Ramp Up to WW3

Iran has been in the news a lot lately. Israel would like us to believe that Iran (along with some others,) is producing nukes, even though soil samples show otherwise. The US and Israel are nonetheless still adament that Iran is preparing for our demise. The rhetoric we've heard so far from these 2 is surprisingly not unlike the rhetoric we heard so much of before invading another soverign nation; Iraq.

This time, however we really don't have anything. No terrorist attacks, no despotic leaders, no mobile biological weapons labs; just Israels' insistance that we need to attack Iran in self defense. All the while, Iran insists they are not producing weapons, and have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear ambitions, like power plants. Something else that's noticibly different about this ramp-up is the fact that other nations are involved; specifically Russia. Russia is helping the Islamic nation produce its' first nuclear power plant, and has said that it will continue working on the project as long as Iran complies with IAEA.

So what does all this mean? Well, if Bush and Sharon have their way, it means that we will pre-emptively attack Iran on the insistance that they might someday produce a nuclear weapon (something we can safely bet Israel has already done, with our help no less.) So, we attack Iran; Russia, having a monetary and diplomatic stake in all this, assists Iran in fending off the US invasion. The US gets whatever 'allies' it can to help with the invasion (I got 10 to 1 that Israel isn't one of the contributing contries.) Russia, having a few allies itself, calls on them to assist it in defending a soverign nation from invasion. The rest of the Arab and Muslim world sees that Americas' imperialistic ways are ruining their way of life, jump on the proverbial dog-pile, and BAM! Just like that, we're in another world war. Only this time, just about everybody has nukes, and nobody is thinking about the environment.

Update: This just in: Russia and the US make agreement on Iraqi oil fields. This makes the water a bit muddier, but I sort-of doubt that the alliance will hold if the US starts attacking Russian interests.

Computer scientists slam e-voting machines

The world's oldest professional society of computer scientists on Monday took aim at electronic voting machines, recommending they not be used in elections unless they provide a physical paper trail.

...the rest.

Free Radio Santa Cruz RAIDED by the FCC and US Marshals

At 8:20 AM on Wednesday, September 29, armed US Marshals and FCC Agents raided the house from which Free Radio Santa Cruz broadcasts. Agents entered with guns drawn, showing the warrant to a couple of residents but not serving the warrant to anyone at that time. All residents, some wearing only their bathrobes and PJ's, were herded to the sidewalk in front of their house.

Free Radio Santa Cruz was airing Democracy Now! at 37 watts as the FCC Agents and US Marshals (we counted at least 16) worked to get into the studio. By this time FRSC 101.1 FM was airing a pre-programmed interview with Howard Zinn. This interview, in which Zinn read poems by Langston Hughes and Bob Dylan and cited Zora Neal Hurston’s comments against WW2, was in progress when the signal was taken off the air. Listeners of FRSC heard the sound of static for the first time ever due to governmental interference.

...the rest.
A personal account of the day.
The same thing happened in Knoxville on the 15th.
Photos

And the departure *was* delayed when the agents discovered that both of their trucks had flat tires. A tow truck was called to pull the second vehicle away.

Bush Goggles

HAHAHA

Via Atrios.

Pot Takes Lead in Race for the Cure

Pot Takes Lead in Race for the Cure

Not familiar with clinical research about marijuana's potential anti-cancer properties? You're not alone.

Imagine how far ahead of the game we would be if pot didn't have such an undeserved stigma attached to it.

Bushs' Hometown Paper Endorses Kerry

Bushs' Hometown Paper Endorses Kerry
The Lonestar Iconoclast is a small paper which has billed itself as being Bushs' hometown paper for the last few years. They ran an editorial piece recently titled: Kerry Will Restore American Dignity. Here's a bit of the piece:

The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda.
Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry, based not only on the things that Bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that Kerry says our country needs.

GOTV

They are doing it.

Supporters Get Incentive Plans at Bush Rallies

Want to see the president when he comes to your town? Get in line - to make phone calls for his campaign.

President Bush's campaign aides say they have hit on a novel way to recruit volunteers for his get-out-the-vote army. Anyone wanting to attend one of Mr. Bush's campaign rallies, anywhere in the country, has to get a ticket first. And anyone wanting a ticket, or a coveted spot up front, can improve his chances by putting in a few hours at a phone bank, canvassing Republican homes or putting up lawn signs.

