Common Sense : An Independent's View

Closing down for good.

2004-09-15T22:25:00.000-04:00

As you may have noticed, no one has posted lately. The people who originally wanted this blog have decided that they do not have the time to do quite all the research. Most have either made up their minds or solidified their decision as to the November election.

So, in a few days time, I am afraid I will be deleting this blog. I, myself, have become addicted to political blogging and will likely break off cold turkey.

You're not a REAL American!

2004-09-10T01:17:00.000-04:00

I have been hearing alot of criticism from both sides about what it means to be an American. Usually it's in the context "that's because you are un-American!"

Personally, I think people don't know what it really means to be an American and I'll post my own views later. However ...
What would you define as patriotism?
What is American? (Alternatively, what is a REAL American)

And on a related note - what do you all think about this practice of letting foreign nationals serve in the military BEFORE they are citizens.

If you were a terrorist ...

2004-09-07T19:46:00.000-04:00

I hate to do this to you, but assume the distateful role of a terrorist. Rather than be irrational (or provide the irrational answer if you can) be logical and answer the laer questions.
As probably everyone knows, muslim extremists attacked spanish railways just before their general elections. Before the election, it seemed the party in power would easily win. However, an anti-war party won the elections. Some claim that the spanish were scared into voting an anti-war party by the attacks. Others claim they voted against the previous administration because it tried to hide the culprits of the attacks, instead blaming it falsely on the Basque separatists.

So, if you were a terrorist ...
Who would you rather see win the election Bush or Kerry? Why?
How would an attack on the U.S. reverberate in the U.S.? Would it make people vote against Bush or for Bush?
Would you make an attack to simply disrupt the process, possibly to force a delay in the elections and thereby make the point that democracy can be stalled if not stopped?
When would you make an attack? Would it matter if it were on American soil or is an embassy or such "good enough" (aagh, I can't believe I said that)?

October Suprise: Coincidence or Conspiracy?

2004-09-07T19:22:00.000-04:00

Recently, Joseph Cofer Black, the U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism stated that “What I tell people, I would be surprised but not necessarily shocked if we wake up tomorrow and he's been caught " The 'he' he referred to was none other than Osama bin Laden.

Some people (often called 'conspiracy nuts') believe that the army/administration will announce in October that Osama has been captured. The whole idea is that the capture would certainly catapult Bush in the election. They claim that the army/administration either knows where Osama is now or hasn't tried to get him until near the election.
While many of these people are dismissed, a pro-conservative journal The National Review, in July, reported that "the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden". (Though I won't register for the site...) My understanding is that the capture of an HVT (high-value target) was to be timed around the DNC. One can only assume, if true, that it would be to reduce DNC coverage. That was what happened;Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani was captured and it was reported during (or just after) the DNC.

What if Osama bin Laden is captured between now and the election? Would it be simply for political purposes? If he is captured, what would be the affect on the voter? Would it be a simple coincidence or a conspiracy?

May the Films be with you!

2004-09-03T15:52:00.000-04:00

Just to give something different than politics, let me ask the really important questions!
What are the best movies? The worst?
Later, will talk about actors/actresses.

KT says thanks

2004-09-03T15:51:00.000-04:00

KT wants to thank gecko and everybody for the posts about what is a liberal and what is a conservative. I think gecko did all her work for her! The next two posts will be from her.

Once a liberal always a Democrat?

2004-09-03T15:23:00.000-04:00

From KT:

I see why my Prof asked the question "have conservatives/liberals always been Republicans/Democrats"? It seems that the Republicans started out as liberals and the Democrats were conservative.
Conservatives believe in the status quo, state's rights, society over individual, and laissez-faire attitudes in economics.
Liberals believe in change, national union, protecting civil rights, and government regulation. When you look at these, I think it's clear that Lincoln, a Republican, was liberal. I mean he fought for change, keeping the union whole, and freed the slaves. The Democrats, at that time, wanted to maintain the staus quo, keep slaves, and favored the state over the nation.
I think the switch between the two began with Teddy Roosevelt. As a progressive, he wanted to regulate business, favored workers, and even seemed to want to reform civil rights. Rich Repbublicans didn't want this. So much so, that when Roosevelt ran for president again (after 4 years) they refused to nominate him.
The final turning point came because of the Great Depression. Republicans in power failed to prevent speculation and resulted in the Crash. Hoover favored letting the economy correct itself. Democrats, naturally, went the other way towards regulation and government spending to aid the needy. So we wound up with Democrats favoring regulation and civil rights in the 60s & 70s - liberal attitudes. The Republicans wanted to retain laissez-faire economics, isolationsim, and rejected radical change - conservative attitudes.

