Some Examples of Why the Last Decade Was Maybe Not So Good

A comment to the cartoon/post on Jan. 1, 2010 read, "[I] don't get it why did the decade suck."

I hope/think maybe they were joking. I essentially responded, in a comment to that post, as follows:


You're joking right? What about:

9/11

Iraq

Anthrax attacks

Afghanistan

Osama Bin Laden is still alive

Bush took the White House in 2000 after probably losing Florida and losing the popular vote

We re-elected him in 2004

The snuggy was invented

I'm pretty sure 1980's "fashion" was coming back towards the end of the decade there

We owe China WAY, WAY, WAY too much money now.

The Steelers won another Super Bowl and now have more than the Cowboys

Bennifer

Wall Street collapse

We bailed out Wall Street and they laughed all the way to he bank

Bernie Madoff

Housing bubble

ARM mortgages

DC sniper

Perry has been governor of Texas THE WHOLE DECADE

swine flu

bird flu

Sarah Palin

Tea Parties/Partiers/Baggers

Tiger is human

WAY too much reality TV

tsunami

Katrina

Ike

That's all I can think of right now. If anyone can think of more add a comment.


Side Note: Someone may bring up the whole argument/discussion that a decade doesn't begin until year one (1). For example, we don't start counting with the number zero (0) we start counting with one (1). So you wouldn't start a decade, much less a millennium with number zero would you? Meaning the past decade would have started in 2001 not 2000. Also, meaning a decade would end with year ten (10), in this past decade's case the year 2010 would actually be the last year of the decade not 2009. Weird to consider at best, boring at worst. I thought it was worth noting.

Cheney Under a Blood Red Sky...

In case you missed it Cheney had more to say about President Obama and Afghanistan. Of course, the White House responded.

Check out past thoughts on "Hi I'm a Dem and I'm a GOP" or "Cheney's International Center is Like..." if you'd like.

Putting People In Their Place

I came up with the above after reading this story, this other story and this older editorial.

- stray musings

The below is an assortment of old ideas that were maybe going to be a cartoon or it's own post and may still be. But, I was inspired to just throw my stray musings up below in a post after reading a great (and funnier) list a good friend forwarded me. Here you go:

- Do employers know that just because they blocked YouTube does not mean that Hulu.com is blocked?

- I am seriously, deeply conflicted during fantasy football drafts and seasons, to the point where I won't draft many players in the same division as my home team or start players playing against my home team. OK, I will start them if I still have a mathematical chance to win the fantasy football league. Money is money.

- I understand that some pregnancies are difficult but, when the full term, by-the-book, no complications birth of a baby occurs is the baby really a "miracle"? Did an angel visit the mother and impregnate her? Did the baby part a sea or any other body of water? Maybe to those in olden' times a baby's birth was considered a "miracle". Don't get me wrong having a baby is great. I just don't like it when the word "miracle" is thrown around. It's called reproductive biology. Open a book.

- Sports athletes, it seems like it's usually football players, talk about being "warriors" or "soldiers" or "going to war" or "doing battle" or "being in the trenches". I know Kellen Winslow got in trouble for it a couple of years ago but, I swear they still do it. They do know that USA service people, actual real soldiers, real warriors, are abroad actually doing battle, at war, right? As for being "in the trenches" I assume that's a reference to WW1 trench warfare. Does that mean football players have explosives lobbed into their trenches? Do football players have to eat, sleep, fight, use the restroom and even live near corpses of friends for days or weeks on end in their trenches? So note to football player, I'd estimate that our military service people die at a greater clip than NFL players. And they're not paid ridiculous amounts of money for it. So football player, less talkie talkie, more touchdowns.

- Why do we use the initials "rsvp" for invitations? You know that those initials stand for a phrase in French that means "please reply" or some such? I don't know or speak French. When else do you use a phrase in another language to respond to something? When someone says "thank you" to me my response from now on will be, "viva la revolucion".

- Some people say I'm a "back seat driver". No, I'm not, I'm not driving at all. I'm actually a "terrified passenger" when most other people drive because the way most people drive freaks me the hell out.

