THE BIG A (messy and long in both form and content,be warned)

We as a country are facing a tremendous amount of challenges. The headlines during the past year have been dominated by health care, the economy, unemployment rates and a host of other things. The the Iraq war has significantly impacted the news cycle during the last eight years. But, there is one subject of prime importance that I feel has not gotten its due attention from the American press or the American people: the war in Afghanistan.

This is one of the biggest situations that President Obama has been stuck with. Having said that, there are some issues with how I think the President has handled this situation so far. To put it more directly, I think there is a high probability that Obama will “F” THIS UP.

Before I discuss my criticism of Mr. Obama, I feel it necessary to remind everyone that THIS IS GEORGE BUSH’S FREAKIN’ MISTAKE!!!!! On September 12, 2001 most of the world was on our side. Even people who are normally unsympathetic to America sympathized with our plight (or at the very least said they did). Most western societies recognized the danger of global terrorism and religious fanaticism. Most of the world was on our side. The response of the Bush administration to this action was to put 28,000 troops into Afghanistan. This seemed sensible to many because a lot of the organizational structure of the terrorist organization that attacked us was in Afghanistan. A year later we decide that a place that had nothing to do with al Qaeda or 9-11 was the next theater to wage the war on terror. The Bush administration decided that Iraq, not Afghanistan, was a place that we should commit 250,000 troops. WE PUT 10 TIMES AS MANY TROOPS IN THE PLACE THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!!!

At the same time, the Bush administration blew off the UN and most of its allies and fostered a “go it alone” mentality. To the rest of the world, this invasion was the final straw in a relationship with America that had already been strained. From all of this, several negative affects developed with regard to our situation in Afghanistan.

First, the invasion of Iraq diverted our focus away from Afghanistan. One could make the argument that if we put 10X as many troops in Afghanistan we would have increased our chances of finding Osama bin Laden. We would not have had to outsource efforts to catch Bin Laden to Afghan troops with less training and who may have been less loyal. I would contend that this diversion of resources into Iraq also effected the troop levels of our allies. If we would have committed close to 300,000 troops, our allies conceivably would have committed more. At the start of the Iraq invasion, 9,200 troops were committed by England. England also committed 45,000 troops to Iraq. It is logical to assume that if we weren’t planning to invade Iraq we could have had many more allied troops in Afghanistan.

The political consequences were two-fold. First, a war that most of the world did not agree with strained our relationship with most of our allies. The fact that we were willing to go to war with Iraq without a consensus kept us from asking for help in Afghanistan. If we would have gone to war with 400,000 troops (US + England + other allies) and had reasonable success, we could have gone back to our allies (the ones who did not contribute troops) and asked them to help rebuild Afghanistan. Maybe they would not have sent troops, but they could have done other things to help the effort. Instead, we pissed away what ever good will was left in Western Europe when we invaded Iraq making our traditional allies less willing and less able to help us in Afghanistan.

The second political consequence of Iraq was that it gave Al Qaeda some sense of legitimacy in the moderate Muslim world. On September 11th, most Muslim governments denounced Al Qaeda's actions. I am of the opinion that in every group of people there are minorities on the extremes whose course cannot be changed. Most people lie in the middle. In my mind (these numbers are not legitimate), 20% of the Muslim world will always hate America and 20% will love the good things American idealism can achieve. The 60% in the middle just want to live their lives and really don’t care about us. They can be won over by our good efforts, and they can be disillusioned by our bad efforts, or the deleterious efforts of others. By waging a war that was so unpopular, it allows Al Qaeda to go to the 60% of Muslims in the middle and say “look at all the evil that America is doing in Iraq.” When America is unable to initially secure the infrastructure and meet the needs of the average Iraqi, it allows Al Qaeda to make a good argument to the moderate Muslim world. Abu Ghraib, Blackwater and outsourcing torture also give legitimacy to the Al Qaeda position. This is an argument that they would have had trouble making if we were only fighting in Afghanistan with a more legitimate coalition.

It also gave Al Qaeda a second front. If you are fighting a guerrilla war against a superior enemy, you want as many fronts as possible so that you can move your troops from one place to another. By fighting the Allies in two places, Al Qaeda is able to use its inherent flexibility to put up more of a fight where it matters – consider the surge in Iraq. Most Republicans say that this is a wonderful thing and Iraq is a better place because of this effort. I disagree. Let’s assume that terrorists have televisions and that they are not stupid. If you put more troops in Iraq, they are going to leave Iraq and go to Afghanistan. If you put more troops in Afghanistan, they are going move to Pakistan. When we put troops in Pakistan, the terrorist are going to go back to Iraq. Are we prepared to go into Yemen and Somalia and fight Al Qaeda when they move again? The more fronts we operate on, the easier it will be for Al Qaeda to wage war against us.

Now it is EIGHT YEARS LATER. The war has been underfunded and neglected for EIGHT YEARS. For EIGHT YEARS the Bush administration has let this situation go into the CRAPPER while they put most of their efforts into Iraq. Now, after EIGHT YEARS of a crap strategy and criminal neglect, the Obama administration has to try to fix this mess.

There are several things that the Obama administration is doing that I think are good. First this administration seems to realize that you cannot deal with Afghanistan without dealing with Pakistan, so to link both of these together is sound. This administration is also doing a better job of realizing that Afghanistan did not attack us on 9/11, Al Qaeda did. The Taliban is a group that is indigenous to Afghanistan who sometimes has the same agenda as Al Qaeda. This administration is doing a much better job of defining who exactly the enemy is. I also think that the administration is wise to consider what strategy they are going to use and not just to throw more money and troops at the problem. History may have shown us that the “shoot from the hip Texas” approach doesn’t always work. I think this administration also gets that this is a war of ideas as much as it is a war of resource. In a war of ideas, popular opinion and what third parties think of you, MATTER. We are not fighting a state or a country or a flag or a group of people, but rather, we are competing for the minds of people. Convincing people that your way is best cannot (at least in the long term) be done with military might. I think that is something this administration understands. I must point out that I believe both this administration and the previous one both love this country.

There are several strategic options that the white house is considering. I fundamentally differ with the administration in the sense that I only see to options even worth considering. Having said that I think the Obama administration is operating on many flawed assumptions.

The first thing that I am not sure that this administration realizes is that Iraq is not Afghanistan. There is a prevailing assumption that the strategy that seems to have succeeded in Iraq will work in Afghanistan. In my opinion there are several factors that make these two theaters not comparable.

At the start of Operation Dessert Storm in August of 1990, Iraq was one of the most advanced countries in the Mid East. They had some of the best technology and they had one of the highest standards of living in the region as well as the second largest military. They did have a ruthless dictator running these things, but they also had some of the best infrastructure in the Muslim world. Years of economic sanctions left many of these state of the art facilities without being upgraded. Afghanistan was at war with the Russians all through the 80s. There was no reconstruction effort, and no economic recovery. Iraq had a functioning central government. Granted it was run by an evil dictator, but it was a functioning government. Afghanistan has a government that is not centralized. The central government exerts very little authority on the outlying sections of the country. Even if you did install a central government in Afghanistan, it would not have any immediate influence in the outlying provinces. The mountainous terrain is another major difference between Iraq and Afghanistan. This terrain further isolates the outlying provinces. The indigenous population also has a tactical advantage. The mountains provide cover for a small guerrilla force and at the same time make it difficult for a large army to supply itself.

The strategy behind the surge was to put extra troops into Baghdad and secure the city. Securing the people of Baghdad would give time for the political forces in Iraq to be effective. This surge in theory also had the effect of making it harder for terrorist groups to operate. This strategy will not work in Afghanistan because the terrorists are not in Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, but rather in the outlying areas. Securing Kabul will not help the political element because Afghanistan never has had a central government. Kabul has little if any effect of on the lives of the people in the distant areas.

Another strategy tried in Iraq was to buy off some of the less radical elements. I think this will only be moderately effective in Afghanistan because that country is a lot more tribal than Iraq. People in Afghanistan view tribal and local affiliations more importantly then being Afghan. I know that is a gross generalization and I have never been there, but it appears that this approach would involve buying more people than in Iraq. For this strategy to work, the US is going to have to get in bed with some pretty horrible people. We are going to have to cut deals with drug dealers and less radical elements of the Taliban to control the provinces. The most glaring thing about the political part of this war is that the government that we are dealing with is completely corrupt. They have no ability to control most of the population, which lives in villages. Recent events even bring into question if this government is actually legitimate. If we are going to be successful, we need an Afghan government that we can work with. This government is far from that.

A counter terrorism strategy will not work because most of the terrorists are no longer in Afghanistan, they are in Pakistan. A counter insurgency strategy will not work because the population is not in the cities but in villages. In many villages the Taliban is the government. So who are you protecting the native population from? What are the ramifications if you are at war with the people providing civil service to the population?

I see two options going forward in Afghanistan. Option one is that we commit this country’s full military and industrial might to Afghanistan. We send upwards of 200,000 troops to Afghanistan. We use all of our resources to ensure the men and women that we put in harms way have everything they need to have success. We commit our selves to completely building (rebuilding would imply that it was there when we started) Afghanistan’s infrastructure. We build new schools, new roads, and we commit all of our know how into making Afghanistan successful. We fight their war on drugs and destroy all the poppy fields. We use our resources to stimulate their economy. We build Afghanistan’s police, fire, military and civil service departments. We totally commit this country’s resources to fixing the mess that we have made in Afghanistan. We commit our troops and our treasure for the next 10 years to make sure Afghanistan is fixed. If we are not willing as a country to commit 250,000 troops and one trillion dollars during the next 10 years then the second option is to GET OUT NOW!!!!!!!!!!