FYI: Divine Right of Kings

2004-09-03T15:18:00.000-04:00

Just FYI, from what I found the terms liberal and conservative come from the names applied to opposing groups on the topic of the Divine Right of Kings. Basically, DRK is the idea that a King is King by the Grace of God which means the kings power comes from God and that his descendants are also kings. Conservatives accepted this idea while liberals opposed it.

Who won the Battle of the Conventions?

2004-09-03T15:08:00.000-04:00

Now that we're back from convention watching, I will return to posting. However, many people are finding 'blogging' to be time consuming. So, for that reason, I will likely slow down the pace of questions (even though you won't be able to tell from today's posts). In addition, some people will likely not post as often as they would like (some have recommended that people respond only every other day).
So on to the new post ...
In your opinion, who do you think won the "Battle of the Conventions"?
I, personally, think that there is a difference between how the candidates peformed and how the convention did. IIRC, Bush 41 did fine in his speech but Buchanan's rant on morality made the 88/92 (?) convention a loser for the Republicans.

So how did the candidates do? How did the convention do/come across?
Were either sucessful?

Radical Campaign Finance Reform!

2004-08-30T00:42:00.000-04:00

The recent mudslinging from both sides and the obvious inter-correlation between campaigns and 527s has only reinforced my concept of radical campaign finance reform. I'm still fleshing out the concept so I ask for your help.

I find it amazing that the Republicans are so against the 527s when (and I cannot cite the proof) it was the Republicans who first began using them decades ago (a Conservative Christian organization). The charge at that time was that to silence these groups was a violation of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has largely ignored this constitutional violation for "the good of the people." I don't have a problem with 527s as long as they TELL THE TRUTH. (I personally believe that the media should investigate every political ad and report what is true and what isn't.)

So, since, IMO, contributions to a campaign and forming political organizations is protected under the constitution I have a different idea. Under my idea of reform, you can give anything you want and say anything you want but you have to accept the responsibilities of the actions.

Radical Campaign Finance Reform (currently only Presidential Elections):
1) Any individual or organization can contribute any amount.
2) All contributions are made to the Presidential Elections Commission. Contributions should be made indicating party preference.
3) For each dollar so contributed:
a) 10% shall go directly to the PEC for maintanence of the PEC (up to 20 million dollars).
b) 30% shall be directly sent to the party's presidential campaign.
c) 30% shall be proportioned equally to any party/campaign that has received
1. at least 5% of the national popular vote in the last campaign
2. was on the ballot in at least 26 of the states (plus D.C.) in the last campaign.
d) 30% shall be proportioned equally to all parties that meet the qualifications for balloting on
at least 26 of the states.
e) If no preference is given the remaining 90% shall be proportioned among those meeting c)
or d).
4) Initial financing of the PEC shall come from a one-time tax of $10 million dollars from the
Democrat and Republican parties. No federal money shall be used to subsidize the campaigns.
5) Any monies left over after election day will be counted against future elections if not
returned to the PEC.
6) Any individual wishing to run for President must declare a party affiliation and will be given a
sum of money as designated by the PEC for the purpose of meeting the requirements for
balloting for at least half the states. If they fail to meet the requirements by a designated
time they will receive no further monies until they meet the qualifications of 3d)
7) The PEC shall create a special court, the Presidential Court (PC), composed of 5 members as:
a) Nominees from the top 5 receipients of the national vote who met the balloting
qualifications in at least 26 of the states,
b) Lacking that requirement, the remainder shall be from
1. Those that met the balloting qualifications of at least 26 states, then
2. Those that received the highest vote totals but failed to meet the qualifications of at
least 26 states.
8) The PC shall be assigned the role as arbiters of fraud. They shall review any advertisement as requested by a campaign to determine if said advertisement was truthful or in aid of, or against, a campaign without being part of a campaign.
9) If a majority of the PC determines that an advertisement is inherently false then they shall determine which campaign(s) were aided, and harmed. From those aided they shall withdraw a sum equal to twice the cost of the advertisement. Said sum shall be placed in the account of those determed to be harmed.
10) If a majority of the PC determines that an advertisement was in aid of, or against, a campaign without being financed through the PEC then they shall withdraw from the campaign(s) which were aided a sum equal to four times the cost of the advertisement. Said sum shall be placed in the account of those determined to be harmed.

