click to enlarge
We all know the winner of the next election will be whoever wins over the every growing number of disgruntled independents and even though they may be against the war, as Hillary has said before in public, they may still be on the fence about Democrats being spineless or soft. I can understand why this is since most Democrats are spineless as woolly worms and not as cuddly.
What better way to position yourself as strong on defense than allowing your fellow Democrats to continuously paint you as supportive of the military and strong on defense?
Her pant suit may be flame retardant but her mind is sharp as a tack.
You must hand it to her, she is a MASTER politician.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
click to enlarge
Concerning the double-speak at the last debate about driver licenses for illegal aliens, I didn't think it was that much of a big deal. Frankly, it seemed to be the status quo from the Clinton Camp - not ever really simply stating a position like Kucinich can. Kucinich can tell you what his position is in under 8 words and 99% of the population will understand exactly what he means - they may not agree however. Face it, he is a better communicator.
Back to Hillary, this past week, both sides of the aisle and the great vast "middle-wing" conspiracy of independent populists led by Lou Dobbs all dumped on Hillary and the results were shocking, at least to me. Her drops in polls, specifically Iowa, I think showed how really weak she is as a candidate. Don't get me wrong, she has a ton of cash, and is still considered a front runner, but if a slight mistake like the one in the last debate can cause such a whirl wind of negative results, maybe she is not bulletproof.
Kucinich, now that guy IS bulletproof, but that is another blog entry.
P.S. Credit for today's strip has to go to DKos user Common Cents, from this diary comment. It has been reported by Members of Congress and the media that Hillary can, on occasion, cuss like 20 sailors being waterboarded. However, this is a fictional cartoon and not a direct quote.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
The holidays are breathing down our necks and we all know what that means: fighting with relatives. I am blessed to be from a primarily liberal family, as is my husband, so political discussions rarely turn Thanksgiving Dinner into a blood sport. Many are not so lucky. Daniel Kurtzman offers a few helpful tips on political family squabbles in How to Win a Fight with a Conservative. (A companion volume, How to Win a Fight with a Liberal is available to balance out the playing field. I skimmed the latter.)
DON'T let Uncle Buckwald hold the dinner table hostage. Fact-check him right then and there using the Internet browswer on your BlackBerry or cell phone. Counter him point-for-point, fire off contradictory statistics, and apply duct tape as needed. Rembember, conservatives hate facts. They get in the way of sweeping generalizations. It's like sunlight to a vampire.
The books are at turns glib, cliched, and surprisingly insightful. Kurtzman, who defines himself as a liberal, explains the companion books as an attempt even out the debate. Despite his lighthearted approach, he clearly takes politics seriously. While he offers basic information on rhetorical devices and tips for spotting weaknesses in arguments, he also includes talking points and step-by-step guides on some of the more longstanding issues, such as "Iraq: Why It's a Catastrofuck."
Especially good are numerous Cosmo style quizzes designed to help you pick your battles and assess your own strengths and weaknesses before you wade into the fray. They're fun, humorous, and very much on target. From the first quiz, "What Breed of Liberal Are You?" I learned that I am a "label-defying iconoclast." Okay. No shock there.
If I have a single bone to pick with Kurtzman's approach, it's in his section on internet flamewars. Some of us take flaming quite seriously and will want to shun such as advice as: "feel free to invent your own facts" and "pretend to be someone you're not."
I also think the simplistic, binary, Democratic=liberal, Republican=conservative format of the books limits the potential for a truly constructive political dialog. But then, I am a "label-defying iconoclast."
Via Huffington Post
I wish I could think of something to say, but I seem to have sprained some sort of irony-related muscle.
So I'll just go with this...
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
(Cross-posted at my blog, Rants 'n Reviews)
In the United States, the rising bill for imported petroleum lowers already anemic consumer savings rates, adds to inflation, worsens the trade deficit, undermines the dollar and makes it more difficult for the Federal Reserve to balance its competing goals of fighting inflation and sustaining growth.Our dependence on oil has been foisted on us by a government that likes it. From not raising CAFE fuel economy standards since the early '90s to starting a war in an oil-rich nation that could only lead to higher fossil fuel prices -- and threatening another -- we've been duped into giving our money to members of the government rather than the government itself.
Rather than being "handled" by "tax and spend" Democrats, we're being molested by "don't tax but raise our cost of energy and spend more" Repugnicans.
It's time to take our country -- and our money -- back.
The first step: Take them to task for paying for their ill-conceived and carried-out war -- a war -- at least Iraq's reconstruction -- that was to be paid for by Iraq oil revenues! In this sense, we're being taxed twice: Once in terms of tax dollars to pay for the war and a second in terms of higher prices at the pump, at home, in the grocery store, at the hotel, on the plane, and every conceivable place possible.
