Inside Zebster

From the woods to Orwell and Dickens

2012-02-09T16:41:00.001-05:00

Call this a musing or a ramble, whatever. I went for a long walk in the woods with my dog, Todd, which ought to mean, since it was in the woods in Maine, that I then read Thoreau; but after our walk I was initially interrupted by a partial journey through Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut" (with an interlude to eat my very first cara cara orange, which I highly recommend) and a full viewing of "Interstellar Overdrive."

Then on to read Christopher Hitchens' last essay, which was on G.K. Chesterton, which I confess to not really understand since I'm not very aware of Chesterton and only marginally more so of T.S. Eliot, who is also quoted often in that piece. But then on to an article in The Atlantic regarding the writing of Hitch's final essay, which then lead me on to something that would not be surprising if you knew Hitch and again not surprising if you know me. What is it? Orwell's essay on Dickens, of course. But before you read the link to the essay, I want to share this gem of a quote from Orwell:

“One is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the inevitable price of fastening one’s love upon other human individuals.”

Since Hitchens is what truly sparked me to write this personal piece, I will likely end my day with a little of Mr. Walker's amber restorative.

Now back to the Orwell essay to put in a teaser quote:

In OLIVER TWIST, HARD TIMES, BLEAK HOUSE, LITTLE DORRIT, Dickens
attacked English institutions with a ferocity that has never since been
approached. Yet he managed to do it without making himself hated, and,
more than this, the very people he attacked have swallowed him so
completely that he has become a national institution himself. In its
attitude towards Dickens the English public has always been a little like
the elephant which feels a blow with a walking-stick as a delightful tickling.

And then one more, which I hope will help to tie some of these themes together, at least what it was about Orwell that Hitchens admired. In this quote you see Orwell's pragmatic outlook on society as he explains Dickens' similar view:

Whatever else Dickens may have been, he was not a hole-and-corner
soul-saver, the kind of well-meaning idiot who thinks that the world will
be perfect if you amend a few bylaws and abolish a few anomalies. It is
worth comparing him with Charles Reade, for instance. Reade was a much
better-informed man than Dickens, and in some ways more public-spirited.
He really hated the abuses he could understand, he showed them up in a
series of novels which for all their absurdity are extremely readable,
and he probably helped to alter public opinion on a few minor but
important points. But it was quite beyond him to grasp that, given the
existing form of society, certain evils CANNOT be remedied. Fasten upon
this or that minor abuse, expose it, drag it into the open, bring it
before a British jury, and all will be well that is how he sees it.
Dickens at any rate never imagined that you can cure pimples by cutting
them off. In every page of his work one can see a consciousness that
society is wrong somewhere at the root. It is when one asks 'Which root?'
that one begins to grasp his position.

Are you lost yet?

Anti-American

2012-02-07T13:35:00.003-05:00

Carl Rove is offended -- not upset, offended -- by the Chrysler Corporation ad with Clint Eastwood that aired during the Super Bowl. First, let me step back. Hey Carl, who the fuck are you anyway? On what basis do you have a right to be offended by anything anyone does, unless it was directed at you? Get your fat, egotistical head out of your selfish ass.
The other point I'd like to make loud and clear is this: Ask yourself what response the Carl Roves of the world would have if someone of liberal leanings were to ever be so bold as to disagree, say nothing about being offended by, with anything Clint Eastwood said or did? That's right, they would've called you a pinko, commie, liberal, unAmerican so-and-so, and ask that you leave their country at once. (The same crowd, by the way, that places bumper stickers on their trucks saying "If you don't love America, leave it" right next to their rebel flag bumper sticker)
So I have to say, not for the first time either, that Carl Rove is unAmerican and his umbrage is anti-American. What other response is there to someone who takes offense at something done by arguably the most iconic of American symbols?
Here's the ad, if you haven't seen it. Tell me what could possibly be offensive about asking us all to unite and knock off the partisan horseshit?

And for the sake of full disclosure: I am a liberal, a proud American who served his country, a huge Clint Eastwood fan and a Mopar guy. So this commercial is pure love for me. I guarantee The Greaseman had a boner when he saw the commercial.

UPDATE: Here is a link to article regarding Clint's response to the uproar about the ad, as well as at the top you'll now find a link that contains Rove's comment, which I forgot to include.

The Lamestream Media?

2012-02-06T17:27:00.000-05:00

The "moral majority" is always raving that the mainstream liberal media is biased and lies, at least when the right doesn't like what that media reports. You would think if they didn't trust and believe what is printed in the liberal media, they wouldn't be so easily fooled by the likes of The Onion, which they perceive to be part of the liberal media. In my opinion this is a very good insight into what the right truly believes regarding the veracity of the liberal media. They may say the media is not to be trusted as a tool to control their nodding masses but it's pretty obvious they know the liberal media is usually spot on regarding most issues.
The Onion, if you didn't know, is a parody online news source. Today's headline there is basically that Eli Manning, after winning his second Super Bowl yesterday, is asking his dad if he can now finally quit playing football. Being fooled by The Onion is the modern equivalent of being fooled in the old days by Mad Magazine. So what does it say that Louisiana Republican Representative John Fleming was fooled by an article in The Onion claiming that Planned Parenthood (ooooh, evil) was readying to open a billion dollar abortion factory. From Huffington Post this morning:

Fleming shared a link on Facebook to an article from the satirical newspaper headlined "Planned Parenthood Opens $8 Billion Abortionplex."
"More on Planned Parenthood, abortion by the wholesale," he wrote.

Unfortunately, you're more likely to get accurate information regarding Planned Parenthood from The Onion than you are by getting your information from the GOP.

(Planned Parenthood)

I got this chart from an excellent article by Ezra Klein in the Washington Post.

Drug Test Them Instead

2012-02-05T15:06:00.000-05:00

The constant, constant chatter from the right regarding drug testing anyone who receives support from the taxpayers prompts this brief post. Why is it always so easy to blame the defenseless for something that isn't occurring to veil your contempt for the unfortunate? Why don't you just come out and say that you don't want to pay taxes for any reasons but most especially for the disadvantaged?
The people who should be drug tested are those who constantly ring this false alarm because they're ignoring the data that repeatedly shows that the incidence of welfare recipients who use drugs is far, far below the percentage of people applying for state and federal jobs who pop on piss tests. Florida is learning that right now, where I believe the percentage of welfare recipients who've tested positive is 2% and the percentage of people drug tested for other reasons is 7 to 9%. Welfare recipients want to feed and house their family, and want to get back on their feet and be self sufficient. There are those wanting to scam the system wherever you look but getting rid of subsidies to Monsanto or getting GE to pay taxes of any kind is much more worth the effort than this old boondoggle. And don't even get me started on the fact that in Florida the company running the drug tests is a company "formerly" owned by the same Governor who pushed the legislation.
These cries come from the same side of the aisle who claim they want less government, less government intrusion into the rights of citizens and a reduction in government spending. More money is spent implementing, carrying out and analyzing these programs than the money saved by catching the rare welfare recipient smoking pot.
Cross posted on For Consideration

Mass Exit to the Cayman Islands

2012-01-26T07:48:00.001-05:00

What follows is a guest blog from a long-time friend who's just getting into this blogging thing. Her pen name is OCBananaGirl and you can see another post of hers on BoSox Tavern. Below she offers what I think is a very unique and accurate perspective regarding what the 1% value about America versus what the rest of us value about America.

"All day I have been wondering, what if 99% of us only paid a 13% tax rate, would the 1% still want to live in this country? If half of the taxes that pay for roads, bridges, prisons, security, judges, police officers, fire departments, zoos, parks, snow plows, beach replenishment, catastrophe help, flood insurance, social security, medicare, insurance backing our banks, FDA, EPA, medical research, space programs, education, medical research, and wars -- I am sure I have missed so much as I am accustomed to my regular life -- but what if we as US citizens had to live without nearly 1/2 the funding and many of the programs that make us love our country were not available, would we still be so in love with our country?

My thought is, yes, 99% of us would still love our county and the 99% would somehow come together to make the country better, the 99% would find the ingenuity and the get-down-dirty effort to bring this country back. But the real question lies with the 1%. Would they be able to live with decrepit roads, pot holes, no snow plows, no trash pickup, long lines at hospitals, no flood insurance for the beach front homes, no beaches, no parks to visit on family vacations, no police to protect their property? And when I wondered about this, I realized that the 1% need the 99% more than the 99% need the 1%. Maybe it is time to realize that the 1% should act on their threats and move their assets to the Cayman Islands because they already have and 99% of us still continue to struggle and yet are proud to call ourselves Americans."

He Went to a Tea Party Instead

2012-01-25T11:43:00.000-05:00

I am very disappointed in Tim Thomas' decision to make a political statement by not attending the Boston Bruins' championship visit to the White House. I find it specious at the very least that he picks this moment, this event, to come out of the closet. I'm a pretty avid Bruin fan and this is the first I've heard of his political leanings, and to choose a non-political event to make a statement to me smacks of politics.
Oh, I know, you'll say since I'm on the opposite side of the fence from TT that that's biasing my thoughts on this. Hardly. I would say the same thing if an apparent liberal athlete had turned down a visit to the White House to see President George W. Bush. This isn't a political event -- it is a celebration, a reward, an honor to get to visit the President of the United States; and Tim Thomas, being one of only two American-born players on the team, should know this. In fact, he does know this and, thus, my point.

Here's Tim's statement from his Facebook page:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People. This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government. Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL." – Boston Bruins goalie Tim Thomas, on his Facebook page, January 23, 2012"

Don't get me wrong, TT has every right to his views and every right to make this statement -- just don't insult our intelligence. Also, he needs to understand that what he did was a selfish act, drawing attention to himself and his cause regarding a nonpolitical event, that does nothing but embarrass himself and most importantly the Bruin organization and his teammates. His teammates and the Bruin brass have been having to deal with the questions regarding Tim's absence for two days now. And as an avid Bruin fan who happens to be a liberal, I don't appreciate being put in the position of having to either defend or disagree with this stunt. I know the following will sound foreign to a conservative but, "Hey Tim, if you don't like it, leave it.." That's the very same thing conservatives say when liberals complain about government; the difference is we have a lot more class regarding picking our moments.
This stunt should not affect the decision the Bruins will have to make in the off season regarding TT's age and contract vis-a-vis Tuukka Rask's age and contract; but if the Bruins decide they don't want to pay two #1 goaltenders #1 goaltender money in long-term contracts and decide to trade Thomas, I hope they trade him to a Canadian team.
My position on this is no different than it was when NASCAR fans in Florida booed First Lady Michelle Obama. It's a nonpolitical event; she's there for the troops and I would've defended Laura Bush with the same passion. Tell me, Tim, with a straight face that you wouldn't have gone to the White House to shake the hand of a Republican President?
Give the President his props, he made a couple of zingers at the Bruins' expense. He rattled off the names of all four New England sports teams, that they'd all won championships lately and that "that's enough Boston." He also picked on Brad Marchand by calling him the "little ball of hate."

Tebow and Maher

2012-01-11T22:30:00.002-05:00

This is in response to an article in the Washington Post that was posted by a friend on Facebook in support of Tebow and my comment trying to explain how a moderate atheist feels about this issue. So I'll paste in the bulk of that comment and then add another thought to help illuminate my point.

I read the first page and I don't think she gets it either. Maher is to be ignored. I find him funny sometimes but even when he says something that needs to be said that others won't, he says it in such a way to have nothing but a negative impact. I think Tebow's a genuinely good kid and his praising for me, as an atheist, is not over the top. I have no trouble ignoring it. The issue is that an atheist DOES NOT have the equal right to do something similar. Can you imagine someone as famous as him saying at the end of a win "I don't believe in God?" And what it is about praising that atheists have trouble with is the idea of doing it only when there's success involved and the idea that a higher power would have any involvement in choosing sides in a football game. So while I don't agree with all the anger and venom from "my side" on this issue, I can understand it. Just being that angry and nasty does nothing but make people think less of you and make them not willing to listen or care about you or what you think.

Let's look at it another way. Let's suppose the famous athlete who's proselytizing is a fine, upstanding young black man who faces Mecca each time he scores a touchdown and praises Allah when interviewed. I can assure you those folks coming to the rescue of Tim Tebow would not be coming to this gentleman's defense nor, I believe, would the likes of Bill Maher be making over-the-top critical comments of him.
I obviously feel that Tim Tebow has every right to express his views and I don't feel in this instance that he's trying to judge me or mine or is overtly on a recruiting mission; I just don't feel like everyone is afforded in reality the same rights he's expressing.
Can't we all just get along? Maybe not.

Hitchens on Kissinger

2011-12-23T11:39:00.002-05:00

Not only is this post dedicated to Christopher Hitchens, it is dedicated to Deb, a good friend whose shared respect and admiration for his writings prompted me to endeavor to read his long essays, arguably some of his most important works. It would be impossible to thank him enough for these invaluable works; the best we can do is honor him by reading them. They will at once open your eyes, make you question why what he reveals is not much more well known and piss you off to no end. He would appreciate the latter very much.
Before we get to that though, I would like to share the BBC tribute to Hitch that aired shortly after his passing.

I'm not sure whether I'm going to do one of these each time I read one of his long exposes -- that is my intent -- but I'll share a link to a collection of the best of them (courtesy of The Daily Beast) so that you'll have them in case I fail to follow through.
This first installment is regarding the essay(s) Hitch wrote indicting Henry Kissinger as a war criminal for his hand in sabotaging the 1968 Paris Treaty talks and, therefore, extending the Viet Nam War, leading to the unnecessary deaths of thousands of U.S. troops and hundreds of thousands of human beings in total. (Side note: As a result of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords, Kissinger and Le Durc Tho were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which Tho refused. Know this before you read Hitch's essay and make sure you have a pail handy to puke in)
The very short version is that Kissinger as a liaison for Richard Nixon, the Republican Nominee for President, secretly had meetings with the South Vietnamese government in the late summer and early fall of 1968, telling them that they could get a better deal in peace talks with them once Nixon was elected than they were currently getting with the Johnson administration or with a potential Humphrey administration -- private citizens undermining the peace negotiations between the U.S. Government and a foreign government. Now, there's no guarantee the 1968 peace talks would have succeeded in ending the Vietnam War or that, if it had, the war wouldn't have restarted; but the terms of the 1973 Accords are practically identical to what was on the table in 1968. So I and Hitchens would make the argument that if it succeeded in '73, it would have succeeded in '68.
So what did Nixon and Kissinger have to gain by doing this? Obviously making the Johnson Administration and its heir apparent Humphrey Administration look inept and, therefore, giving the election to Nixon, only at a cost of thousands and thousands of lives, a small price to pay when you're right. Right?

It will take you an hour or so to get through that first long essay but I couldn't encourage you more strongly to take the time to do so. Have a glass of scotch in honor of Hitch while you do so, the time will pass quickly and you'll be ever so glad you did.
I'll leave you with the last two paragraphs of his essay regarding Kissinger and Viet Nam:

When the unpreventable collapse occurred in Cambodia and Vietnam, in April and May 1975, the cost was infinitely higher than it would have been seven years previously. These locust years ended as they had begun--with a display of bravado and deceit. On May 12, 1975, in the immediate aftermath of the Khmer Rouge seizure of power, Cambodian gunboats detained an American merchant vessel named the Mayaguez. The ship was stopped in international waters claimed by Cambodia and then taken to the Cambodian island of Koh Tang. In spite of reports that the crew had been released, Kissinger pressed for an immediate face-saving and "credibility"-enhancing strike. He persuaded President Gerald Ford, the untried and undistinguished successor to his deposed former boss, to send in the Marines and the Air Force. Out of a Marine force of 110, 18 were killed and 50 were wounded. Twenty-three Air Force men died in a crash. The United States used a 15,000-ton bomb on the island, the most powerful nonnuclear device that it possessed. Nobody has the figures for Cambodian deaths. The casualties were pointless, because the ship's company of the Mayaguez were nowhere on Koh Tang, having been released some hours earlier. A subsequent congressional inquiry found that Kissinger could have known of this by listening to Cambodian broadcasting or by paying attention to a third-party government that had been negotiating a deal for the restitution of the crew and the ship. It was not as if any Cambodians doubted, by that month of 1975, the willingness of the U.S. government to employ deadly force.
In Washington, D.C., there is a famous and hallowed memorial to the American dead of the Vietnam War. Known as the "Vietnam Veterans Memorial," it bears a name that is slightly misleading. I was present for the extremely affecting moment of its dedication in 1982 and noticed that the list of nearly 60,000 names is incised in the wall not by alphabet but by date. The first few names appear in 1959 and the last few in 1975. The more historically minded visitors can sometimes be heard to say that they didn't know the United States was engaged in Vietnam as early or as late as that. Nor was the public supposed to know. The first names are of the covert operatives, sent in by Colonel Edward Lansdale without congressional approval to support French colonialism. The last names are of those thrown away in the Mayaguez fiasco. It took Henry Kissinger to ensure that a war of atrocity, which he had helped to prolong, should end as furtively and ignominiously as it had begun.