- Sometimes people say, "we treat our pets like they're our children". Do they really? Do they:

set up a college fund for Spot?

tell their pet to stop crying or they'll give them something to really cry about?

force their pet to stay at the dinner table until their plate is empty?

force their pet to take lessons on violin when the pet really wants to take piano lessons?

tell their pet that if they pee the bed again they'll have to sleep in the back yard.

forever cripple their pet's self-esteem by telling their pet that they'll never amount to anything?

- People should only say that they're "starving" if it's been at least multiple days since they ate. If you missed breakfast that really doesn't count. That'd be like saying "I'm a master carpenter" because you put something together from IKEA. Don't exaggerate. It insults those that are starving and master carpenters.

- I like french fries and I like mayonnaise. Don't judge me for dipping the former in the latter.

- I'm not saying it's as bad as Bernie Madoff but, explain to me again why it's not a rip off to pay so much for bottled water?

- Why do we use the phrase "politically correct". I think most of the time it's just being considerate of the feelings of others. Or just not being a blatant bigot, misogynist or a person who makes fun of the disabled.

- Facebooking while intoxicated is the new drunk dialing.

- The term "spam email" is an insult to the deliciousness that is the canned meat product Spam.

- They say you're not supposed to talk about money, politics or religion in polite company. Can we all agree to add the weather to that too? Of course then you'd have nothing to talk about. And I don't consider myself polite.

- Why do we always cheer for the underdog? I don't necessarily cheer for the underdog as much as I cheer against the favorite so that those that always have things go their way have a taste of the losing and misery we all ingest regularly.

- Watching over and over the movie "A Cry in the Dark", in which Meryl Streep plays an Australian mother who says, "a dingo stole my baby," is my own way of getting back at all the Australian actors for taking all the movie roles with American accents from American actors.

- Is Brett Farve going to regale his younger teammates with stories about cassette tapes and black and white TV?

- Part 4: HI I'M A DEM AND I'M A GOP

Part 5

History Is Written By the Victors?

The 65th anniversary of D-Day yesterday got me thinking, and that's never good. I was and still am after all a student of history. Others, I am sure, have illustrated this more clearly but...

In retrospect, with most, if not all, the facts now known regarding Iraqi armaments (lack of WMD's) and Iraqi ties (lack thereof to Al Qaeda) the USA invasion of Iraq after Al Qaeda's attacks on September 11, 2001 is analogous to a hypothetical USA declaration of war/attack on China after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Ron Paul Pro Secession, Anti U.S. Entering WWI, Anti Wording of Pledge of Allegiance

Below is a clip of Ron Paul defending the idea of secession and Gov. Perry:

Ron Paul defends secession as American and at least at one time grounded in constitutional principles. I'll disagree with Ron Paul when he says that secessionist talk isn't treasonous. There was a Civil War about it. When we revolted from England the only reason it wasn't considered treason was because we won. But, because the U.S. won the Revolutionary War it was historic and brilliant. Had we lost, it would have been treasonous, at least according to Britain. In other words, history is written by the victors and thankfully the U.S. won both the Revolutionary War and Civil War. Revolting because of lack of representation is one thing. States seceding in defense of the states' right to allow slavery is another. Threatening secession and defending secessionist talk because you disagree with tax policies, tax policies elected officials from each state voted on, is ridiculous. Of course these are just my thoughts on the subject.

Please note however that I may not be alone in my thinking, polling suggests that the vast majority of Texans are not in favor of seceding. The fact that we have polling on the issue is sad. Furthermore, over 60% of Americans approve of the job Obama is doing.

Of course let's put Ron Paul's comments into perspective. Ron Paul gripes about the Pledge of Allegiance's wording regarding the United States being "indivisible", and implies Woodrow Wilson should not have entered World War I.

So lets add Ron Paul to the list of Texas politicians that our great state has supported and given to the nation:

1. Tom Delay

2. Dick Armey

3. Dick Cheney

4. W.

5. Gov. Rick Perry

6. Betty Brown (more on her later)

7. Karl Rove

and now....

8. Ron Paul

One Last (Illustrated & Borrowed) W. Joke*

The Secretary of Defense, in the midst of the Iraq War, gives President George W. Bush a casualty report:

(*I didn't make up he joke, but the cartoon is original)

Conservative Leader Blames "Moderates" For Loss

Or alternate title, would Reagan recognize this GOP?

