not read any of Mr. Woodward’s four books on the current war. After I read them, I hope to have a more in depth analysis in future posts. However, as an Iraq War veteran who was deployed in 2006 and 2007 when many of these events where taking place, and as someone who has done some research on the subject, I would like to respond to some of the issues that have been raised with these interviews.

Issue 1: Bush did not listen to his generals’ advice over the surge and whether or not more troops would be needed.

Bob Woodward not only makes this point in his two interviews, he also makes it in his recent Washington Post Editorial. The Post piece in particular offers an inside look into the frustrations amongst some military generals in 2006 before the surge. While there is no explicit statement in the interviews that this was the wrong decision, the subtext seems to be that this decision to not listen to General Casey and the Joint Chiefs on the surge was wrong and an example of why Bush was “out of touch with the reality of the Iraq war.” How can a president go against the advice of his top commanders? 60 minutes didn’t specifically report Woodward’s conclusions, but fortunately Larry King picked up the slack. Phrases like “Bush in ‘denial’”, “Bush ‘failed to lead’”, “On Bush’s management of war: ‘never got a full handle on it…’, and “Bush ‘rarely was the voice of realism on the Iraq war’” came up on the screen to ensure viewers knew Woodward’s conclusions.

However, as William McGurn makes clear in his recent WSJ Op-Ed, sometimes presidents and generals disagree. One of the greatest examples in our history, Mr. McGurn points out, was General McClellan and President Lincoln during the Civil War. Recall that during that period, Lincoln lost confidence in McClellan because McClellan wasn’t aggressive enough. Recall that McClellan was one of the most popular generals with the Union Army at that time. At Antietem, McClellan failed to pursue Lee’s forces, which withdrew first and were vulnerable. Perhaps a more aggressive McClellan could have crushed Lee’s forces at this battle in late 1862 and saved the country three more years of war. We’ll never know. But thank goodness for Lincoln’s leadership. Similar to that situation, Bush expressed disappointment and a loss of confidence in Casey’s performance in Iraq and the overall strategy in general. According to Woodward’s interview with the commander-in-chief, Bush wanted to simply know, of Casey, if we were fighting back against the insurgent attacks. The level of improvised explosive device attacks was on everyone’s mind at this point. I know it was on mine, and I’m glad it was on the president’s. Apparently, the answer wasn’t satisfying. Bush felt the need to clarify with Casey that we weren’t playing for a “tie”, as pointed out in the opening of Woodward’s book.

Woodward seems to condemn the decision by Bush to go with his National Security Advisor’s recommendation, along with the recommendation of an outside agency, the American Enterprise Institute, against the advice of the Joint Chiefs and the top commander in Iraq. However, as the New Yorker points out, in the six months leading up to 2007, the Joint Chiefs, the NSC, and the State Department were conducting simultaneous policy and strategy assessments of the Iraq war. This multi-pronged debate and approach showed that instead of dismissing the advice of the Joint Chiefs and the top commander in Iraq, the president was soliciting a much-needed serious debate about the current and future strategy from a variety of policy advising entities. So much for his stubbornness. Ultimately, the commander-in-chief lost confidence in a failed strategy and decided to appoint J. D. Crouch to “chair a new interagency working group on Iraq strategy, a “deputies committee” made up of representatives from a number of Cabinet departments, as well as the Joint Chiefs. This group would pull together and reexamine the various strategy studies percolating at the Pentagon, the N.S.C., and the State Department.” Shortly after hearing the conclusions of this “deputies committee”, the president made a decisive and fateful decision to push for a surge in Iraq. Conveniently, Larry King left out this larger context when his show aired the caption, “Meeting between NSA and Casey…Bush wasn’t there” as if rather than a means of gathering information or generating inter-agency debate, this absence was inexcusable. I’m interested to see how Mr. Woodward’s book deals with this context.

I, for one, am grateful for this change of direction. Many of us who served over there were frustrated that we couldn’t cover the territory we needed because we didn’t have enough troops on the ground. I recall specific missions in which we were searching for suspicious motorcyclists in the open desert. At the time, insurgents were employing motorcycles extensively because they could always outrun humvees. I’ll never forget the futility on several missions of attempting to catch suspicious motorcyclists. We could see them from the air, and we could follow them for a time, but the time-space factor and very small ground force size made it next to impossible to coordinate a capture before we lost them in the towns. I recall other stories from infantry Marines that Iraqis in smaller towns were frustrated with us because of our lack of presence in their towns; we would only come through their town every six months or so. In the meantime, Al Queda would occupy, set up operations, and impose Sharia law. We just didn’t have the numbers to be a lasting presence in many areas. As a result, I, and my service members watched as Al Queda grew weak in certain areas only to displace and grow strong in other formerly weak areas. The last two years indicate that the tactics of the surge, in its aggressiveness and results of holding ground, is a much better approach. This, combined with Gen Patreaus’s push to get bases more decentralized and into the country, has greatly increased our reach and decreased violence. Bush made the right call.

Issue 2: Bush was not straightforward with his public statements on Iraq when the military had concluded that we were losing. Or as Larry Kings show told us, “Bush ‘never found a way to level with the American people’”.

Mr. Woodward makes the case that the decision to not be straightforward with the public was two-fold. First, he wanted to succeed in war and not affect the morale of the troops. Second, he didn’t want to admit problems before the congressional elections of 2006. I would submit that instead of “never finding a way to level with the American people” as Woodward asserts, the commander-in-chief truly appreciated something that Mr. Woodward perhaps did not. Publicly admitting a failed or faulty policy would have greater consequences than merely losing seats in a congressional election. It would have greatly increased the chances of a total defeat in Iraq for two reasons. First, it would have demoralized the military and the public. An unpopular war with a public admission of failed policy would have all but guaranteed the war’s loss. Second, the enemy, namely Al Queda, and other anti-Iraqi forces would have been emboldened. I was there during the 2006 elections, and after seeing the evil of this enemy first hand, I would have preferred them to be demoralized rather than emboldened. An emboldened enemy with an American withdrawal would have soon resulted in an Iraq that was more dangerous to us and its neighbors than before the invasion of 2003. As if this weren’t bad enough, the sectarian violence that could have ensued from an American withdrawal would have been Vietnam and Cambodia circa 1975-1977 all over again. I’m grateful that the Iraqis have so far been spared this similar fate.

Issue 3: The success in Iraq is not because of the surge but because of a secret program to target and kill insurgent leadership.

Woodward admits that the degree to which the current success in Iraq can be attributed to the surge versus this secret killing program is debatable. However, the implication is that the surge is not the whole story. Well, it isn’t. More troops on the ground with a continued failed strategy would have made for continued future failures. Instead, the surge was accompanied by a complete change in strategy which not only included increased troop strength but also an expanded targeting capability of senior insurgent leaders and a spreading out of forces from large defensively postured bases. In Al Anbar, we were able to see early signs of success with this change of mission in late 2006 and early 2007. Green Beret units were embedded with Iraqi swat teams to generate intelligence, locate insurgent leaders, and then together, capture or kill those leaders. It was beautiful to watch and beautiful to participate in. The reduction in violence in Al Anbar preceded the reduction in violence in the rest of Iraq, largely due to this tactic combined with the Sunni awakening. Disappointingly, the interviews fail to describe 2006-2008 as an overall change in strategy that was multi-faceted, requiring increased strength, decentralized presence, and increased covert lethality.