Oh yes, they did

2011-12-22T13:29:00.001-05:00

How can someone as successful and, therefore, intelligent as Donald Trump be so delusional. And with Trump it isn't your entry-level delusion like he could win the Republican nomination (which he did say actually) or that he could win the Presidential election as an independent but it's how he says he'd win...by doing well with "the blacks and unions and Latinos." See for yourself below, starting at the 3 minute mark. Please run for President, Donald, please! That I would love to see.

Next we have Millard Romney talking about, of all things, the entitlement society. In his case I think he's so out of touch he truly doesn't know that these "entitlement programs" couldn't be further from entitlements. We pay into Social Security, unemployment, etc, so that they'll be there when we need them; something that someone who's inherited his worth and, therefore, has enormous wealth would never understand the need for.
No video this time, just a reason to get you to read yet another spot-on article by Robert Creamer, from which I'll share a few quotes to lure you in.

It really takes chutzpa for a guy who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth to rail against an "entitlement society." Here is a guy who got his start in life the old-fashioned way -- he inherited it.

No, Romney is much more interested in privatizing Social Security and Medicare so his Wall Street buddies can get their hands on the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds -- even though that would eliminate the guaranteed benefits that are so critical to the health and welfare of America's seniors.

In fact, he seems to agree with the Republican leaders of the House who say that unemployment benefits discourage people from looking for work. Guess Mitt has never been one of the five people competing for every available job. Oh, I forgot, Mitt says he is "unemployed" too. Talk about out of touch.

And then thanks to my friend, Lady A, for pointing out the clip below. You can read her at Thoughts From 16th Avenue. It's always nice to see the Faux News vetting system fall short.

RJ, you'll be glad to know I decided not to steal your "They Said It" idea. :)

Creating false enemies

2011-12-21T09:40:00.000-05:00

Sparked by another seemingly innocent graphic going around Facebook, I feel the need to point out the blind, ignorant, one-way thinking of the further-to-the-right-everyday crowd, the war-against-Christmas crowd, the war-against-the-poor crowd. The graphic at issue simply has an arrow pointing to the poster with a holiday theme and the words "This person DOES NOT say Happy Holidays; this person says Merry Christmas...get over it!" This is a perfect example of creating an enemy, creating something bad that doesn't really exist as a way to be divisive and as a way to rally one side (the goodie goodies of the right) against the evil liberal elitist, god-hating heathens of the left. It's the same ploy they use to try to make you think there are people who are against the troops when they say things like "Support the troops...there are far too many people who don't," when in fact neither they nor you know a single soul who doesn't believe in supporting the troops. As it relates to the Christmas versus Holiday War, the same rebuttal applies -- you don't know a solitary soul who has a problem with someone saying Merry Christmas but the Merry Christmas crowd surely has a problem with you NOT saying Merry Christmas. "You MUST say Merry Christmas or else we're falling into a godless society or worse." Whatever happened to free speech and freedom of religion? Being told you must believe and observe the way they do is quite the opposite, yet they like to use your lack of agreement with them as a sign that you're oppressing them, when in fact it is they who are trying to oppress you. You have to admit it's brilliant and it works, unfortunately, over and over and over.

There are correlations with the above to an outstanding editorial comment by Rachel Maddow last night. I don't want to be too wordy. I'll just invite you to watch this 12 minute clip and pay attention to things like voter fraud, farm dust, In God We Trust and drug testing people who are on unemployment or welfare and look for the ulterior motive. I couldn't more strongly urge you to watch this clip. It is one of the best essays I've seen in some time. Thank you, Rachel. It's important we all realize what the true motives and ideologies are of these people.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Which is a nice segue into a very brief discussion regarding Ayn Rand. What these people really want is a society like the one envisioned by Rand in books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, one that goes against the progressive value of togetherness and replaced by a simpler dog-eat-dog model. I would encourage you to read The Real Attack on the Spirit of Christmas Comes From the Right Wing, the latest article by one of my favorite writers, Robert Creamer, where he outlines very well the endgame of this ideology and how it contrasts not only with our progressive ideology but quite often with the same people who support it, another example of the hypocrisy of the ~~love thy neighbor~~ religious right. Below is my favorite quote:

Progressive values: that we're all in this together, not all in this alone; unity not division; hope not fear; equality not subjugation; the premise that if each of us is better educated all of us will be wiser; that it is not true that for me to be richer you have to be poorer -- but rather that if each of us is more prosperous, all of us will have more opportunity; that our success comes from cooperation and mutual respect. These progressive values are the most precious assets that will give human beings the ability to make it through that gauntlet -- and to create a truly democratic society.

I would also encourage you to read my friend RJ's review of The Fountainhead, "Another Selfish Manifesto Ending, at Heels N Martinis.

If we don't talk again beforehand, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, my friends.

Christopher Hitchens

2011-12-16T10:30:00.002-05:00

From those of us who are boring and irrelevant, a toast of scotch to you, Christopher Hitchens. It'll have to be Johnny Walker Green, since I have no Black and don't really care for it; but we can still use your term, Mr. Walker's Amber Restorative.
He was an atheist (or more accurately by his definition an antitheist) and an asshole (two of my favorite traits), an enigma, a provocateur, a satirist, an intellectual elitist, a bon viveur; he was someone I disagreed with nearly as often as I agreed but he was always eloquent and interesting and relevant. As he said, he was friends with Salman Rushdie, was nearly scratched by Mother Theresa and nearly spanked by Margaret Thatcher.

My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass.

To those of us who wish we could be writers, he is both a goal and the reason we don't even try. Why bother if your best isn't even half as good as he was at his worst?
True, he was an egomaniac -- how could anyone who condemned Bll Clinton, Henry Kissinger and Ghandi, amongst many others, not be? But he was conversely very modest. You couldn't help but be fascinated listening to him argue a point as eloquently as anyone ever, much like his idols Paine and Jefferson and Orwell, even a point or issue that you vehemently disagreed with.
Hitchens is very, very high on my list of people who are the answer to the question, "If you could 'come back' as anyone who ever lived, who would it be? That is due in large part to his success as a philosopher and provocateur obviously but in equal measure due to the way he lived life and approached his intellectual discoveries and defense thereof...he didn't give a shit whether you agreed or not. Where we almost always agreed is the subject of anti-totalitarianism, which includes religion.
From The Wiki:

Identified as a champion of the "New Atheism" movement, Hitchens described himself as an antitheist and a believer in the philosophical values of the Enlightenment. Hitchens said that a person "could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct," but that "an antitheist, a term I'm trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there's no evidence for such an assertion."^[17] He argued that the concept of god or a supreme being is a totalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilization. He wrote at length on atheism and the nature of religion in his 2007 book God Is Not Great.

Anti-war British politician George Galloway, on his way to testify in front of a United States Senate sub-committee investigating the scandals in the U.N. Oil for Food program, called Hitchens a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay",^[155] to which Hitchens quickly replied, "only some of which is true".^[156] Later, in a column for Slate promoting his debate with Galloway which was to take place on 14 September 2005, he elaborated on his prior response: "He says that I am an ex-Trotskyist (true), a 'popinjay' (true enough, since the word's original Webster's definition is a target for arrows and shots), and that I cannot hold a drink (here I must protest)."^[157]

There are many video interviews of Hitchens on shows like "The Daily Show," where you can get glimpses of the large intellect, ego and humor of the man; but where you really get insight into who he was and what he believed was in the many interviews he did with Charlie Rose. Unfortunately, the Charlie Rose website does not offer embeds. So I'll invite you to this link, which is the last of the 13 appearances by Christopher Hitchens with Charlie Rose, a whole hour from 2010.

Are liberals never satisfied?

2011-11-23T11:11:00.000-05:00

In a word, no, which is a good thing in the sense that it keeps things going forward, another reason we're also called progressives. Obviously it's a "bad" thing when it makes you always look at the glass as being half empty instead of half full, which is paradoxical to me because I feel liberals overall are optimists, not pessimists.
This discussion is prompted by Jonathan Chait's provocative article in New York Magazine, Debunking Obama's So-Called Leadership Failure. While the article is not completely taking liberals to task --

Okay, so if Obama openly endorses a bipartisan plan, he’s killing it. And if he keeps his distance, he’s also killing it. What if he tries to directly negotiate a deficit reduction plan behind closes doors? Well, Obama did that, too, this last summer. Republicans opposed it as well.

-- it does most certainly do that. "Various fiscal scolds have been scolding President Obama for failing to use his mind-control powers to force Republicans to accept a tax hike."

And it is true that many liberals look too fondly at historic Democratic Presidents, seemingly forgetting the warts and the fact that at the time we were just as critical and not satisfied with that President as we are with President Obama today. Now, to be fair, that particular predilection is not owned by Democrats. Republicans too have a tendency to view past Republican Presidents this way. The difference is they view current Republican Presidents with the same rose colored glasses.
I think what's useful about this discussion is an effort in determining whether it is overall a good thing or bad thing that liberals are generally never satisfied. I don't think there's much debate about whether we are, in fact, never satisfied, though you're certainly entitled to disagree. What results from our tendency to view things the way we do is a much more accurate view of reality. We tend to care very little (especially us Independents) whether there's a D or an R in front of your name; we will scrutinize your words and actions about as fairly as possible, given that all human beings have a lean towards their personal biases.

Also Jonathan Chait was interviewed regarding his article by Chris Matthews on Hardball along with Salon's Joan Walsh; and Joan Walsh makes a very good statement regarding our values about 3/4 of the way through this interview. It's a lively and fun poke at ourselves, well worth watching. (Chris doesn't interrupt as much as he usually does)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

So I agree, we're never satisfied but I don't think that at all means we're not mostly reasonable. Everyone's unreasonable sometimes.

Disgusting, ugly Americans

2011-11-21T22:36:00.001-05:00

By now I'm sure most of you, even if you're not Nascar fans, have heard that an audible portion of the crowd at Miami/Homestead Speedway booed Michelle Obama and Dr. Jill Biden yesterday.

They were there as Grand Marshals, which in Nascar speak means you get to say "Gentlemen, start your engines." The First and Second ladies were there to honor the troops and get out the word about their troop related causes, which is what First Ladies do.
Now, I know all about free speech and don't even try to sidetrack the discussion. If you can picket a soldier's funeral, you can certainly boo the First Lady. That doesn't mean that these "expressions" are not classless. Since when do we as a country boo the First Lady? Well, since Hilary Clinton was First Lady, that's when. When the right boos the First Lady, it's a free speech issue; but if the left were to boo a First Lady, which I have never heard happen, then it would be unAmerican, unpatriotic, disrespectful. Well, I submit to you that booing the First Lady is all of those things.

Now, let's be clear that I have nothing against Laura Bush. I'm just using her as an example. If it isn't alright to boo someone who negligently killed a young man in an auto accident as a teenager but wasn't punished due to her family's political influence, then it isn't alright to boo this First Lady just because she's a Democrat at best and, at worse, black. Can't we in this country at least show enough class to not boo the First Lady? President George W. Bush's policies, actions, lack of actions and words made the left in this country every bit as angry at him as the right is at President Obama but I never once heard his wife booed. Why? I can only mostly speak for myself but it's because we recognize who's The Decider and who isn't. And honestly, on the right there is no limit, no guideline, no civil restraint, no modulation. Name five of the nastiest, most hateful political pundits you can think of, and they're all on the right and have enormous followings.

Lastly, I want to challenge Nascar to come out publicly and denounce this as unAmerican. They won't because they'll claim to be apolitical but they're anything but apolitical. If the same sanctioning body that shoves the American flag, the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance down your throat at every race doesn't come out and call this unpatriotic, they'll be showing you just exactly where they stand. Again, these ladies were there to support the troops (supporting the troops, something the right claims to own exclusively) and yet they boo her. As someone said to me, "They might as well have pissed on the flag" because booing her in this instance is booing her cause, the troops.

And an added note to the right, now that I've searched the net in an effort to see whether Nascar had condemned this and seen the internet exploding with a disgusting display of the right, in typical fashion, lying about how if it's fair to boo George Bush or Sarah Palin, it's fair to boo Michelle Obama. Listen fucknucks, look at yourselves in the mirror and see what you've become -- how nasty, ugly, disgusting, trivial you are. You'll say anything to defend your ugliness. Booing someone who is running for public office is NOT the same thing. And I won't even begin to address and certainly not give examples of some of the name calling directed at the First Lady that I saw on some very high profile right wing blogs. Thank you for continuing to scratch a big ugly scar into what once was the most envied country on the planet. You should be ashamed of yourselves but I know it's not in your DNA. Good people have the capacity to look in the mirror and fairly judge their actions and feel remorse accordingly. All I see from the right these days is a never-ending capacity for ugliness and hate in response to being called out.

UPDATE: And now one of the ugliest Americans of them all has weighed in, saying the reason they booed the First Lady is because she's uppity and they don't like uppity. That's not very well disguised, Rush. I'm surprised you just didn't say the N word because that's exactly what you meant and exactly what your dittohead listeners heard.

Class Warfare it is not

2011-11-21T12:37:00.000-05:00

Pointing out that the policies and laws of this country favor the 1% over the 99% is not class warfare, no matter how many times Republicans and their paid wagging tongues say it. And kudos to the Democrats in Congress who FINALLY seem to be growing a pair, though to be honest they wouldn't be so bold (and never have been) if the American public wasn't overwhelmingly demanding it.

Another great article by Robert Creamer on this point:

Long-term, widely shared prosperity requires that the incomes of everyday people increase in proportion to their increasing productivity. If it doesn't, they simply won't have the money to buy the increased number of goods and services that they themselves have the ability to produce. That is the formula for economic stagnation and the end of the American dream.
The inability of the Super Committee to reach an agreement is not a reflection on the "intransigence" of both sides and "unwillingness" to compromise. The far right that now dominates the Republican Party insists on positions that fall far outside of mainstream views of everyday American voters. They want changes in the American social contract that will destroy the middle class.

To me it's not a coincidence that the rise in the U.S. deficit coincides with the rise in the corporate money influence in our politics through the Super PACs and lobbyists. Why is that? Look at the fall of the tax rates for corporations and billionaires over the same period. We would not be having the deficit problems, the rotting of our infrastructure, the cutback in education and services to the truly needy if those tax rates were even half of what they once were. Fighting for something even remotely resembling fairness, a level playing field for all Americans, is not class warfare.

If you're not into words but would like to see things in a more graphical form. This excellent article is just for you. It lays things out for you pretty clearly.

And a report released just last week shows that the middle class in this country is shrinking. Now, that would be a good thing if it meant those leaving the middle class were joining the upper class. That is hardly the case though. Those leaving the middle class are joining the lower class. Being poor must be really popular because more and more Americans are choosing to be poor, at least according to the dimwits of this country who feel that people are poor because they're lazy and choose to be.

So standing up for ourselves is not class warfare. What is class warfare is calling the opposite class warfare so that you can hide the class warfare that exists. It's a tried and true tactic but I'm hopeful that the American people will finally see an issue at a better percentage than 60/40.

Who's Got Your Back?