Campaign rallies may be as old as politics itself, but in this year of earliests, firsts and most-expensive-evers, the Bush campaign has taken this most basic form of communication to a new state of the art, by pressing audiences to work as foot soldiers, before, during and immediately after Bush events.

The tactic points up a stark difference between the presidential campaigns: while Senator John Kerry is using his rallies and forums to try to reach undecided voters and to close the deal with standoffish Democrats, Mr. Bush is packing his audiences with supporters who must identify themselves as such in questionnaires and whipping them into brigades ready to blitz crucial districts to get every last voter to the polls.

Kerry aides scoff at the invitation-only audiences and what they say is the shanghai-ing of volunteers. "We don't require oaths of allegiance, and we don't take people captive," said Tom Shea, director of the Kerry campaign in Florida, after turning out close to 10,000 people for a rally in Orlando last Tuesday where, he said, 700 people signed up to help.

But Donald P. Green, a professor of political science at Yale and the author of "Get Out the Vote! How to Increase Voter Turnout," said Mr. Bush's strategy was inspired. "There's a basic principle in experimental psychology, that the hand teaches the heart," Professor Green said. "You've now made phone calls for George Bush; that helps solidify your commitment to the campaign. If you weren't enthusiastic and committed already, you might be now."

At a rally in Bangor, Me., last Thursday, Katrina Waite had driven nearly two hours and then waited seven more under a sweltering sun to see the president. The reward for her early arrival? A spot way in back, atop a flatbed truck, where she downed cups of water fetched by her two children to stave off the heat.

Ms. Waite said her mother had earned a spot up front. "She did three hours of phone calling to get it," she said, peering to try to pick her mother out in the crowd.

If Mr. Bush likes to call his retail politicking "fertilizing the grass roots," the volunteer recruitment can create a kind of hothouse effect.

When Laura Bush came to Maine a few weeks ago, for example, scores of people were persuaded to stick around and make calls from a phone bank in the basement of the building where she spoke. . .

This kind of stuff might sound distasteful, but I agree with Dr. Green; psychologically, it is brilliant. Who is more likely to actually show up at the polls? The Kerry supporter who just listened to a speech, or the Bush supporter who worked a phone for three hours to convince others to go vote. It is Salesmanship 101:

Small agreements lead to bigger ones

If someone came up to you and asked you for your agreement on some major issue, they are more likely to get a no from you than if they came up to you and led you on with a series of much smaller issues that you can easily agree on, building to the major issue.

Incomplete tasks

Most people are quite disturbed by tasks or events that are incomplete. . . when you have incomplete tasks, you keep thinking about them until you complete them. It is easier for people to remember and stay focused to incomplete tasks.

Cognitive dissonance

In plain English, this means that people hate it when their beliefs are inconsistent with their actions. They won't rest until they resolve that conflict by changing their thoughts, beliefs or actions.

That last one works in reverse, too. Not only will true believers work to get out the vote, but those who work to get out the vote may become true believers.

This election is very close, and close elections are decided by turnout. A few battleground states, including mine, are going to make the difference.

What are you doing? Now, I'm not saying we need "loyalty oaths" and forced labor, even if they do work. What I'm saying is that I have noticed a bit of, shall we say, insufficient enthusiasm for our candidate around the blogosphere lately. A bit of whining and carping, "I don't like him much", "he won't leave Iraq immediately", "he doesn't support my pet issue enough", and this has me very concerned.

I'm saying "get over it, please". Me? I wanted Dean. But Kerry is who we've got, and he is the one we have to elect. I'm a big believer in "six degrees of separation" and I'm telling you, that kind of shi*tty, defeatist attitude is contagious.

Stop it. Unless you're happy with this or this, just stop it. Buck up and Get Out The Vote.

Do all Bush supporters think he is perfect? No. But they are going to show up, and if we haven't done everything we can to get Dems to the polls, pulling K/E '04, we are going to have our asses handed to us in November.

X-Post

Get your US RDA of blog

James Wolcott's new book was recently previewed on Salon. That's a hilarious interview. But also check out his blog here.

Know your polls

Mystery Pollster is a blog run by a polling professional who seeks to demystify his art for others to digest.

Hillbillies do legislators job

Rex Petty says it’s a shame that "a bunch of old hillbillies" are having to do what he believes the state Legislature should be doing: working to legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

So, for anyone who thought the effort died when supporters failed to get enough signatures on petitions to put the proposal on the Arkansas ballot in November, Petty says, "The situation ain’t going to go away."