Whew, that was long! As you can see this reform addresses certain problems.
It will help to even out campaigns so that richer parties do not have an undue advantage.
It will allow for additional parties to have a voice in the elections.
It will help to prevent erroneous claims in advertisements.
It will insure that freedom of speech is not limited as long as the truth is given.

The chief problem I see is the politics that will wind up in the Presidential Court.
Here is an example of how money might be distributed.
Assume parties R & D are the major parties. Party X recieved 5% of the popular vote in the last election. Party Y recieved only 2% of the vote but was on the ballot in 30 states. Big Spender donates $100,000 earmarked for party D. That money would be divided up by:
%10,000 directly for the PEC.
Of the remaining 90K:
by 3b) Party R gets 30K.
by 3c) Parties R, D, and X each get 10K.
by 3d) Parties R, D, X and Y each get 7.5K.
Totals: R = 47.5K, D = 17.5K, X = 17.5K, Y=7.5K

Conservatives & Liberals: What are they?

2004-08-29T21:21:00.000-04:00

KT has asked this question to get our responses for a paper she has to write.
However, gecko beat me to the punch so please visit him at
gecko's page of musings and give your opinion!

Economics: Part II: Job Growth

2004-08-27T18:03:00.000-04:00

One of the most contentious issues in this election is job growth. Seemingly, this is a downer for George Bush since Bush is on track to be first president since Herbert Hoover to end his term with fewer jobs than when he started.

The statistics:
During the Bush term, job loss peaked at 2.6 million jobs lost.
Current job loss is at 1.2 million overall, 1.8 million in the private sector. Even with the (traditionally) high estimates of the incumbent administration, total job loss will likely be 400,000. If the latest trend (often referred to as stalled) continues the total job loss will likely be around 1 million.
Unemployment rate is at 5.5%. Republicans point out that at the end of Clinton's first term unemployment was the same. However, Dems point out that Clinton's first term was coming out of a Republican recession and that new adjustments to unemployment skew the actual numbers.
Overall recent data indicates that may be better quality jobs but that the overall pay (adjusted properly for inflation) has, in fact, decreased.

Why has America lost jobs? Is it the administration's fault? Is it the combination of the administration and Congress? Is it completely natural? Can anything be done? What proposals do the candidates have? Will they work?

Bush's Olympic Travesty

2004-08-26T23:17:00.000-04:00

All right, I will admit right here and now that this will be a non-partisan posting. I am that pissed.

The modern Olympics are supposed to be apolitical. That is why it was wrong, if not illegal, for an Iranian to refuse to compete against an Israeli because Iran doesn't recognize Israel.
Likewise, the Olympics are supposed to be apolitical here in the U.S. It is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY WRONG for George W. Bush to use the backdrop of the Olympics for political advantage. See ad here.

Before you get disagree, let's look at a couple of things. The Amateur Sports Act (Public Law 95-606) was adopted in 1978. This law was amended in 1998 to become the Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (OASA) a.k.a. the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act.

1) The act states " the corporation has the exclusive right to use— the words 'Olympic' ..." The use of the Olympics and the word 'Olympic' is a violation of sec. §220506. A legal defense, however, can be made, perhaps, for the Bush campaigns clear disregard of the law. BUT ...
2) Sec. §220507. Restrictions states:
"(b) POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.—The corporation shall be nonpolitical and may not promote the candidacy of an individual seeking public office. " While the U.S. Olympic Committe is not promoting the Bush campaign, the Bush campaign's usage of the Olympics as a backdrop to a political ad gives clear implication that it does. This is ILLEGAL!

Legality aside, it is morally and ethically wrong to use an international nonpolitical organization, especially without their consent, to promote a candidacy. In addition, the bulk, if not all, of the Iraqi atheletes disagree with Bush. Bush "approved this message" so he must be held responsible. The advertisement must go.

Damn you! Damn you all to Hell!

2004-08-26T01:01:00.000-04:00

Actually, it should be "Condem You! Condemn you all to hell!"
So today I take a break and I see Max Cleland in a political theatre that could be titled "the postman rings once." Basically Cleland and other vets, including ex-POW Sen. John McCain I believe, think the President should condemn the (IMO) mostly false and certainly slimy Swift Boat advertisements. (Bush' campaign knew he was coming and had an appropriate ambush, a vet who wanted to give a letter to Cleland.)
Bush has praised Kerry's military service, but has not specifically condemned the Swift ads. He condemns all 527 ads. When pressed, Bush responded he wanted to see a stop to "All of them. That means that ad, every other [527] ad"

Should Bush specifically condemn the Swift Boat ads? Should Kerry condemn all the 527 ads?