I'll leave the second step for another day and another post. Rant over.
Posted by billspaced at 12:39 PM
click to enlarge
We have heard it a million times, once the surge is successful, Bush tells us he will bring the troops home, "when the job is finished."
So why are they still there?
The Right Wing press has been suffering seizures over the lull in violence in Iraq, exclaiming how "liburls are hand-wringing" over "Bush's success." But why aren't they asking the NEXT question? (they never ask the next smart question) Why did the violence slow down?
There are a multitude of answers. The first being the fact that Moqtada al-Sadr's Madhi Army has declared a cease fire.
The recent "pact of honor" made by two of Iraq's most influential Shiite clerics, Moqtada al-Sadr and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim—aimed at preventing violence and helping to maintain the "Islamic and national interest" of Iraq—appears to signal a significant shift toward stability in Iraq.
The second reason violence is down is due to the fact that there is hardly anyone else left to ethnically cleanse. Much of the work of the Sunni/Shia Death Squads has been completed. The "unpure" Muslims were either executed or they have fled.
Fewer people to shoot at. Bush's war has created a silent disaster that is rarely reported on - the existence of over 5 million refugees, half of which have fled the nation entirely. There are over 1.2 million in Syria, there are 750,000 Iraqi refugees in Jordan, 100,000 in Egypt, 54,000 in Iran, 40,000 in Lebanon, 10,000 in Turkey and 200,000 in various Persian Gulf countries, according to the UNHCR.
So why are we still there? The answer is obvious, Iraq is not stable, it is far from stable and I doubt will be stable in the next decade. Why is it far from stable? Why will Bush keep troops there?
The cease fire from the Madhi Army is only for six months, it expires in January, 2008.
Refugees are returning home because they are out of money to support themselves and their families. Which means the ethnic cleansing is far from over once these "cleansed" neighborhoods begin to fill back up with the original inhabitants.
Oh yeah, they still have oil.
Monday, November 12, 2007
"The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being", says Aleksander Solzhenitsyn. ... "It's a decision that you have to make every day in various ways."
Posted by Renee in Ohio at 9:03 PM
click to enlarge
Evidence that the Chinese don't have a clue about PR (public relations) is shown in their weak-assed press release.
As advised from the ship operator, the subject-mentioned vessel collided with a support tower of the fog-shrouded Bay Bridge of Oakland on Nov. 07th, 2007. COSCO takes this opportunity to emphasize that COSCO Container Line and any other COSCO subsidiary companies are not the Shipowner, Manager, Operator, bareboat charter and/or time Charterer etc. of the vessel "COSCO BUSAN".
Love the heart-felt apology for all the people in the Bay Area who are left holding the bag. Note that COSCO's name is part of the ship name. Why is their name on the boat? I wonder what was so important in those containers?
The ship is probably owned by owned by Regal Stone, Ltd. of China and was carrying cargo for COSCO. Hanjin shipping of South Korea seems to have no connection to the mishap other than having it's name on the side of the ship which could just be a failure to remove it before they sold the ship to Regal Stone.
It is often difficult trying to track down the actual owner of a ship.
An experienced San Francisco admiralty lawyer, who did not want to be named because he has many clients in the shipping world, said ships and their owners and operators sometimes cloak themselves with dizzying layers of paperwork "to avoid liability. If you can't find who owns it," it is more difficult to file a lawsuit.
The guy actually piloting the ship was no winner either.
Capt. John Cota, the veteran master mariner who was piloting the container ship Cosco Busan when it hit the Bay Bridge on Wednesday, has been involved in a number of ship-handling incidents and was reprimanded last year for an error in judgment when he ran a ship aground, state regulatory documents show.
I just hope whatever was on that ship was damned important enough to damage the Bay for decades to come. With our luck, it was a boat load of Barbie heads coated with arsenic paint.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal as well as the Independent Bloggers Alliance, The Peace Tree, Wild Wild Left and Worldwide Sawdust.
“Ending the conservative era requires organizing, yes, but also hard thinking and shrewd analysis. When progressives of the future look back at how they triumphed, one of the people they'll thank is Greg Anrig. Drawing inspiration from the work of the early neoconservatives who demolished public support for liberal programs, Anrig casts a sharp eye on conservative ideas and nostrums and shows that many of them simply don't work because they are rooted more in ideological dreams than in reality. Facts are stubborn things, Ronald Reagan once said, and Anrig makes good use of them in this important and engaging book."Anrig agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about his book and issues such as education, Social Security, national security and the Democrats ineffectiveness at challenging the conservative paradigm. Please refer to the media player below. Our conversation is approximately forty minutes.
This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for the “Intrepid Liberal Journal.”