George W. Bush did an unpopular thing by advocating a new strategy in Iraq. But he believed it was necessary for success. The recent New Yorker article contains a very good discussion on the lead up to this change in strategy and it’s effects to date.

“The surge is a particularly complex subject; the term is not easy to define, because the scope of Petraeus’s command has encompassed much more than the deployment of additional American combat troops, as ordered by Bush. These days, when “the surge” is employed as a shorthand label, it is usually intended to refer also to the application of new battlefield tactics by Petraeus and his commanders, and to the political work carried out by the General and Ambassador Ryan Crocker during 2007 and 2008. (Crocker arrived in Iraq shortly after Petraeus, in early 2007, and they have worked together closely.)” (my emphasis)

The above quote points to the broader definition of the surge as not only a change in tactics within Petraeus’s command but also the larger strategic shifts. Specifically, the old strategy, under Casey, and before him Abizaid, focused on first promoting Iraqi political stability in order to subsequently increase Iraqi self-security. The overall surge strategy reversed this prior failed policy. This strategy focused on first providing security in order to obtain and grow political stability and self-sufficiently. This is why the broader definition of the surge was a change in strategy that represented a completely different intellectual approach to the war. Conveniently, the two interviews and various articles barely mentioned this important change in direction. So the audiences are left to draw conclusions in the absence of context.

Overall, the biggest thing we can take away from these interviews and articles is what applies to the future. General Patraeus has called the success in Iraq fragile and reversible. The affect a timed withdrawal could have on this success should be discussed and debated. I think that it could very likely hurt our fragile success. Additionally, in Mr. Woodward’s interview with President Bush, the president’s advice for the next administration was “don’t let it fail.” Obama, if he is elected, would do well to heed both pieces of advice. McCain already gets it.

Cheers,
Joel

The New York Times wrote an excellent article on the current war in Pakistan against the Taliban and Al Queda. This article points to the challenges that the next administration will face when dealing with Pakistan.

The Pakistani government, under the leadership of President Zardari, is engaged in a tough fight with Taliban and Al Queda strongholds in the northern and western parts of the country. The President of Pakistan has called publicly for no incursion on their soil from US forces in Afghanistan and has even granted permission to his military to engage US forces that cross the border. Seemingly, the Pakistani government, by engaging extremists, is in line with our objectives in that country, albeit imperfectly and with many civilian casualties.

This begs the question, where do we go from here? Support for the Pakistani government in the form of aid should be maintained provided that they continue to aggressively prosecute extremist targets. This is the position that McCain took in the recent presidential debate. Diplomacy should be continued. Military cooperation along the border should be increased. By pursuing these avenues we can turn Pakistan into a diplomatic success in the fight against Al Queda. Now is not the time to make bold public statements, as Obama has, about US military action in Pakistan that jeopardizes the cooperation we now have. Military action should not be discounted in the current situation in the event that Pakistan changes course against extremists. But for now they are on the right track.

Joel

Here is a quick interview that the Wall Street Journal conducted with James Glassman of the State Department. In it, a strong case is made for why Al Queda may not be stronger now than it was in the past, as Democrats and Liberals like to argue as a dire consequence of our Iraq invasion. Enjoy.

Joel

As I write this, the $700 billion bailout plan has failed and the DJIA has closed down over 656 points, or 5.89%. At one point, the Dow was down 738 points, the largest intra-day drop in history. Yesterday, I wouldn’t have believed it. The headlines indicated that after a weekend of negotiations, a compromise was reached in the House on the $700 billion plan to be voted on today. Finally, I thought, we’ll get this bill down the road to the Senate and work toward getting confidence restored in the markets. But in today’s world, shock is becoming the only constant. Normally, the big news today would have been the sale of Wachovia to Citigroup. Instead, the President held a press conference this morning at 7:35 am, before the markets opened, to urge the House members to vote for the bill. But in the end, congressmen from both sides worried more about their own political futures than about the confidence of the market. The bill failed 228 to 205. Those who voted against it cited as their reason severe criticism of the bill amongst their constituents. Only 60% of Democrats voted for the measure, which to me is surprising. Why couldn’t Speaker Pelosi get a larger percentage of Democrats to support the bill? 95 Democrats voted against it. Only 12 of them were needed to pass the legislation. Only 65 Republicans voted for the measure, or 35%. So, neither party was united on this measure. Now, both sides are pointing fingers at the other, blaming them for the failure. Right after Nancy Pelosi failed to convince 12 Democrat members to change their ‘no’ votes to ‘yes’, the Democratic leadership held a press conference to make sure that they had the first word on assigning blame. They were shocked that they didn’t have more Republican support. On the other side of the aisle, Real Clear Politics reports that GOP leadership is pointing to an “exceedingly partisan” speech by speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi just minutes before the vote was to begin. From their perspective, this conveniently timed speech essentially turned the passing of the bill into a moratorium on the supposed Bush administration’s failed economic policies. I submit that the vote could have turned out differently had the speaker not attempted to turn this into a moratorium for political gain. Why couldn’t she have just kept her mouth shut?

Among those in the after-vote press conference was Barney Frank, who in my opinion shares a lot of the blame for the underlying factors facing the financial market. For all you nay-sayers out there, look at the recent reporting by the Wall Street Journal on this issue. The Boston Globe and others have printed similar stories criticizing government pressure, lead by Frank, to artificially lower housing mortgages and give financial institutions incentives to come up with creative, predatory loans. The lesson from this should be that government pressure on lenders, in the interest of affordable housing, cannot negate the high risks associated with providing loans to people who can’t afford them. Where is the accountability for Mr. Frank’s actions? Instead, Mr. Frank continues to point the finger at everyone else. Talk about blind to your own mistakes.

In the end, this failure is not good. The House should go back into deliberations immediately and stay until they work out a compromise. Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats would be well advised not to attempt turning a future vote into a moratorium for political gain. Additionally, Republicans would do well to realize their principals of non-government market influence cannot save the economy today. The market didn’t reach this crises through a lack of government influence but largely through an underlying government pressure toward more affordable housing. So now it takes more government influence to correct the negative government influence of the past.

Let’s get this done now!!

Cheers,
Joel

Both candidates’ understanding of the economy does not inspire confidence. However, in matters of foreign policy, McCain gets it.

Many members of the MSM are calling the first presidential debate on Friday night more or less a tie (Fox, NYT, Washington Post, WSJ). I tend to agree. Whereas, Obama did well in the debate on economic matters (I still disagree strongly with his redistribution of wealth plan), McCain did very well in the debate on foreign policy matters (I’m sure Justin strongly disagrees with McCain’s Iraq policy). While there were certainly presentational differences – Obama looking at McCain and the camera and McCain mostly looking at Jim Lehrer, Obama’s polished rhetoric and McCain’s energetic one liners – the two did a good job of highlighting their differences…and, in one area, a similarity. Neither candidate was willing to discuss how the current economic woes would affect their budget proposals in the future. McCain answered with cleaning up government excessive spending and perhaps going so far as conduct a government spending freeze. Obama answered that we’d have to wait and see how the current economic situation affects government tax revenue and perhaps delay new social programs.