Bonus points to whoever is the first to tell me where the title of this post comes from.

Just the Facts, Ma'am

2004-08-26T00:53:00.000-04:00

In my ever wandering search for unbiased information I was pointed to
The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Univ. of Pennsylvania

Initial perusal SEEMS to indicate that they are fair and balanced and interested in only the truth:
"Moveon.org Voter Fund falsely attacks Bush, who comes back with a misleading ad about Kerry"
That is a perfect example of my initial impression. I am considering making links to this site and other non-partisan sites.
I would like to ask posters to review this site and tell us if they know anymore and then respond to those suggestions. The idea is that I will make links. Don't even bother giving us obviously partisan sites.

Kerry Beats Bush in Heuristical College!

2004-08-24T00:08:00.000-04:00

I don't really expect anyone to respond to this post, but ...
TheRadicalModerate says ...
I am a professional software engineer. As such, I easily get annoyed at crappy websites (though, as you can see, I'm too lazy to build my own so I use blogger.com's)
If the election were based solely on each candidates websites, then John Kerry wins hands down. In computer science we call this an heuristical evaluation. While I haven't done a full evaluation I will point out my professional opinion on errors in the sites.

John Kerry: You may not post on the blog unless you provide a valid email address. This does not allow anonymous posting. One of the first rules of website design is "Do not require registration until the user is ready to buy." While posting could be considered 'buying', I will not register because it makes it likely I will get spam out of it. Plus, my name will likely be placed on the rolls of 'Democrats'. Kerry has a 'leader' page; a page that you have to go through before you get to the meat of the site. This is intended to get you to register. Some professionals say you should have a leader page, others say not.

George Bush: Bush does not have a leader page and hits you right off with information. However, Bush's blog can not truly be called a blog because it is just a bunch of press clippings without any opportunity (that I can find) to comment. The big problem with the Bush site (and the real reason I'm posting this) is with their search engine. Most experienced surfers ignore provided links and search the site. This is a mistake on the Bush site because every time I've tried to search it gives you the default page (usually the home page). Last time though it opened up their latest attack ad on Kerry without my permission. Since it is very easy to crash if you try to stop it, it is what we call a "catastrophic failure"; a design error which causes system malfunctions and makes the website unaccessible. (I had to shut down my modem connection.)

So, IMNSHO, Kerry beats Bush.
If you do want to search the site, DO NOT do a keyword search of the home page. Instead, click on "Advanced Search" and go from there.
'Nuff said.

"USA, you got some 'splainan to do!"

2004-08-23T23:31:00.000-04:00

Ah, what do we do about Cuba?
I don't think it's that big of an issue in the election for most Americans but it certainly is for Floridians. For those of you who do not know, Florida has many Cuban-Americans. As such, both sides tend to pander to Cuban-Americans since we all know that Florida is the only state that matters!
Democrats have a harder time swaying Cuban-Americans because they are traditionally conservative. However, they can be swayed by any side that takes a hard line against Cuba. Most Americans probably don't care that much about human rights violations in Cuba but are concerned about Communism. The term is incorrectly applied; Cuba is probably the closest thing in the world to Socialism. Theorists believe that socialism MAY work, but it must be around for several generations before it takes hold. It is the long reign of Castro that scares Americans since we are approaching 'several generations' and it is scary to think socialism might actually work (ignoring, of course, the basic desire of man to suceed).

Bush's position on Cuba.
Kerry's position on Cuba. Bush rebuttal. Kerry rebuttal to Bush rebuttal.

Which man do you think has a better plan for Cuba? Does either have a clue? Are they just playing politics to get the Cuban vote? What do you think we should do? Why?

Why DID the chicken cross the road?

2004-08-23T23:28:00.000-04:00

I'm sure he meant it as a joke but our greek friend asked it, so its free time to be silly.

Untied Nations : Mission UNpossible?

2004-08-23T23:04:00.000-04:00

The charter of the United Nations states:

"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples"

Okay, I'm certain this is going to break down into a discussion about Iraq, but ...
Is the UN doing its job? Can it do its job? What should the UN be doing? What problems do you see with the UN itself?

BTW, interesting fact I came across. Ever wonder at the Bush administration's phrase "coalition of the willing"? It comes from the UN! Under the peacekeepers section, it says the UN recognizes the authority of regional organizations such as NATO, and of "coalitions of willing states." So I guess this is the administrations way of saying that the UN recognizes the legitimacy of the Iraq war.