2011-11-20T11:26:00.000-05:00

That's a very good question that unfortunately doesn't have a good, strong answer.
We do know, however, who has the Republican Party's back and vice versa. Check out this scoop by Chris Hayes

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

It's always been about power, influence and control. These people have never cared for a nanosecond about the vast majority of us who don't have money or power or influence individually, but watch how they react when we gather together to exert what power we do have. They will do anything and stop at nothing to keep what they have, much of it earned dishonestly; and they'll lie to your face in an effort to keep you on their side, while they're picking your pocket again.

Also, these folks talk like they have your back but everything they do, if you're really paying attention, says quite the opposite.I'm going to ask you to watch another video clip because I can't figure out how to do a screen capture from a web video but this clip is only three minutes long. It's from The Rachel Maddow Show from the other night talking about the obviously sick young man who shot a rifle at the White House. What makes me want to vomit though is what you'll see starting at the 1:15 point of this video, where she's showing the subtitle that Faux News used to tell this story, calling him the "Occupy Shooter." There is zero evidence that he has anything to do with the Occupy Movement or any movement. When is the 40% of this country that watches Fox's criminal behavior finally going to wise up that this outfit never has and never is and never will be about facts or news? They're only about keeping you scared, misinformed and on the side that pays them to do what they do.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This N That

2011-11-19T13:07:00.002-05:00

Or That N This, if you insist on being disagreeable.

How is it that Congressman and Senators dramatically increase their wealth while being paid by us to be public servants? One way is the Newt Gingrich way, selling your status for money when all that money buys you is potential influence. Another way is through insider information on stocks. Watch this 60 Minutes episode and become upset that it's not illegal, even if we all recognize it as very unethical.

If you didn't already feel they weren't working for our best interests, this ought to seal the deal. The more outraged we get about this stuff, the more we publicly demand change with our voices and our votes. Are you outraged yet?

While we still don't have a jobs bill, Congress found the time to decide that pizza is a vegetable. Why would they do that, you ask? Because they were lobbied to do so by the companies that make money from pizza being served in our kids' school, whether it's healthy for them or not.

Dorli Rainey is my hero. Who's she? She's the 84-year-old woman who was pepper sprayed at Occupy Seattle. She was interviewed by Keith Olbermann, who asked her how she was doing. Her reply is priceless, "I'm feeling great," she said. "I'm so energized. It's amazing what a little pepper spray will do for you." Watch the complete interview below.

This letter, written in response to yet another of those pictures you see with the fine young American's face and a letter held up next to it explaining how hard they work and everyone else should shut up and do the same, is the best and most thorough and completely logical response I have yet seen. It's perfect, except it's too long; but I guess it has to be to explain thoroughly what shouldn't have to be explained at all. If you have not read this response, whether you're inclined to agree with the 99% or you think the whole thing is bullshit, I beg you to read the response that's linked at the beginning of this paragraph. Here's a very small sample: "Do you really want the bar set this high? Do you really want to live in a society where just getting by requires a person to hold down two jobs and work 60 to 70 hours a week? Is that your idea of the American Dream?" I'm also starting to wonder about the veracity of these letters supporting the 1%. I smell a PAC, maybe even a Super PAC.

Did you hear about the reporter and camera person for The Daily Caller (yes, the right wing rag that's been overly harsh and unfair and inaccurate about OWS) being knocked down by police at Occupy Wall Street? Guess who came to their aide? Yup, the very same protesters Michelle Fields had been demonizing. Read the story here.

Dishonorable Mention

2011-11-18T08:36:00.000-05:00

What happens when one party doesn't care about deficits until the opposing party is in the White House? What happens to deficits when one party only asks the working class to pay off the debt that that party helped build by giving tax breaks to the richest one percent and to corporations who pay no taxes? What happens when one party convinces its base that deficit reduction at a time of zero growth is more important than creating jobs? What happens when one party represents the 1% percent at all cost and at the peril of the 99%?
What happens when the other party doesn't have the balls to stand up against that first party and for the people they claim to represent?
You get a gridlocked, do-nothing Congress, an economy that's working great for the 1% and failing the 99% and a Super Committee proposing benefit cuts like these:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

If you hadn't yet realized that the Republican Party's mission of doing anything to make sure Obama was a one-term President was being done counter to what was in the best interests of the country as a whole or that "anything" was meant literally, then you should know it now. Semper FU indeed! If that doesn't piss you off and make your blood boil, nothing will.

Messrs. Duplicity, Grabass, Flipflop & Oops

2011-11-17T09:57:00.000-05:00

Too bad this isn't the law firm that it sounds like. Unfortunately it's the best Republican candidates, at least based on the tastes of the voters, for President.of the United States.
Newt Gingrich, Inc, is the worst of the lot, if you can imagine that. The best you can say about him is he's the smartest one of the bunch but smarts has not been a prized attribute of Republican voters, and in this instance he's the type of person who's always used his smarts for personal gain. He's not exactly a flipflopper but more like a spinning top that's always saying whatever is convenient and convincing. Unfortunately for Newt, he's been around a long time and his record will catch up to him and in very short order. He is the epitome of the word politician when used in its most derisive form. Good thing he's a "history professor" because he's soon to be history.
Where to start and end with Mr. Ubekibekibekistanstan? He's right, you don't have to know anything to get the Republican nomination or to even be elected President, sadly. He "doesn't know anything about foreign policy"; his fiscal policies at best came from a video game; he didn't try to have sexual relations with those women and he's the leading man in the latest Koch Brothers movie release. Many people on the left have found him to be charming and harmless (I suppose he is harmless from the standpoint that he won't get the nomination) but his smarmy nature is starting to show through his charm or perhaps what was seen as charm was always smarminess hidden by a nice, clever smile. "Gotcha!" says Herm.
From a moderate standpoint, Romney is the most palatable of these candidates but that's like saying sardines are more palatable than rotten fish. True, he would likely govern from the center right, something you can't say about the rest of the candidates; though ask me tomorrow and I might change my mind, if necessary. At best he's bought and paid for, and at worst he's bought and paid for.
Poor Governor Perry, doesn't he strike you as the guy who had the best of everything handed to him, guided and steered the whole time, who suddenly finds he has to do and think on his own and has no real experience in doing so? He really should be the Republican frontrunner since most of his positions are in lockstep with the far right he covets. The problem is that he's done a few nice, humanitarian things as governor; his jobs record is based on Federal funding and there's that rock in the front yard.
So now that we've covered the senior partners, the junior partners are waiting for their turn -- well, other than kooky Michelle Bachmann, who started out at the big table and quickly got demoted. For someone who needs to say outrageous things to get noticed, to me she's actually been rather sensible lately. That's because to point out the obvious errors of the frontrunners makes her look smart because she's saying things that are actually true for a change.
Ron Paul? Honest, stable and truly not electable, even in this historically weak field; and that would be against the Republicans, say nothing about running against a moderate Democrat.
John Huntsman? Eminently qualified, very smart, very personable and yet you've hardly seen him because in the eyes of the Republican voters he's more a Democrat than a Teabagger.
Then there's the guy who's name when searched on Google makes your butt cheeks pucker and a few others you never get to see.
Thanks for the laughs and the great theater, Republicans; but most of all, thanks for doing a hundred debates and showing America the many faces of the Republican Party, thank you so much.

After I wrote the rough draft last night, Stephen Colbert helped me out with a fitting skit. Unfortunately, they split it into two videos.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

A Call to Action

2011-11-16T09:20:00.001-05:00

Get Money Out

The discontent of the American people regarding their ineffective, wasteful, corrupt big-money-owned government has been simmering for some time, boiling over at times with the rise of the Tea Party and then again with the Occupy Movement. Now I'm not saying these two divergent sides believe in the same things but they do, despite not realizing it, believe in some common things. One of those things happens to be the biggest threat to our democracy, the fact that our government more and more everyday is bought and paid for.
It takes an enormous amount of money to get elected to almost anything these days. To get the money necessary, it means you've obligated yourself to return the favor; and then those same power brokers spend millions on lobbyists to continue to manipulate the system in their favor. Once a person is elected to high office, the money and power become a drug, effecting their every decision.
Well, it may have taken far too long to happen but the American people are wising up, as it were, and they're mad as hell. As a result, we're starting to see a pushback and recently that pushback has started to produce organizations with the means to fight back with media exposure and organization.
Which brings me to the logo and link above. At last count over a quarter of a million people have joined this group and signed the petition to get behind possible Constitutional amendments to get the money out. I would encourage you to follow the link to Get Money Out and at least learn what they/we're about, and hopefully you'll be as impressed as I am and want to also sign the petition. They may have the money but we have the power of numbers if we act. The time is now.

OneMaine

2011-11-12T10:55:00.000-05:00

Those of you who know me personally or have read enough of my writing know that I am nothing if not fiercely independent. That means that not only do I not always vote for one party in elections, it also means that I strongly support maintaining my right to be independent, not affiliated with any political party; therefore, not having pressure from my chosen party to go along with something I disagree with.
Sometimes I find it important to vote for Independents to make a point, although usually I vote for Independents because I believe in what they stand for, and always support issues that make it easier for independents to get involved in politics or make it easier for all of us to vote, such as open primaries.
Aside from voting for an Independent, it can often be difficult for an independent like myself to find organizations to support who stand for the same things. Well, there is an organization now here in Maine called OneMaine, founded and chaired by Eliot Cutler, who you'll remember I wrote about and supported during his run for Governor last year (very nearly winning and becoming our third Independent Governor). He founded this organization to attempt to bring under one roof all the people in Maine who are of like mind about having less partisanship and more cooperation in our politics for the benefit of the people of Maine. From the OneMaine website:

OneMaine provides a rallying point for people who think for themselves, who believe that our politics need to be more effective and less partisan, and who care less about parties and more about common interests and shared purpose. We are not a political party, but rather a big tent in which Mainers of all stripes – Democrats, Republicans, Greens and unenrolled, independent voters – can collaborate, share ideas and move Maine forward.

Mr. Cutler helped establish this organization following last year's gubernatorial election to try to take advantage of the independent momentum of that campaign and to provide a place for disparate people with a common goal of the best interests of Mainers.
I would encourage you to support OneMaine (you can start at the link above or like them on Facebook) or to look for like organizations if you live outside of Maine. There are many of you out there like myself who have always been independent and have looked for a place to get involved without joining a party. Now you have that place.
The other day I sent an email to OneMaine asking if they'd be so kind as to give me a progress update on OneMaine that I could share with you. Kaitlin LaCasse, the media relations director, was gracious enough to get right back to me with the following:

"So far, the response to OneMaine has been fantastic. When we launched in Bangor a few months ago, over 75 people attended to learn more about OneMaine and to have a conversation about how to best move the organization forward. Since then, we've held events all around the state, and the enthusiasm for OneMaine continues to amaze me. At our Portland event (where there were over 100 people!), an older gentleman came up to me after and said, "thank you, I've been yearning for something like this." The best part is that the man hadn't ever connected with us before - he had read about the event in the paper and decided to come check it out! So, OneMaine continues to grow and mature and we're excited about the potential."
Thank you!
Kaitlin

Cross-posted at The Hankster

Veteran's Day open forum

2011-11-11T08:44:00.001-05:00

On this Veteran's Day I'd like us all to remember the sacrifices of so many in all branches of the United States military, and supporting organizations; sacrifices big and small. Patriots come in many different forms. Remember especially that those who wore the uniform wrote a blank check to the people of this country, a check payable up to and including their lives. It is because of that unselfish sacrifice that we have this great country and the freedoms it holds.

Today I'd like to open this blog up to the readers to say in their own words how appreciative they are of our veterans. Leave in the comments of this blog a little anecdote, a remembrance of someone close to you, what it means to you to live in this country because of the sacrifice of our veterans, or just the names of veterans that are important to you, whether they be serving currently or in the past, whether they be your ancestors, friends or just someone you look up to.

I'll start it off by remembering my Great Grandfather Stanley Basford Sr, who served during WWI in the Army, and my stepson Timothy, who served on active duty in the Army and is still in the National Guard.

Happy Birthday, my band of brothers

2011-11-10T06:57:00.002-05:00

Happy birthday to all the Marines out there; those who are no longer with us, those who are retired, those who are currently serving and those who will some day serve. But most especially a great big oooh rah, Semper Fi and a toast with my glass of scotch to those very special Marines who I had the great privilege to know and become friends with, who welcomed me into this very special group with open arms and who I still have a special bond with to this day. You have some idea, I know, how it feels for me to be one of you but let me just say that feeling resides in a place in my heart and soul that no one else has ever entered.

Now enough of the mushy stuff and back to the scotch, a gentleman's drink offered in friendship and camaraderie, cheers as I share with you this video message from the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

I don't know whether, if you're not a Marine, that brings an ear-to-ear smile coupled with a tear like it does this Marine but I suspect it does. But there is another feeling that only we feel. Now, I never served in combat and would never act like I know what it feels like but I do feel like I'm there with them and I "bleed" when they bleed.
One final thing, since I'm reminded of this watching that video and being a proud native of the State of Maine, is to give a toast and an ooh rah to the fine people of Bangor who welcome all those troops, every one of them, when they arrive back home.
I would encourage you to leave the name of a fallen Marine in the comments, like a permanent honor roll.

In Support of Unions

2011-11-09T09:31:00.000-05:00

I can honestly say there was a time when I thought labor unions had worn out their usefulness because they were cocky and arrogant and too powerful. Well, now that pendulum has swung drastically in the other direction and hopefully organized labor has learned from this.
Did unions go too far sometimes and go after worker rights at the expense of fairness and reason? Yes.
Have there been union employees who have rested on their laurels and taken advantage of that system to get much more than they deserved? Absolutely.
Have there been workers who should have been fired the first time for an offense but yet got three more bites at the apple because they were part of a union? True again.
But if you think for one moment that you're not much, much better off today because of the sacrifice of union organizers and workers, you're the fool those who are trying to take away the right to organize hope you are.
I know it's easy to say things that sound purely American, like he who works hardest and smartest will get ahead and unions keep that from happening. Well, you forget your history. Before organized labor you weren't paid nearly what you were worth. It mattered not if you were twice as good as the person next to you; you both got paid the same, next to nothing. All of the things we take for granted in the workplace these days are there because of the sacrifices of labor unions -- word day length, breaks, benefits, child labor laws, you name it.
Now you have people on the right trying to pit you against your fellow worker in the middle class, getting you to believe that his decent wage because he's a member of a union is somehow unfair. Look, all the while that you're believing that nonsense, the average standard of living of the working person has stayed the same, at the same time the monied interests in this country are giving more and more breaks to the people who are trying to take your rights away. How foolish can you be not to see what is really going on?
More and more people are falling out of the middle class into poverty, more and more of us are accumulating insufferable debt that our wages can't pay, the jobs that are available don't pay a decent wage. Your friend the union worker is not who's to blame for the fact that in real terms you make less than you used to; it's the fat cats who pay lobbyists to buy politicians who lie to you to get you to perpetuate a system that benefits those at the top and steals the rest of us blind.
And congratulations to the people of Ohio for fighting back and winning last night.

What a great day to vote

2011-11-08T11:04:00.002-05:00


Todd

It almost felt like a summer's day when Todd and I struck out for the Town Hall to vote today. They wouldn't let me register Todd...something about concerns over me influencing his vote. I wonder why?
But the point of my post today is just to simply tell you how good it feels every time I go to vote (and to me it's a much more enjoyable and personal thing to do in person) because of what it means to be able to do this, and to also mention a few of the voting obstacles and restrictions of that freedom that we as a country have overcome simply by getting out there and exercising that most precious of all rights.
This ties in to Question One that we are voting on here in Maine. Voting yes would overturn a law the Legislature enacted requiring people to register at least two days before voting day. I can tell you that that would have impacted yours truly today because I moved less than a year ago. Under the new law I would have had to make two trips, one of them completely unnecessary, just to be able to exercise my right to vote as a United States citizen and a resident of the State of Maine. The more difficult they make it for you to be able to vote, the harder it is for you to use your vote to keep them under control. Don't EVER let them start because it's always been difficult for some reason, here in the Land of the Free, to ensure that we all have our rights.