Both answers are in my mind somewhat inadequate and highlight how much larger the current economic condition is than the two candidates are really aware of. In one sense, I agree with both candidates. We don’t know how the economy will affect tax revenue over the next several years. We may have to delay certain things. We should take a serious look at pork barrel projects and consider a spending freeze…if it came to that. But these answers still do not address the fundamental issue of the current economic fragility…namely the extent to which government regulation has caused the current situation and the extent to which it can aid in a solution. On the one hand, corporate greed, always a scapegoat of the left, is blamed for the current financial woes. Financial institutions, we are told, took on more risk than was wise in the name of ever increasing profits. The FBI has begun an investigation into this possibility. On the other hand, failure of congress to provide adequate reforms over Fannie and Freddie is blamed for the mortgage crises, which started this mess in the first place. The WSJ in particular has written several scathing articles of Barney Frank, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and how he has repeatedly blocked reform for Freddie and Fannie over the last 6-8 years all in the name of affordable housing. But wait; isn’t overly affordable housing what got us in this mess in the first place? To all you Bush bashers that want to spin the current mess as a failure of the Bush administration, consider this quote from the Boston Globe, “When the White House warned of “systemic risk for our financial system” unless the mortgage giants were curbed, Frank complained that the administration was more concerned about financial safety than about housing.” Really, go figure. Barney Frank’s fingerprints are all over this and yet he still does not acknowledge his own role in this mess.

The point of all this is that the economy befuddles experts, causes university professors to disagree, and generally is a beast that no one has been able to tame or control, ever. True, we can affect it by various policies. But many policies, whether they are advocating more or less regulation, fail to guarantee economic security and prevent economic woes. This issue is still not understood fully by either candidate or the two parties.

In the second half of the debate, the focus shifted to foreign policy. Listening, I generated a list of questions I would like to ask Obama.

1. Do you think we can/should/will WIN in Iraq? You continue to dodge the issue of winning and losing.

2. Do you agree that General Patraeus’ strategy should be implemented in Afghanistan? If so, can you acknowledge his strategy as a winning strategy in Iraq? If not, why not?

3. Do you think Osama Bin Laden misspoke when he called “Iraq the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine?” Do you think that leaving Iraq on a timeline would make the Al Queda situation better or worse?

Since Obama probably wont be coming to our blog to answer these questions, if any of his supporters feel up to the task of answering for him based on their understanding of his positions, feel free. I’m genuinely interested in your opinions.

Okay, that’s all for now. All this political talk is making me sleepy!

Cheers,
Joel

It seems to me that McCain’s main strategy at this point (besides trying to shore up his economic credentials by grandstanding in Washington and screwing up negotiations) is to smear Obama so much that one of two things happen:

1) If Obama gets angry and lashes back, McCain could win because few things are scarier than an angry black man. Plus, it undermines Obama’s change message.

2) The smears and lies (that even Karl Rove said go “too far”) make the casual observer disgusted with the political process once again and keep people from going to the polls on Nov 4th. That’s truly the best chance of victory Republicans could hope for… because as any savvy political observer knows, when less people vote, Republicans win.

So on that note, I like this recent Obama TV ad. It really exposes McCain’s tactics without being too outraged about it:

justin

I’ve been intensely reading the news this week and struggling with my own perspective and how to present that on this forum. I’m clearly uncomfortable with the fact that Sarah Palin could be our 45th president… but I’m also uncomfortable with the attacks and some lies about her personal life and family. Her record is easy to find holes in and she’s obviously lied in public many times about it…. but while lies ABOUT a candidate are not as bad as lies BY a candidate, I’d still rather see the debate be about John McCain… because that’s who this chioce is really reflective of.

I’m realizing lately that I’m coming around on the idea that John McCain is an honorable public servant. I’ve always thought him to be a fairly moderate republican who couldn’t be worse than George Bush at running the country… but now, based on his recent campaign choices and his choice for VP, I think that he’s an extremely dangerous choice and must be defeated.

Let me explain….

John McCain, by demonstration, showed us that he really does not care about “straight talk” or putting his “Country First”, nor does he seem to put much stake in experience or foreign policy by choosing a person who has virtually no experience in politics, especially foreign policy! He has put abortion and evangelical values above keeping our nation safe, should something happen to him. He has put party politics above his new, fake message of change and it’s sickening to watch. He used to abhor torture, and for very good, personal reasons. Then he voted with Bush to condone it. I wasn’t going to vote for him anyway, but at least I respected him. Now, I’m sure he does not deserve my respect.

Andrew Sullivan is a Republican I admire and respect. He speaks as a conservative gay man and until a few days ago, supported McCain despite the Republican’s stance on his own right to marry.

Here a recent column of his at theatlantic.com, which echoes my feelings from a more conservative perspective. I hope Joel and other true conservatives will take a step back and consider this race a bit more broadly:

Yes, McCain made a decision that revealed many appalling things about him. In the end, his final concern is not national security. No one who cares about national security would pick as vice-president someone who knows nothing about it as his replacement. No one who cares about this country’s safety would gamble the security of the world on a total unknown because she polled well with the Christianist base. No person who truly believed that the surge was integral to this country’s national security would pick as his veep candidate a woman who, so far as we can tell anything, opposed it at the time.

McCain has demonstrated in the last two months that he does not have the character to be president of the United States. And that is why it is more important than ever to ensure that Barack Obama is the next president. The alternative is now unthinkable. And McCain – no one else – has proved it.

I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

justin

We have a race!! For the first time since this race began, McCain is leading Obama in every major poll. In the six key battleground states, the two candidates take three states each. In the electoral vote count, Obama is still a little ahead. This is the definition of close. It will be interesting to see how these numbers change over the next several weeks. But right now, it is clear that the Republican National Convention, including the acceptance speeches of Palin and McCain, gave the GOP ticket a much needed boost. I account this to the unifying force of the Palin pick. The Republican party is finally united! I expect that the Palin record will continue to be scrutinized by Democrats and the media in an attempt to bring this boost back down. When’s the first debate?
–Joel

It inspires me that we can celebrate our differences of opinion in the most public of ways- through our parties conventions.  It seems that everytime I watch a convention, I get emotional about our amazing country that promotes free speech and has active discussions about our future.  In my opinion, after last night, with Sarah Palin’s acceptance speech for vice president, a shift in momentum was completed- a shift that began last Friday.  Please take the time to listen to this audio podcast on my thoughts of the conventions and the Republican rally.

–Joel
Conventions and the Shift of Momentum

Last Saturday, Rick Warren, pastor of the megachurch, Saddleback, held a conversational forum between the two presidential candidates, John McCain and Barrack Obama.  By now, this event is practically old news with the announcement of Joseph Biden as Obama’s running mate yesterday.  But, what a great event the Saddleback forum was in American politics!  I was partial to this forum because it’s intent was very similar to the intent of this website, that is to have civil discussions on the hot topics and great issues of the day.  It’s okay to disagree, but lets do it civilly, like adults, and resist the heavy temptation to get emotional.  I admire the courage of Barrack Obama to appear before a venue that was likely a little out of his comfort zone (I imagine John McCain agreeing to meet at an ACLU venue would be equally discomforting).  However, tactfully and confidently stating your positions, even if they disagree with the audience, is the mark of a good leader.  What this event exposed was not only the difference between the two candidates’ views on major issues, but also the degree of confidence with which they each held their convictions.  Senator Obama’s answers were more nuanced and less precise – and thus came across as less confident – than McCain’s succinct and clear responses.  In case you missed the event, check it out at cnn, or youtube.  