Petty, a rock mason from Atkins, and other members of the Arkansas Marijuana Party are planning a rally on the banks of the Arkansas River at Old Post Road Park in Russellville to raise awareness of the issue. Petty said the party has about 100 members.

I'm going to try to attend.

Floridians, beware: monkey can actually hack Diebold voting machines

Apparently there’s a a hidden black box0like record keeping program that resides on Diebold’s election software—this is already pretty awful, as vote record keeping should always be paper-based. This application is a “secret” feature enabled by a two-digit trigger (not a “bug” or an accidental oversight; it’s a feature), and apparently even an untrained monkey (the real kind) can get in there and manipulate records.

Banned

Just look at this.

Shameless.

X-post

Whaaaaa . . . ?

This does not look good:

Kerry pulls ads from Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and Missouri

WASHINGTON (AP) — Bowing to political realities, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has canceled plans to begin broadcasting television commercials in Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana and the perennial battleground of Missouri.

The decision to shrink his political playing field reduces Kerry's strategic options — at least for now — in the homestretch of the campaign. George W. Bush won all four states in 2000, and Kerry can't win the White House without taking one or two of them away from the Republican incumbent.

. . . Plans are still in place to air ads starting the second week of October, campaign officials said, but those will likely be tabled, too.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Arizona, Arkansas and Louisiana are unlikely to see Kerry ads unless there is a major shift in the campaign's dynamics.

Aren't ads designed to drive those shifts?

Ohio and Florida, with a combined 47 electoral votes, offer Kerry his best hope of claiming territory won by Bush in 2000. After that, the options dwindle to a few small states: New Hampshire, Nevada, West Virginia and Colorado.

According to The Votemaster, AZ is now within 1% and AR within 3%, for a total of 11 EV's. LA and MO, for 19 EV's, might be out of reach (8% and 6%, respectively), but I don't see the logic in abandoning Arizona and Arkansas.

Of course, I'm no campaign strategist. But after posting this below, the fact that my state may lose the attention of the Kerry campaign is a bit disheartening.

On the other hand, FL and OH are very close, and carry 47 EV's between them, so perhaps this is the wisest move.

Regardless, I still say Slackers Unite! We could still determine this election.

Update: Aaargh. I just realized that Nader is off the ballot in AR, but had 2% in the latest ARG poll. Assuming the Nader voters would fall to Kerry, the race here in AR is within MOE. I really don't like the fact that he pulled those ads.

Arkansas voter registration deadline.

The deadline for voter registration in Arkansas is Oct. 9 this year. That's 2 weeks from this Saturday. If you haven't registered yet, here is an Arkansas voter registration form. It's in PDF format. If you know some slackers who can't bother themselves to put a stamp on an envelope and mail it in, you might just fill the form out for them, have them sign it, and mail it in yourself. Make sure to pick that slacker up on election day though. He's not going to go to the polls by himself.

We Could Win It

Steven @ Polysigh has been crunching the electoral numbers and has this to say:

. . . it is worth noting that [Kerry] can still lose FL, OH, WV, and Nevada, if he manages to carry now-split Arkansas. Arkansas has been at or near the margin of error this whole campaign, and the polls have been remarkably consistent. Basically my sense is the state is within the range where the ground game could be decisive. If the Democrats can manage to get very large black turnout in the state, and if Kerry can move just a few percentage points of the white vote, he could win it. This is a state where a relatively small investment by the DNC or the 527s could make all the difference. It's probably worth the effort.

Could Arkansas be the new Florida this year? I certainly hope not. And I hope you don't either, so . . .

G O T V !

There are lots of ways to do this. If you don't know how, call your local Party office and ask. The method I'm using Digby's "Slacker Project":

Here's a little idea for a personal political project that each of us can undertake. Surely, we all know one person who doesn't usually vote, an apolitical type who isn't interested. This country is crawling with them. This is the election to get them registered and make sure they vote, whether by sending them the link for an absentee ballot or offering to pick them up and take them to the polls on election day. Everybody knows somebody like this. If we all make sure that we each get one person to vote who wouldn't otherwise give a damn, we win.

So, think about it. Which of your slacker friends can you get to vote this year? Take the initiative. They won't mind. They don't care. Make that work for us.

I'm not stopping at one slacker, though. Make it happen folks. There isn't much time left, and it is too important to let slide.

Backpatting

In the end, after poring over Kerry's speech, Limbaugh decided that Kerry's entire discussion of international alliances was "absolutely fatuous."

"You know, if I, a lowly, humble citizen of this country, a measly little talk show host here, can figure this out, and you can't," he said, "why in the hell should you be president and I shouldn't? I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous."