A couple of things that I am not quite old enough to have experienced but my mother, just one generation older than myself, did experience; and those things are: You used to have to be a land owner before you were eligible to register to vote and there used to be such things as poll taxes, having to pay to exercise your rights. Now why do you think those things were in place? So that the wealthy would have control and the ability to yield power over those who were not so fortunate. It is no different with Question One; they want to be able to keep the undesirables from voting, mostly because those undesirables tend to vote differently than those who want to restrict voting rights.
Let us also not forget that it was not all that long ago that certain segments, shall we say, of our society, even though they were citizens, did not have the right to vote and, therefore, were not fully vested in our democratic system; those people being women and people of color. So just remember that the right to vote is precious and it is what gives all of us the power to not be controlled by the few. They are always trying to weaken us; example being trying to restrict the rights of workers to organize. They have the power of money, therefore influence; our power is in numbers and they know that. Don't let them fool you into thinking it's in your interest to have the rights of individuals restricted.

Postscript: After voting, Todd and I drove over to the Maine Store for a breakfast sandwich, personally made for yours truly by my cousin. Yes, Todd got a smidge. And we said hi to Unc and Auntie as well.

Second Postscript: I'm lucky that I didn't have to drive back home before registering. You need to have something with you that says you live in the town you're registering in. Well, my driver's license isn't up for renewal, so it has my old address; and if I had remembered to bring a copy of a bill with my address on it, I would've been hard pressed to find one since I pay all my bills online and have gone paperless. Luckily, I had already registered my car in town and they were able to verify that, saving me a trip home to look for something with my address on it.

Repeat the truth (over and over again)

2011-11-07T08:20:00.001-05:00

Unfortunately in this echo-chambered modern world, it is very easy for lies to be layered upon lies and built into a seemingly-reasonable truth. This is done over and over again by those who are always willing to put their self interests above the common good. They are also cowards unwilling to stand up for their mistakes and take their medicine. It's much easier to go to their issue-friendly echo chamber and say whatever they want to say because they know it will be supported by more lies and more lies, and believed by those who want to believe their side, until it becomes this massive entanglement of lies, half-truths, lies of omission and cherry-picked facts that not even the smartest and most dedicated person could untangle it.
It also means that it's very difficult to counter this nightmare with simple truth. Put forth the truth in the form of facts and they'll counter-offer their own cherry picked facts. They're willing to go further than you because they have more on the line -- their character is at stake -- whereas all you have going for you is truth; and that's a heavy, burdensome thing to carry around. It gets very tiresome banging your head against the wall; doesn't it? It seems as though they'll never get it.

This excellent article by Barry Ritholtz in the Washington Post, "What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral," attempts to fight back against that echo chamber on the topic of what caused the financial crisis of a couple years ago. You can sense his frustration in having to point out the same facts yet again that everyone should already know (and probably do if they were willing to examine it honestly.)
This political cartoon is a good illustration (pun intended) of the point I'm trying to make. One complete segment of the country still doesn't realize this is the truth because so many out there don't want them to know who really ran up the deficit.

Every day we're being told by one segment of society that the people protesting in the Occupy Movement want a handout, when the reality is simply that they want to no longer be robbed by those in power; that they just want a more level playing field. And what frustrates us so much is that we don't understand how a significant percentage of people are still being taken advantage of because they still don't want to believe their side has lied to them and stolen from them. It also means they would have to admit that they've been complicit to some extent by continually voting for people who've made this possible and by echoing their lies.

So we'll just have to keep hammering the truth back at them until MAYBE some day we get back to a country that's more open to truth and fairness, instead of being interested in their side winning no matter the cost.

Vote Yes on Question 1

2011-11-06T10:41:00.003-05:00

It shows just how far to the right the Republican Party has moved in 40 years when you consider the law that gives Mainers the right to register and vote on election day was sponsored by the Republican-controlled Maine Legislature in 1973 and that now it's a vastly different Republican-controlled Legislature that threw that right aside last year, using the fear of imaginary threats to the system in so doing. (Have you ever noticed that there's seemingly always fear behind their tactics? Why? To mask their true motives...POWER.)
Just recently in ads bought and paid for by out-of-state interests and money, they're using the term "election ethics law," which is a term nonexistent in the law passed last year nor found anywhere in the minutes of the debates surrounding its passage, to try to define the need for suppressing voter turnout as a way to keep out-of -staters from somehow voting in Maine elections.
You're not so dumb to not see the hypocrisy here, are you?
There is not, nor has there ever been, any evidence of voter fraud in Maine. So why do Republicans want to suppress voter turnout? For the very same reason that in some voting districts in this country that are heavily Republican they want to make it easier for people to vote -- because it benefits the Republican Party and the Republican Party only. They know that more liberals, Democrats, moderates and independents are new registrants than are Republicans and conservatives. So if you make it harder for the opposition to vote, you lessen the power of the opposition.
I thought the point of having votes was to hear what ALL of the people have to say on an issue. Remember, our democracy was designed as a democracy by and for the people; but when you let one party suppress the wishes of the people, then it is no democracy at all. Vote yes on Question 1 on Tuesday.

I would encourage you to go to this page at Protect Maine Votes for a wealth of links to great articles and information on the issue. There is also an excellent article by Bill Nemitz in today's Portland Press Herald on this topic; much more thorough and well written than what I've done above. I'd strongly encourage you to read that article.

Make sure you get out there and vote on Tuesday. The is one of the most important elections perhaps in my lifetime because to not answer the anti-democratic laws that have been instituted in the last couple of years means we agree, right? And we most certainly do not. This is not the only important issue being decided in this country Tuesday but it is the most important. Without our vote, they can do anything they want whether we like it or not. Remember, a democracy is only powerful if you exercise your right to vote.

Smoke and mirrors

2011-11-02T21:49:00.003-04:00

Today Congress reaffirmed that this country's motto is "In God We Trust." Isn't that already our motto? Don't we need jobs more than reaffirming what already exists and isn't being challenged?
See, that's what they do: ("They" being the ones who are always telling you what a real American is) They tell the gullible portion of this country that there's a threat to America, even when no such threat exists. It's like these things I see shared on Facebook all the time about supporting the troops and that far too many people don't. You don't know a soul who doesn't support the troops; no one does. But we hear it all the time. It's a divide and conquer tactic. "Those liberals out there are trying to take your guns (while gun ownership and ease of ownership continue to rise); they're trying to take God out of the motto; they don't support the troops." If they don't create an enemy, then even the reasonable people on their side of the aisle will have time to start questioning some of the things their side stands for.
It's all class warfare. They're the ones who are out their echoing that the Occupy Movement is using class warfare, when in fact it's a retaliation to policies of the right that have created class warfare against the middle class. But if you tell your gullibles that the Occupy people are trying to steal from hard working people, you distract them from the truth. It's been a very successful tactic by the likes of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, et al, for years; tell conservatives what liberals think and want and stand for instead of asking one yourself. When's the last time you, Mr. and Mrs. Conservative, asked a liberal what they stand for? Try it, you're very likely to get a big surprise. We stand for the same things a lot more than they want to you realize.
So the next time you start to nod your head in agreement when someone suggests to you that there are people who don't support the troops, who use their welfare checks to buy crack, etc, ask yourself if you know anyone that that's true about.
UPDATE: This Daily Show clip from November 3rd fits perfectly, plus as always it's funny as hell.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Get the big money out of our politics

2011-10-27T09:50:00.001-04:00

While I believe corporations should have a way to stand up for their interests, what the policy decisions of the last 30 years have resulted in is a situation where corporate money is seemingly behind every decision that is made, to the benefit of large corporations and the ultra-rich and against the middle class.
Are you tired of being robbed? Then get involved.
I strongly encourage you to read the article at this link at Huffington Post and to watch the video below. Let's see if that doesn't fire you up.

I would also strongly urge you to go to their website and get involved. You can sign the petition here as well.

Link Day

2011-10-25T13:48:00.002-04:00

I'm just sharing some links, with comments, to articles and videos that I've found to be well written and informative in the last few days. I hope you get something out of these as well.

First is this link from a Washington Post article by Eugene Robinson regarding the results of a recent study by a scientist that the skeptics (more like deniers looking for any excuse to disagree) had been relying on. Here's a salient quote from that article:
"When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn't know what we'd find," Muller wrote. "Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that."
I also agree with the author regarding how much this article will change the minds, or more appropriately the position, of the political far right.
"But Muller's plain-spoken admonition that "you should not be a skeptic, at least not any longer" has reduced many deniers to incoherent grumbling or stunned silence.Not so, I predict, with the blowhards such as Perry, Cain and Bachmann, who, out of ignorance or perceived self-interest, are willing to play politics with the Earth's future. They may concede that warming is taking place, but they call it a natural phenomenon and deny that human activity is the cause."

This Politico opinion piece by Joe Scarborough, who is a Republican and a former U.S. Representative (though I'm sure the far right calls him a RINO, especially since he has a show on MSNBC), that fairly points out one of the constant issues in our political dialogue -- lying to make your point. While I don't entirely agree with Joe's use of examples, I most certainly agree with his point. To say that since Democrats supported Clinton's agenda of regime change in Iraq, they can't disagree with Bush actually doing it, is disingenuous but it's still a good article. Here's the opening line of that piece to give you an idea what issue he's specifically talking about:
"Republicans spent the past decade being shocked and stunned by Democrats who dared to question their president’s motives for going to war in Iraq."

For those who still don't understand the rage of the middle class, maybe this Politico piece will help. And even this piece soft pedals the issue to some extent, but it is a fine article about the influence of money in our political system.

This excellent article from The Daily Beast reminds us that the NeoCons are still out there and that their motives and money influence and scare factor are still there.
"They’re back! The neoconservatives who gave America clueless, unpaid-for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, plus a near doubling of military expenditures, during the Bush years have risen from their political graves. Someone, maybe a media tiring of President Obama’s interminable plight, pulled the stake from their heart. Now they’ve returned to the op-ed pages, the talk shows, the think-tank discussions, and the advisory ranks of Republican presidential candidates."

Finally, I'm remiss in not consistently watching the best show on television, "Charlie Rose." What follows is classic Charlie Rose, a half-hour, in-depth discussion on an important topic, in this instance the Occupy Wall Street movement. Unfortunately, they don't have embed links there. So you'll have to follow this link to watch the video. The whole 24 minutes is very much worth watching and listening to but in particular listen to Chris Hedges starting at the 20:20 mark and see if you agree with me that it's as well said as I've heard regarding the absence of the liberal media and how he describes the Tea Party being different from Occupy Wall Street.

Semper Fi, Shamar Thomas

2011-10-20T22:28:00.000-04:00

As a Marine, I couldn't be prouder. Another honorable face of the Occupy Movement.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

More thoughts on the Occupy Movement

2011-10-19T09:13:00.002-04:00

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Above is an excellent interview with Ellen Schultz regarding another way large corporations are ripping off the middle class.

The Clueless Generation article in The Daily Beast. I disagree with his premise in part. He states that the Baby Boomers had it so good that they don't understand the current plight of the middle class. As someone who's at the end of the Baby Boomer Generation, I and many like me can attest to feeling affected all along the 30 year ride of policy changes that got us here -- rise in education costs, deregulation, runaway debt and a flattening of wages to name just a few. This didn't happen overnight.

Opinion piece by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich addressing the seven biggest economic lies
I don't know how many times we've stated these exact statistics and truths but they haven't sunk in enough yet. So we'll keep on pointing them out.

From this excellent Vanity Fair article on Elizabeth Warren:"In those speeches, sometimes using slides filled with numbers and graphs, she would, as she did at a speech in Manhattan in early June, outline the impact on middle-class Americans of rising health-care costs, burgeoning debt, and the depletion of not only their savings but also, with the rise in joblessness, their confidence. She spoke of “the Wild West” conditions deregulation had created, where banks could sell virtually any product they wanted, on any terms: mortgages they knew consumers could not pay off, credit cards whose rates they could raise at whim, products that came with a mind-boggling array of penalty fees, many of them not fully disclosed. But it was her final remarks that brought down the standing-room-only house in June. “We cannot run our country without a strong middle class. We cannot run a democracy without a strong middle class,” she said, her voice quavering slightly. “If we hollow out the middle class,” she said, “then the country we know is gone.”

Did you know that Warren was originally a Republican? (You must read this Vanity Fair article) But to quote the article again:
It was in 1979 that Warren had her Damascene conversion—the experience that would lead her to become the nation’s top authority on the economic pressures facing the American middle class, and trigger her passionate advocacy. In 1978, Congress had passed a law that made it easier for companies and individuals to declare bankruptcy. Warren decided to investigate the reasons why Americans were ending up in bankruptcy court. “I set out to prove they were all a bunch of cheaters,” she said in a 2007 interview. “I was going to expose these people who were taking advantage of the rest of us.” What she found, after conducting with two colleagues one of the most rigorous bankruptcy studies ever, shook her deeply. The vast majority of those in bankruptcy courts, she discovered, were from hardworking middle-class families, people who lost jobs or had “family breakups” or illnesses that wiped out their savings. “It changed my vision,” she said.

The only way we're going to change things for the better is to continue the momentum of the Occupy Movement by being angry and unafraid to stand up for the truth, and then to vote. The moderates and the liberals outnumber the right in this country; and if we all show up at the polls, it doesn't matter how much they lie and how much they spend or who's on the dole.

Apparently we're just a country full of lazy whiners

2011-10-14T21:47:00.001-04:00

If this were being used to applaud someone who's overcoming a rigged system, that would be one thing; but it's being used to tell people who are speaking up against a rigged and unfair system that they're just a bunch of lazy whiners. The fact that any child in this country (the country that was established for and by the people) has to go to these extremes just to break even is not something IMHO to be applauded. It serves to continue to enable those who take our money in tax breaks, bailouts, etc, and reward us with crappy, low-paying jobs
If we, the 99%, had that attitude about things, then the Wall Street banks would not have gotten their bailouts and the system would've crashed. Then anybody who was hurt from that crash through no fault of their own , it would've been their fault because they're just lazy losers? There are good elements in that piece but overall it's basically calling everybody who complains about unfairness is a lazy whiner. Bullshit.
What about the people who worked hard, saved their money, invested wisely, didn't go into debt but yet lost their retirements in the crash? That was their fault too?
So the young mother of two who decides to leave her abusive husband, she should stop her whining and stay? If she leaves and can't find a job that will pay enough for her to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies, that's her fault because she's just lazy and looking for a freebie? It has nothing to do with the fact that the median income in this country has hardly risen in 30 years while the cost of everything necessary to survive has gone up at a much higher rate? It has nothing to do with the fact that the biggest corporations in this country are paying less taxes than ever before, are making much larger profits than ever before and yet not creating new jobs with the tax breaks we're giving them? It has nothing to do with the fact that Wall Street owns the Government of the United States, the government that's supposed to be "by and for the people."
Did you know that now corporations can spend money on elections just as if they were people? But if you're a corporation, you can hide behind your corporate status and not be held libel for the decisions made by the people who make up that corporation.
As William Buster says in this interview with Charlie Rose, (sorry, there's no embed but I highly recommend you watch) "Occupy Wall Street has been depicted as anti-business. We're not. We're not anti-business, we're not anti-banks, we're not anti-government...we're anti-corruption and we're anti-systemic corruption."
I always get a kick out of the right always using personal attacks on the messenger without even trying to understand the message...whatever garbage Fox News puts in front of them, they swallow. They use things like the note above to try and divide us. If you want to know what class warfare is, that's as good an example as I can imagine.
This quote from the Vanity Fair article on Elizabeth Warren (that I'll do a post on shortly) may sum it all up as well as any, “There’s been such a sense that there’s one set of rules for trillion-dollar financial institutions and a different set for all the rest of us. It’s so pervasive that it’s not even hidden.”