The specific responses I want to draw attention to come from three of Rick Warren’s questions:  

1.  “At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?”

2.  “Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it, or do we defeat it?”

3.  “Define rich?” 

Obama answered the first question with the now infamous, “…above my paygrade” comment.  This answer is telling in that it indicates Obama’s willingness to recuse himself of making a moral/ethical decision by giving that responsibility to a higher power.  Thus, he comes across as not confident in his own moral/ethical judgment on the issue.  If this is true, why then does Obama support legislation that seeks to ‘play god’ with the unborn when the moral/ethical issue is admittedly not his to decide?  The audience heard this lack of conviction on the abortion issue loud and clear.  In contrast, John McCain answered with “at conception”.  Fortunately for McCain, he has a voting record to back up a strong pro-life position, which is sure to sit well with social conservatives who up to this point have not been sure on his stance.  I know that for me, McCain’s position made me more comfortable with him as a candidate; his views on the rights of the unborn are compatible with mine.  

Obama made another comment in his response that further exposes his positional dilemma.  He indicated that he would have voted for an Illinois-state ban on partial birth abortion if it contained similar language as a federal bill, presumably to protect the health of the mother.  John McCain went after this response in his most recent radio address:  ”At Saddleback, he [Obama] assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Even though the language of both the state and federal bills was identical, Senator Obama said people were, quote, “lying” about his record. When that record was later produced, he dropped the subject but didn’t withdraw the slander. And now even Senator Obama’s campaign has conceded that his claims and accusations were false.”  In my view, this vote against a state ban on partial birth abortion is indicative of his moral position on the rights of the unborn, or in this case, the ‘partial’ born.  So he takes a moral and ethical position in his voting record but recuses himself of that responsibility when answering a direct question. 

Obama’s answer to the second question above, “Does evil exist…” is also telling.  In his answer, Obama stated that we should confront evil “…with humility”.  I understand where Obama was heading with his answer and though it didn’t indicate a lack of conviction, it indicated a degree of ignorance.  He was trying to promote the concept that evil often comes from us as much as from others and that we don’t have to look very far to find it.  The famous Bible verse from Luke 6:41 is representative of this thinking, “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”  Interestingly, Bush has quoted this scripture several times throughout the years in interviews and press conferences.  In this sense, I understand where Obama was coming from and agree with him.  But, when contrasting this answer with McCain’s “Defeat it!” we see a difference in approach.  One of my biggest concerns is that Obama’s approach to evil will leave him paralyzed in dealing with large national security threats like radical extremism and Russian, North Korean, and Iranian aggression.  Humility can paralyze if allowed to be the dominant factor in international relations.  As an Iraq War veteran, I have seen evil first hand and completely agree with McCain’s succinct response.  Though we do see evil here at home, in our streets, we do not have much of a conception of the evil that exists elsewhere.  Radical extremism is evil and cannot be handled with humility no matter how good the intentions.  We must defeat it.  I would have preferred Obama to answer the same way as McCain.

Obama’s answer to the rich question also exposes the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans on taxes.  In his response, Obama stated that he wanted to make the income tax code “more fair” by adjusting the percentage of the various income brackets.  But confidence and conviction in an arbitrary system, like the progressive tax code, contains a fundamental credibility problem.  What is fair?  Why is one arbitrary number more fair than another?  Is it fair that the top 50% of income earners pay 97% of the income taxes?  Or that the top 5% pay 60%?  Or that the top 1% pay 40%?  These figures come from the recent press release from the US Department of Treasury along with this quote: “The individual income tax is highly progressive.”  I’ll admit that these statistics would be stronger if they included the demographic information on what percentage of workers make up the brackets of income earners (ie what percentage of workers make up the top 50%, etc).  But, why is it fair that the more money you make, the higher the percentage of your income goes to taxes?  This arbitrary progressive system makes it more difficult to defend with conviction.  To me, the only two ways to achieve an AGREED upon “fair” system is through a flat tax, as promoted by presidential candidate, Steve Forbes in 1996 and 2000, or the “Fair Tax” as advocated in the books of the same name (see our previous posts on the Fair Tax).  How is changing the arbitrary progressive tax any solution to perceived fairness?

For the above reasons, I am more comfortable in supporting John McCain for president.  Though I have been skeptical of his middle of the road centrism, I believe he is correct on the issues that matter most to me: abortion, national security, and taxes.  In the interest of full disclosure I’ve been impressed with Obama’s momentum and charisma to date.  He does have a unique gift to inspire those around him.  He’s even inspired me.  But talk is cheap.  And inspiration without conviction and substance is cheaper.  The Saddleback forum brought out a side of him that is not often seen, a side that is less confident and charismatic in his positions.  I’m very interested to see how the future debates play out when the candidates actually go head to head.  I can’t wait!!

–Joel

We are quickly moving toward another election in which both candidates strive to move center, and in some cases, cross the aisle in order to secure votes from the undecided.  This fact can be seen in the flip flops of both candidates in the last year.  This is an interesting phenomenon of American politics.  It’s tough to win a primary without appealing to the parties base which sometimes fall further out on the political spectrum – as was the case with Obama.  Interestingly, McCain won the primary without appealing to the base of the party.  Whereas, after the primaries, McCain found himself quickly having to appeal to the more conservative elements within his party, Obama decidedly shifted center.  These moves have created confusion amongst Democrats and Republicans.  Is McCain the maverick who tells it like it is regardless of how it comes across to his conservative friends, or is he the Bush Tax Cut championing, offshore oil drilling, 100 years in Iraq conservative?  In his case it seems to be politics as usual.

Is Obama the no-offshore drilling, no strategic reserve, talk to everybody populist, or is he the offshore drilling, strategic reserve sipping, temper talk with substance centrist ?

This move towards populism is seen in both candidates most recently in their energy policies.

Will the real candidates please stand up!

–Joel

If one of the things you’re looking for in a Commander-in-Cheif is someone who can think on their feet and for themselves, look no further than Barack Obama. He’s quickly demonstrating to the world that he’s got his S**T together on foreign policy. You may disagree with some of the things that he says, but you can’t dispute that he is much more well received by the world and has much better grasp of the problems and possible solutions than McCain or Bush ever did or will. Well I guess you *can* dispute that but it’s an argument I think you’ll lose, just read this article from the non-neutral viewpoint of the Jerusalem Post about Obama’s conciliatory rhetoric about Israeli/Palestinian relations… especially this part in the beginning :

President George W. Bush… was accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advisers and spokespeople during a 40-minute interview with this writer and three other Israeli journalists.

John McCain… looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction.

Barack Obama… spoke to The Jerusalem Post with only a single aide in his King David Hotel room, and that aide’s sole contribution to the conversation was to suggest that the candidate and I switch seats so that our photographer would get better lighting for his pictures.

oh, and I just had to throw a few quotes from the above linked article from the Chicago Tribune about Obama’s overseas trip:

The Berlin speech and the excitement over Obama in Europe serve as potent reminders that his biography and personal qualities also can be assets in international affairs, potentially enhancing America ability’s make its case to the world. And, as Obama often argues, the capacity to summon international support can both multiply U.S. power to confront challenges such as terrorism and reduce the burden that must be shouldered by American taxpayers.

and this…

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who probably owes more to President George W. Bush than any foreign leader, offered an endorsement of sorts. On the eve of Obama’s arrival, Maliki publicly backed a timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq with a time frame similar to Obama’s plan for a redeployment. Maliki’s action, responding to domestic political pressure from a public impatient with the U.S. occupation, undercut criticism of Obama’s plan from McCain and the Bush administration.