What would you like to ask?

2004-08-22T23:17:00.000-04:00

Since I can't possibly know all the issues I would like to ask you if you have any questions that you would like to ask.
I ask that if someone does pose a question that no one respond. If the question is acceptable to this small band of independents I will post it. Likewise, once I see the question I will copy it, then delete it.
Unacceptable categories range from things like "Kerry and Botox" to "Bush and his dog". They simply have no value beyond negativity.

Liars, and the lying liars who lie

2004-08-22T13:49:00.000-04:00

Isn't that the title of a Franken book? I'm stealing it because it is apropos.

There is much talk about the Swift Boat ads and whether they are truthful. In response there have been claims about other 527 adds being untruthful.
I live in Virginia, supposedly a battleground state but I have not seen these ads. This may be because I generally don't watch the big 3 channels, but likely because I'm a channel surfer. The only time I see them is when they are on the news channels (though I have yet to see the anti-Bush ads even though the media is supposedly liberally biased).

Here are some of the ads:

Sellout (SVBT ad) : script version (if anyone can direct us to anymore, please do)
MoveOn.org ads : It's easier to direct you to their site since they have a bunch.
ACT (America Coming Together) (anti-Bush)

I personally don't know of others though I am sure they exist. Please post for our information (and to be fair, whichever side you are on please post the other side).

The question is, are these specific ads truthful? Ignoring questions about campaign finance, et. al., are these ads okay, that is, is it wrong for these organizations to present these ads? Is negativity okay? Do you feel that some, or all of the ads are actually being directed from on top (e.g. the Bush/Kerry campaigns)?

Upcoming Posts

2004-08-22T13:39:00.000-04:00

Economics, part two: Job Creation
Communing with Cubans (well, Cuban voters)
Nuke Iraq: Bush bombing vs. Kerry kapitulating
Are niggers ignorant?

Nuke Iraq: Bush bombing vs. Kerry kapitulating

2004-08-22T13:34:00.000-04:00

We can talk all we like about what we think we should do in Iraq, but what do the candidates say?

Rather than post a huge list of what they say I invite you to check it out for yourself.

John Kerry's plan : Don't miss the links on the bottom of the page. Note that Kerry says "NATO" and not the UN (I wonder why?)

George W. Bush's plan : His wonderfully informative website (yes, that's sarcasm, but its professional sarcasm) doesn't list a 'plan'. However, with a little work I was able to find two addresses 1) and 2).

If anyone can find more detailed plans or even a timetable, please post.

What do you think of their plans? Are they really saying anything, or just pandering to politics? Are the plans realistic, or fantasy?

Has anyone come across any other plans? Nader, Badnarik?

Nuke Iraq and let Allah sort it out

2004-08-20T08:20:00.000-04:00

It seems the consensus on this site is that regardless of one's views on entering into Iraq, we cannot abandon Iraq to more strife.

So, how do we 'fix' Iraq? Any ideas? What kind of time-table are we talking about? Do we need 'outside' help? More troops? Should we nuke Iraq and let Allah sort it out?

Thou shalt not have an abortion!

2004-08-20T06:51:00.000-04:00

I hated posting that title, because it's somewhat sacrilegious. The idea, of course, is to catch the attention of those wandering by.

In our continuing debate about life and abortions, the question has come up : What exactly does the bible say about abortions?

I have always been told that the bible bans abortions via "Thou shall not kill." (5th, or 6th commandment depending on who you talk to). However, this seemed too simplistic and too easy an answer.
The more accurate translation of Exodus 20:13 reads 'murder' not 'kill.' In the time of the writing, the two words were distinctly different things. Murder referred to unjustified killing. What was justified? War, executions, abortion, and exposing. Abortion, though difficult, was often practiced by drinking various poisons (hemlock, I believe). Exposing is my 'catch-all' word for the killing of live children; many unwanted babies were left on hiltops - 'exposed' to the elements. This was an accepted practice of the times for families that simply could not afford to have more children or if the child was deemed 'defective' (or sometimes 'demonic').

What else does the bible say? I leave that to you. Simply google "what does the bible say about abortion" and you will find many sites discussing it.

The question posed though is do you 'buy' the argument on either side? That is, whether you are/are not religious, IF you followed the bible do you feel certain interpretations are correct/incorrect?

P.S. Please note, this is not about women's rights, the 'humanity' implications, etc. simply the bible issue. If you rehash any non-relevant argument you face the risk of being deleted.

Should criminals be allowed to vote?