Yesterday at the Culter rally in Auburn

2010-11-01T13:43:00.000-04:00

It was a very good turnout at the rally, and the crowd and candidate were very enthusiastic and optimistic. One of the key points to Eliot's speech in Auburn, aside from rallying the faithful, was to point out yet again that he promised to run a clean campaign with no negative or personal attack ads; and he's done that. Good for you, Eliot, and good for us.
Folks, Eliot can win this thing and I feel he must win if this state is to have a chance of moving forward in a tangible way.
Ask yourselves why has every major newspaper in the state endorsed Eliot Cutler for Governor? You can't say it's because they're partisan liberals or they would have endorsed the Democrat. Say what you will about newspapers but I for one still believe journalists are driven by intellectual curiosity and truth. Smart people write for newspapers. Don't be afraid of smart people. Listen to Eliot Cutler speak -- he's not only obviously very intelligent but he's very well informed. He's done a great deal of research and work to determine what our problems are in this state and how they can be fixed. He's sincere -- he's not telling us it'll be easy or that we're all going to find pots of gold at the end of the rainbow. You can feel comfortable knowing that when he becomes Governor, he'll be working for us, not for anyone else. So return the favor -- get yourself to the polls tomorrow and vote for Eliot Cutler. Drag along a few friends too.
If you're still undecided and want to do some research of your own, then by all means but make sure you go to Cutler's website as part of your research.
On a personal note, I went over to Eliot after the rally and introduced myself. Yours truly got a little ego boost when he knew who I was, based on one little blog post. The man obviously is a good judge of character and has a mind like a steel trap -- firm handshake too, if you're inclined to judge by such things.

Choices

2010-10-22T14:39:00.000-04:00

Gay people don't choose to be who they are any more than you do, any more than all the other types of people Christians choose to abhor. Before you get yourself all bent out of shape, name me an atheist who's a homophobe. Those who are taught not to judge are the most judgmental. It has something to do with not wanting to believe God would create something you don't like, so you scramble to your Book to pick and choose your justifications to hate.
We need to stop the hate, stop the ignorance and stop the violence; and instead treat people like we want to be treated. No one would choose a life of ridicule, pain, shame and perhaps worst of all, trying to be someone they're not -- no more than truly devote Christians would choose to be atheists in a world where they were the overwhelming minority. Right?
So this is my first small attempt to get people to think a little more on this issue, while probably pissing off just as many but hopefully getting people to think about their choices.
So if I still have your attention and you haven't already seen it, I'd ask you to watch this short clip and then read a great blog post by someone who's lived in the closet because of us.
Thanks Mary and Heidi for introducing me to this video:

The blog post I mentioned is written by a friend of mine, someone who treats me with respect and doesn't care about my sexual, religious or any other orientation; and we're still friends because we haven't started treating each other differently since he decided to be himself. This post, entitled Sunday Morning Hangover, is very well written and insightful, for those of you who care to think about things you don't understand. After you've read it, ask yourself if you'd choose to be different in a world that truly hates different.

Karl Denninger, Tea Party Founder, Blasts Palin, Gingrich & 'Douchebag' Tea Party Groups

2010-10-20T17:36:00.003-04:00

Because if you can get these angry masses to focus on the liberals, the media, the Hispanics and the gay, you can twist them right around backwards. The GOP is brilliant -- they got these people in no time flat to forget who it was that robbed them blind, started the bailouts, let the corporate execs into the watchdog beauracracy, created an economy full of entry level jobs; and thus welcomed these same thieves and liars to the top and in control of their movement.

Watch this great interview between Dylan Ratigan, Karl Denninger (one of the founders of the Tea Party movement) and Cenk Uygur. At the 7:15 mark listen to Cenk say much better than I just did how easily this was done.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

My vote will be for Eliot Cutler

2010-10-18T18:21:00.004-04:00

As will probably come as no surprise to those who know how fiercely independent I am, I have decided to vote for Eliot Cutler for Governor of Maine. In a nutshell it comes down to voting for who I feel can do the best job for the people of Maine and doing the best job for the state takes many forms. Not only do I feel he is best suited ideologically, has the best skill set and the best breadth of experience but in my opinion he is the only candidate who has any chance from a practical standpoint of affecting the necessary change. Frankly, being the only moderate in the race, he's the candidate whose plans and ideology are in tune with the vast majority of Mainers. And although it's a campaign slogan, "Independent, just like Maine" gives you a pretty good idea who he'll represent in the Blaine House.
With Libby Mitchell, while less destructive an option, we know we're going to get more of the same -- not fiscally conservative enough to make the necessary tough decisions and surrounded by a Legislature of like mind. So I don't expect a sea change in direction.
Paul LePage? The kindest thing I could say about a potential LePage administration is entrenched bickering with the Democratic majority in the Legislature. Ideologically I disagree in practically every way with him and while I consider myself moderately conservative fiscally, I'm still a million miles away from him. And before you assume I won't vote for him because he's a Republican, which I don't think he is anyway, I had pretty much decided I was going to vote for Peter Mills before the primaries.
So in my opinion Eliot Cutler is the only candidate with a legitimate opportunity to get his plans pushed through the legislature, plans that will actually make a difference.
And I know you're going to say "But aren't you just throwing your vote away?" "Isn't a vote for Cutler actually a vote for LePage?" I'll take the last first. There's much debate about who the undecided voters are and given Cutler's leaning toward being fiscally conservative, I wouldn't be so sure that he'd take more votes from Mitchell than LePage. If you vote for the person you truly feel is the best qualified, how could that ever be throwing a vote away? And let me ask you this to chew on: If I'm right that neither Mitchell nor LePage are change agents for the better, then aren't you throwing your vote away supporting them?
I admit this post isn't big on details but to write a post like that would end up being unreadable. If you know me, you know I do my due diligence and I don't take the process lightly. My purpose is to make you curious at least as to why I support Eliot Cutler and then do your own research and make up your own mind. If you're as intellectually curious as I am, I think you'll arrive at the same conclusion.
And as always, at least get out there and vote. Don't let someone else make the decision for you.

Cheers to the new bride and groom

2010-07-25T10:43:00.002-04:00

As a father, it does your heart good to see your child so happy, even though you're scared half to death at the same time. It's kind of bittersweet because it's like you're officially sending them off to the world. I guess that's why the pastor asks "who's giving this woman away."

My daughter got married yesterday and it was a lovely service. During the father/daughter dance she told me her cheeks hurt. No wonder, since she was beaming from ear to ear all evening. What a lovely bride!
Everything went wonderfully, though there was a minor wedding dress malfunction; and I want to thank everyone who came and added to the special occasion. Most importantly though, I want to thank those who put in many, many hours to make this happen: Her mother, her stepmother, her stepfather, her sister, her Uncle Rick, her best friend's mother, the bridemaids and bridegrooms, as well as the Pastor and the parents of the groom. Her dad helped some too.
Three daughters married and all grown to be wonderful women. I couldn't be prouder, despite how bittersweet the process.
Congratulations, Emily and Peter.

PS I will be posting an update, either here or on All Things Zebster, when more pics become available.

The Sacking of Shirley Sherrod

2010-07-23T10:29:00.001-04:00

I've wanted to write something about this incident but working 8 straight evenings since last Tuesday and my daughter's wedding coming tomorrow, I haven't had the time to research and write a decent piece. Let me say I share the thoughts of my friend, DCHomer whose post I'm putting here.

DCHomer: "These are NOT my words. They are the blog comments of my fraternity brother, Attorney Chuck Hobbs of Florida."

The Sacking of Shirley Sherrod---President Obama should Reinstate Her Immediately

Posted 7/21/2010 12:44 PM EDT on tallahassee.com

Reject! Repudiate! Condemn!

In today's 24 hour political news cycle it seems as if not a day passes without some politician, lobbyist or talking head making a statement that so vexes his or her ideological opponents that summary calls for rejection, repudiation or condemnation soon hail forth.
The latest example is Shirley Sherrod, a heretofore relatively obscure black employee of the United States Department of Agriculture who in March addressed a NAACP gathering and discussed her own peregrination toward racial enlightenment. The blog Big Government recently decided to cut and post only
part of her statement where she describes, back in 1986, how she nearly used her authority at the USDA in a wrongful and racially tinged manner.
In her speech, Sherrod describes how she felt that a white farmer “came in acting superior to her” and that “she debated how much help to give him.” Sherrod also stated that "I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farmland, and here I was faced with helping a white person save their land."
Standing alone, such comments certainly reveal racial bias by a government official charged to assist farmers regardless of color.
The problem, however, is that there was a second part of her statement that certain individuals, for reasons known only to themselves, conveniently chose to leave out.
Sherrod went on to state that the situation “opened (her) eyes…that whites were struggling just like blacks, and helping farmers wasn’t so much about race but about the poor versus those who have.” Instead of Sherrod being hailed as a shining example of how one can overcome their own latent biases to treat people fairly, she was fired this week by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack who, like the NAACP, rushed to condemn the partial statement without having the gumption to ascertain whether there was more to the story---which clearly there was.

Almost as quickly as the comments went viral on the Internet, the seemingly never ending game of "Who is the Most Racist" was begun again pitting the right vs. the left. Vilsack sacked Sherrod without as much as a meeting to discuss the particulars.
Sherrod has since intimated that she was under pressure from the White House to resign, further cementing my fear that an administration filled with lawyers---individuals trained in the art of discerning fact or fiction,
continues to act first and ask questions later.
Sherrod’s most biting comment to date is that the White House seems skittish on race---she will get no argument from me on that point. But my biggest concern is that adult professionals, including Vilsack and whoever else encouraged his swift action, have less patience than my year old daughter---a problem when
considering that these are the ones that we elected to, among other things, set the national tone on issues of common importance like race.
Still, as news consumers, we must remain wary of those who cut and splice comments for purely political purposes.
Perhaps the greatest disappointment of the Cyber Fourth Estate is that "fact checking" is often ignored in favor of bloggers hoping to become the first to leak a story or ignite a firestorm.
Nevertheless, concerning Sherrod, of equal importance is how we have become so sensitive to “real talk” that someone simply expressing how they truly felt---twenty years ago---is a basis for being fired. To quote President Obama, Secretary Vilsack acted “stupidly” and I will add, ignorantly based upon his lack of knowing the true facts.
Even Roger Spooner, the white farmer that she ultimately helped, thanked Sherrod profusely for saving his family farm nearly 25 years ago. Which begs the question: when defining racism which is more important, what we think or how we act?
Sherrod’s story proves that negative thoughts can and often do enter our minds, but in the end analysis if we do what is right and learn from that never ending game of mental joust that separates saints from sinners, than our world becomes a much better place.
And if, by chance, we were to be completely honest with ourselves, almost every adult, at some point in their lives, will have to confront their own preconceived biases or notions about folks of another hue. Those who beg to differ either are Pollyannaish or rank prevaricators.
Simply stated, if we cannot honestly share our thoughts on these issues candidly, we will never move past the status quo regarding race.
At some point, we must all realize that the knee-jerk reaction of rejecting, repudiating and condemning any and all race-based comments simply leads to suppressed thoughts. We must also use caution when evaluating the veracity of comments from hyper partisan bloggers whose agenda is to divide---not unite.

Zebster's Maine Baked Beans

2010-07-17T12:07:00.003-04:00

Since I'm going to be making my beans for my daughter's wedding next weekend and we're calculating how much of each ingredient we need to make essentially 8 batches, I thought I'd share my recipe again. This was posted on All Things Zebster in July of 2006.

This recipe is for traditional Maine or New England baked beans, none of that crap with the soggy little beans in a tomato or bbq sauce. You can use a crock pot, do it in the oven inside a bean pot; you can even dig a hole in the ground and cook it in there for several days (hardcore and best, but I'm too lazy and impatient). So I use a crock pot. You'll only need about a half hour or so of prep time but you'll need to cook them all day.

Ingredients: One pound Jacobs Cattle beans, onion, 1/2 pound salt pork, 1/2 cup of BROWN sugar, 2/3 cup molasses, 1/4 cup of real maple syrup (honey works good too), 3 teaspoons dry mustard, salt and pepper to taste.

I think using the right beans is one of the keys. I prefer Jacobs Cattle or Yellow Eye or the like. You can use pinto beans, I suppose, but see above and don't tell me if you did...it saddens me deeply. Let me amend that. If you want real baked beans, then find the good dry beans I've mentioned. Don't cheat and use canned beans or whatever. If you want it to taste right, like it's supposed to, then you need to start with the right ingredients. There's no point in doing it, otherwise.
You should check the bag of beans because occasionally there's a pebble or a bad bean. Then put them in a large bowl of water and soak them overnight.
In the morning parboil the beans until you can blow the skin off one, about a half hour, which gives you time to get your ingredients together. You'll need some salt pork (no bacon...this isn't breakfast), which you'll need to cut through the rind side about a half inch in a waffle design so it'll fall apart nicely when everything's cooked. Quarter at least one onion and place it in the bottom of the pot. Then drain and add your parboiled beans. Place the salt pork on top. In one pint of boiling water add your molasses, syrup, dry mustard, sugar, salt and pepper. I like mine peppery. I've been known to use Montreal steak pepper. But at least 3 teaspoons of pepper. Pour this over the beans, adding more boiling water, if necessary, to cover the beans...usually an extra half pint to pint. Then cook on low in the crock pot or 300 degrees in the oven for at least 6 hours.
When at all possible serve with red casing hotdogs and brown bread, also often served in Maine with coleslaw. Since you're going to fart like crazy after eating them, plus the cabbage in the cole slaw, you might as well go all out and wash it down with a hearty ale. You won't have any trouble being left alone after that.
And by the way, if I find out that you put ketchup on my beans, I'll hunt you down and shoot you! Ketchup is for hamburgers, meatloaf and bad french fries.
UPDATE 7/25/10: Made a large batch (8X above) for my daughter's wedding and have a couple of important notes. As Shelly has said, it's my best batch yet and I attribute that to using Grandma's Molasses, which was used because it's gluten free. It's stronger in my opinion and worth using. But if you're making this recipe for the first time and using Grandma's, I'd use 1/2 cup of molasses and perhaps a little more water. It's always to taste anyway. For this batch we ended up using yellow eye and great northern beans, which are smaller but I felt they needed extra soaking and parboiling compared to the soldier beans.
UPDATE 3/8/11: Made a batch at my mother's this past weekend, this time cooking them in a gas oven using a cast iron dutch oven...another significant improvement, which is hard to believe as good as they already were.

Your insatiable appetite for crap

2010-07-10T09:26:00.000-04:00

Warning: Old Zebster rant.
When I worked in sales for a cable company, several times a day I would hear complaints that "there's nothing on TV," while you glance at their television to see it's on a "reality" show or some junk like Entertainment Tonight and copies of the worst tabloid rags are lying around their home telling you who's sleeping with who or who's pregnant with an alien baby or who has a crack habit.
America, you can complain all you want about what's on television but it's a simple matter of profit. Media companies only deliver what you and your neighbors watch and read. Advertisers will only spend their bucks on media that's being viewed by large numbers. The more sensational and scandalous, the more likely you are to want to know about it and then to know more about it. Your crap habit is out of control and the media companies don't mind as long as it's profitable.
Why are our television shows, newspapers and magazines filled with salacious stories about celebrities? Because for some reason that I'm unable to fathom, you want to know about that shit. Just last night my local NBC affiliate showed a segment during the 6:00 news where they were trying to get a peek of Taylor Swift filming a music video in Kennebunkport, ala TMZ. At least they led with the fatal shooting by police officers of a Marine veteran shooting a gun outside the VA Hospital in Togus, but then again that still fits the profile. To you sheep it's less a news story and more a sensational story.
Here's something for you to chew on: In the three years I was selling cable I was in thousands of homes. If I was in a home that had scandal rags lying around and they also had a cable news channel turned on, every single time it was the same one. I'll let you guess which one and you can decide for yourself what to make of that.
You claim to hate the paparazzi but they're the ones feeding your insatiable appetite for crap. There's obviously money to be made stalking celebrities.
So don't complain to the networks or your cable salesman, complain to your neighbors and take a look in the mirror.