Perhaps the wisest thing my dad ever said to me was that “the best camera is the one you have with you”. Well, now that I’m a ripe old 30 I can finally say that he is right! That’s why everyone should have a certain phone camera doohicky.

Besides that, though. I think his second best advice was not truly recognized for its genius, especially at the time. He sent a mass email to all of his friends, which he never does, espousing the virtues of tap water and the evils of bottled water. Now there are many news stories and bloggers everywhere ranting about the waste and non-necessity of our obsession with water in a bottle. Some cities are even heavily discouraging bottles for use in the government buildings.

I found his email from back in 2004 and have pasted it below. Enjoy!
(btw, it took just two words: “fred” and “water” for the message to pop to the top of the list of old email. awesome)

Here it is, unedited:

Hi Everyone,

If you are like me, you have overdosed on politics, so here is a little tidbit that impacts your planet and your daily life that you may not have given much thought.

If you accept the “general wisdom”(whatever that is), you would expect that bottled water is more healthy than the free kind you can get from your tap. DON’T BELIEVE IT!!!!!

Here are five reasons you should eschew bottled water except in cases where portability is an issue:

1) It is incredibly expensive. More than gasoline. More than beer. More than cheap wine. What are you buying? As you can imagine, the water itself is virtually free, so you are essentially paying for marketing, packaging and transportation. It takes gasoline to haul around that water to the store you buy it from, and every additional gallon of gas we use just puts more money into the hands of our “friends” in the Middle East;u you know, the ones who want to destroy us.

2) You don’t know what is in it. Unlike municipal water systems, there are no standards for bottled water in the US. That’s amazing but true. The standards for tap water across the country are very strict and the water is tested daily. When is the last time you heard about a water borne outbreak of anything in this country? Don’t remember? That’s because they are very rare indeed.

3) Every plastic bottle you use is waste. True, some of it is recycled, but much is not and even the recycled variety is not an efficient use of our planets resources.

4) Most bottled water is not fluoridated. This is not much of an issue for older people, but children should have fluorine in their water to help prevent tooth decay. They don’t get it from bottled water, but they do from tap water.

5) Even if you think you are drinking only bottled water, you are not. Every time you get a drink with ice or coffee at a restaurant, you are drinking tap water. Don’t worry. It’s safer than the stuff you are paying for.

Still not convinced? In an article from the Nov 2 Wall Street Journal titled: Bottled Water isn’t Always Pure, a study of bottled water shows that many types have levels of bacteria and fungi much higher than those of municipal water supplies. Next time you are ready to pick up that box of bottled water, put it back and spend the money on something that has some real value, or give it to your favorite charity.

Regards,

Fred Bradshaw

This article is from the most recent issue of the Sierra Club newsletter…. so maybe my dad is an environmentalist after all!

Thanks, pop, for the good advice!

Critics like to judge an opposing party’s administration based on 20/20 hindsight and wishful thinking.  As the below article helps us remember, the invasion of Iraq was not only a necessity, it was inevitable.  The path toward invasion began in 1998 and gained a newfound immediacy after 9/11.  The author makes an intriguing case that had we not invaded in 2003, Bush would likely have been a one term president and a democratic administration would have completed the task under John Kerry or Al Gore- such was the bipartisan support for invasion before the war and the nature of american political opportunism.   And not surprisingly in this scenario, Republicans would likely have been the critics and naysayers of an “unjustified war.”  What an interesting “what if” historical scenario to ponder.  

 I’m interested to hear Obama back up his assertion of an “unjustified war” by offering what he thought may have been a better solution to the problem of Saddam Hussein.  Does he think that containment was still possible given the pattern of behavior in Saddam’s Iraq?  The containment of Iraq in the 1990′s was a complete failure.  The Oil For Food scandal guaranteed that the UN would never go beyond writing a nasty letter and issuing “paper tiger” sanctions.  The Oil For Food scandal also guaranteed that a large allied coalition was impossible with countries like France declaring “nothing justifies war”.  But instead of remembering how the state of affairs were from 1998 to 2003, we like to forget and cry foul after finding out once and for all what Saddam was and was not capable of (keep in mind this was only possible through invasion).  Had we not invaded, Saddam could still be in power, could be just as secretive and crazy as before, and the stakes would be that much higher after 5 years of continued containment and indecision while not verifying his capabilities.   

We can see today how well diplomacy is working with Iran who still refuses to give up any of it’s civilian or military uranium enrichment projects after our “historic meeting” in Geneva.   

 I welcome your witty and supported comments. 

–Joel

Why Iraq Was Inevitable

A great point was brought up in an article I found on RealClearPolitics.com.  It speaks of where we’d be today if Obama had his way with an earlier plan on troop withdrawal from Iraq.

  ”Obama first introduced legislation for a fixed withdrawal plan on January 30, 2007. According to that plan, all combat brigades would have been out of Iraq by March 31, 2008; that’s 14 months–more or less the same time frame he proposes now. He would have been wrong. Iraq would have seen chaos, not calm and not political reconciliation. That plan would have ensured a monumental historic defeat for the U.S. and a civilian slaughter of biblical proportions in Iraq.”  

–Joel

  Maliki Proves Timetable’s Distortions

Or is that Psychiatry? Either way, McCain, Graham and even Bush are trying to present the idea that the problems with the economy are psychological!

Even though there could be a component of negative thinking bringing down consumer spending, etc etc… for these guys to come out and try to use that as an argument that our economy isn’t doing so bad is the worst kind of delusion: the kind that will get us even deeper in trouble.

I heard a great quote today from Al Gore in his recent speech on energy independence:

“We are borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Middle East and burning that oil in ways that harm the Earth”.

Pretty true if you ask me. Here’s the video for your viewing pleasure of McCain’s delusion:

Iraq is doing well!  Let’s not squander our success by doing something rash and pulling out prematurely.  I know you’ve heard it all before but linked is a great WSJ Opinion piece http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121617045543756423.html that discusses the current situation in Iraq.  It directly contradicts many liberal talking points.  For example:

“All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all of the legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. More important, it is gaining wider legitimacy among the population. The attention of Iraqis across the country is focused on the upcoming provincial elections, which will be a pivotal moment in Iraq’s development.” 

As for the civil war… 

“…there have been virtually no sectarian killings recorded for the past 10 weeks. Violence is still perpetrated by organized groups, but AQI, the remnant Sunni insurgents and Shiite fighters are now focused on attacking their own members who have defected to our side. This is a measure of their weakness. The Iraqi population is increasingly mobilizing against the perpetrators of violence, flooding American and Iraqi forces with tips about the locations of weapons caches and key militant leaders – Sunnis turning in Sunnis and Shia turning in Shia.” 