This second option will no doubt devastate Afghanistan. This will be a failure of the United States. The resulting bloodshed will be OUR FAULT. We will be ignoring a moral obligation to make the world a better place. We as a county will have to put abandoning Afghanistan on a long list of immoral acts done by our country. How moral is it to keep putting American forces into a war that we know we ultimately will loose? It is wrong of us to send troops to fight without giving them what they need for a chance at victory. It is wrong to send troops into a situation where their best efforts will result in a corrupt government, more poor people and not really making us any safer. The bravest and maybe the hardest thing we could do as a country is to admit that we are in over our heads.

In the late 60s, America continued to pump hundreds of thousands of troops into Vietnam even though the outcome was already decided. How can we with any conscience continue to spend money and lives in Afghanistan if we cannot define a successful strategy? It is wrong for us as a country to ask people to go on three and four tours of duty without even defining what success is. We should not blame the military for fighting a war that we asked them to fight. We should blame ourselves. If we continue on a strategy without having a higher expectation of success then that is the most immoral thing we as a country can do.

The other argument against leaving is that the security of America will worsen. I argue that every year that we are in Afghanistan and we are failing, that will give the anti-American argument more legitimacy. Every innocent civilian killed in Afghanistan is another example that al Qaeda can use to recruit the native population against us. Everyone that has a mother/father/sister/brother/wife/husband that is killed is a potential recruit for al Qaeda. Every accidental death on the news or YouTube is instantly turned into an al Qaeda propaganda video. Even if we mean well, even if our soldiers do everything right, there is the potential for the enemy to twist our best efforts to their advantage. Everyday that we are unsuccessful in Afghanistan we will be reminding the world of our past mistakes and will undermine all of the good that we are trying to do. We undermine all of our efforts to spread democracy every second that we use our military to prop up a phony, corrupt government that has no legitimacy. Every minute that we are in a protracted war with no realistic chance of success we are less secure as a country, not more.

There are many who would say that we have not yet put in our best effort and we should give it one more shot before we leave. Eight years ago this invasion may have been successful. If we had not let the situation deteriorate it is very possible that Afghanistan would be an American success story and a win for democracy. It is conceivable that if we had not FREAKED UP the last eight years, our troops would be coming home right now and Afghanistan would be a wonderful example of the problems we can fix as a planet if we work together. The reality is this is now a disaster. Once you see this situation for the mess that it is, there are only two clear options. I get the sense that the White House will not pick either one of them.

Our prestige as a country will be damaged, but how much more damage will we do by staying in a protracted war? It is a very uncomfortable thing to admit a mistake whether it is us personally, or collectively as a society. However, I do believe that once you realize you are wrong that you correct your course of action. I hope I am wrong. I hope 20 years from now Afghanistan is a stable democracy. I hope it is a progressive country. I hope the Taliban is defeated. I hope in the process that al Qaeda is dismantled. I hope women can go to school without acid being thrown in their face. I hope the government in Afghanistan does all it can to provide a high quality of life for its citizens. I am not like Rush Limbaugh. I do not hope that Obama fails or the American military fails. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that some middle ground can be reached where we can empower the many good people in Afghanistan to fix their own problems. I hope when this is all over that the world will be a better place because of our efforts, not in spite of them.

In 1964, Lyndon Johnson won a landslide presidential victory. He came into office with the highest approval rating in history. He had a huge social agenda. His presidency was predicted to be transformative. The Vietnam War completely derailed his presidency. In three years his approval rating was in the toilet and he couldn’t even run for a second term because we were in such a pickle. American has a lot of problems that need fixing. I believe it is going to take all of this country’s resolve to fix our problems. I hope our current president truly makes his presidency transformative and does not step on the same landmines that his predecessor did.

I know you are, but what am I?

Recently, the most prolific images on the network news has been the town hall meetings all across this country. The idea behind the town hall meetings is that elected officials would go back to their constituents to hear their wishes and concerns. The idea that we can have differing opinions and present them to our elected officials in person without fear of legal reprisal is something that makes this country truly wonderful.

In most years, town hall meetings go unnoticed, but this year is very different. This year these meetings have become increasingly more volatile. The issue that has dominated many of these meetings has been the issue of health care. There have been several people at these meetings who have called the President and his supporters “fascist.” There have been a whole host of images with the president in an SS uniform with a Hitler mustache and so forth. These people also suggest that if government fixes healthcare, it will lead us down the path to socialism and worse. There is something in these meetings that reminds me of fascism, and it isn’t Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate or a single payer healthcare system.

Before continuing with my observation, it may be helpful to put fascism in its historical context.

In the years after the First World War, Europe (particularly Germany) was in a very bad state. The war had left Germany, along with most of Europe, devastated. After Germany lost the war, France ordered Germany to pay exorbitant reparations. The Allied Forces said that Germany started the war and that they should have to pay the cost of not only the damage in Germany, but the damage in France and all the other Allied Countries as well. Germany began making these payments because if they did not pay, they would have been in violation of the peace treaty that ended WWI. When Germany claimed they could not pay anymore, the French took over the most lucrative industrial sectors within Germany.

So Germany, already bad off, had to pay reparations, then the sectors that could make the most money were taken out of German control. These actions left Germany effectively bankrupt. In the coming years the Great Depression would lead to massive unemployment and more poverty. The German government tried to fix this problem by printing more money, but this led to runaway inflation. Even if you had a job, the cost of everything was quickly rising so what little money you had was worthless. At the same time, the German government was becoming more inadequate. The government was ill equipped and unable to meet the needs of its people in changing world.

Into this disaster steps a young WWI veteran. He is charismatic and he takes the fear and frustration that the German people are feeling and is able to twist it to his political advantage. He takes the legitimate anger that people are feeling toward their government and channel that energy into action. He is able to target that anger toward what he finds politically undesirable in the country. He realized that people who are economically desperate will allow things to happen if there is a chance they can gain some measure of security. That someone, of course, is Adolf Hitler. And by the time Germany is defeated in 1945, Nazi Germany will have committed some of the most horrible acts of the 20th century.

Back to the 21st century.

As I said above, there are some things in the news cycle that remind me of the SS and I don’t mean Social Security. America is changing in many ways. It is changing demographically. There are more non-white people in this country and the percentage of minorities is growing. There are also more non Christian religions being practice now than there were when this country was founded. The country is changing in the sense that places that were at one time centers of industry are now being replaced. There are some people who are threatened by these changes. This changes for some create an feeling of uncertainty. We as a country are also facing many challenges economically. In my opinion, there is a group of people that are using the legitimate fear that people are feeling to gain political advantage.

I actually like John McCain. I would never say that a decorated war hero and a man of his accomplishments is a Nazi. What I am saying is that he allowed the fears of desperate people to be used for a political advantage. He ran a campaign in which his vice presidential candidate played on religious, racial, and economic insecurities of people to win votes. She took noble ideals like education and community service and turned them into something bad. She capitalized on the fear that some people have toward Muslims and tried to use that in the political arena. Thankfully this strategy didn’t work.

I am not suggesting that everyone who apposes Obama is a fascist. It would be silly to say that everyone who disagrees with his ideas about government is a Nazi. There are legitimate policy concerns with lots of what this administration is purposing. What I am saying is that some of his opponents are using economic uncertainty and prejudice to advance a political agenda. They are using a campaign of fear and generalization as the centerpiece of a political argument. They are making statements that fan the flames of political anger but are just shy of inflammatory (very skillfully done). I don’t think that these politicians are all racist, but I do believe that it may be a sound political maneuver to encourage the racism that some people are already feeling and try to win votes with it.

These are the things in the news that remind me of fascism. I am concerned as an American when I see the legitimate fear that many people have, being exploited. There are reasons to be afraid. We need to have a serious debate about where this country is going. I believe that we are at a turning point in our history. We will emerge from this experience as a completely different country. Whether this change is good or bad is something yet to be determined. What will determine the effectiveness of this change is the ability of this country, its leaders and its citizens to make sound decisions. I would feel better if these decisions were rational and not driven by fear. The people of Nazi Germany allowed hatred for their own government, fear of economic uncertainty and a distrust of peoples in ethnic and religious minorities to guide their decision making. Something is dangerous in this news cycle and it is not a government run public health care option or Medicare.

The role of government in our lives is a debate that we need to have. Both sides have valuable ideas as well as legitimate concerns. I believe that this debate cannot happen as long as our leaders are using fear and misinformation to shape the debate. This debate will not be helpful if people allow themselves and their fears to be played on by politicians. This debate will not be productive if politicians on both sides are counting on fear and prejudice to win the debate. Let’s stop the liar liar pants on fire 4-year-old B.S and have a serious discussion about where we are going as a country.

I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I INFINITY!!!!!

fool me once...

It is no secret that our country is facing serious economic challenges. One of the biggest challenges has to do with the bank bailouts. I have never been a fan of the bank bailouts. I think they should have been handled differently. (You can see my article titled “Bail THIS” written Friday December 12, 2008 to see what I think).

The thing I have been most upset with is that the people who got us into this mess are the ones being trusted to get us out. Some have argued that they are the ones who know the most and are the most qualified to fix this system. Some would say that these men are extremely motivated to fix things. I still think we should not allow people who blew TRILLIONS of dollars to be put into a position to do it again. This is just really flawed logic to me. Many people in these positions have made the argument that this crisis was unforeseeable; no one could have seen this coming and they are thus not responsible. I completely reject this argument because there were plenty of people who saw this coming. And, the people who saw this coming should be the ones we look to when forming a plan for getting out of this mess.

Here is a list of people who saw this mess coming.