Open discussion -- PFC Manning

2010-07-08T14:39:00.004-04:00

Imagine for just a minute that you're 22 year old PFC Bradley Manning, a patriotic soldier doing your job and minding your own business, when one day the worst possible moral and patriotic dilemma falls in your lap. You're working as an intel analyst when you see part or all of what's become known as the Collateral Murder footage, where it certainly appears that an Apache helicopter is firing on unarmed people trying to keep from being shot at. So for the sake of this discussion, let's assume it is what it appears to be.
If you're unfamiliar with this issue, here's some background from the PBS show Need To Know that includes a videotape of the incident.
Now I could care less about the website Wikileaks or its founder, Julian Assange. My concern is that the issue easily gets sidetracked when you talk about Wikileaks because, the Collateral Murder tape aside, most of us would agree we don't agree with their methods and their choices.
But just from a purely patriotic and moral standpoint, how do you feel about the fact that Manning released a sensitive US military "document" that plainly puts the US in a bad light?
Is it that simple...thou shalt never release anything, no matter the circumstances, at any time? No.
Is it worse because he was an active duty soldier as opposed to a civilian? I don't think so. You don't have to obey an unlawful order, for example. The issue is certainly complicated by the fact that this whistle blowing incident takes place during wartime, where doing the right thing can often also be doing the wrong thing. Yes, both at the same time in my opinion.
This is where I fall on this if I were to put myself in his shoes. I know if I go against my government and cause this material to become public, I'm going to go to jail for a long time and rightfully so. No matter the cause, I'm breaking the wartime laws of my country that I've sworn to uphold. But I'd do it anyway. The releasing of that material is detrimental to our country but the incident in and of itself is detrimental to this country and the ramifications of not coming clean (YET AGAIN) in these kinds of incidents is much worse.
I can envision instances where during wartime I could witness a murder and still know that the right thing is to keep it a secret. This isn't one of those instances.

First remember, then let's get to the grub

2010-07-04T13:16:00.002-04:00

Happy Birthday, America. Go out and have some fun. Please remember, our differences are our strength and what make this great country the envy of all others. On this Independence Day, it wouldn't hurt to revisit the document that starts it all, so to speak. So thanks to the Boston Globe, here's a link to the full text of the Declaration of Independence.

Now, how about a little discussion about your favorite 4th of July foods. For me it has to be something off an outdoor grill and nothing says America more than a great burger. Is there any better burger than one off your grill on this special holiday? I think not. For me it's grilled medium, with cheese, tomato, lettuce and dill pickle, mayo and mustard. My favorite grill side dish is a simple potato salad. For a beverage, I find nothing goes better with a grilled burger than a cold ale and my favorite is Shipyard Export from right here in Maine.

UPDATE: While tinkering with the blog, I came upon this piece I wrote for Independence Day four years ago. I'm quite proud of this one. Give it a read and let me know what you think.

But then again...

2010-06-29T11:23:00.000-04:00

It could be a whole lot worse, like it was not long ago.
While I've been in a dissatisfied mood with President Obama of late, I recognize it has as much to do (leaving the Gulf spill aside for now) with not doing all that he said he would and a few things he's done that he said he wouldn't. I should also be fair and step back a bit and look at the big picture. The big picture is that an awful lot has been done legislatively and culturally.
Since I'm lazy but most importantly need to be spending my time looking for a job, I'm going to take advantage of those who get paid to point these things out to you. First, I'd encourage you to read this excellent article by Peter Beinart that's currently at The Daily Beast. I saw an interview with him a few weeks ago with Charlie Rose, and I couldn't help coming away from that with one overriding thought..."that is one incredibly smart guy right there." You just know it when you see it and it is a very rare quality these days unfortunately.
And just because it's always fun to be enlightened by Jon Stewart, I'll share the clip below. If you watched the show last night, you saw about an 8 or 9 minute interview with David Axelrod; but if you go to The Daily Show website, you'll see there's a much longer unedited version of the interview. What's below is part 1 of 3, that totals about 20 minutes. There doesn't appear to be one file containing all 3 parts; but if you start with the first, it'll jump to the next when it ends.
So again, I'm far from satisfied and am dissatisfied in many ways but it should be remembered what the other options could have been.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

David Axelrod Unedited Interview Pt. 1

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

Banging around YouTube (in a melancholy mood)

2010-06-24T10:50:00.004-04:00

Triggered by a PBS link on my Facebook wall this morning about David Rawlings, I soon found myself revisiting one of my very favorite artists' music, that being the duo of Gillian Welch and the aforementioned Mr. Rawlings. If you're unfamiliar, do yourself a favor and look them up. You might be familiar with them from the movie "O Brother Where Art Though" but they've been around for a long time, and no one performs better live. As I've gotten older, I rarely listen to anything that isn't stripped down, and that's all they do pretty much is do great voices in harmony and two guitars.
They do my favorite version of "Long Black Veil," originally recorded by Lefty Frizzell, and this little gem, which is perhaps my favorite of theirs.

I soon ended up listening to another favorite, the great and original Merle Haggard. It's hard to find a song of his that I don't truly enjoy thoroughly but especially like "Tonight, The Bottle Let Me Down" and "Think I'll Just Sit Here And Drink." Those songs always make me think of my father, who loved Merle and loved his drink even more, which is how he found his demise at the young age of 52 (story for another time maybe). But I'm going to share a different Merle song with you, one that perhaps you haven't heard. Again, it makes me think of my dad because it's a song asking for a moment of peace (that's what strikes me the most, though it's a song about death and salvation)...a song that has the rare ability to bring a tear every time you hear it with that taps-like trumpet at the end.

Another version of this song worth finding is by Keith Richards (yes, that Keith Richards)
Are we seeing a trend? Yes, I like the melancholy -- deep, dark, stripped down and unabashed, which is why I tend to gravitate to the singer/songwriter, people whose music comes from their hearts and souls.
(Sorry I'm not smart enough to make these videos fit correctly)

Four years ago

2010-06-19T14:13:00.001-04:00

Watching some U.S. Open golf and World Cup soccer the last couple of days had a sense of deja vu to it; and that coupled with blogging on BoSox Tavern about these events, had me looking for old blogs on similar topics. Well, if you read through these couple of blog posts from four years ago, you'll see there's even more than superficial similarities. It's four years ago exactly...Father's Day weekend, a U.S. Open with Phil Mickelson in contention, the only other time Tiger Woods was going through troubles, and a World Cup with the U.S. team underachieving early in games and coming back to save themselves.
One difference is that Nascar is at Sonoma instead of Michigan, as it was four years ago. Similarities are still there though -- Kasey Kahne won at Michigan four years ago and he finished 2nd last weekend at Michigan. He's starting from the pole tomorrow at Sonoma where he won last year.
So take a walk down memory lane with this post from Saturday four years ago and this second one is the weekend wrap-up once the results were in. Here's hoping that the similarities between Phil's first two rounds this year at Pebble Beach and four years ago at Winged Foot (you remember Winged Foot, don't you) end there.
Have a great Father's Day weekend.

(cross posted at BoSox Tavern)

Because that matters most of all, Mr. President

2010-06-16T15:33:00.001-04:00

Mr. President, in case you didn't realize, there's a big difference between the loyalty of the left versus the loyalty of the right. On the left, while we may be very patient and gracious with the benefit of the doubt, we will call you out when we disagree and the bar of expectation is higher. One category where the bar is higher is regarding your word, especially your word that your administration would bring back things like truth, justice, honor and principle to the Presidency.
So here's how it works with us: If you're upholding those standards that we most believe in and cherish, then we'll be patient when it might appear you've made a mistake in judgment or calculation because we believe your heart's in the right place and your decisions are based on the greater good. We'll even cut you a huss or three if you were simply wrong, again provided that we believe that you see the world the way we do and your word is good and you're upholding the standards we believe in.
But when more than a few chips start to fall in the wrong direction, when we start to wonder just how good your word is, then we'll turn on you too.
We're not happy about how you and your administration have handled the mess in the Gulf. All things considered, we'd just voice our displeasure but still be on your side because you did all the other things that you said you would do that were most important to us. Well guess what, our patience is wearing thin.
Our friend, Jon Stewart, who's always funny and nearly always right, does a very good job of laying out why we're getting fed up in this hysterical piece from last night. He lays it out much more succinctly and certainly is more entertaining doing it than I could ever be.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Respect My Authoritah

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

It really is up to us, you know

2010-06-14T12:45:00.002-04:00

A very poignant political cartoon hit my Facebook wall this morning from Politico. Unfortunately, Politico doesn't have a share-to-Blogger option. Since I'm not going to copyright infringe to put the cartoon on this blog, you'll have to go to their site to see it. There is actually another one on the same page that makes the point very well also. On this page look for the one with the oiled pelican on the gas pump and the traffic jam one where the drivers are saying "Dang pigheaded oil companies."
The point of these cartoons is painfully clear: Our insatiable thirst for oil and a refusal to be personally inconvenienced to any significant degree is a major contributing factor to the necessity for offshore drilling and, by fair extension, the disaster that's going on in the Gulf.
We as a country can be justifiably angry at BP, angry at Minerals Management, angry at the President; truly saddened and heartbroken about what's going on down there. But until we care enough and are selfless enough to look at ourselves in the mirror and say "Okay, my self-centered perspective and total disregard for the potential ramifications of quenching my thirst contributed to this as well," nothing will change and this will likely happen again.
Oh sure, maybe you bought an economy car, maybe you bring your own grocery bags, maybe you walk to the store on occasion or dry your clothes on the line (and yes, if we all did all of those things and more it would LESSEN our dependence on oil) but until we're willing to pay for the investment in green energy alternatives with our own money, until we can deal with the sight of windmills on the landscape, until we decide to use public transportation, until we realize what happened in the Gulf could happen in our backyard, until WE DECIDE, it'll happen again.
It's no different than people complaining there's nothing on TV worth watching or thinking it's a shame celebrities are constantly hounded by the paparazzi while they and their neighbors make the choice to watch the shows and buy the rags. Business will always find a way to provide what you'll buy and will quickly stop providing what you won't buy. Personally, I'm not optimistic we'll change our priorities nearly enough to make a substantial difference.

"It's all that and a bag of chips"

2010-06-12T11:21:00.006-04:00

Preferably salt & vinegar chips. My previous post about the Maine Italian sandwich resulted in a lot of comments about people's favorite versions and places to get it, which has sparked in yours truly the thought of discussing what might be the most traditional take-out Maine lunch.
Requirements: A traditional Maine take-out lunch must include an entree, a side, a beverage and a little dessert; and all of the elements must be, if not uniquely Maine in origin, at least foods that have become iconic Maine delicacies. So while lobster may not be exclusive to Maine, a Maine lobster roll most certainly is; ditto the hotdog. A great hotdog can be found in every corner of this country but a red casing hotdog in a toasted traditional Maine hotdog roll is unique to The Pine Tree State.
While I do love Italian sandwiches, by the third mention of Richie's Pizza, my memory was suddenly jogged regarding the sandwich that I most often ordered there, the hot ham, cheese & bacon. Now, you might want to suggest that's just a hoagie by another name but I would counter and ask if you've ever had a sandwich outside of Maine that truly made you think it comparable to a ham, cheese & bacon, hot with mayo. What makes it different? I don't know exactly since the ingredients are as straightforward as the words ham, cheese and bacon. I do know I've never had a sandwich anywhere else in the country on a foot-long hotdog roll. There's my nominee for the entree.

As for a side dish, I would proffer it must be a bag of salt & vinegar chips, preferably Humpty Dumpty brand, if your tongue can last to the bottom of the bag. While salt & vinegar chips are now relatively common in many parts of the US, I can tell you that 30 years ago when I left Maine the only way to get them was to have your mom mail you some. In fact, just mentioning them to people from anywhere else in the country would elicit a very strange look and quite often a sound of disgust. (sadly, no link is included since Canadians bought Humpty Dumpty a few years ago and by looking at their website, you wouldn't know the chips still exist, unless you go to any corner store in Maine)
On to a choice of beverage: Is there really any debate on this one? While it might be generous to say Moxie is an acquired taste, pretty much only Mainers have acquired a taste for it. Go to the Moxie Festival in Lisbon Falls and see for yourself what makes it uniquely Maine.
Finally, it's time for dessert. That long pause you hear is the list of nominees following the mention of whoopie pies. Hearing no dissent, the whoopie pie it is. Here's a nice history lesson on the whoopie pie. By the way, my wife makes the best version I've ever had and I've had several. My friends from Virginia ask when I'm coming back with more.

So there you have it, folks, a lunch that would bring both Paul Bunyan (speaking of Maine icons) and his ox to their knees -- plenty of sugar, spice, nitrates, carbs and no veggies in site.
You didn't think he got that big by eating veggies, did you?
Chew on that for a while and tell us what would be your nominee for the ultimate Maine lunch.

(This one's for you, Bro, since you like the saying "She's all that and a bag of chips" so much, but you'll definitely need some tummy aides.)

Ode to the Maine Italian Sandwich

2010-06-10T11:07:00.003-04:00

Since it is universally accepted that the Maine Italian sandwich's origins are in Portland, ME and Giovanni Amato, I've included a link to Amato's website, which has a great picture of the sandwich (you can leave the olives off mine, thank you) on the front page and a link to the history of the sandwich. So I won't bother to repeat it here; but it's called an Italian more because it was invented by an Italian than what's in it, which wouldn't necessarily strike you as Italian food.
My purpose here though is to baptize the uninitiated and to swap stories with the choir about our favorite version of the Italian and where we fondly remember getting the "best one around." It is true that you'd be hard pressed to go anywhere in Maine and not be able to find a very good one on the menu of any "corner store," as we tend to refer to mom & pop and general stores here in Maine; but we all have our favorite place, usually one near where we grew up. It is one of those things when we're away from Maine that make us think fondly and eagerly about returning.

A couple of childhood memories: I can remember my Aunt Polly in the '60s making dozens of Italians that seemed like they were going to a store for sale. I couldn't have been more than 5 or 6 years old and that's my first memory of the Italian. I will have to do some research and find out what that was all about. The other memory is as an adolescent and teenager. I used to bowl in youth leagues in Pittsfield at Frenchy's and then at Pittsfield Bowling Center after school, and whenever I had the money I'd be over at Richie's getting a bite to eat, quite often an Italian. A couple of other places that may bring back memories is Sonny's and Whipper's in the Waterville Area.
Currently my favorite place is Franchetti's here in Livermore Falls (amazing how many places don't have websites!) -- it's actually just across the town line in Jay, and I have to say I've always been impressed with how fresh and abundant and tasty their food is, at the top of my list of great corner stores, right below The Maine Store in my hometown of Detroit.
Finally, for those who are unfamiliar, I'll tell you what ingredients you'll need to make an Italian of your own. Having just made one a few days ago, I wish I'd taken a picture to include here but alas that sandwich is long gone. You'll need a 12 inch soft sub roll sliced about 2/3 deep to stuff the ingredients in. Layer generous helpings of sliced ham or salami (or both), then American cheese, chopped onions and bell peppers, tomato slices, dill pickles (optional Greek olives) and then drizzle some oil on top, add salt and pepper. That's the traditional "recipe" but I'd love to hear about your favorite version.
Enjoy! Anyone want to suggest a favorite beer to wash that down with?

Maine Primary open forum

2010-06-08T09:47:00.002-04:00

Being fiercely independent as I am, I don't get to vote for candidates in the primaries (and this won't be a pro open primary post...leave that for another day) and so I'm reliant on registered Republicans and Democrats to make smart choices. Thankfully my home state of Maine is notoriously independent and moderate, which rarely results in far left or right field nominees. This blog is an open forum to discuss your choice, if you made one, and a plea for continued moderation.
I know there's a lot of angry sentiment on both sides, which nationally is having the result of some extreme nominees, nominees who cannot and will not win, nor should they. They don't represent anything close to a majority of voters' beliefs. But what can happen when parties are polarized and extreme blocks of each party push through candidates based on anger and over-reaction instead of reason is that there is the possibility of an open election between two "worthless" choices.
So I ask my fellow Mainers to reflect on what kind of man or woman you want at the helm of state government. New and fresh ideas are one thing but sacrificing sound judgment and a steady hand to get them is not the way to go. As an independent, I'd like nothing more than having a difficult decision between two highly-qualified, sensible candidates come November, two candidates that reflect the State of Maine as a whole and who have that necessary commodity of being able to govern.
I encourage you to let us know who you voted for and why, and to also weigh in on the bond issues.