Rush vs. Hillary in 2008?

Kerry's Fighting Back

MoveOn.org put this in my inbox this morning. Thought I would just reproduce it here instead of spamming everyone I know. It's kinda long, so I'm not going to blockquote it.

Dear MoveOn member,

The war in Iraq is President Bush's signature failure. To reduce the damage the war has caused him, Bush and his campaign operatives have spent the last six months attacking and distorting John Kerry's position on Iraq. But yesterday, in a powerful speech in New York, Kerry set the record straight.

John Kerry laid out a plan to end Bush's irrational, deceptive and unilateral policy in Iraq, and pursue a policy of international cooperation to end the worsening insurgency and rebuild Iraq -- and bring our troops home. And Kerry made it clear that we would not be in Iraq today if he were president.

The action today is simple: if you like what you hear from Kerry in the speech below, pass this email on to your friends, neighbors, co-workers -- anyone who wants to hear from you on this issue. It's critical that progressives like us spread the word that John Kerry is fighting back on Iraq.

We've excerpted a few of the highlights, below. You can read the whole thing at:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

Here are the main points from Kerry's speech on Iraq yesterday:

• The war on Iraq was a mistake -- war was unnecessary because the inspections were working: "Today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no -- because a commander in chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe."
• Iraq distracted from the war on terror: "The president claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight."
• President Bush misled us about the reasons for the war before it occurred: "He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens. By one count, the president offered 23 different rationales for this war."
• President Bush is still misleading people about Iraq, painting an optimistic picture directly contradicted by his own intelligence officials: "In June, the president declared, 'The Iraqi people have their country back.' Just last week, he told us: 'This country is headed toward democracy. Freedom is on the march.' But the Administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the president last July, tells a very different story. According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the president is saying to the American people."
• Bush went to war for ideological reasons and consistently misjudged the situation on the ground: "This president was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences. The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong. They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong. They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong. They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong. They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong. In Iraq, this administration has ! consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the president has held no one accountable, including himself."
• John Kerry has a four-point plan to fix our Iraq policy:
  
  • "First, the president has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the president must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support. The president should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process."
  • "Second, the president must get serious about training Iraqi security forces. The president should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers."
  • "Third, the president must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people. One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price. Now, the president should look at the whole reconstruction package, draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects, and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort."
  • "Fourth, the president must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year. If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces, train the Iraqis to provide their own security, develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year -- we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years."

Most people will see a second or two of the speech, if they see it at all. But by forwarding this email to your friends and family, you can help make sure people get a full picture of Kerry's position on Iraq -- in his own words. And you can read the whole speech at:

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0920.html

Thanks for everything,

--Eli Pariser
Executive Director, MoveOn PAC
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004

PAID FOR BY MOVEON PAC www.moveonpac.org
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Nader Off Arkansas Ballot

Pulaski County Circuit Judge Timothy Fox ruled that more than 1,200 people who signed Nader’s petitions failed to declare him as their candidate, and ordered his name removed from the ballot. Fox said no specific party was listed as canvassers went about collecting signatures.

An appeal is pending, naturally. In other good news, Nader is also off the New Mexico ballot. The bad news is that Maryland's highest court has allowed him to remain. Right now that state, as well as AR, are dead heats and carry 16 combined electoral votes.

Link via Jess

McCain To Switch Sides?

David Corn speculates in his article The October Surprise?

. . . there was another reason beyond loyalty to the party and to the commander-in-chief why McCain saddled up with Bush. Perhaps he wanted to get near enough to knife Bush--metaphorically speaking, of course. As in, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. (Think The Godfather.)

That is an interesting thought. He has been pretty critical of Bush lately on Iraq, and was immediately and angrily critical of the Swift Boat Vets' attacks on Kerry. Knowing how the Bush campaign smeared McCain during the last Republican primary . . . well, revenge is a dish best served cold.

George Condon of Copley News Service says McCain is a "key to victory" for Bush . . . could he turn out to be a key to defeat instead?

X-post

James Madison

In the spirit of K's post below, I would like to add some quotes from my favorite Founding Father.

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad."

"We are free today substantially, but the day will come when our Republic will be an impossibility. It will be an impossibility because wealth will be concentrated in the hands of the few. A Republic cannot stand upon bayonets . . ."

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. . . .In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. . . . No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike

The U.S. weighs the price of a pre-emptive strike
Here we go again.