Byron Dorgan

One of the things that intensified the great depression was the failing of thousands of banks. Banking as an institution failed, and people lost all confidence in the banking system. When FDR took office, he tried to put a system in place that would prevent this from happening in the future. One of his solutions was to separate commercial banks from investment banks. A commercial bank is a bank that most of us are familiar with in our everyday lives. These are the banks that have checking and savings accounts and loan money for things like houses and cars. An investment bank is a bank that raises capital for the purpose of investing. It does this by issuing and selling securities and other more exotic things like credit default swaps and junk I don’t understand. This system is to ensure that the banks responsible for keeping people’s money are separate from the banks that make money by taking the risks that come with investment. The legislation responsible for this was the Glass-Steagall Act. It was passed in 1933. It stayed in place until 1999.

In 1999 all the people who wanted less government got their way and the Glass-Steagall act was repealed. Although this was a Republican controlled congress, and this bill was conceived by three Republicans (Graham, Leach and Bliley), this bill was signed into law by Bill Clinton. The repeal of this act means that the government would stay out of the way of big business and let banks organize themselves the way that they want. Banks would now be free to make things more convenient and more marketable without government interference. The final version of this bill was passed 90-8 in the senate. Most would argue that this was a bipartisan effort. One of the senators that opposed this vote was Byron Dorgan. He realized the conflict of interests in commercial and investment banking could be catastrophic. He said “this bill will in my judgment raise the likelihood of future tax payer bailouts.” He also said “I think we will look back on 10 years time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past and that which was true in the 1930’s was true in 2010”. Here are clips from his senate speech in 1999 TEN YEARS BEFORE IT HIT THE FAN!

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&source=hp&q=byron%20dorgan&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#


Eliot Spitzer

Eliot Spitzer was the governor of New York from January 2007 till March 2008. He left the governorship in disgrace after having really kinky overpriced sex with a bunch of call girls in a scandalous prostitution ring. What was he doing before he got caught with high priced hookers? PROSECUTING AIG!!!!!!! That is right, when Eliot Spitzer was the state attorney general of New York in the late 90s, he made his reputation by prosecuting white color crime. In 2004, Eliot Spitzer brought a fraud case against AIG. He charged that AIG was developing financial machinery that was being used for deception. He stated that "these were transactions created for the purpose of deceiving the market”. He saw AIG as being the center of a system that needed tighter regulation. He also recognized the conflict of interest at AIG. The current system incentivizes short term risk taking. He actually won this case and AIG paid a settlement. Some could argue that Spitzer tried to ruin AIG to make a political name for himself. I say he realized that it was too big to fail and tried to bust it up, but Tim Geitner and the New York fed wouldn’t let him.

Mable Yoo (pseudonym)

Investments get rated by certain firms. Moody’s, Standards and Poor, and Fitch are the most notable ones. These companies rate things based on how safe an investment is. A rating of AAA is an investment that the rating system deems very safe. The idea is that if you invest in a AAA asset you may not make a ton of money, but you probably will not loose. AAA assets are considered the safest of investments. Two problems occurred that made this rating system less reliable.

In the housing market the mortgages people get are rated by taking into account the reliability of the person being loaned the money, the market, the house, the amount of the mortgage and a whole bunch of other factors. All these factors are plugged into some crazy equation and you get a rating. The problem was that when people with bad credit histories were given loans there was no past history to judge how good or bad these loans were. There was no historical evidence to indicate the likelihood these loans would be paid back. There were unknown variables in the equations being used to compute these ratings. Also, these mortgages were bundled together as one asset. The logic seems sound. Maybe a few people will default, but if they are bundled with people who pay on time then the overall asset makes money. The problem was even though the data was inconclusive, these bundled mortgages were STILL GIVEN TRIPLE A RATINGS!!!! Mable Yoo was an analyst at an unspecified investment firm. She looked at these assets and asked the question, “How can these be AAA assets when so many factors were unknown?” She was told by her boss to go home, get some sleep, not to worry, and cash her paycheck.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Nassim Taleb is a financial analyst from Lebanon. He did his grad work at the University of Penn. In his book “The Black Swan” he argues that there are certain events that are catastrophic and unpredictable. We make rules based on what we perceive, but we do not take into account the things we don’t know. We look for things to prove our point, not for things that disprove our point. It is a very interesting theoretical read. The point is that he predicted the housing crisis before it happened. He not only made some vague prediction, but put his money where his mouth was and made a fortune in derivatives and credit default swaps.


THESE ARE THE PEOPLE TO WHOM WE SHOULD LISTEN TO GET OUT OF THIS MESS. I am not gonna say I saw it coming since I didn’t have a blog so there is nothing on the record. But if you read The Elephant and The Dragon by Robyn Meredith (which I did) you would have been alerted to the difference in the savings rates between America and China. If you would have looked at the housing markets (which I did because I had quite a few friends flippin’ houses) you would have concluded that when the cost of living rises faster then the average wage that one of those numbers has to move drastically. If you looked at the Bureau of Labor and Statistics website (which I did) you would see that while unemployment remained steady, underemployment was out of control. I had to listen to Hannity and Glen Beck and all these PINHEADS tell me that I was a paranoid liberal and that everything was wonderful in the George Bush economy. I had to listen for 20 years that if the rich get richer it will trickle down to the rest of us. Some of these goobers didn’t even admit we were in a recession till after the presidential election. I admit I am not as smart as I think I am. I do think that there are very smart, insightful people who saw this coming. THESE are the people we should be asking “what do we do next?” I disagree with the idea that the people who broke the system are the only ones who can fix it. To quote George Bush “fool me once shame on you …YA CANT GET FOOLED AGAIN!!!”

meter maid madness

Last week as I was walking out of work I saw a sight that most people cringe at. I saw a parking meter attendant writing a ticket. Most people who work, live, or visit an inner-city area know the feeling of returning to their car to find they have gotten a ticket. Fortunately, I was not the person being ticketed. Nevertheless, there was one thing that I was deeply annoyed with. The thing that annoyed me the most was that the parking attendant was driving an SUV paid for by the city of Camden. It is no secret that I hate SUVs. In my opinion they use to much gas and they are not safe, but, whatever. This SUV used by the state highlights a greater issue.

The first issue with this practice is cost. The SUV is not the most cost effective vehicle a city can buy. I also think that a parking meter attendant does not need a high performance vehicle to write tickets. I gave the city the benefit of the doubt by assuming that this fleet of cars was being shared by other departments when they are not being used for the task of writing parking tickets. This could be a potential way for a city to save money. I DON’T THINK THIS IS THE CASE. I talked to several city employees and they said these vehicles were used specifically by the parking authority by the meter attendants. If that is the case then this is huge waste of money.

The second issue I have with this practice is the issue of gas usage. The SUV is one of the most inefficient vehicles on the road. Everyone is saying that they want to be environmentally friendly, then a fleet of the most ecologically unfriendly cars is brought by the state. There has been lots of talk about less dependence on foreign oil, yet this city has decided to buy a fleet of these things to do mundane tasks that could be performed by a car that uses less gas. I wonder how much money the city of Camden paid to gas up these SUVs when gas went up to four dollars a gallon. How much money will the city of Camden continue to pay in the future?

Lots of people would argue that I am making a big deal out of this. They would argue that the cost and the gas use is a drop in the bucket when you consider the over all size of these problems. I would reply by saying that the city of Camden has a population of 79,000 people according to the US census. There are 286 US cities with a population between 50,000 and 80,000 people. How significant are the numbers if all of these cities have a fleet of SUV’s for their meter maids. These numbers aren’t even taking into account the big cities. I am an optimist so I will assume that not all cities are as badly mismanaged as the city of Camden, but if this trend continues in other cities the results could be at the very least counter productive.

The issue to me is not that the city of Camden has a few meter maids that drive SUVs. The issue is the opportunities that are lost by state and local governments to affect change. The state government has a chance to effect policy in a big way. By making a statement that they will buy fuel efficient vehicles, the city would be creating a market for these vehicles in addition to the short term economic cost. If all the cities with populations less then 100,000 people would do this, the effect may be even more significant. What if we extended this policy to state buildings being more energy efficient? How much money would a city save in the long run because of better energy costs?

What ever has happened, the fact remains that these cars have already been brought and are being used. I do not think that it is good policy in the middle of a recession for a city to replace all of its vehicles. What I do think should happen is that every vehicle that has to be replaced should be replaced with something OTHER THAN AN SUV!!! Since the city will eventually have to replace these vehicles why not replace them with something that is better for our economy and our environment in the long run. Every new vehicle that should be brought in the future should be fuel efficient. To the cities with populations over 80.000 people (there are 314 of them) any improvements made to taxi fleets, public transportation, and what ever other stuff they need should be made with fuel standards in mind. Cities could just set there own standards in terms of the construction of buildings. The building may cost more to build but you would hire more people to build it and YOU WOULD SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE LESS ENERGY COST. We can’t "unspill" the milk but we can make sure that we don’t spill the milk again.

On a happy note. Last weekend I drove to Giants Stadium. When I was on the turnpike I saw….

A New York City HYBRID yellow cab. At least Michael Bloomberg agrees with me!

Michael Phelps For Governor!

This past weekend I was watching some of the 2009 swimming national championships from Indianapolis. Once again Michael Phelps set a world record. A few months ago Michael Phelps was busted for smoking weed at a party. He lost several endorsements and a big deal was made about the whole role model Olympic hero idea (that is a discussion for another day). I also saw a press conference this weekend in which the governor of California, Arnold Swarchenegger announced that the state of California is broke. Some estimates claim that California has the 10th largest economy in the world. Many states across this country are running huge budget deficits. As states look for ways to balance their books there is one solution that is very apparent to me. I think the legalization of marijuana would provide a much needed source of revenue for states as well as make many Americans like Michael Phelps happy.