2004-08-20T06:35:00.000-04:00

Okay, so that was an inflammatory title.
The real question is:
Do you think people convicted of a felon should be allowed the right to vote?

Felony (via dictionary.com):
"One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary, punishable by a more stringent sentence than that given for a misdemeanor."

I had always thought that felons were not allowed to hold office, vote or carry guns. Recently, I found I was (yet again) wrong.
The Straight Dope (warning: may be a partisan site) tells us "The guiding case law currently is Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974). In that case, a majority of the Supreme Court found that the 14th Amendment gives the states clear permission to deny the vote to felons. "

The states (all being different) have differing views. In my native Virginia, I understand ex-felons are denied the right to vote or carry firearms forever. While I don't know if it is true, I understand that in the ever contentious state of Florida it is the decision of the governor whenever election time rolls around (stupid idea - purely politiical).

So, should people who have committed felonies be allowed to vote? In responding you may want to consider those a) in prison, b)on parole, c)on probation, and d)'rehabilitated' (for lack of a better word).

Iraq: Just or Just a Mistake?

2004-08-18T02:13:00.000-04:00

Despite the reason(s) you think we went in there, do you think being in Iraq is the right thing at this time?

Life begins ...

2004-08-18T01:34:00.000-04:00

This is a great question because it has many potential answers, sometimes the same answers from both sides.

When does life begin?
At conception?
At birth?

What do you think? Why?

THE Report: A Terror Czar?

2004-08-18T00:52:00.000-04:00

The 9/11 commission recommends* the establishment of a "national intelligence director" a.k.a. an anti-terror Czar. They contend that such a director would "oversee national intelligence centers [and] ... agencies that contribute to the national intelligence program". They further recommend (essentially) that the post be a cabinet position.
After first stating that no work would be done on the recommendations until next year, the Bush administration has now provided a proposal for such a post. Yet 2 commission members point out that "without the power to set budgets and hire and fire senior managers, the new intelligence czar will lack the clout to make major changes at the nation’s 15 spy agencies."

Is this the right move?
Is the Bush administration and Congress moving too fast, or too slow?
Does this put too much power in the hands of one man?
Is it necessary for the director to have the power over budgets and senior managers?

*Full Report (.pdf, 7MB) via CBS News
*Exec. Summary (.pdf, 344KB) via CBS News

Bush: Release your war records!

2004-08-17T23:59:00.000-04:00

Yes, I know Bush has 'released' his war records, but ...
Has he done so directly to the press?
Why are there many documents missing?

I would like to see an independent study done that determines the likelihood of records of that time period being lost. Unfortunately, from my understanding, that would require (900) vets to agree to the release.
In addition, I have yet to see any Bush records that disprove the AWOL/MIA/whatever charges. Can anyone point us to these records?

Kerry: Release your records!

2004-08-17T23:52:00.000-04:00

Okay, Republicans make many claims about Kerry's war service. Kerry denies the charges. Republicans return that Kerry could prove the charges if he released his official war records. (However, they want them released to Fox News - rrriiiggghhtt!)
However, their question is valid. Why doesn't Kerry release his official war records?
I am of the opinion that anyone running for public office should be required to release every damn thing there is.
Is there something in the records that Kerry doesn't want the public to see?

Why so few Bush blog comments?

2004-08-10T02:48:00.000-04:00

This is a peeve of mine.
I have searched high and low for blogs. My definition of a blog is that you post something and allow others to comment.
However, I seem to find many Bush blogs do not allow for comments (such as the official Bush blog) or make it hard to find. Why is this? I'm sure I know what Dems would say, but any conservatives out there wish to respond?

Terror Warnings : Political Maneuvering?

2004-08-10T01:38:00.000-04:00

Okay, I've been told to limit my introduction as I seem to point out everyone's arguments.

As everyone knows the feds have been raising and lowering the terrror warning status. Some democrats contend that the administration is doing this whenever Bush is in trouble, or when the Bush campaign wants to 'hi-jack' (my words) news coverage.

So, is the Bush administration using the terror warnings as political maneuvering? What proof do you have either way?

BTW, I personally feel it was wrong of Ridge to use a non-partisan platform to tout Bush.

Is Bush a liar?

2004-08-04T23:35:00.000-04:00

I can't seem to find out who, but I believe someone once said, "All politicians are natural born liars." Likewise, I thought there was a quote which went "an honest man could never be elected President."