Sept. 27 issue - Unprepared as anyone is for a showdown with Iran, the threat seems to keep growing. Many defense experts in Israel, the United States and elsewhere believe that Tehran has been taking advantage of loopholes in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is now within a year of mastering key weapons-production technology. They can't prove it, of course, and Iran's leaders deny any intention of developing the bomb. Nevertheless, last week U.S. and Israeli officials were talking of possible military action—even though some believe it's already too late to keep Iran from going nuclear (if it chooses). "We have to start accepting that Iran will probably have the bomb," says one senior Israeli source. There's only one solution, he says: "Look at ways to make sure it's not the mullahs who have their finger on the trigger."

This is the same rhetoric we heard from Bush & Co. prior to invading Iraq. Something of note in the article:

After the Iraq debacle, calls for regime change without substantial evidence of weapons of mass destruction are not likely to gain a lot of traction. But if the allegations are correct, Iran is only one of the countries whose secret nuclear programs hummed along while America waged a single-minded hunt for WMD in Iraq. Another is North Korea, which hasn't stopped claiming that it's turning a stockpile of spent fuel rods into a doomsday arsenal. And arms-control specialists are increasingly alarmed by Brazil's efforts to do precisely what Iran is doing: use centrifuge cascades to enrich uranium—with a couple of key differences. Unlike Iran, Brazil has never signed the NPT's Additional Protocol, which gives expanded inspection rights to the International Atomic Energy Agency. And unlike Iran, Brazil is not letting the IAEA examine its centrifuges. If the Brazilians go through with their program, it's likely to wreck the landmark 1967 treaty that made South America a nuclear-free zone. But the White House has shown scant concern about the risk.

So, while Bush is concerned with securing an oil rich area that is no threat at all, Brazil is quietly making nukes south of our border. Great. Anyone feel safer yet?

Flip, flop, flip, flop. Who's the real flipper?

This is a piece I did on my other blog a while back. Since Bush is now calling Kerry a flip flopper again because he said invading Iraq was a bad idea, almost 2 years after voting for it. 2 years is definitely not enough time to have a change of heart, is it Georgie?

The Bush cabal would like you to believe that changing your mind about an issue is a bad thing, and have a catchy phrase for it: "flip flopping." They have endlessly accused Kerry of flip flopping because of a few issues. Here are the issues they bring up to support their claim:

1. They are upset because 12 years ago Kerry favored trade with China, but now he criticizes the Bush administration for trading with China. He changed his mind on an issue after 9 years of thinking about it. Doesn't sound too damning to me. Lets continue.
2. 5 years ago, Kerry voted to uphold the "Marriage Tax." He now opposes it. This is as damning as the first.
3. Kerry took both sides on the first Gulf War in letters to constituants. Ok that's kinda bad, but just seems like politic'in to me. I would expect that from any of my senators in an election year. Not saying it's good, but just saying it's not that bad.

There are many more you can read about here. I would urge you to go read them and notice how none of these flip flops are anything but regular politics, an honest change of opinion over time, or completely harmless.

Now let's examine some of the things Bush has said and compare them to what he's actually done.

1. Bush said he'd increase support for childrens hospitals, but his very first budget proposal cut funding to them by 15%.
2. Bush promised $3.5bil in "new money" to "First Responders" --people like firemen and paramedics and police-- however his budget tried to cut more than $1bil from them. He also rejected $150mil in grants to state and local first responders. The President of the Firefighters Union had this to say about Bush, "The president has merely been using firefighters and their families for one big photo opportunity.”
3. Bush went on and on in support of a program called HOPE VI, which would help underpriveleged people become homeowners, however in his proposed 2004 budget for the U.S. Department of Housing completely eliminates the project.

Ok, most of these things are of minor importance in the big picture. There's lots more, but let's look at some of the more serious stuff.