UPDATE: Again, since I'm an independent, I couldn't vote for candidates. I would very much like to hear who you voted for, and why if you don't mind but not necessary. Speaking of being independent, did you know that in Maine you can no longer be a "registered independent?" You can register for one of the independent parties but that's not being truly independent. So I'm officially listed as undeclared, like I can't make up my friggin' mind or something. I did make a minor stink about it but I truly feel it's not right that I can't declare myself an independent.
I voted for most but not all of the bond issues. I DO believe in priming the pump, as it were; but it was a difficult decision, not wanting to keep adding to the tax burden. But if we're not working, what good are low taxes? I very much respect the other side of this argument and it has some merit in my mind but overall, especially given the nature of these particular ballot issues, I decided to vote with my wallet.

Memorial Day

2010-05-31T10:14:00.000-04:00

First off, let me ask all who read this to join in the National Moment of Remembrance today at 3PM, to honor in particular those who gave the ultimate sacrifice to protect this country and our freedom. Go to http://www.remember.gov/ to learn more. Secondly, for those on Facebook, the White House has a great application where you can honor a random fallen soldier. I've been updating mine about every hour to honor another. Go to my profile to find the app.
You all know me to be not much of a "flag waver." I prefer to show my patriotism and respect in my own way, which tends to be with 100 percent sincerity and in my own words, as opposed to doing what others have made and decided is the right way to show patriotism. On this Memorial Day though please take some time to think about what sacrifices have been made, what it's meant to the families of those who made that sacrifice and what it's meant to our country. Also, try to take time to personally thank anyone you know who has served because without them as well this country would not be as free as it is and the ultimate sacrifice could have easily been theirs to bare.
Memorial Day is also a day to remember loved ones who are no longer with us. I tend to do this myself by remembering all the good times shared with them, what wonderful people they were and how much they meant to my life. I won't list all those I miss but will say a special remembrance to my daughter Jennifer Lee, who I never had the opportunity to get to know. Miss you, sweetheart. So while we remember and honor those who've served and those we've lost, let's cherish the time spent with them but also take advantage of the time we still have with those who are still with us. So how about just letting them know in some personal way that you're glad they're in your life.

(cross posted at All Things Zebster)

DADT -- What difference does it make?

2010-05-27T10:32:00.000-04:00

As is my tendency, I'm speaking as the devil's advocate. What is the practical difference between Don't Ask Don't Tell and what things will be like in the military if and when it is repealed?
When I was in the Marine Corps, if DADT wasn't the law, it was certainly the practice. We all served with people we suspected were gay; and speaking for myself only, it certainly didn't matter in a personal or professional relationship with those folks. To be clear, I never spent any time in a war-time foxhole and so obviously wasn't in a position to evaluate my feelings sharing that situation with someone I knew or suspected was gay. I can tell you with all certainty it would not have mattered to me.
But that's really not what I'm getting at. How will things be any different in the military if gays won't have to conceal who they are? Do you think all of a sudden there will be openly gay (insert whatever slang here you choose -- flaming, etc) people wearing a uniform? Do you think suddenly people in uniform will be walking around limp wristed? Seriously, just because the laws change doesn't mean day-to-day life will change. There will still be those non-gay members who it doesn't matter to and will be your friend, and there will continue to be those who'll want to take you out back and beat the hell out of you.
So with that backdrop, gay people know they'll still need to live their daily military lives the same way as before. There will still be bigotry regarding promotions. There will still be a military dress code and rules of comportment.
Understand this: I believe every one should be treated equally and fairly, and I believe DADT should be repealed; but also that I served and realize that the military is a special universe, shall we say, with special requirements. If I thought for one second that repealing DADT would negatively effect the daily morale of troops or create an environment that could be dangerous to those who are fighting our wars, I would sadly be against it.
What am I missing?

Progressive link day

2010-05-23T12:09:00.003-04:00

Unfortunately the full-throated blog juices still aren't flowing on a regular basis, despite the fact that so much is going on and so much is pissing me off. So while I'm tending to my wife who's home recovering from a couple of hernia repairs (and I had a wisdom tooth pulled on Thursday, which was no sweat at all), I'm reading some good articles and blogs and thought I'd share.
You'd think pulling a wisdom tooth would be more difficult than finding an honest, rational thought from the radical right that has hijacked the modern Republican Party. Think again. Am I the only progressive who was at least a wee bit optimistic that after 8 years of monumental fuck-ups that a decent percentage of conservatives would have been interested (just interested) in rethinking their intransigent beliefs? If we harbored any of that optimism, it went out the window the day of or at least by the day after Obama's election when he was blamed for everything he was served.
I guess if all you care about is your side winning and never having to take responsibility for your support or lack of dispute, the only other option is to act like it never happened until the other team takes the field. Cowards is the only word that comes to mind.
So with that in mind, let me encourage my progressive friends (ye of open-mindedness, a belief that the best is always ahead, and that smart and thoughtful is always better than closed-mindedness and hate) to hold true to what we know is right and just, and do and say whatever is necessary to take this country and world in the right direction, as is so very well said in this article by Mike Lux at the Huffington Post, where you can always find something thought provoking.
From the "while I don't always agree with him but he doesn't mince his words" department, I bring you a great rant by Bill Maher, including this excerpt:

For example: to solve our debt crisis, a bunch of Republican senators suggested a bipartisan debt commission, which is the adult thing to do. But when Obama agreed to it, immediately seven of them said no -- now they're against it. Because Obama has cooties. Democrats have cooties, so you can't vote with them, or work with them, and compromise is treason.

Finally (for now anyway) I'd like to point you to a long-time blogging friend who reminds us, and warns us, how far some on the radical right will go in attempting to affect the change they want. RIP Harvey Milk.

I'm likely to update this later with more links. Feel free to suggest any in your comments or to me in a PM at Facebook.

UPDATE: Here's a dichotomy link from The Boston Globe, showing what good journalism is and why we still and always will need newspapers, and to show how nepotism and cronyism still controls our politics and bureaucracy.

Thomas Brackett Reed

2010-05-15T09:41:00.005-04:00

Another one from the category "See how little you know about your home state."
I'm watching Ken Burns' documentary "The Congress" yesterday when there's mention of Speaker of the House Thomas Brackett Reed of Maine. "Who?," says I. Click "like" below if you're from Maine and you haven't heard of him either. How many Speakers of the House are from Maine? Two, I believe, Blaine being the other. So you'd think that would be a common name to hear during our educations in Maine.
Reed was an important enough figure to be mentioned in an hour and a half documentary on a subject as vast as the U.S. Congress, despite the fact that he was Speaker well over 100 years ago.
As I've done with other similar blogs, I won't write a biography as much as encourage you to learn more.
I will tease you with this and include the below link and excerpt. His efforts to increase the powers of the Speaker were dramatic and lead to the tenure of one of the more powerful Speakers ever, Joseph Gurney Cannon of Illinois.
There's even a street named after him and a statue on the Western Promenade in Portland.
From Wikipedia
During his time as Speaker, Reed assiduously and dramatically increased the power of the Speaker over the House; although the power of the Speaker had always waxed (most notably during Henry Clay's tenure) and waned, the position had previously commanded influence rather than outright power. Reed set out to put into practical effect his dictum that "The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch"; this was accomplished by carefully studying the existing procedures of the U.S. House, most dating to the original designs written by Thomas Jefferson. What followed has popularly been called the "Battle of the Reed Rules".

UPDATE: Author Evan Thomas was on "207" tonight talking about his new book about the Spanish American War, and Reed's name comes up as one of the few prominent politicians who were against the war. WCSH6.com Portland, ME Newsweek's Evan Thomas

That's mighty white of you, America

2010-05-13T09:02:00.002-04:00

According to a recent WSJ/NBCNews poll, two-thirds of Americans are in favor of the new Arizona illegal immigration law, even though practically the same percentage feel it will lead to discrimination.
You know, it's always been an easy thing to say you're for an infringement on your rights for the better good when you know damn well you'll never have to worry about it. No one, and I mean no one, whines louder than white Americans when their rights are perceived to be infringed upon. We who were born in this country and fortunate to have the correct skin pigmentation take our rights for granted, which is why sadly too many of us who've never had to worry about it carelessly say it's okay for others.
What if the immigration issue in this country involved Canadians, who in most respects look and sound like white Americans? Do you want to guess what the reaction would be by these same supporters of this law when they're asked to produce proof of citizenship?
What good would it do to have a law like this when nearly everyone looks the same?

Walking away when you're under water

2010-05-11T14:20:00.001-04:00

So let me make sure I understand this. It's morally okay for a home owner to "walk away" from a mortgage they can afford to pay simply because the home is now worth considerably less than its value at the time of purchase? That's just a smart business decision and nothing more?
Whatever happened to the concept of "a deal's a deal?" You're saying your word and your commitment is only as good as the day-to-day economic viability of the deal? So if you sell me your vintage '60's muscle car on time and six months later the bottom falls out of the vintage car market, making my purchase a bad investment, you have no problem with me just bringing it back to you and no longer making the payments? Why, that's mighty nice of you. In fact, if you don't mind, I'm going to drive it for a few months for free while you go through the legal process of repossession, since you're in such a charitable mood.
Let's take this a step or two further because I really want to understand what's motivating your thoughts. If five years after your purchase the value of the home has doubled, are you going to insist that the bank redo the mortgage and you'll gladly pay it? No? But the bank should renegotiate the mortgage if the value drops?
So can I fairly assume that since practically every home in this country is worth less now than it was two years ago, you have no problem with all of us walking away leaving the bank high and dry? One last consideration: What are you going to tell your neighbors when your local credit union, the one holding your life's savings and theirs, goes under when we all renig on the mortages they hold?

What's it worth?

2010-05-10T09:35:00.002-04:00

It's been a long time since we had a guest post on Inside Zebster. Hopefully this nice piece by LadyA will be the first of more to come. She points out in the piece below something that we don't as American consumers want to think about...we just want it cheap. How long has it been since the standard of living for the middle class and below in this country even came close to keeping pace with the cost of living?

Please welcome Lady A and leave any comments you'd like.

"For those currently engaged in debate over the “illegal alien” issue, I offer this:

You forget your history. The entire original infrastructure of this country was built on slave/cheap imported labor. From the plantations in the south to the rail lines in the west, land/company owners have never paid decent wages if they weren't required to. As long as American consumers want the lowest prices, regardless of the wages paid to the producers of said products; and American stock holders want the highest returns on their investments, regardless of the working conditions and benefits offered to the employees of said companies; American employers will have to look for sources for the lowest wages. When American consumers are finally willing to pay the>true< full price of the goods and services they consume, there will no longer be a need for employers in this country to employ these illegals.

After I posted the above commentary on my Facebook the other day, I had a conversation with friends regarding compulsory education for our children between the ages of 8-16. I was again reminded that without laws to prevent it, our business owners will employ the most vulnerable members of the population without regard to ethical practices."

Candlepin Bowling and Bill Chinnock

2010-04-25T18:54:00.011-04:00

I came across two things recently that made me remember fondly my youth and teenage years. The first was this feature on "207" about Bill Chinnock, and the second was this article on Boston.com regarding candlepin bowling. I thought I'd share a personal story or anecdote about each and invite others to comment with their stories and or elaborate on mine.
Perhaps the best story, but the one I need help with the most, involves a certain Bill Chinnock concert at the Pittsfield Community Theater, probably sometime in 1979 (one of the very few ticket stubs I can't claim to still have). A handful of us decided that not only did we need to be at this concert but we needed to have flasks or pint bottles of alcohol as well, lest we got thirsty inside. Unlike the famous Dresden ice fishing legend (sorry Chink), getting the alcohol for the Chinnock concert did not involve someone's uncle delivering it to the MCI campus in a black pulp truck. I don't recall where we got it but there's little chance the story is as colorful.
What is most memorable about this concert, aside from getting to see our local music hero, was the fact that not all of us managed to get into the concert with our alcohol intact. Isn't that right, SF? Luckily for us, some of us did! Were we cool or what? If you were there that night, please chime in with any information you have to fill in the story, as my pitiful memory has left me nothing more than what's above.
Regarding candlepin bowling, I'll offer up a couple of quick things. Many of us were on youth bowling leagues or high school intramural leagues at the Pittsfield Bowling Center. Most of my fondest candlepin bowling memories are there, and I'm sure there are plenty of fond memories by others to share. One not so fondly remembered, or better stated as bittersweet, relates to the reward we received in roughly 1972 for winning the Eastern Maine tournament. For whatever reason, that year it was decided that giving jackets was better than trophies. So while my trophies from my glorious youth survived in my mother's attic for many years, that jacket was lost, nay stolen, in less than a year, some idiot 11 or 12 year old having left it on a bench at Manson Park.
Also, any of my MCI classmates who still have the 1980 edition of The Trumpet, go to pages 112 and 113, and in particular look at the names of the teams. Does that bring back some memories? Long live The Zebulons!
I would be very appreciative if you would leave any anecdotes that you'd like to share, elaborate on anything I have said but also if you would please pass this along to anyone who might appreciate it.

Who I learned about yesterday

2010-04-24T14:46:00.006-04:00

I guess I'm on a streak here lately of learning about influential people that I shamefully know very little about. A couple of days ago it was Rachel Carson, and yesterday it was Martin Luther. My task here again is not to tell you who these people are in any great detail but to encourage you to learn more about them.
When it comes to Martin Luther, is it fair to say that most of us are familiar with the name and that's about it? Perhaps we know he was a religious figure, perhaps that the Lutheran religion is named for him. But what else do you know? Did you know he told a Pope, Pope Leo X, and a King, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, that he wouldn't retract his writings; that he was right and they were wrong? That he basically told the Pope he was irrelevant; that he translated the Bible from Latin to a language of the common people, and thus the Protestant Reformation starts with Luther?
He was a devoutly religious man and I'm an atheist but I love rebels and free thinkers. Every freedom fighter from Thomas Jefferson to Martin Luther King were inspired by Martin Luther. It could be fairly said that we as Americans owe our democracy to Luther. So take five minutes or so to become better acquainted with one of the most influential people of all time.
Up next? Cleisthenes.

Rachel Carson

2010-04-23T11:18:00.005-04:00

This won't be a biography at all; it's an attempt to get back in the habit of using this blog, forcing myself to write a little something here on a regular basis.
I find it astonishing that the name Rachel Carson is unfamiliar to most Americans, including yours truly. While I'd heard the name and knew she wrote "Silent Spring," I really had no idea who she was or the profound influence she had on the modern environmental movement and the creation of the EPA.
Even that aside, she was a trailblazer for women in education and the workplace. Look at where and when she went to college; likewise, her early professional career prior to becoming a fulltime writer. You'd think that anyone included in Time's 100 Most Important People of the 20th Century would at least have been heard of.
You all know how to use the Wiki, so look her up yourself, or go here http://www.rachelcarson.org/ and decide for yourself whether this is someone with whom we should all be familiar.

No, you're no more American or patriotic than anyone else

2010-02-07T10:05:00.012-05:00

Spend some time on websites like Facebook, for example, and you'll see people posting something along these lines: "There are too many people in this country who don't understand what it means to be American, who don't support the troops," etc, etc, and that essentially you don't have the guts or the patriotism to copy and paste that nonsense on your space.

You've seen those posts and you've heard that sentiment around your workplace or in editorials. Did it come as a surprise to you that there are those in this country who get it and that the rest of us don't? Who are these people who get it? Who are these people who don't? Is there a book or manual somewhere that describes what a patriot American does or looks like?

If this sentiment doesn't scare the living shit out of you, well, it should. It serves to divide us. It creates a mentality in people to be watching your neighbors or friends or family for suspicious activity or, even worse, a lack of certain "officially-approved" activity.