Before you dismiss this idea as completely crazy, I think it would be prudent to discuss a few things. Before we jump to the conclusion that legalization of marijuana will be the downfall of society (like it isn’t already downfallen), I feel it necessary to mention some arguments that people who oppose the idea of legalization often use.

The first argument against marijuana is that “If we legalize marijuana, EVERYONE will get high”. If we have legal drugs everyone will do it because it is legal and we will have a NATION OF POTHEADS!!! The reality is there is no evidence that this will happen. I have never smoked weed. If it were legal tomorrow I would still never smoke weed. Most of the people that want to smoke weed are already smoking it. In addition consider that fact that cigarettes are legal. Is everyone in America smoking cigarettes? Alcohol has been legal since 1933. Do we have a nation where EVERYONE is an alcoholic? I feel it necessary to mention that prohibition was repealed in the middle of the great depression. Coincidence? There is no evidence to support the notion that marijuana use will increase significantly.

The next argument is that if we legalize marijuana then “we are going to have EIGHT YEAR OLD KIDS SMOKIN’ WEED” I am not suggesting that we just let everyone smoke up. Of course it has to be regulated. We have age limits on other drugs in this country and most of us find this perfectly acceptable. We can argue about what the age limit is and how strongly we should enforce the rules but do dismiss the entire idea is irrational. Usually 8 year olds can’t get cigarettes and alcohol. We are talking about adults who choose to engage in this practice.

Another argument against this policy is “Marijuana is a gateway drug that can lead to other things. Marijuana use will lead to use of more dangerous drugs. I actually agree with this argument on some level. While it is true that most users of hard drugs will admit to using gateway drugs earlier in there lives the converse of this argument is not true. There are millions of people who smoke weed who never do anything else. Just because you use weed doesn’t mean that you are going to become a crack head. I also feel the need to point out that alcohol and cigarettes are also gateway drugs and no one is suggesting outlawing them. Another thing that goes hand in hand with this argument is that marijuana is just too harmful to allow. I would ask people to consider how harmful cigarettes and alcohol are. Consider the liver damage, the DUI’s, and the effect alcohol has on the brain both short and long term. Then consider the carcinogenic effects of smoking on both the person and the people around them as well as the addictive effects of nicotine. I think marijuana is very harmful but how much more harmful is it than drugs that society has deemed legal.

The final argument is an argument on moral grounds. The idea that our government and out society has to take a moral stand against marijuana. The idea that the only "thing holding the moral fiber of our country together is the prohibition of marijuana, I think, is the most ridiculous argument of all. The formal laws we have against marijuana were enacted in 1970 (there were other laws enacted before that). Somehow America was able to struggle on with out marijuana being illegal. There was actually a marijuana tax that was levied on selling of marijuana in 1937 (what a great idea). The morality argument is even sillier to me when you consider the society that was in this country. This society during this same time period had colored peopled drinking out of different water fountains, put thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps, dropped TWO nuclear bombs, and assassinated government officials of sovereign countries. The fact that marijuana was or was not illegal has little to do with our morality.

I think there are several benefits of a well regulated marijuana policy. The first is the revenue generated. Right now the government makes ZERO dollars on the sale of marijuana. There are millions of people smoking and the government is making no money. In addition the people making the money are not the nice sort of people. These people are given their power because marijuana is illegal. Does anyone think drug dealers are paying taxes? Having registered people and places that can legally sell marijuana will allow the government to tax the revenue and at the same time diminish the power of the small time drug dealer. I think legalized marijuana will put the small time drug dealer out of business. If you wanted to smoke up would you go in a back alley to by your drugs or would you go to CVS? My opinion is overtime the influence of these small drug dealers will decline.

I think having the government involved will also make smoking marijuana safer. The drug would be dispensed in predetermined quantities and would be verified for purity. As it is now you can buy marijuana with different levels of potency. The user has no way of knowing how refined the drug is that they are buying. It is possible (even likely) to get marijuana that is unknowingly laced with other chemicals. The user has no idea what they are smoking in addition to the desired drug. Having a well regulated industry will make the product safer.

It is also necessary to consider the secondary effects how much money is spent jailing people that are convicted of marijuana crimes? How much money do we blow on marijuana court cases? Most police forces are over worked and underpaid. What would happen if police could actually chase real criminals and not adults who chose to smoke a little pot once in a while?

I think this is a tough decision. I have reservations about something like this. The problem I am having is that this idea is too often dismissed without even a discussion. Almost every state in this country is out of money. There are people on all sides screaming that we are spending too much money. We have big problems that need to be fixed right now and we need money to fix them. Do we want education, health care, benefits for widows of firefighters, and a new energy policy or do we want the delusion that we are a moral society because we lock up potheads.


(If you can’t deal with weed being legal can we PLEAS E HAVE STATE RUN CASINOS AND LEGALIZED BETTING ON FOOTBALL. We already have a state lottery. Why should Donald Trump make billions of dollars and the state can’t build and run a casino. Just put a nickel slot in every DMV, post office, gas station, and supermarket. I mean really how much money we have to throw out the door.)

It's your party, YELL IF YOU WANT TO

It is no secret that I am not a fan of the previous administration. I have several friends who are Republicans and I have to say that I feel sorry for them. I don’t feel sorry because they are Republican, I feel sorry because their party has been hijacked by a group of FREAKIN NUTS. I'd be pretty pissed if my point of view got hijacked by Bill Ayres and Janine Garofolo.

Not a day has gone by in the last few weeks without seeing Rush Limbaugh saying something crazy. During the last few months, the people yelling the loudest from the conservative side of the isle are completely negative. It seems there is an endless parade of people lead by Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney who don’t offer any solutions but just like yelling. In fact they are yelling so loud that they are drowning out the sensible majority. I know lots of people that are Republican. I know very few who think like Rush or Hannity or Cheney or the other nuts of the week.

Does this party really want to make a stand in favor of government sanctioned torture? In this economic climate, does this party really want to champion the policy of not regulating Wall Street and screwing the little guy? Do they really want be known as the party who wants to freeze government spending and stop making Social Security payments to old people? Do they want to be the party who is anti-environment?

It seems that the main Republican agenda seems to be “What ever Obama wants, we hate it.” I think the opposing viewpoint is very important. One of the things that makes our political system great is our ability to resolve our conflict in a civilized manner and to glean the best ideas from all sides. The result can be a solution that is the best one. Diversity is the strength of America. The idea that we can argue and come to a solution without shooting each other is something that separates us from other parts of the world. Our civil discourse is something that should provoke a sense of pride for all Americans.

The problem of the recent past is the other side has nothing to offer. I generally like what Mr. Obama is doing. There are occasions where I disagree with him. It would be nice if there were a rational opinion that was well thought out that opposed his viewpoint. The problem is the Republican side of the isle is giving us NOTHING CONSTRUCTIVE. All they are giving me is a liar, liar pants on fire, he’s a commy, she’s a socialist, BLA BLA BLA. In the face of all this irrationality no wonder Obama has sky hi approval ratings.

For all these Republicans who hate Obama JUST COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE. Come up with well thought out policies that will allows us to engage in meaningful debate that can move this country forward. I ask all the sensible Republicans to reject this bunch of nuts and give me a well thought out alternative. I believe that the conservative philosophy has a lot to offer this country. It is a shame that the people getting the most attention are the crazies. As long as people like Rush and company are running things, the Republicans will never win another election and this country, at least in the short term, will loose a much needed opposing viewpoint.

TAKE BACK YOUR PARTY MY REPUBLICAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS

THE SUMMER OF GEEK!!!!!!

I am very excited about the movies that are coming out this summer. Several of these movies have a somewhat geek element about them. When I was in high school there was a certain group of kids that liked “The Transformers” and “G.I. Joe”. For the most part these were not the cool kids. There was a certain group of people who read comic books and loved super heroes. These genres were not looked upon as acceptable in the world of my high school. Even in my young adult life people to not associate “Star Trek” with successful, responsible, adulthood. Despite all these societal reservations, I have and will probably always love these things. It does my little geek heart good when I see so many of the things that I grew up with in the mainstream. It’s nice to go to work and see people with Batman T shirts. It is nice to see my 10 year old piano students who don’t read anything, reading Harry Potter. I think that the reason people flock to these genres is that they provide a sense of hope. The hope is that individuals can make a difference and that we working together can affect change. That is a concept that should follow all of us from childhood, to adolescence, into adulthood. I find it sad that to many people part of growing up means to stop dreaming and to stop believing that the extraordinary is possible. We sacrifice what we want to see the world become for the idea that it is unrealistic to expect anything better. I think that dreaming is very important. I think when we give up on possibilities too early we may miss wonderful opportunities. In any event this summer movie season is filled with images from my childhood that sparked my imagination. This is a list of the movies that I am looking most forward to seeing.



Star Trek

I am so excited about this film. I think that the TV shows Lost and Alias are two of the best written shows that have ever been on TV. They are amazingly inventive, extremely well thought out, and keep the audience guessing. Imagine my surprise when I went to a Star Trek convention last year (yes I said it. I didn’t dress up) and I heard that J.J. Abrams was a star trek fan and was doing the next Star Trek movie. Star Trek has been around since 1966. I think underneath the sometimes bad acting and the cheesy sets of the 1960s is the ability to criticize society with out being preachy. The satire and criticism are what makes this show great. This show has continued to remake itself. There remains a message of hope with every successive generation. The hope is that as bad as the world looks, mankind will solve its problems and create a wonderful society. Even with all of our problems today, there is still the potential that mankind will unite and not only make peace with on earth, but forge relationships with beings that are not even from this planet. Some may say this is a bit unrealistic but nevertheless an appealing idea.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

The X-Men universe is probably my favorite super hero universe. The X-Men universe provides an interesting critique of American society. One of the prevalent themes is how we treat people that are different then us. Indeed the storyline in X-Men can be applied to the civil rights movement, Immigration, Gay Marriage and a whole host of other things in our society. This storyline forces us to ask questions about ourselves and the people around us. It highlights issues of tolerance and makes us see that sometimes we may be on the wrong side of an issue. X2 was one of the best super hero movies I have seen in a while so I am very excited to see this one.