Bizarrely, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and religious conservative Republican blamed the presidential and congressional losses on moderates.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.election/index.html

Wow. This Republican is blaming moderates for not getting on board with social conservatives' agenda and wants to move the GOP farther right. Wow again.

Yes, some states passed amendments to ban same-sex marriage, or made English its official language or tried to ban affirmative action. Those types of issues are what Perkins is clinging to. Those issues work great for the GOP in state and local elections sometimes. And they help the GOP nationally when we're at peace and the economy is booming but not so much now or any time in the near future given our economic outlook and the fact that we're fighting two wars. The days of those "social" issues dominating the political landscape may be gone. The economy, taxes, foreign affairs, the issues that used to dominate elections, holds sway now.

For example, let's look at two of the religious conservative Republican's (I call them Pat Roberston Republicans, PRR's, as opposed to Barry Goldwater Republicans, BGR's) favorite red herrings in election years that they use to rally the base and scare the electorate generally, namely abortion and immigration. (see this blog post #22 for more on PRR's) Case in point, from 2000-2006 the GOP controlled the White House, and the Congress and arguably had a 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court but couldn't overturn Roe v. Wade. Furthermore, the GOP arguably doesn't try very hard to address the red herring issues they campaign about. How many test cases did the GOP get in front of the Supreme Court from 2000-2006 to try to overturn Roe v. Wade? They scare folks about immigration, but again from 2000-2006 didn't pass anything to punish employers that employ illegal immigrants, instead they talked about building a fence. A fence along the entire USA/Mexican border! And most of the Republicans, especially the PRR's, eat up these red herring campaign issues hook, line and sinker!

The fact of the matter is that McCain did pander to the GOP base, scaring them as best he could, at the expense of moderates, moderates that can be described as Reagan Democrats or Clinton Republicans. Moderates that don't see combating immigrants, abortion rights, gay rights, affirmative action, stem cell research ect., as the most important of the fights out there. I guess Perkins is frustrated that moderates weren't as easily scared as they were in 2004 by the bogeymen of a terrorist attack, the destruction of marriage, immigrants flooding across the boarder, ect, if a Democrat was elected. (Quick aside: does the state allowing same sex marriage mean that your individual church or faith has to allow it? No. Does it mean you have to attend every same sex wedding? No. Is the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage" semantics regarding a state providing a license for it? Yes.)

Perkins claims that he is attempting to go back to a Reagan-esque GOP. Really? Reagan advocated and passed the decriminalization of marijuana in California as governor. As president Reagan advocated and got passed the Earned Income Tax Credit for the poorest in our nation and amnesty to illegal immigrants in the USA who met certain criteria. I don't think Perkins really knows what Reagan stood for when it came to social issues. Reagan was arguably the most progressive on social issues of any president since LBJ, remember Clinton cut back on welfare when he "reformed" it. Reagan was actually consistent in advocating smaller government on economic issues as well as social issues. Reagan also balanced socially progressive stances by being a hawk.

So Perkins' solution to the GOP's poor performance in not only the presidential election but in congressional elections the last two cycles is to move farther to the right on social issues. Good luck with that. Dems, I'm sure, are quietly hoping the GOP follows Perkins' plan.

Sidenotes:

McCain versus Palin - McCain aides say that Palin, 1) didn't know what countries were parties to NAFTA, 2) didn't know Africa was a continent and not a country, 3) resisted coaching before the Couric interview.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-palin6-2008nov06,0,5597211.story

Palin wanted to address the crowd before McCain's concession speech, McCain aides said no.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/07/mccain.palin/index.html

McCain on War

Or, alternate title, USA, love it or leave it

McCain continues to speak of "winning" the war in Iraq. What "winning" means to McCain has not been explained by him or his campaign, he just says he knows how to "win" and he'll bring the troops home after we have "won" the Iraq war. I'm not even going to go into the whole, "Mission Accomplished" speech by W. years and years ago on the aircraft carrier which seemed to be a declaration of victory, or that W. and McCain predicted we'd go in, be greeted as liberators and then get out. Or that the case made for war, WMD's, was misrepresented to Congress and the American public. Let's just look at just some facets of McCain's views on war generally.