Let's face it, we all lie. The "check is in the mail" isn't always true, nor does someone not look fat in that dress. Likewise, politicians lie. They make promises that they know may not be able to be met (G.H.W. Bush's "No new taxes") or statements that they need to make ("I did not sleep with that woman") Politicians, through necessity, are accomplished liars. What matters is the extent to which they lie, or rather the 'size' of the lie.

In that regards, Democrats contend that Bush is a liar. They point out the threefold lies of "WMDs", "links to Al Queda", and "supporting terrorism." They point to how the Bush administration changes the story on why we invaded Iraq. They point out to nearly uncountable cases where Bush has said something that was not true. They point to 'out and out' lies like his Medicare bill would only cost $400 billion when they knew it would be over $500 billion. Finally they claim that misrepresentations and outright lying is the strategy of the Republican party; in doing so they will confuse people from seeing the truth.

Republicans claim, after the requisite Kerry bashing, that Bush is not a liar. They say that the so-called war lies were not lies but faulty intelligence and that WMDs have not been found yet. They claim that Bush doesn't change his stories since he is strong in his convictions (e.g. a strong leader). Other so-termed lies, they claim, are merely mis-statements, or (as one told me) simple in-house (read "in political circles") exaggerations that do not harm the people. Finally, they contend that it is the Democrats who do the lying, in an effort to obscure Bush's many accomplishments.

While I accept most political lies as necessity, and can be convinced that some were simple mistakes, I, personally, cannot tolerate the outright lying which does harm to the public good. For example, one is with the medicare lie. While this may be part and parcel to politics, to me, it seems somewhat treasonous to the good of the American people.

So, if we accept that some lying is part of politics, and limit ourselves to those lies that do great harm to America, is Bush a liar? Why? What proof do you offer?

Kerry: Does he have any actual positions?

2004-08-04T22:33:00.000-04:00

I guess it is the 'disaffected' part of me that despises politicians in general. I am of the belief that politicians are more concerned about being in power than for the good of the people. As such, it seems to me that there are very few politicians who are actually strong in their convictions (e.g. Jimmy Carter, a great man but a great president? Well ...)
I am of the opinion that a politician chooses his party simply on the basis that they believe (or pretend to) in one or two of the party's ideals. If Bush was pro-choice do you think he'd be a Republican? Locked into one or two things they claim, they blithely go along with the other issues.
Take, for example, the wonderfully strong convictions of Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell. In 1993, he had lib vs. con ratings of 75 to 12. Then with the Republican takeover of Congress in 95, this stalwart champion of the Democratic party became a Republican. His 2001 lib/con ratings? 12 to 92. So much for conviction.
After this long ranting of an introduction, we turn to the issue at hand, namely does John Kerry have solid convictions or does he simply pander to the audience?

Republicans contend that Kerry 'flip-flops', that he claims a belief in one thing then turns around and claims the opposite. They point to such wonderfully thought out comments like "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" (that's a handler who should be shot at dawn!) Specifically they point to Kerry's vote against the '91 Gulf war, thence to his vote for the 'use of force' , then again to his vote against the $87 billion. Likewise, he is personally against abortion but is pro-choice. Likewise, he thinks gay marriage is wrong but will not support a constitutional amendment against it.

Democrats fire back that Kerry is strong in his convictions and that Bush does the flip-flops (a later post). They say that Democrats were told the vote for the 'use of force' was to be 1)a bluff against Hussein, and 2) a last resort and only with true international support. Likewise, they point to polls which say most Americans would prefer not to have an abortion but prefer to be given the choice. Likewise, they point out that most Americans are against gay marriage, but even more Americans are opposed to a constiutional amendment which limits freedoms, rather than strengthens them.

While Conservative propaganda, this charge of 'flip-flops' bothers me, as well as some of my fellow independents. For myself, I strongly supported the '91 war (did not WWII teach us that we must not allow unjust conquest?). On the other hand, I was equally strongly against the invasion of Iraq (force only as an absolutely last resort). Yet as an amateur military historian I know that once you are in the war, you must be IN the war - all guns blazing.

So, does Kerry 'flip-flop'? Does he have any strong convictions, or does he simply pander to his audience in an effort to be President? Why? What proof do you offer?

Does the media have a liberal bias?

2004-08-02T23:01:00.000-04:00

A charge that (evidently) has long existed is that the media has a liberal bias.
I personally have not noted this. However, I do not watch any of the network news, but watch CNN, MSNBC and Fox News (with the occasional PBS and BBC).