Terminator Salvation

“The Terminator” was one of my favorite science fiction movies when I was a kid. I love the time travel aspect as well as the future apocalyptic horror. The sense of impending doom that the story generated along with all the plot twist and the chase aspect made for a great movie. The struggle of average good people against an invincible enemy left me riveted for hours. Add to that the car chases and the special effects and you have a timeless classic. To be honest I was not all that excited about this movie until I got into the “Sarah Connor Chronicles”. I am interested to see how this movie fills in the answers to all the questions that previous Terminator movies and TV shows have generated. It will also be interesting to actually see the war that has been eluded to in all the other movies.

Angels & Demons

One of the most exciting books I have ever read. I read it in 3 days. Let me just say READ THE BOOK BEFORE YOU WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This book is amazing on so many levels. The chase aspect and the suspense parts of this book are amazing. The interaction between science and religion was especially appealing to me. Science and religion are two very big parts of my life. The amount of information presented in this book about American history and the Catholic Church will amaze. You will feel smarter after you have read it. I do not expect the book to be as great as the movie. The DaVinci code was a good movie but still not as good as the book. I am always interested to see what things the movie makers choose not to include. I will read any book that Dan Brown writes and I will probably see any movie based on a Dan Brown book.

G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra

I LOVED G.I JOE when the TV show came out. I collected the toys well into high school. This show was the centerpiece of many of my weekday afternoons. While it may seem silly the show is more relevant today then ever. What was the subplot of G.I. JOE? Do you remember it? “G.I. JOE is the code name for America’s highly trained special mission force. Its purpose, to defend freedom against COBRA, a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world.” Sound familiar? That is now the world we live in. A world with AL-Qaeda, navy SEALS and Somali Pirates. When this show came out in the 80s that idea seemed really far fetched but here we are. In any case the show was very entertaining and I am very excited about the movie.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

This show is the other staple of my childhood TV life. A very well thought out cartoon. It has a storyline that spans eons complete with ancient robot civilizations and futuristic technologies. I was a little disappointed with the storytelling of the first transforms movie. The special effects were great and therefore this movie franchise is worthy of a second chance.

Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince

I have loved all of these movies. I have not read any of the books. They are on my list of stuff to read but I just haven’t gotten around to it. The effects are great. I love the story telling and I really love the look of these movies. The order of the phoenix on IMAX was amazing especially considering the last 20 minutes were in 3D. Every time I see these movies I want to be a student at Hogwarts. The idea that there is this wizard reality that parallels our own is a very appealing concept.


There is also a “Land of the Lost” movie and a film called “Moon” that was at the Philly Film Fest but I didn’t get to see it. Add to that there is a “Sherlock Holmes” movie coming out Christmas day. I was really into Sherlock Holmes as a kid. It is one of the things that made me start reading as a kid. This promises to be a great summer for movies. I am writing this article on the night that I am going to see Wolverine at midnight. I’d love to hear what summer movies you are looking forward to.


LET THE SUMMER OF GEEK BEGIN!!!!!!

STIMULATION

During the last few months the issue that has dominated the news cycle is the state of the economy. One of the stories that has been central to this issue has been the proposed stimulus package. There are many different opinions as to what should or should not be in a stimulus bill. There are also those who believe that we do not need a stimulus bill. I will start by making a case for why we may need a stimulus bill.

The economy has turned for the worst in the last year. For the last part of the 20th century our economy has been built on the strength of the consumer. We can debate the merits of this system later (I for one am against it), but this is the system we find ourselves with. The problem with this economy is the strength of the American consumer has been diminished. Deregulation on Wall Street and average people living beyond their means were contributing factors in a falling housing market. This led to banks not being able to lend money, which lead to people not being able to buy stuff, which lead to companies firing people, which lead to people having less money to buy things and so forth.

If this were a normal cycling of the economy I would say the government should stay out of it and let the market forces lead to a recovery. I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the machinery that governs this economy is inadequate for this new century. I believe that there have been systemic problems with this economy that are now all beginning to manifest themselves. I am not saying capitalism doesn’t work, I am saying the forces that drive our economy and the things that we use to measure the success of our economy are inadequate. Since this recession is more then just the regular boom and bust cycles of the economy, the government must intervene in the short term.

Having said that, I think there are some rules we should consider when deciding what goes in a stimulus package. The first thing I look for is a program where the highest percentage of the dollars go back into the economy. I want to know that all the dollars the government dolls out will go directly back into the economy in the short term. The second thing I look for is the creation of jobs. What is meant by this is that the money spent by the government will result in a job being created that would not have been there if it weren’t for the stimulus money. Any dollars that would save a job that was to be eliminated should be considered stimulus. I want to know that the money in a stimulus bill will save a job that is going to be cut. A consideration (but not a requirement) is that the money spent should help us in the long term. The money MUST help the economy in the short term, but I don’t want to spend money on things where we can only benefit in the short term. A consideration for stimulus (not a requirement) should be for something that will help the economy in the long term.

There is also a lot of confusion in the media as to what a stimulus bill is and is not. The stimulus bill is NOT the omnibus bill. That is the bill from last year’s budget with tons of earmarks. The stimulus bill is not the TARP package or the bank bailout. That is the money that was used to bail out the banks. This bill is not auto industry bailout. That is the money given to the American car companies. The purpose of this bill is for the government to SPEND MONEY to increase demand to keep the economy from TOTAL COLLAPSE. So yes, this bill will have spending because that is what stimulus is. It is not investment. It is not budget control. The idea is to spend money to help jumpstart the economy in the short term to give us time to fix things in the long term.

As for the discussion about what should and should not be in the stimulus package, I will now list four things that I think are economically stimulative that opponents of the stimulus package are against.

Food stamps

Most republicans in congress FREAKED OUT when Obama included increasing the money for the food stamp program. In reality this is the most economically stimulative program possible. Let me first state that I am against welfare and generally against entitlements. I do however have the opinion that the best way to have short term stimulus is to give to the people at the bottom of the ladder. They have fewer options and will spend the money. If you give the money to the rich in a troubled economy they are more likely to save it; this is good in the long term (and for the rich people themselves), but in the short term it does nothing to help the current situation. If you give money to the food stamp program 100% of the money will be spent. This spending will increase demand. If you give people with nothing more money they will spend it because they have no choice. This is not good monetary practice, but in a consumer economy it will be simulative. Even if people buy drugs with their food stamps (and there is no evidence that suggests that this is the norm), the drug dealers will eventually trade them to someone who will SPEND THEM AND STIMULATE THE ECONOMY. All of the money put into the food stamp program will find its way back into the economy.


National Endowment for the Arts

One of the things I have heard a lot is “HOW IS GIVING MONEY TO THE BALLET DANCERS AND OPERA SINGERS GOING TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY”. Any one who has worked in the arts in any capacity knows there is a lot more that goes into a production then just singing and dancing. There is a whole array of people behind every production. When money gets tight, most theaters are not going to fire their singers, dancers, and actors first. They are instead going to fire office workers, ticket sellers, secretaries and phone operators. Then they are going to fire the stage hands, the carpenters and craftsmen that build the sets, and the part time employees that run errands and do the "grunt work". Giving money to the arts will prevent these people from being fired in the short term. Since some of these people won’t loose their jobs, they will SPEND THEIR MONEY in other sectors of the economy.

The Census

The last census was done around the year 2000. The census may seem like a waste of money until you consider that to actually do a census you will need to hire a lot of part time workers to actually administer the census. You will need workers in all 50 states. You will need a wide variety of workers from average workers to go around and gather the data as well as skilled people that can organize and compute the data. A national census will create jobs in every state. There is an added long term benefit to a census. A big first step in cutting government spending is knowing exactly how many people are using what programs. An accurate census will give us the meaningful data we need to evaluate what programs are being used and which aren’t. The best way to stream line government spending is to KNOW what programs work and not to GUESS at what programs work.


Energy efficiency

A part of the stimulus package would give home owners money to make their homes more energy efficient. There is another part of the stimulus to make federal buildings more energy efficient. Many people site this as a waste of money and Washington allowing the tree hugging hippy left make economic policy. In reality there is nothing hippy about this. The manufacturing sector has suffered the most in this economy. There are a whole host of products made in America that can be used to make homes more energy efficient. If more people buy these things then more Americans will need to be hired to build them and INSTALL THEM. Most people aren’t going to put aluminum siding or new windows on their house. They are going to hire someone to do it. That is creating jobs in the short term in a blue collar sector that is very important to the future of this economy. The industrial sector of this country’s economy is shrinking rapidly. In addition, this part of the stimulus bill has two long term effects. The first is that the government and the individuals who take part in this incentive will have lower energy costs. These people will have more money in the long term then they would have had if not for this program. The government will also save on energy costs in the long run. The second is that it will create demand for manufacturing jobs in the future. If investors know there will be a market for green products there will be more investment in this sector, more demand for these jobs, and more Americans hired for these jobs.