This sounds to me like the general population taking our side against the insurgency, which I had already seen signs of back in 2006 when I was there. What better indicator of our inevitable victory in this counter-insurgency war?  So much for the mess in Iraq that many on the left will have you believe.  Do you hear any left-minded individual in the media acknowledge this progress?  Nope.  Recognizing this success would mean admitting that perhaps we can accomplish our original goal of having a working democracy in the middle east.  And that accomplishment would be disastrous for Bush-haters everywhere.  Thus, as Rush Limbaugh likes to mention,  many on the left are invested in failure and would rather see us leave Iraq with our tail between our legs than even acknowledge that progress has been made and that hope for a successful Iraqi democracy remains.  God forbid that in the next few years improvements in the quality of life of Iraqis transcends their quality of life under Saddam under a new democracy.  Why that would mean we accomplished what we set out to do in 2003.  Since the liberal talking point is that what we set out to do is not accomplishable, this result must be avoided and not acknowledged even in the face of reality.  Perception still defines their reality.  And so, now it’s a race.  Can the left agenda pull us out of Iraq before success becomes complete?  Only time will tell.

–Joel

Since you guys seemed to like the xtreme biking nature video, I thought I’d share this one of a glider/skier thing (which I’d never heard of until now) going down a mountain… It’s wild:

I’m posting a lot lately. Guess I’m getting excited for the upcoming day when Bush is no longer our president. Here is another reason why McCain won’t replace him:

I’ve heard the right wing attack Al Gore as a hypocrite because of his big, energy guzzling house since “An Inconvenient Truth” came out, and have to admit I was a little nonplussed that he used so much energy.

Then when I got another Newsmax “expose” about Gore’s energy use INCREASE, I thought I should investigate a little for my own edification. A quick trip to Digg (which showed the 10-day old article to have only 3 diggs) allowed a commenter to reveal that it’s not only obsessive, but inaccurate.

It makes me wonder how non-factual most of the stuff on Newsmax is… but I don’t have the time or energy to find out. As for Gore’s energy consumption, It’s gone down by 40% since he installed many energy saving features into his old house… AND he buys only green power from the grid. Meaning he is consuming only clean and renewable power which doesn’t seem very hypocritical to me.

It’s really time to put this sham debate to rest. Global Warming is real. It’s serious… and it’s something humans need to do something about!

Yesterday we got a new report from hundreds of media outlets that the North Pole could be completely melted by the end of this summer!

Serious people need to turn their discussions away from “Is it real?” and “Is it our fault?” To “What can we do about it NOW?”

An excerpt from the CNN article:

“If you talked to me or other scientists just a few years ago, we were saying that we might lose all or most of the summer sea ice cover by anywhere from 2050 to 2100,” Serreze said. “Then, recently, we kind of revised those estimates, maybe as early as 2030. Now, there’s people out there saying it might be even before that. So, things are happening pretty quick up there.”

Serreze said those who suggest that the Arctic meltdown is just part of a historic cycle are wrong.

“It’s not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well,” he said. “We’ve known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it’s the Arctic where we’d see the first signs of global warming.

“It’s a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so,” he said.

justin

Newsmax is a right wing magazine. I subscribe to its newsletter to keep abreast of what they are saying. even though I don’t agree with them, I try to stay informed just in case they make a good point. Sometimes I groan, sometimes I laugh, and sometimes I go “hmmm”. But the article I just read on that site is downright crazy! Whoever this guy Kenneth R. Timmerman guy is, he should be muzzled.

This is the crap that comes in their emails!

Seriously?

Breaking from Newsmax.com

Israel Attack on Iran ‘Unavoidable’, Olmert Deputy

Special: 6 Days of Hell: the Coming War with Iran

Important: Homeland Security has advised every family to have an emergency radio — and one not dependent on electric outlet power. Please check out our free offer for one of the best emergency radios available — Go Here Now

Special: The Coming Obama Stock Market Crash

In a Time Magazine blog this week, (isn’t it great that mainstream press is trumpeting blogs now?) Joe Klein praises Petraeus for his tactics and adaptability that made the surge successful, but makes a great point about the entire premise of this war: It’s stupid. Somehow the neo-conservatives who started this war believe that we can just inject Democracy into a country and region that doesn’t want it. It’s this kind of arrogance that has gotten us into this mess and continues to undermine the legitimate war in Afghanistan against Al-Quaeda. Period.

We need to “cut and turn” our troops over to Afghanistan where they are badly needed to win the war on terrorism that we thought we were fighting in the beginning!

justin

I found myself taken by this analysis of Republicans on Grist.

I think it makes many true points about the nature of “conservatism” and why many conservatives use that belief structure to discount the idea of global climate change. It has that darn word “change” in it, just like Obama’s campaign.

Let’s hope we have more of Obama’s type of change in the next 10 years that the climate type of change!

justin

Stop the presses everyone… I just read an essay by Pat Buchanon that I liked! Yeah, he’s usually crazy and bible thumping and I laugh at him… but this one, which came into my email inbox through a conservative list I subscribe to (yes, I subscribe to Human Events and NewsMax to keep up with the right wing!) caught my attention. It starts out about Bush’s relevancy and ends with a truthful observation about the apparent results of the Bush foreign policy: BAD.

Check it out, you’ll be surprised, I was:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26753

America remains the first economic and military power on earth. But after seven years of Bush, we no longer inspire the awe or hopes we once did. We are no longer the world hegemonic power of the neocons’ depiction. And the reason is that Bush embraced their utopian ideology of democratic empire and listened to their siren’s call to be the Churchill of his age.

justin

Wow. I just finished watching this moving photo-documentary of veteran Marine James Blake Miller (who wrote the music used in the video) and it is stunning and revealing to me how much he has gone through. The guilt and shame associated with shooting and killing other people must be overwhelming.

Check this video out. War is not pretty. Even when it’s over.

justin

We’ve known about FOX news for a long time… their conservative slant and their guise of being “fair and balanced”. Many people have exposed this over the years as a counter-argument to the idea that the media is liberal.
Never before (to my knowledge) though, have military analysts been suspect in the same way… and not just on FOX. Senior military guys who get paid as “analysts” from all the major news networks and given high level access to the pentagon are lying to the American public to keep their jobs and their access… and that’s the plan by the administration!
Here is an excerpt from a NY Times article… and though you can claim that the NY Times is liberal, you can’t say they don’t have high journalistic standards of accuracy and fairness…

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

To me, this is an outrage piled upon us by the administration that has forced a dumb war down our throats and then lied to us about it OVER and OVER in seemingly every way possible.

I guess the only thing we can do about it is elect a new administration that will run the Pentagon differently!

Is Love a Choice?

I recently told someone that love is a choice.  C.S. Lewis was asked by a friend once, “Is it easy to love God?”  He responded, “It is easy to those who do it.”  This response, by one of the greatest layman apologists of all time, illustrates the personal choice of love in our relationship to God.  If we choose to love God, then the act of loving God becomes easy.  If this is true of our love for God, surely it is true of our love for others.  Yet, the Doctrine of Election has led me to reevaluate this underlying assumption. Why is it that love is sometimes easy and sometimes really, really hard?  Is this fact a reflection on the heart of an individual or could it be that love is not just a choice but also something else?  Could there be some hidden duality in love that transcends our comprehension? Asking this question made me think about our conceptions of love and how much control we really have over it.  In the end, my exploration of this concept led me full circle.