Republicans have told me, often, that the media has a clear liberal bias. Usually they point out some story or editorial about something a Dem said that can only be considered liberal by the omission of a conservative response (which usually follows later). Then, what's worse is it is usually followed by "If you can't see it ..." That, in turn, is usually followed by the liberal slur, or a shake of the head like I'm an idiot. I have yet to recieve a satisfactory answer and hope I will get one.

Democrats, after the seemingly requisite Fox-bashing, contend that for every so-called liberal report there is an equal or greater number of so-called conservative reports, but that most reports are non-biased either way. Further they point out research such as David Croteau at http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html which indicates that the media, in general, is either centrist or to the right of the general public on most issues. (I have yet to determine if his research is statistically valid).
They further point to the Pew Research Center report that compared Bush/Gore media stories in the last election and found that there were more pro-Bush stories than pro-Gore and less anti-Bush reports than anti-Gore.

So, does the media have a liberal bias? What proof do you offer?

P.S. Check out (for laughs) http://people-press.org/fit/ where the PRC will help you figure out "where you fit" (politically). I don't know if I should be insulted or pleased to find out I am a "disaffected independent".

Is Fox News Fair and Balanced?

2004-08-02T13:18:00.000-04:00

One of my, and other moderates, biggest problems with the conservatives is Fox News' self-appelation of being "fair and balanced." Having searched dozens of dictionaries, the most common definitions of these terms are:
'fair' - impartial
'balanced' - given equal weight

The explanation I have received from conservatives is that the media has a liberal bias. As such, Fox News 'balances' out the liberal media, giving a 'fair' report.

IMO, no reasonable person can say that Fox News is impartial, or that they give equal weight to both/all sides of an issue. Also, no reasonable person can ignore Fox News' constitutional right to be unfair and unbalanced. The problem we have is with their claim that they are 'fair and balanced.' I question if it is possible to believe anything from an organization which makes such obviously false statements.

So, is Fox News fair and balanced? Why? Why not?

Economics, part one: Unemployment

2004-07-31T01:14:00.000-04:00

Unemployment in the U.S. (1992 - present)
1992 7.5% 1993 6.9% 1994 6.1% 1995 5.6% 1996 5.4% 1997 4.9%
1998 4.5% 1999 4.2% 2000 4.0% 2001 4.7% 2002 5.8% 2003 6.0%
as of June 2004 5.6%

Republicans have pointed out the fact that the unemployment rates for Bush at this time (5.6%) parallel that of Clinton's before re-election (5.4%). Further, unemployment rates are decreasing. They point to this as a sign of economic recovery and that unemployment will continue to fall.

Democrats have pointed out that after Clinton's first term unemployment overall had fallen, while it has risen during Bush's first term. Further, they contend that the changes to how unemployment is measured give a false indication to actual unemployment rates, namely the idea that persons unemployed after a certain time are no longer counted. They indicate that under a Democrat unemployment will return to Clintonian levels.

Who would do a better job at fighting unemployment, Bush or Kerry? Why? What proof do you offer?

Who is winning the negativity war?

2004-07-31T00:46:00.000-04:00

I dread to ask this question. Negativity is, unfortunately, central to political campaigns and has always existed in all but one presidential election (Washington's first). The better a campaign can be negative without appearing mean can decide the election.
I submit what I recall of the Dukakis-Bush campaign. After the Dem convention, Dukakis had a large bump in the numbers. Shortly thereafter a high ranking advisor released something rather negative about Bush, the result being that the advisor was dismissed. Dukakis' numbers declined dramatically when Bush effectively used negative attacks (such as the 'liberal' appelation and the now-infamous tank ride). Floundering, Dukakis rehired the advisor who began to effectively counter the negative attacks and to press their own negative attacks. The result was that Dukakis' numbers increased, but far too late. Some contend that if the advisor had not been fired that the election may have gone the other way. (Which may give too much credit to a single advisor, not to mention Dukakis' own electability or lack thereof)

If negativity can be measured, then which campaign is more negative? In considering this, we must ignore extremists, such as Anne Coulter and Michael Moore, and concentrate on the majority of the people in the campaigns.

Bush v. Kerry: Who is more moderate?

2004-07-31T00:35:00.000-04:00

Moderate, as defined by dictionary.com, is "opposed to radical or extreme views or measures." That is as good a definition as I have ever heard. Unfortunately, in the political arena it is much harder to pin down. For example, my views tend to be either radically left or radically right, hence the term 'radical moderate'.
If we define moderate to mean most within the viewpoint of the majority of Americans, then who is more moderate: Bush or Kerry? Why? What proof do you offer?