Most of Obama’s critics have said that Obama is using these desperate economic times to push his HIPPY agenda. I don’t like some of the stimulus bill. Frankly there are too many tax cuts and not enough infrastructure spending. The idea that the government has to sit powerless and let the economy crumble is silly. I also do not think that if the government tries to stimulate the economy that it will lead to communism. There are numerous examples where government can help stem the ebb and flow of the markets. One of the principles of Keynesian economics is that the government in many cases is one of the largest producers and consumers of goods. The government’s policies can help shape the economy WITHOUT BEING COMMUNIST. We can give money to the people on the lower rung of the ladder WITHOUT BEING SOCIALIST. I don’t like that we now have to use good money to get us out of a situation that many of us saw coming. It sucks that this has been messed up for the last 80 years and my generation has to be the one to fix it. I don’t know if this stimulus will have a desired effect, but doing nothing would be catastrophic.

As always I'd love to hear what people think about the stimulus bill, especially what parts you are for and against.

Whatcha Watchin'

Anyone who knows me knows I watch A LOT of TV. In fact I can say with reasonable certainty that I watch more TV then almost everyone you know. So many people complain that there is nothing good on TV any more. I could not disagree more. I think just the opposite. I think today we have more choices then we have ever had for our entertainment. I think it is harder to find shows that you like because there are so many shows out there. I think it is much easier to settle on what everyone else is watching then to actually see what is on and what you may enjoy. There were several new shows that just came out this year. I watched a lot of them some I liked, some I didn’t like. These are 5 shows that debuted this season that I really like. If you can’t find anything to watch go get the DVDs for these new shows.


5. Being Erica – SOAPnet

This show is only 6 weeks old and I really hope it doesn’t get cancelled. To watch this show, you have to suspend disbelief. This is hard for me to do because I love time travel and all its implications. This show however, requires that you put the science aside and just watch it. This show is centered around a girl named Erica who is unhappy with many parts of her life. She meets a therapist whose methods are unorthodox to say the least. He is able to send her back in time and allows her to change the things she most regrets. Every week Erica leaps to a part in her past and changes it for the better. In this process she realizes what it will take to make her a better person and what changes she needs to make in her life. This is a story about dealing with your past and moving forward as a person. It is about realizing that no one is perfect and being comfortable in your own skin.

4. True blood – HBO

This is a vampire show with a twist. There are vampires all around us. That is not the twist. The twist is they are out in the open and are a part of society and not trying to hide there identity. This idea alone brings out several issues that have to be dealt with. Some of these concepts are that vampire blood can be used as a drug for normal humans. This leads to a whole underworld of people trying to kill vamps and sell their blood and people trying to get high. The romantic relationships between humans and vampires also have their own set of challenges. There are countless other issues of how vampires are accepted in society and how we as a society treat new arrivals in America. True Blood is set in a small Louisiana town around a girl who can read minds who falls for a vampire.

3. The Secret life of the American Teenager - ABC FAMILY

This is about a freshman girl in high school band getting pregnant and all of the things that result from it. This is your afterschool special type show with the standard cast of stereotypical characters. There is the bad boy drummer who was abused as a child. There is the slut feature twirler who is really smart and working trough her daddy issues. There is the good Christian girl, the jock, the geek, the crazy sister and so on. I can’t get enough of it. It has better writing then you would think. At its core, this show is about a family with problems who has to pull together to get through this life changing situation.

2. Fringe – Fox

If you like X-files type science fiction you will love this show. It is the story of a division of homeland security that investigates “fringe science”. Every week something freaky happens that the investigators have to solve. At the same time there is a bigger conspiracy know as “the pattern” that has to be unraveled. How the people interact to solve these mysteries is quirky and the cast of characters is very diverse. You will be scared and freaked out and chuckling and thinking all at the same time.

1. Privileged – CW

THE BEST NEW SHOW ON TV. It is based on the book “How To Teach Filthy Rich Girls” by Zoey Dean. An Ivy League graduate from a poor dysfunctional family looses her job and ends up taking a job as a tutor for 2 rich girls. This sounds like the same ol' same ol’ brat rich girls story but it is not. The plot is deceptively complex. You think this is going to be a silly teen show and then it takes you completely by surprise. The character development is amazing, and the show is very well acted. This is not just a show about beautiful people in beautiful houses with beautiful lives. This show deals with friendship and family and the place that these things should and do play in our lives. It also compares how rich and poor people view their life outcomes. It also has a really cute theme song with a Picardy third but what ever 

I also think that TV gets a bad rap but that is another discussion. I would love to hear what other new shows people have found interesting and why.

Watchmen and watch your children

Last week I went to see the movie Watchmen in Atlantic City on a big freakin IMAX screen. I had previously read the book, which I liked a lot. I liked the movie, too, but did not love it. There is one thing about my movie experience that gave me a moment of thought. There was one thing that I found almost as troubling as Dr. Manhattan’s blue genitalia (not kidding). The thing that troubled me was the amount of 8-12 year old kids who were at this movie with their parents.

(I am not going to mention the plot, but I am going to reference scenes. If you haven’t seen the movie, skip this paragraph)

The first thing I would like to mention is that this was an R rated movie and this movie deserved it. There is a person getting their hands cut off with a chain saw, a person getting his face burned off with French fry grease, several broken bones, and an attempted rape scene. There is also a small love scene and the afore mentioned blue genitalia.

If parents think that their child can handle these images then I have no argument with them. I am not a parent and I don’t know the maturity level of each child in the audience. What I cannot accept is the excuse that parents were not sufficiently warned about the movie's content. In this age of information there is no excuse that parents shouldn’t know what is coming. They could read the book. If they don’t read the book, they can go to the net and get any one of 4 bazillion reviews. It would take literally 10 minutes to inform yourself.

A child is supposed to be the most important thing in a parent’s life. How could they not take 10 minutes out of their busy day to Google “Watchmen”? It is one thing if the kids saw the movie without the parent’s knowledge ,or if they saw it with a friend. That is not the case. I saw parents with their kids. If their motives were to engage their children on their level then that is one thing. If the idea was to use Watchmen as a catalyst for a discussion about rape, the role of good and evil, or the criminal justice system, then I applaud these parents. I tend not to believe this is the case because too often I hear about parents complaining about inadequate censorship. I hear people complaining that video games are too violent, music it is too raunchy and a whole other list of complaints. You can’t blame censorship for this one. This movie was rated “R”. You can’t blame Hollywood or the media or our violent society, or Bevis and Butthead or Jackass or Southpark or anyone else. If you take your child to a rated R movie and are not informed about its content then YOU HAVE NO ONE TO BLAME BUT YOURSELF.

I truly do sympathize with parents. I think they have the hardest job in the world. They have to raise children in this cesspool of pop culture to be decent people, self-reliant people of conscience. That cannot be an easy job. I understand that we live in a world that is changing faster then ever. I understand that parents must work and may not always have time to know about every new fad that comes around the corner. I am so grateful for my parents and how they raised me. I was pissed when I was little because I couldn’t see The Terminator when all my friends saw it because my parents thought it was too violent. I am grateful that my parents (who didn’t have the internet) took the time to inform themselves about what I was interested in and then made a decision that they thought was in my best long term interests. There is so much that children are exposed to that are completely out of the hands of the parents. I just feel saddened that so many parents dropped the ball last Saturday. I am not a parent so I may be over reacting. I’d love to hear from parents about what they think of this issue.

and the oscar goes to...

I am a big fan of the movies. On average I see about 50 movies a year in the movie theater. Despite the crowds the screaming kids the cell phones going off and the rude people it is still one of the best games in town. For 8 dollars you can totally immerse your self in another world. This experience has not only the power to entertain but to enlighten, inform and inspire. It is no wonder that in this struggling economy people are flocking to the movies. For less then 20 dollars you can get 2+ hours of entertainment, food, drink, and a shared experience. The Oscars is one of the few award shows I watch. I could care less about the red carpet, who is wearing what, who is dating who and all that other nonsense. I watch because I watch movies. At the time I am writing this article I have seen all the pictures nominated for major categories (I have not seen “Happy go Lucky” at the time of this writing but I will see it by the time I see the Oscars). I think that it is fun to evaluate art. We can all agree that art has value but to say that one thing is better than the other can be interesting particularly because there really can’t be a definite right opinion. The criteria used to evaluate art vary from person to person. The criterion I use to evaluate is the skill level that the artist uses to create his art. Many times the picture being painted is not a pretty one but I think the way the artist paints it is important. I hope that we can appreciate when a picture is skillfully drawn even when we don’t like the content. With that being said here are my picks

BEST PICTURE - Slumdog Millionaire
The most well written movie I have seen in a few years. I have been a growing fan of Indian cinema for the last few years so I may be a little biased. This movie is not only well made but the message it conveys is very inspiring. In addition to this it is enlightening and informative. This movie does everything I expect art to do. It entertains, it informs and most of all it makes us question ourselves and the world we live in.

BEST DIRECTOR - David Finchner – The Curios Case of Benjamin Buttons
I love the way this movie was made. This director had a lot of challenges to overcome. The most obvious challenge is to make a nearly three hour movie without making it seem like three hours. The varying locations and time periods this director had to create is another thing to admire about this director. To capture Louisiana in the 1920s Russia in the 1930s, the Pacific Ocean during WWII in the 1940’s as well as many 21st century locals truly takes a skilled director. The range of performances is also an impressive thing. Capturing the entire lifetimes of a group of people was something neat to see.

BEST ACTOR - Frank Langela - Frost/Nixon
There were a lot of great nominees in this category. You can make a great argument for Mikey Rourke. You may even say that he was born to play that role in “The Wrestler”. You can make a great argument for Brad Pitt because of the range that his character demanded. I loved Langella because he became Richard Nixon, not only the look but the mannerisms the speech and the conviction. I was not alive during the Nixon years but from what I have seen from history Langella’s performance both was what I expected from Nixon and at the same time made me question how I viewed Nixon.