In today’s world the meaning of love has in many ways lost its value.  Its definition changes depending on the person you ask.  Couples debate the difference between loving each other and “being in love” implying that one has a higher meaning.  We use phrases like, “I loved that movie” or “I love ice cream” when really we mean that we have a fondness for a particular thing.  We confuse love with infatuation, which, similar to love, can cause blindness.  As a result, the verb and noun forms of love have increasingly been used to describe reactions rather than decisions.  I believe this is true in many dating relationships today – it describes a reaction TO a person rather than a decision FOR a person.  I believe that the purest definition of love is the act of putting the other person’s happiness ahead of your own.  To do this, the person must be prepared to sacrifice his or her own happiness, and in that sacrifice, find true happiness.  I believe that this is something one must consciously choose to do.  The decision to love is the hardest part of love.  But once the decision is made, as the Lewis quote exposes, the decision becomes easy and even effortless.  Therefore, I believe that not loving someone is also a choice and sometimes the easiest thing to do in order to preserve our individuality and sense of purpose and not sacrifice our own happiness.

What I have struggled with recently is the notion that choosing not to love someone is an inherently selfish choice.  Timothy Keller says, “A love relationship limits your personal options…Human beings are most free and alive in relationships of love.  We only become ourselves in love, and yet healthy love relationships involve mutual, unselfish service, a mutual loss of independence.”  Therefore, choosing to not love allows someone to remain independent and continue pursuing his or her own individual way.  Keller goes on to say, “It can’t be just one way.  Both sides must say to the other, ‘I will adjust to you.  I will change for you.  I’ll serve you even though it means a sacrifice for me.’  If only one party does all the sacrificing and giving, and the other does all the ordering and taking, the relationship will be exploitative and will oppress and distort the lives of both people.”

Today’s young generation is on average getting married much later in life than when their parents were married.  I believe one of the reasons for this trend is the desire of many to remain independent for a longer period before they sacrifice their independence for a marriage.  If love means losing independence (and not at the same time becoming “most free and alive” as Keller notes), then the choice to not love, or resist love, is the easier choice.  Sacrifice and less independence go against the individualism prevalent in today’s thinking.  But, as we know from our love for Christ and His love for us, through love (and through the restrictions of love), we are set free.  Unfortunately, many lose sight of the freedom that is gained in the love of a marriage.  Instead of new dreams being dreamt, new possibilities being created, and new adventures being realized, there is a view that one has to sacrifice his or her identity and self-proclaimed purpose in life in order to make a marriage successful. How is this view not inherently selfish?  Are not two greater than one?  And three greater than two?  A person’s identity and purpose in life can be made complete and more fully realized in a marriage!  Both parties can have their cake and eat it too!!  But, the common view is that marriage is more like a prison or a compromise, with too many restrictions, rather  than the human relational representation of Christ’s sacrificial and freeing love for us.

Keller later quotes C.S. Lewis, “Love anything and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly broken.  If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal.  Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness.  But in that casket – safe, dark, motionless, airless – it will change.  It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable.  The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation.”  C.S. Lewis, in this quote, touches upon an interesting concept.  Could the very act of choosing not to love make it increasingly difficult to choose love in the future?  If someone has never risked a broken heart, how can they then expect to be truly selfless to another human being in this life?  Doesn’t selflessness require risk and sacrifice?  Does risk aversion to love, with little to no experience with self-sacrifice, lead to systemic and ingrained selfishness?

This sounds like a judgment, yes.  It is not meant to be.  Rather, it is my thought process that leads me to my next point.  Perhaps love is not just a choice, as I believe, and not just an unavoidable reaction or occurrence as much of our secular culture believes.  While the view that love is purely a choice puts all the responsibility of love on the individual, the view that love is something that “just happens” removes all responsibility.  Both of these views are perhaps incomplete.  Instead, love could be at the same time a choice AND an unavoidable occurrence.  In this way, the concept of love takes on the similar characteristic as the Doctrine of Election; you can have free will and election at the same time.  Thus, those who helplessly “fall in love” and those who choose love are both correct.  Right?

But this view also leaves something to be desired.  Doesn’t this duality make it easy to justify our love experiences from the standpoint of an unavoidable occurrence?  If love is in any way an unavoidable occurrence, don’t we also have a choice in how to respond to that occurrence?  If we helplessly “fall in love” with someone, isn’t that love only realized through the personal choice to act on that love?  Choice implies accountability, consequence, and risk, and therefore can be repugnant to modern audiences.  Those who divorce often justify their decisions by pointing to the unavoidable occurrence of “falling out of love”.  This is a choice to a perceived unavoidable occurrence.  The same phenomenon can occur at the beginning of a relationship as well.  Regardless of how love is analyzed, as purely a matter of choice, as purely a matter of unavoidable occurrence, or both, the need to choose, and act on that choice, is always present.  Therefore, I am led to conclude that love is still primarily a choice over and beyond an unavoidable occurrence.  Love can be easy, as in the case with family members, or it can be hard, as in the case with a stranger or enemy.  But I believe that the ability and proficiency to choose love is realized only through the practice of exercising that choice…regardless of the relationship.  This brings us back to the other insightful aspect of Lewis’s initial quote: “It is easy to those who do it.”  Love only becomes easy for those who choose to enter in.

I’m glad that SOMEBODY made this journey with a camera to let us in on this amazing place! It’s called makinodromo, the famous climbing sector of El Chorro.

Did I mention dangerous? Un, yeah, just a little…

You must listen to this speech. Press play and sit back and listen to every word. Martin Luther King Jr. speaks against Vietnam and with the eloquence, spiritual depth and gravitas of Barack Obama. In fact, MLK is impossible to top, but I can see where Obama gets it. Inspiration. You can’t buy it, make it, or fake it. You either have the ability to inspire people, as Dr. King did so famously (and you see why after you listen to this speech), or you don’t.

I think this is what this country needs right now. To hear this message, to be inspired and LED by someone. That hasn’t happened since Bush did it on 9/11… Seems like a long time ago now, right? We’re stumbling as a country right now… on many fronts like the dollar, the environment, the economy and health care. We need someone that can rally the entire country around a common cause. Like FDR, like JFK, like MLK, and like BHO.

And you know what? Jeremiah Wright, like it or not, is smack dab in the middle of this tradition that Obama finds himself a part of. Listen to this speech and you won’t easily forget that King and Wright are both men of god. Black leaders who perfect their craft from the pulpit, sometimes by angrily challenging the establishment. Obama presumably never gave a sermon, and I’ve never seen him angry, but he was heavily influenced by his church in Chicago and the black experience it represented. He kept his eyes and mind open to the many cultures, people, and governments that crossed his wavy life path.

I think Senator Obama will continue to keep an open mind (with those big ears), and that, my friends, is what will make him a great president.

… and when you’re done with that one, watch this Jan 21st speech Obama gave at Dr. King’s Church in my hometown… Atlanta!

Y’know when you’re mad at nothing in particular except injustice? There’s big injustices in this world all around us and we care about them… but it’s the little injustices that happen right in front of our eyes that make the biggest impact.