Read the below article for some insight into what McCain's idea of winning a war might mean.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/12/mccain/

The McCain idea of winning a war is outdated and inapplicable in Iraq, outdated because we have not employed such tactics as described by him since arguably Korea but definitely not since WWII and inapplicable because the current Republican administration is already in talks to withdraw from Iraq, a withdraw that is eerily similar to what Obama has been advocating for 20 months. So again, what does McCain mean when he says he is going to "win" the war in Iraq?

Lastly, McCain's disregard for dissent at home with U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding the use of force abroad, is alarming to say the least. McCain seems to think that domestic disagreement with a war is "irresponsible," and no constraints should be placed on how the war is prosecuted. What is alarming is McCain's lack of respect for "irresponsible," disagreement at home. Domestic public discourse regarding the validity and execution of armed conflict being termed irresponsible is fundamentally contrary our rights of freedom of expression. McCain apparently would disagree.

Side note: Palin was prank called by two French-Canadian radio dj's, one of the dj's pretended to be French President Sarkozy. Who is running Palin's staff? This was not Palin's fault. But it's further proof that this campaign is not being run very smoothly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4aHL12vtEM

McCain vs. Obama in a Crisis

Or, is Yosemite Sam our best option in a crisis?

Much has been made of Biden's remarks predicting an international crisis that would test Obama's mettle, and rightfully so. However, is one to assume that McCain would have handled an international crisis such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or 9/11 better than Obama? If so, based on what?

Based on how both candidates handled their campaigns amid the recent economic crisis it seems clear who appeared calm and level-headed and who appeared erratic and directionless. For some reason in my mind McCain came across as Yosemite Sam, ready to go somewhere, guns blazing and do something, anything without much forethought. Obama on the other hand came across as cool, collected and thoughtful.

Yes, I understand that McCain served his country with distinction and was a P.O.W. for years. However, that in and of itself does not dictate how he would handle a crisis such as the Cuban Missile Crisis for example. Remember, Kennedy went against is top military advisers and in doing so probably averted a nuclear exchange with the Soviets. Does anyone really believe that McCain would have disregarded the advice of top military brass? Remember, McCain was in agreement with W. on going into Iraq and still cannot admit it was a mistake to enter. Obama, admittedly on the outside looking in, pointed out that those responsible for 9/11 were in the Mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, not in Iraq and, was therefore against an Iraq war.

Does anyone believe that Obama would have told the American people to go out and, "shop," like W. did after 9/11? And if a severe economic downturn so confused McCain and his advisers what would a, God forbid, military or terrorist crisis scenario bring us from a McCain presidency? Again, if recent history has any lessons it would indicate that McCain would act erratically and take over a week to begin to appreciate the severity of the situation (the fundamentals of the economy were strong according McCain for more than week before he proclaimed that we were in the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression).

Moreover, the next president, which ever is elected, will not make decisions in a vacuum. Both will surround themselves with advisers. If this election and campaign are any indication of the company they would keep in the Oval Office then again, Obama's judgement would seem to be more sound. McCain in this campaign has surrounded himself with lobbyists and former Bush advisers. I think I'll take my chances with an Obama cabinet borrowing from the best of past administrations and injecting new blood.

But lastly, crisis management to a large extent involves having the thoughtfulness and temperament to make decisions in a stressful environment. Who would you rather have making those decision, should they need to be made, in the next four years? I wouldn't want it to be Yosemite Sam.

Side note: Palin and McCain camps start blaming each other?

Or again, ow, it hurts when you stab me in the back

The following story is leaked on purpose by "insiders" in the campaign. A McCain insider has called Palin a, "diva." A Palin friend said that McCain's advisers, "mishandled," Palin and her rollout. They're firing shots back and forth already. These leaks set up the postlogue to the election should the campaign fail to win. The postlogue will include why the campaign failed and where blame should be placed. If McCain/Palin lose this election I don't think that they'll be sharing Thanksgiving together. That the leaks and back stabbing between the McCain and Palin camps is happening before the election is telling.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14929.html

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5igWA77jTUWXP5cqP7Xy1MDq8I1ZQ