BEST ACTRESS - Kate Winslet
This category is traditionally hardest one for me to have an opinion on. I have to balance the size of the role the woman is asked to play vs. how well they play it. I just don’t think that leading ladies get the same amount of “facetime” as leading men. It just seems to me that the leading actress role is to often subordinate to the male role. Maybe I am paranoid or maybe women don’t get big parts written for them. This year Angelina Jolie in Changeling and Christina Leo of Frozen River were the center of their respective movies. I didn’t feel that way about any other female roles this year. So I am left with two huge performance and three other extremely well done smaller roles.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR - Heath ledger – The Dark Night
Nothing to say here. The joker was freakin’ out of control!!!!!! I wish he were here to see it and it is a shame that Mr. Ledger won’t be making any more movies.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS - Amy Adams – Doubt
Not only did I LOVE this movie and think it should have been nominated for best picture but I thought Amy Adams was great. I like her in just about every movie I have seen her in. In addition to her performance the character she plays is a very important one. The reason this movie works is Amy Adams’s character presents the counter argument to Meryl Streep’s Character. If these 2 arguments are not equal then this movie cannot be effective. Having the believability of a movie rest on the shoulders of a supporting actress is in my opinion rare and Oscar worthy.

BEST ORIGIONAL SCREENPLAY – Courtney Hunt -Frozen River
This movie is about very troubling subject matter. The way this is written generates sympathy for the characters and at the same time generates shear outrage for their actions. It paints a picture about what people will do and say they will do in desperate situations.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY – Simon Beaufoy- Slumdog Millionaire
It was based on a book called Q and A that I really want to read now. The way that this story is told is just as impressive as the story itself. It gives you just enough information so that you are not lost but at the same time still leaves you hanging.

We will see how right I am. Last year I only got one movie right. The year before I got them all right. In the end it doesn’t matter. The thing about art is that everyone can have an opinion. Who is to say whose opinion is right or wrong? There are many times in our lives when opinions differ but are not necessarily wrong. I am not a movie expert I am just a guy who sees a lot of movies. I'd love to hear what movies you saw this year and why you liked them. See you at the movies.

I wrote this article super fast so i know there are stupid mistakes all over it!!!

Play well with others

Let me be the first to say that this week BARAK OBAMA IS F***ING UP!!! I am a big supporter of Mr. “Barak Hussein Obama,” but this week I have seen a few troubling things. I am sympathetic with the amount of junk that he has to fix, and I applaud him for his conduct during the campaign, the actions of his transition team, and the general way he does things. However, some of the things he does I find disquieting, specifically I am referring to the proposed economic stimulus package.

Let me start with the good news: I am impressed with the Obama spirit of bipartisanship. One of the things Obama said he intended to fix is a lack of cooperation in Washington. He vowed to put politics aside and implement solutions that will be best for the country. He promised that he may not agree with the ideas of his opponents, but that he would always listen and give them the respect that they deserve. He also said that he is not opposed to using the good ideas that are presented from the other side of the table and he would not let a political agenda keep him from implementing the best idea for everyone.

The negotiations regarding the proposed stimulus package have been a model of good will from the Obama administration. Never has a president with such an overwhelming majority in Congress and a sky high approval rating done more to extend his hand to his opposition.

The problem I have is that he is letting bad ideas into a very important stimulus bill for political reasons. I believe (as I have said before) that infrastructure spending is the best way to stimulate this economy. To help get Republican support for this bill, the Obama administration has reduced its infrastructure spending and put more tax cuts in this bill. This bill as it is currently written has 19% of its spending dedicated to infrastructure projects and 33% of it devoted to tax cuts. THAT RATIO IS BACKWARDS. THIS IS THE SAME SET OF POLICIES THAT GOT US IN THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It is the last 27 years of these tax cuts and irresponsible spending that led to this economic climate. If people get a tax cut in this economy they are going to pay bills they already have, or they are going to put it in the bank. The vast majority of people are not going to buy anything new of consequence (because they still can’t get credit), and they are not going to hire a new employee. If you build infrastructure then people from all levels of society must be hired to do the work. That means that more people have more money. More people will buy things when their prospects are better and when they have more money. That grows the economy.

That is the idea that Barak Obama campaigned on and that is the idea that I and most of the country voted for. If I wanted tax cuts and a conservative agenda I would have voted for John McCain. I didn’t. America thought about the two ideas that were presented and they voted for Barak Obama’s solution on how to fix the economy. The Democrats won overwhelming victories in the House and the Senate because all over this country people think that the ideas pushed by the Democrats are the best solutions for this country.

Yes, some tax cuts will help the immediate situation so here should be tax cuts, but not 1/3 of a stimulus package. I am not opposed to compromise, but the compromise has to yield a better idea then the one you started with. The strength of compromise is that in the end your idea is stronger because you have incorporated other good ideas into your own. To change a good idea just so people will like you is not an effective compromise.

And what did President Obama get for all his good will and compromise. NOTHING. Not one gutless Republican representative voted for this compromise. The White House showed the spirit of compromise and tried to meet the other side halfway. Did the Republicans in the house say “it is not everything we want, but it is a good start”? Did they say “this bill doesn’t do everything we want, but it is better than doing nothing”? No. Instead ,they did nothing. They stuck to their 80-year-old out-dated ideas and failed to grasp the reality of the situation.

Maybe I am not giving the Republicans enough credit. Maybe they are a lot smarter than I am. A very good plan would be to make Obama add so much to his bill that it is ultimately ineffective. Then none of them vote for it. When the stimulus fails, they can then go back to their constituents and say “Obama messed up the stimulus package.” Brilliant political maneuvering. Why didn’t I think of that? Oh wait, I just did.”

I am glad Obama is trying to change the way politics is played in this country. It is a change that has been needed for a while. I have stated in other articles that I have written that compromise is an important thing and the ability not to incorporate good ideas different from your own is one of the biggest failures of the previous administration. I do think that Mr. Obama needs to do what is right and not to win approval of everyone. Part of being a leader is making tough choices. It means to put aside what people think of you and do what is best for people. I think Obama needs to remember that THE DEMOCRATS WON. This bill can pass without the Republicans. I think he should continue the spirit of compromise, but in the end he has to do the right thing, not the politically correct thing. I guess we will call this strike one.

A future article will be about strike 2. Let’s just say the name William Lynn III comes to mind. You can’t hit a home run every time and for the most part this administration has done a great job. I am not jumping off of the ship after three weeks.

As always I love to hear what you think of this position. I especially welcome ideas that differ from my own.

GOOD RIDDANCE GOOBER

January 20 is reported to be an historic day. After months of campaigning hype and speculation, Barack Hussein Obama will be sworn in as the 43rd president of the United States. This administration arguably is in one of the most perilous times in American history. We face major economic challenges. A war on 2 fronts, a sky rocketing national debt and a crumbling infrastructure are some of the many other problems we as a nation face. We did not get into this mess over night and some say we are beyond the capacity to ever get out. Many people are counting on this administration to do a lot as well they should. A lot was promised to us in the way of change and this is the time where the change must be delivered. We no longer have the luxury of complacency. There is no time to drag our heels and continue to do things the way they have always been done. Many people question if this administration can bring us the change that we so desperately need. Indeed I myself do not know if they can but there is one thing I do know. THE LAST EIGHT YEARS HAVE BEEN A DISASTER FOR THIS COUNTRY, WHAT EVER HAPPENS I WILL NEVER WANT TO GO BACK TO THE ADMINISTRATION THAT IS LEAVING OFFICE. I find it hard to believe but some people that I know (some of these people are my good friends) still love George W and what he stood for. I still respect these people and they are entitled to their opinion. This article will be about the reasons that I want this administration as far out of the white house as I can get them.

Before I go any further I must state that I have never met any of the people I am writing about. I do not know if they are good people, good husbands, good fathers, or nice guys. I can not judge these men and women as people. I can only judge them by how they have acted in their official roles and by what effect their actions have had on our country. It is not just the president I don’t like but the people that he has surrounded himself with. I must also say that this argument will be a rant rather then my usual logically structured arguments. Three of the four people I will mention are no longer serving in the George Bush white house, never the less the had significant influence over his policy.


Karl Rove (Deputy Chief of Staff)

No one disputes the electoral genius of Karl Rove. The thing that I dislike about this man is the methods he used to get his man into office. Getting one side of the country to hate the other is one of the many tactics he employed. His ability to demonize the people that disagreed with him is something that was a mainstay of the bush presidency. I understand that part of politics is to make the other guy look bad but there are times when I think that Mr. Rove just went too far. I think one of the fundamental flaws of this white house was a failure to see that you can disagree with someone and still think their opinion has some value. Very rarely is a viewpoint 100% wrong. The opposing viewpoint may have things that could be valuable. To devalue the opposing view to the point where you can’t even see its merits is a flawed way of doing things. Karl Rove did not invent these feelings. I think the fear, resentment, and disrespect were already present in us. I can not blame Mr. Rove for how people feel, but I can blame him for using those feelings for political gain at the expense of our national consciousness. No wonder liberals had a field day when the permanent republican majority lasted a little over 3 years.

Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense)

Even if you manage to convince me that the war in Iraq was necessary, the way we went to war was a total disaster. The cavalier attitude that this group of nuts took us to war was shameful. I admit that there are some wars that we may have to fight but we should only fight them when there is no other alternative. I don’t think anyone would make the argument that this administration did every thing they could to keep us out of the Iraqi theater. Watching this man tell the terrorist to “bring it on” illustrates the callousness this man ran the pentagon with. I am sure that the phrase “bring it on” is exactly what all those mothers and fiancés and brothers and sisters of all those troops were thinking when their love ones were deployed.
In addition to the attitude which this pentagon took us to war the methods of operation were a strategic disaster. We went into a war without enough troops. We went to war with a strategy that was based more on a video game then historic, documented plans of action. We thought the war would take six months and it didn’t (AND FOR EVERYONE WHO SAYS THE WHITE HOUSE NEVER SAID THAT WATCH THE FREAKIN VIDEO TAPE). We didn’t have the necessary equipment, support staff, or even health benefits in place to support a prolonged engagement.

In addition to this all the assumptions the pentagon made about this war were wrong. We (and I say we in the sense of country not counting the individuals who opposed this war from the beginning) assumed the war would take six months. It didn’t. We assumed that the oil revenue would pay for the war. It didn’t. We assumed that the people would see us as liberators and all be on our side. They weren’t. We assumed that dismantling the country’s infrastructure, army police force and civil service would help bring peace. It. didn’t. We thought that letting people loot and riot would cement our image as liberators. It didn’t. We thought that since they were all Iraqi’s they would get along. They didn’t. In addition, we were told that Saddam was working for Al Qaeda. He wasn’t. We were told that Al Qaeda was operating in Iraq. They weren’t (until we got there). We were told that we would find weapons of mass destruction and we didn’t. You may be able to successfully argue that this war was necessary but you cannot argue that both the plan for this war and the execution of said plan have been PISS POOR.

John Ashcroft (Attorney General)

I think the justice department in the last eight years has done more to damage this country then any third world dictator. The fabric of our legal system and the fundamental principles of the constitution have been trampled on in the last 8 years by our own justice department. For the first four years of the Bush presidency John Ashcroft was the attorney general of the Unites States. Before I go on let me state that I understand how things could get so out of hand. September 11th is one of the things in my young adult life that I will never forget. I remember seeing those horrifying images on the news. I remember having friends that live and work in New York. I remember not being able to call anyone’s cell phone in New York City. I remember the sense of fear and confusion that we all felt. That does not mean I gave the justice department a free pass. To spy on American citizens without cause it wrong. Even if I am scared it is still wrong. The patriot act has many merits. To spy on people suspected of a crime is perfectly acceptable to me. To treat everyone as a suspect is a very different matter. I am prepared to say that in the world we live in we will have take precautions. I have no problem with extra security at sporting events. I have no problem with taking off my shoes at an airport. I do have a problem with scrapping the entire premise of our legal system just because we are scared.

The whole idea of enemy combatants is another horrible idea by the justice department. To arbitrarily create a whole group of people with no rights is one of the dirtiest things our legal system has every done (and we have done a lot). If we are at war then these suspects are prisoners of war and they have the rights afforded to them by the Geneva Convention. This is an agreement that we signed in good faith. This is a set of rules that we as a people promised that we would uphold. This is the same set of standards that we have used to try, and to execute war criminals from other governments. If we are at war then the people we are holding captive deserve these rights. If we are not at war then these people are criminals and they should be treated as criminals. They should be processed the way all other criminals are processed. I have no problem with either of these distinctions but you can’t just create a whole class of people with no rights because you are scared. Detaining people indefinitely and torture are two things that are completely inconsistent with our democracy and this administration has admitted to both (it is only fair to point out that John Ashcroft is on the record for not supporting torture). These things are unacceptable no matter how dangerous this world is.

There are some that say we had to gather all this information to keep ourselves safe. I also reject this argument. If you have read any of the 911 commission report (and I happen to read the entire thing) you will find that we had plenty of information. The problem was the right information didn’t get to the right people. I would also say that we have lost valuable intelligence by alienating the Muslim American community. The people that can help us most with the war on terror are the first people we alienated by fear and discrimination. I would also argue that the intelligence gathered through torture is at best of questionable accuracy. There are many examples in history where citizens volunteered to give up some of there rights in order to feel safer. All off these decisions were met with disastrous consequences. This is a road that I WILL NOT GO DOWN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I didn’t believe in it on September 12, 2001 and I don’t believe in it now.

Dick Cheney (Vice President)

The things I have mentioned illustrate a several deeper problems that have gone on in the last eight years. The first problem is the idea that America is bigger then the rest of the world. The idea that America isn’t really apart of this world and therefore does not have to play by the rules that everyone else plays by. This idea has done more to harm America’s image then anything. This idea has been championed by our vice president. If 911 taught us anything it should have taught us that we are no longer this invincible island. The idea that we are over here and they are over there is no longer valid. In fact that idea is the idea that will ruin us in the post 911 world. Some would argue that the UN doesn’t work and that we often times will have to act on our own. I would respond by asking how is the UN suppose to work when the greatest most powerful country in the world won’t even acknowledge its importance. That makes for a very dangerous world. This is a world that our vice president and people like him have helped to create.

The second major problem with the course of action has to do with the idea of democracy. This administration has adopted as its foreign policy the idea that the world would be safer if we democratized the rest of the world. If we replace evil dictatorships with democracy the world would be a safer place. The problem comes in when we have to be the democracy that we are trying to sell to the rest of the world. If we are going to sell this brand of democracy then we have to be the model this democracy to the rest of the world. Why would anyone in the Middle East want to aspire to democracy when we torture our own citizens? Why should any third world government choose democracy when we abandon our fundamental principles as soon as things get a little rough? Why would they think that this government is better then the one they have? This administration still believes they are operating in a time when the world can not see our faults. A democracy is not just 3 pieces of paper that were written 200 years ago. Democracy is a living breathing thing and the only way it survives is if it is practiced.

The idea that evil is as simple as a flag or a group of people has doomed the foreign policy of the last eight years. The ability to differentiate from the people who mean to do us harm from the people that look like them is something that has happened on this watch. I do not know if this is reality or perception. In essence it doesn’t really matter. In a war of ideas, perception is almost as important as reality. This is another fact that this foreign policy does not take into account. This policy lacks the subtlety necessary to be effective in the world we live in and in eight years this administration failed to realize that. If its fundamental views are not upheld then it ceases to be a democracy.

Everyone freaked out in this election cycle because Obama sat on a board with William Ayres. The media also made a big deal out of Obama’s reported ties with a political action group called ACORN. How can we have a vice president who was the CEO of one of the biggest oil companies and be at war in one of the most oil rich parts of the world and there is no presumption of a conflict of interest.

I didn’t even mention that we had a “conservative” president and he spent more money then any “liberal” president has. I also didn’t mention the failed immigration policy, the failed health care policy, the failed social security policy, the very, very lame attempt at Middle East peace. I also didn’t mention the rolling back of almost every environmental act on the books. I also didn’t mention the idea that the top one percent of the country got richer while the middle class was almost destroyed. Did I mention hurricane Katrina and FEMA? And we won’t even mention names like Scooter Libby, Harriet Myers, or Alberto Gonzales.


Many people will argue that these men kept us safe. After September 11. 2001 there were no major attacks on American soil. I am glad that there has not been another September 11th. If they were right and I am wrong I will gladly be wrong so people can be safe. Some would also say that I am an idealistic fool with no sense of reality. Some would also say that I could not hold on to my idealism in this dangerous world. I would respond by saying I don’t give up that easily. I would argue we have no way of knowing how much safer we would be. We have no way of knowing what would have happened if we put the 140,000 troops that were in Iraq into Afghanistan. We put 50,000 troops where Osama Bin Laden was but we put 140,000 troops into a place where Al Qaeda wasn’t. We have no way of knowing what would have happened if we engaged the rest of the world to help us fight terrorism. What would have happened if we took the dissenting opinions of our allies seriously, treated them with the respect they deserve, and let them help us to solve a problem that affects everyone? What would have happen if instead of persecuting Muslim citizens, we employed them to help us gather intelligence? What would have happen if we greeted them as a valuable resource rather then with suspicion and prejudice? What would have happened if we didn’t have all that bad intelligence that came from torture to muddy the waters? What would have happened if we made a real effort to end extreme poverty and lessen the amount of desperation in the world thereby making it harder for extremists to recruit? What if we tried to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world with respect instead of fear and humiliation? What would have happened if instead of demonizing our enemy we employed the good people in the middle east to help us rather then thinking they all were evil? What would have happened if American and her citizens held to their democratic principles and made sure that the America is an ideal that the world should aspire to.

I don’t know what the next administration will bring. I do not know if this young inexperienced president is up to the challenge. I think the circumstances that we are in are very difficult. I think things may get worse before they get better. I don’t think Obama is going to deliverer on all the things that he promised us. I do know one thing. There is a whole lot of mess that has to be cleaned up. I am not saying that the Bush administration is the cause for all of it but I think in the last eight years this country has gotten further away from what it is suppose to be. It is suppose to be a country that treats all of its citizens equally and fairly. It is suppose to be a place where our diversity of opinions is a source of strength. We are supposed to be a country that realizes the unique place we have as a world power and the unique ability we have to lead this world good. I don’t know how good or how bad they will be but after the last 8 years I don’t ever wanna see these guys again. I will take my chances with a guy named Hussein.

People have told me that I should let history judge George W. Bush. I am a student of history. There is a statement that I debate with my “Bush Friends”. The statement is this. “I THINK GEORGE W BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN AMERICAN HISTORY.” Worse then James Buchannan worse then Chester Author, Worse then Calvin Coolidge, worse then the dreaded Herbert Hoover. THE WORST. I invite anyone to look at what this president has done over the last 8 years and tell me why I am wrong.