1. In '02, Bush made a big speech about how we need to increase port security. Then in his '03/04 budgets, he provided zero, nothing, nada for port security grants, and has vetoed $39mil for the Container Security Initiative, which he specifically touted.
2. Bush in '02 called for worker pension protection, but implimented a highly controversial policy which lowers workers benifits, and discriminates against older workers, in violation of federal law.
3. Bush says the American worker is important and wants to thank them. He did so by cutting a total of $544mil from employee programs.
4. In '02 Bush touted his signing of a bill that would authorize more INS/Border Patrol staff and facilities, but didn't provide any money for them, and actually cut $284mil from their budgets in '04.
5. He claims to be sympathetic to veterans and constantly evokes them whenever he needs to look good, but his '03 budget fell $1.5bil short of funding veterans care. That's a lot of money. He also cut off access to the VA health care system to approximately 164,000 veterans in '03.
6. This is just beautiful: “I hope people around this country realize that agencies such as this food bank need money. They need our contributions. Contributions are down. They shouldn't be down in a time of need. We shouldn't let the enemy affect us to the point where we become less generous. Our spirit should never be diminished by what happened on September the 11th, 2001. Quite the contrary. We must stand squarely in the face of evil by doing some good.” Then he cut 36,000 seniors from the meals on wheels program.
7. The "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) program is an out and out lie. His 2003 budget proposed to cut NCLB programs by $90 million overall, leaving these programs more than $7 billion short of what was authorized under the bill. Bush’s '04 budget for NCLB is just 1.9% above what he proposed in 2003 - $619 less than needed to offset inflation.

Some call them "flip flops," others call them "lies." Whatever you think of Kerry, remember that his changes in attitude or policy have been pretty harmless when compared to the brazen inconsistancies in the Bush camp. Especially considering the veterans.

Sources:
--http://www.georgewbush.com/kerrymediacenter/read.aspx?ID=2439
--http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm

Notice that the one criticizing Bush is hosted at the house.gov website. Interesting.

Also, it just occoured to me: let's not forget all the flip flopping bush did on his justifications for invading a sovern nation. "They have WoMD's" "Oh no wait wait, Sadaam is a tyrant, yeah that's the ticket." "Oh no no wait, Iraq is a training ground for al Queda" (completely disregarding the fact that Iraq is only a training ground now that we've destabilized it.) Well, which is it George? Are you ever going to come up with a reason that's viable, or are you just going to keep feeding us lies and then changing your story when they are uncovered?

Flip flopper my ass. Let's call a spade a spade here: Bush is a liar.

George W. Supports Terrorism

George W. claims to be a champion of freedom and a harbinger of democracy, however the facts tell a different story.

In September of 2001, as we all know, al Queda (supposedly) attacked the USA. We all know the alleged details.

Later that year, GW Bush sent 11,000 troops to Afghanistan, where al Queda was based, and where the leader, Osama bin Laden, was supposedly hiding out. 11,000 troops. To search an entire country. I think Michael Moore made the best comparison to the level of force there: there are more police officers on the ground in NYC at any one time than there were troops on the ground in Afghanastan to fight the "War on Terror."

So, far from giving his all, GW sent less than 10% of our troops to fight this "War on Terror."

During the next few months, the Bush administration spent many hours and undoubtedly many dollars, convincing the American public that it wasn't Osama who was important, but it was that terrorist harboring, WMD having, civilian killing dictator, Sadaam Hussein who we should be afraid of. And it worked. Most of America was tricked into believing that Iraq was central in the war on terror. We find out now that it was all a lie. We also find out that destabilizing Iraq had very detrimental effects to our war on terror. Mainly, it gave the rest of the Middle East reason to be afraid of us: we attack sovern nations who have nothing to do with our problems. Additionally, it gave al Queda the opportunity to recruit from within Iraq; something they hadn't been able to do while Hussein was in power. And now, GW admittedly isn't even looking for Osama.

So what have we got now? We've got a very strong al Queda presence. We've got a whole country of angry civilians (rightfully so) who are flocking to al Quedas' ranks as fast as they can say "Jihad!"

What's happened recently? Well, just this week, Bush lifted trade embargos from Libya. Why is that important? Mummar Ghadafi harbors terrorists! He admits to it. Why is GW freeing up $1.3m for terrorists? He must support terrorism.

The largest domestic terrorist attack in US history happened under GWs' watch.
GW doesn't go after the perpetrators.
GW supports known terrorists.
GW supports known terrorists.
GW supports known terrorists.

Arkansas Polls

Looks like Arkansas is all tied up. Maybe Bush and Kerry will start mailing us bribes ;)

--via Charles

A Founding Fathers Quote

But the safety of the people of America against dangers from foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are pretended as well as just causes of war.
-- John Jay

Now taking suggestions

We need a catchy name for our blog, and we need an eye-catching yet simple design. I'm gonna install another comments module that will open a window for comments instead of making us click 50 times to give a comment.

Edit: Haloscan comments and trackback options have been added. Please make comments in the Comment section below this post.

Eureka!

This blog will begin momentarily. Please stand by for content.