Take, for example, my recent visit to Target. 2 or 3 weeks ago I went to Target and bought lots of stuff including a long-awaited iron skillet. I bought the better, bigger, enameled one so my girlfriend could cook those chickens she wanted. Great, so I take it home and before I even take it out of the packaging I notice the upgrade: the enamel was badly cracked under the handle. No problem, I thought, I’ll just exchange it next time I go… well 2 weeks later it was beginning to annoy me in the back seat so I make a special trip to Target.

2 problems occurred: first, I didn’t have my receipt. I know that helps but I’ve really never had a problem with an unopened unused exchange without a receipt in any store I’ve ever been in. That wouldn’t have been a problem if I’d only used a credit card, then they could find the transaction in their enormous database of transactions. But I chose to pay cash. That still is legal, right?

So with no receipt and having paid cash, I wait in line for customer service and nicely explain that all I want is another skillet that isn’t defective. I don’t need a refund so why is this a problem? Something about their “system” and their “policies” and a $20 limit for items paid for with cash. (mine was $27) Somehow explaining to them that I only wanted an EXCHANGE didn’t help. They stuck to their buerocratic guns and so did the manager.

Now, this injustice really isn’t going to harm me too much. I’ll just live with a chipped and damaged skillet for the rest of its’ (very long) life. No huge deal, the food will taste the same. The problem is that the taste in my mouth for Target has soured badly. And not because they won’t make an exception for me… but because that is their policy and no one seems to be able to balance “policy” and “customer service”. I was going to spend at least $100 today in there! I never leave that store for less than that and I didn’t feel like shopping after having been shot down over something so, yes, stupid. I’m a little ashamed complaining about it but it’s not the skillet that I’m really concerned with. I already can’t shop at Wal-Mart, where am I supposed to get my cheap Chinese stuff? I liked Target because they seemed different. Now, sadly, at least to this lone shopper, they don’t.

Oh yeah, Wal-Mart is still worse… but now Taerget is just the lesser Evil.

justin

PS: I’m not exactly sure this fits into the political debates of this blog, but I’m sure the connection is there!

It’s the draft, stupid. We have a volunteer military (of which my Skull Session partner was in!) who is bearing a tremendously disproportionate share of the burden in this war. The taxpayers have not (yet) been asked to pay the $3 billion/week tab, soldier caskets are prohibited by the white house and not one leader of this country including the members of congress, have asked the american public to do ANYTHING differently with our lives! It’s no wonder we’ve “tuned it out”, as Frank Rich puts it…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/opinion/13rich.html

My feeling about this war hasn’t with the recent slowdown in violence. It is unpopular because it is misguided, even stupid, and the majority of the country has other things to worry about, like how they’re going to pay for their house or find a job… but if there was a draft… whoh boy baby you’d have a popular uprising even more fierce than in the 60′s. You’d see people finally voting their interests and standing up to speak out against the futility in injecting a western democracy into a complicated Muslim nation. Oh man, I’m done. Just the thought of it makes me all tingly inside… and that tingle ends abruptly when I think about a draft…

Can’t we find a better way out of that Mess-o-potamia?
justin

Many divisive issues in today’s world lack a nuanced approach in debate.  All too often, these issues are deliberately debated in black and white despite the inherent complexities and subtleties involved.  Take, for example, the global climate change debate.  On the right is the not-entirely unfounded fear that vast worldwide regulations to curtail global carbon dioxide emissions will create a decrease in the global standard of living by increasing unemployment and preventing developing countries from rising out of poverty.  On the left is the not-entirely unfounded fear that drastic changes today are necessary to prevent ecological catastrophe in the coming decades.  To the extremes on both sides, the environmentalist movement is seen as the safe haven for disillusioned socialists who need a front from which to operate and attack their old enemy, capitalism, or more appropriately, an ever increasing standard of living.  To the moderates on both sides, alternate energy planning seems like common sense approaches to curtailing an hypothesized human influence on global climate change.  

On both sides, there is a distinct lack of willingness to engage in debates on the science involved in the global climate change hypothesis.  Global warming alarmists resist academic responses to the accumulated climate data from geologists and ecologists that point to cyclical climate change as normal and inevitable.  Global warming deniers resist facing the data of computer models that consistently point to higher future temperatures.  

There is also a distinct lack of understanding of the implications of recent changes in more efficient living.  For example, some alternative energy “solutions”, like hydrogen fuel cells use more energy per unit in the long run than dinosaur juice.  Hybrid cars use several hundred pound batteries to augment the propulsion requirements and save in fuel efficiency.  As hybrid cars continue to increase on our roads, what are we to do with all these several hundred pound batteries as they reach the ends of their lives?  Advocates of alternative energy often champion other methods of energy accumulation like wind, solar, and water power.  Yet building damns, solar panels, and windmills require what?  Oil.  A lot of oil to come anywhere close to recouping the energy cost of development.  Additionally, as my friend in law school recently articulated, the water damns in the pacific northwest are coming under attack because of a changing ecology that affects the migration (and survival) of salmon.  Increases in nuclear power increases our need to dispose of spent fuel rods – another implication.  When farmers grow more corn than wheat in order to meet the perceived demand for bio-fuel, the prices of basic food goes up further exacerbating the challenge to poor people of buying food.  

The point is that any decision on energy policy will carry with it implications and journalists need to do a better job of discussing these implications with their audiences.  It seems all too easy, and common, to overlook these implications in favor of the black and white non-nuanced views of the opposing political philosophies.  As a result, it is easy to see that the public will be set up for a surprise when many of these implications begin to materialize.  If we are to have sound energy policy, we need to discuss these nuances in our dialogue.  We need to educate the American public and the global public of what implications will materialize with certain energy policy decisions.  The only recent article that I’ve seen that presents a fairly balanced look at energy development is this op-ed piece from the Wall Street Journal.  Hopefully, more journalists and policy makers will articulate the subtleties and complexities of this important debate.

From the Daily Show….. 

Joel here-

To continue the debate on global warming and the proposed legislation to curtail its effects, I submit the following lecture given by professor Bob Carter.  This is in response to the discussion that Justin and I had on a previous post about the candidates voting records on environmental bills in congress.  For me, the most important points in this lecture are found in part 4 with the conclusions – I particularly found conclusions 4 and 5 the most applicable.  I welcome articulate and thoughtful comments and counter-arguments on the data and conclusions in the lecture.

Conclusions found in part 4 

1.  The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong.

2. Climate has always changed, and always will.  There is nothing unusual about present-day rates of change.

3.  Atmospheric CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor the primary forcing agent for temperature change; rather, CO2 is a benefice for humankind.

4.  Attempting to stop climate change is an expensive act of utter futility.

5.  The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it – in both directions. 

Parts 1 through 4 are in order below.  Each section is about 10 minutes. 

For all those who still maintain that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, I think this Pentagon sponsored study of 600,000 Iraqi documents finally puts to rest this ludicrous debate.

My favorite part which supports my previous claims of clearly ambiguous intelligence on Iraq. I’ve always maintained that the Bush Administration cherry-picked the intelligence they wanted to use to support their case… (in my book, lies of omission this big count as lies… and in Rumsfeld’s case, the lies are flat out!)

The Bush administration claimed such a relationship to support its arguments for invading Iraq, though the U.S. intelligence community had conflicting evidence on the issue.

Moreover, it also confirms that Saddam saw Bin Laden as COMPETITION!

… so we just wiped out one of Osama’s biggest competitors. Awesome.

justin