Politics

The man is a jerk. I don't like him and I don't like his politics. I could write something here about the political expediency of such a choice. I could explain in detail why it might be part of a larger plan. In the end, though, it's the first thing that the man I spent 2 years trying to get elected asked me to do that was unpalatable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/washington/09nsa.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"Scared to not be in the majority", "still think they need to do whatever the president acts", "fear they will be considered soft on terrorism". WTF?

What country are the democratic leaders living in? I know I have a left skewed perception living in New York City, and all, but how many Americans out there want our Federal government to be able to spy on us? Show of hands? One, two, mumble-mumble, Cheney put your hand down.... yup, looks like 14, maybe fifteen, but you only have your hand halfway up, sir.

New plan. Instead of this elect-a-democratic-majority-and-expect-them-to-do-what-we-want strategy, why not just start over. I'm thinking we can replace our entire democratic elected official cadre in little less than ten years. How's that sound?

So, my man Mike Gravel has put out a new set of videos, Mike Gravel - Rock, and Mike Gravel - Fire. These are causing some stir but a lot of head-scratching too.

I think they're great. First, the 'anti-commercial' appeal of them. No one is spewing rhetoric, he's not just sitting their lying to the camera - its just clean and simple. Second what other candidate has the guts to do something like this. Third, What other candidat has even givin a nod toward the creative arts community.

Now I think we need to start the remixes.

So Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff comes out with these lovely jewels http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6360469.stm

"We know that the explosively formed projectiles are manufactured in Iran," Gen Pace said while visiting Australia.

"But I would not say by what I know that the Iranian government clearly knows or is complicit."

and furthermore

"What [the evidence] does say is that things made in Iran are being used in Iraq to kill coalition soldiers."

which, forgive me, seems to pretty well contradict this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6362307.stm

President Bush has insisted a branch of Iran's Revolutionary Guards is linked to some attacks on US troops in Iraq.

The US was "certain", he said, that the force was providing a weapon known as an EFP, which the US says has been used in particularly deadly attacks.

And for anyone tired of me being a BBC-pundit heres the NYTimes
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/world/middleeast/15prexy.html?hp&ex=11...

President Bush said Wednesday that he was certain that factions within the Iranian government had supplied Shiite militants in Iraq with deadly roadside bombs that had killed American troops.

So which is it?

Of note in this to me is that the military is publicly countering the administration. Thats the kind of thing that you lose your career over. You only draw that line when you know disaster is looming.

For anyone who doesn't know the Army has been enacting Stop-loss policies for a while now. Stop-loss isn't quite the last step before a draft, but in this scenario it might be. See, standard policy post stop loss, I believe (and if you know better please correct me) is to activate the reserves and National Guard. Problem is, we started with that maneuver, which was wrong, but as long as I can't change history I'm not up to debate that point.

We're stretched to our limits now; we've over-reached. Any thought of action in Iran is beyond folly.

I'm of the opinion that the Joint Chiefs of Staff know this.

This has been kicking around in my head for quite some time now. It was eating at me for roughly the first 8 months of last year and then I thought through it, and came to my own conclusions, and shelved these concepts, only to be brought out and dusted off during political rants and such.

Once upon a time I was in a discussion with a group of friends who were contending that 'the way things worked' had changed so much, particularly in the past 25-30 years such as to warrant a new set of progressive rules. Non-specific things like corporate power, exploitation of the 'little guy', and various other liberal soapboxes.