Haven't we been here before? Do I have to copy and paste your drivel to prove my patriotism? Do I have to look just like you and think just like you; otherwise, I don't get it, or worse?

I have a news flash for you narrow minded sheep: We all support the troops; we'd all die for our country, be it go to war or jump in front of the President to catch an assassin's bullet. I would've done it for a president who I couldn't have disagreed with more. Would you do it for the current president who was overwhelmingly elected by the people of this country? Or does your holier-than-thou, self-annointed sense of patriotism not cover that?

Get your blinders off, turn off that bullshit echo chamber you're tied into (you know, that one that loves to scare and divide) and get your head out of the ass of organizations that want you to believe there's this huge percentage of unpatriotic people in this country before one of you does something we'll all regret. It takes a lot more courage and patriotism to make up your own mind that it does to follow that little crowd of yours that always tells you what you want to hear.

We're all pulling the same rope and pulling it in the same direction; there's just disagreement about the best way to pull it sometimes. You should be a lot more concerned and afraid of people who want you to think a certain way because it serves their ambitions than to be concerned that your fellow Americans aren't really American enough by your standards.

The most patriotic and heroic people we know are those who do the little and large things proactively, very quietly, never asking for recognition or even support.

So before you run off at the mouth with your nonsense, serving only to help further divide us to be conquered by those who truly don't get it, ask yourself whether you truly know one single person who doesn't support the troops, who doesn't love their country, who wouldn't sacrifice all they have in half a heartbeat to protect, preserve and improve it.

So sadly we've come to the point where it takes guts to say and think we're all together than it does to point fingers at shadows. So let's see if you have the guts to post the link to this.

And don't read this like the ditto-head that you are -- "Wow, that is so true" -- and then put your head back up your ass again...truly think about it and act accordingly in your day-to-day life.

Me? Liberal, atheist, wrote "the blank check" for 8 years and every bit as American as you. I just choose not to use labels when determining whether someone's patriotic or not.

Just Like Old Times (for this Mopar fan)

2008-02-18T07:38:00.005-05:00

Yesterday was the 50th running of the Daytona 500, and Nascar did an excellent job celebrating the occasion by rolling out and displaying much of its history prior to the race. As a fan for more than three decades, I never get tired of the old clips, especially when they involve my all time favorite, Richard Petty, or any other Mopar driver beating the hell out of the competition; and I was smiling from ear to ear at the end of yesterday's 500 as well.
The talk for two weeks and then some was how unbeatable the Hendrick Chevys were going to be, especially with the addition of the best plate track racer, Dale Jr; and how strong Toyota had become with the addition of Joe Gibbs Racing. The only talk related to Dodge and Ford was how they weren't up to snuff with the other two makes.
Well, qualifying fast looks good and winning nonpoint qualifying races looks better, but the real trophy goes to those who race smart and improve over 500 miles; and that's just what the Dodge Chargers (just the name takes me back) did yesterday...they won. Congratulations Ryan Newman.
Kasey Kahne had a top 10 car all day and the Penske Chargers were frequent visitors there as well; but other than that the leader board was mostly full of Chevys and Toyotas for the first 3/4 of the race, when other than being on TV for the sponsors it didn't mean anything.
But look at all the Chargers in the top 15 at the end of the race: The top 2, 3 of the top 5, 6 of the top 10, 8 of the top 15 (one of those being the 43).
Now I realize that none of the top 3 teams in Nascar drive Dodges but here's hoping that yesterday was a sign that Dodge is much closer to them than they have been in recent years.

Why do you hate the Patriots so?

2008-02-08T08:16:00.001-05:00

Is it the NY Yankee syndrome, where you just hate because they succeed? But the NFL rules are much different than MLB. The Patriots haven't and can't outspend teams to succeed, they have to outwork and outsmart you.
Is it because of Spygate? I'll grant you it was wrong and they got caught, and they were handed the most severe penalty ever given an NFL team...for doing something that in one form or another everyone does. If Roger Goodell is covering something up, what do you think that might be? He's trying to protect your team and his league by not opening up a can of worms. I don't condone cheating but do we really want to go down this path, really?
Is it because they're viewed by some as arrogant? No doubt the head coach is arrogant, justifiably so for the most part. But I would suggest to you that the quiet confidence displayed by the leaders of this team is nothing more than that, and not arrogance. This is a classy, hard working bunch with hardly a superstar among them. Why would you hate that?
Do you hate that they brought in a very talented malcontent (not the first time, I might add) and the result was records broken everywhere? Do you hate the posterboy QB who, up until this game, always made the right decision on the field, who never talked out of school? Do you hate him for his rings, his MVP trophies, his supermodels. America loves a winner and that guy is a winner. He never says a bad thing about anyone; he just goes out and produces. The most arrogant thing I've seen him do is "scoff" at the suggestion the Pats would only score 17 points. What did you want him to do...agree?
Do you hate them because their success is coinciding with the recent success of the Red Sox and you're just sick and tired of Boston? Okay, fine, but all you NY Yankee fans who have never set foot in the state of New York can kiss my ass.
You all really didn't want them to win the Super Bowl and go undefeated? You didn't want to see something happen truly historical, something that won't be approached again. Aren't you sick and tired of Mercury Morris?
This team has accomplished great things while maintaining a class of character rarely seen in the modern player, say nothing about a whole team. Yet everyone hates the Patriots but loved America's Team. Can I take from that you'd prefer your champions to boast, to overdo every celebration, to celebrate for doing their job; you'd prefer they be tabloid fodder and be on suspension lists? You seem to prefer that over a team that mirrors the way you go about your job, a team that does things the way you say to your kids they should be done.
Now, I've left the head coach out of this because he's an easy target. He is arrogant, he will seemingly do anything to win, he's frankly been downright rude and unsportsmanlike on occasion. You didn't hate a whole franchise for The Big Tuna's antics. So why hate the franchise for this one's?
If you want to hate them for something, hate them for getting rid of the old red, white and blue uniforms and Pat The Patriot on the helmet, as I do.

(This post inspired by my friends who are Cowboy and Raider fans, of all things)

A Quick Thought

2006-12-22T08:35:00.001-05:00

Sorry I haven't written in a long time...the new job is taking my time and thoughts right now, as well as holiday running around. I have updates about work and family at All Things Zebster.
The Nascar blog I've been threatening to do is now up, written by some of us old timers from Under Da Porch message board. You can read that blog here, if you're inclined to participate in Nascar discussions.

I hope to get back into a routine soon where I can update and then stay updated on the political and social issues so that I can blog here regularly again. Until then I want to wish everyone a joyous and safe holiday season, as well as encourage everyone to take a moment out of their busy schedules and do something for those less fortunate...a kind word, giving blood, shoveling a walkway, spending time with the lonely, volunteering your time to prepare Christmas dinner at a shelter, anything from the heart in the spirit of the season. Even something as little as putting change in a Salvation Army kettle can make a profound difference.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

My Vote

2006-11-09T08:34:00.001-05:00

Thought I'd put up a quick post about how and/or who I voted for, why and how I feel about the results of the election, the last mostly from a local perspective. I intend to write about the national results soon.
I put my vote where my mouth and keyboard have been all along. I voted a straight anti-incumbent ticket by voting for independents, with the exception of races where people ran unopposed. You all know why I did that; I've been saying it all along. I wanted to send a message that I'm not happy with the purely-partisan two-party system. I encouraged my readers to have the courage to do the same; that en masse we vote wasters would become message senders. If you look at the results from the Maine election, I think we did just that.
For instance, look at the governor's race:

John E. Baldacci (D) 200666 38.05%
Chandler E. Woodcock (R) 158275 30.01%
Barbara Merrill (U) 112571 21.35%
Patricia H. LaMarche (G) 51341 9.74%
Phillip Morris NaPier (U) 4527 0.86%

Incumbent Democrat John Baldacci is fairly popular but he couldn't carry even 40% of the vote. Now I understand here in Maine we have much more of a tradition of voting for independents than elsewhere, but that doesn't explain the vote percentage of the winner nor does it explain how Merrill and LaMarche together received more than the Republican. Barbara Merrill, who I voted for, received over 21%...a relatively unknown independent a year ago. She ran a great campaign and hit a nerve with voters because she had the courage to lay out fresh ideas, something someone from the 2 major parties are always afraid to do. It didn't hurt her either that her fresh ideas made a lot of sense.
Look at the US Senate race:

Olympia J. Snowe (R) 384507 74.04%
Jean M. Hay Bright (D) 106642 20.54%
William H. Slavick (U) 28152 5.42%

or the 1st Congressional District race, particularly again at the vote percentage of the independents:

Thomas H. Allen (D) 162600 60.41%
Darlene J. Curley (R) 84491 31.39%
Dexter J. Kamilewicz (U) 22089 8.21%

Over 5 and 8% are enormous independent percentages in any other state. That would be headline news, even in this current climate.

So I'm pleased that voters came out and obviously voted based on something other than pure party lines. Now, no incumbents here were toppled (all 3 plus Mike Michaud are IMO justifiably popular) but I feel the message was sent nonetheless.

I apologize for this obviously being hastily thrown together but hopefully I made some rational points. Your thoughts on my vote? Please feel free to say as little or as much as you'd like about your vote and your local election results.

Purely Partisan Blogs Are Idiotic In My Opinion

2006-11-06T07:01:00.001-05:00

What follows is another guest blog, this one from Brent at A Dakota Democrat. I think you'll find much to agree with here.

I voted on Saturday morning, and I was the 696th person inside the city limits of Jamestown, ND to vote early by going to the county auditor's office and doing the American duty of voting. After I voted, not a straight party ticket by the way, I spent about 2 hours reading blogs from both sides of the political spectrum. I came up with one very clear observation. The majority of Americans that blog on politics are too partisan to be of any value to us free-thinkers.

Now let me explain that last sentence.

I read on a right-leaning blog about everything that the Republican Party had done wrong in the past 6 years of holding power in congress. This person wrote about 60 different things that the Republican Party or it's members had done wrong in his eyes. Then at the end, he said that even though the Party had abandoned it's principals and had done everything wrong, that Americans should vote for Republicans. The reason why? Democrats would raise taxes. That is it. That is the only reason that he gave. Now, I understand that lower taxes is important, but is it more important than the federal deficit? How about the corruption that has been seen in congress? What about the Iraq war? How about illegal immigration? I just don't understand that statement about Democrats would raise taxes. Maybe they will, but how do you know with 100% certainty that they would? How would you measure that?

I was reading a left-leaning blog and how the Republicans are trying to steal this election like they stole the 2000 & 2004 elections. Now if you are going to say this as fact, please give me facts that are proven, not conjecture and opinion. Couldn't do that. This writer also said that Republicans would start the systematic detention of people that didn't agree with the Republican Party platform. Again, I want facts and proof that is what the Republican Party is planning. Couldn't get facts again.

Of about the 30 blogs that I looked at, there were many of them that were purely partisan. That's great if you live in a world where everything is a life and death struggle between ideology. The real world isn't like that. Neither Democrats or Republicans are purely evil and though there are differences on how to improve the country, not one party has the correct answers on everything. The one way that you cannot improve the country is to totally shut out the opposing view from yours. The Iraq war is a great example of this. Most people from the Right would say that the Democratic idea is only cut-and-run. I know that is false. There have been many proposals from the left that haven't been cut-and-run. From the left, comes the slogan to President Bush's Iraq invasion, Lie-and-Die. Most Republicans are against the way that the President have handled Iraq, but they are all lumped together like the Democrats.

I am tired of the way this game is played. What happened to the exchange of ideas? What happened to agreeing with people that aren't part of your party? What happened to the civility of politics? What happened to actually admitting that your opponent for political office actually has a good plan for whatever they are running for? If you continuously preach to the choir, doesn't your truth become a self-fulfilling prophecy? If you hear from everybody that thinks the same way that you do, you don't hear anything that challenges your perceptions and might broaden your horizons. Everything could change if the American public told both parties that we don't want all this partisan garbage. Until we decide not to reward partisanship, we will be stuck with this he said, he said game of politics that no one likes.

Thanks Brent, as usual your thoughts are fair and even handed.

Mad as hell?

2006-10-31T21:58:00.001-05:00

In response to my decision to open Inside Zebster up as a forum for others' opinions and viewpoints leading up to the November 7 election, we have this submission by E-Campaigner 2006.

VOTERS ARE MAD AS HELL, AND AN ANTI-INCUMBENCY TSUNAMI IS GOING TO HIT ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006.

Yes, indeed we voters are mad as hell. That Peter Finch/Howard Beale character from the movie Network would have no problem agitating today for us to get up out of our chairs, go over to the window, throw it open and yell as loud as we can, "We're as mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore." Then, after that, on November 7th, we really "mad as hell" voters will go off to the polling booth and vote against as many incumbents as we can.

Voters are not going to take it anymore from Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, and William Jefferson. They also don’t want to put up with those guys’ unindicted co-conspirators, enablers, and aiders and abettors in D.C. who have been screwing us over for as long as we can remember. Some of these criminals have been outed but there are hundreds more in the woodwork, and the Capitol Building just needs to be plain fumigated.

An anti-incumbent tsunami can hit on Election Day, but it is up to the voters.

We have a hell of a powerful tool at our fingertips – the Internet. Let’s use it.

Let’s get going.

Send emails to newspapers, TV and radio stations, friends, acquaintances, favorite pets, co-workers, and anyone else you can think of, telling them you are as mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore.

If any voters want, I'll give you email addresses to send to.

Or you give me email addresses you would like me to email to, and I'll do it.

Contact me at ECampaigner06@aol.com

And, oh yeh, catch a viewing of Peter Finch/Howard Beale as soon as you can:
trailers-screenplay-E10932-10-2
Please make him feel welcome and supported by leaving comments.

Inside Zebster open forum

2006-10-31T19:23:00.001-05:00

Given that I'm too busy right now with my new job and not blogging anything close to daily, I want to open Inside Zebster up as a place to post other people's thoughts on issues related to the upcoming election. I have one piece I'll be putting up shortly. I welcome people from all perspectives to offer up their opinions. I don't plan on editing what you'd write but would reserve the right to ask that something be revised by you before I post that, though I think it's unlikely I'd feel the need to do that.

If you're interested, leave a comment here and/or email me. And hurry up, the election is a week away. Plus, I'll definitely be putting something up very soon regarding the exchanges today between John Kerry, President Bush and John McCain.
government politics citizens independent vote Kerry Bush McCain

No one to blame but yourself

2006-10-30T18:20:00.001-05:00

If you buy all the negative ads that have no substance, no proof, no facts aimed at a candidate from the party opposite the one you're aligned with because you're just looking for a reason to support your current good-for-nothing, rubber-stamp incumbent, then you'll have no one to blame but yourself when nothing changes (even worse, if you don't vote at all).
As I've done time and time before, I urge everyone to vote; but equally as important I urge you to take a step back and look at the issues and the candidates with a fresh and open mind, as painful and distasteful as that may be for you. Also, look at all the issues and prioritize their importance, because you're going to be asked to vote for a candidate because he/she supports a "pet" issue of yours. They're hoping you'll ignore or excuse their mistakes and incompetence and even lies because they've brought pork to your district. Ask yourself what is truly most important, research that issue and the candidates' stance on that issue.
You know what? Sorry I've been too busy lately to write and the above is far from my best work. Just throw them all out and start over...you'll feel better, I promise. If nothing else, we'll end up with at least some oversight for the first time in a while. It is possible! Just think what a message it would send if you decided to vote entirely for incumbents and you got just one person to do the same, and that one person got one person to do the same, and so on. You know what you'd have? A true democracy.

For those who care, I hope to get a chance to make some recommendations, my reasons for supporting certain candidates. I can tell you now though that the overriding theme will be anti-incumbency, but I will have more reasons than that if I have time to do it at all.
government politics citizens independent vote reform anti-incumbent Congress

Anti-incumbent fever or anti-majority?

2006-10-10T10:47:00.001-04:00

You've seen me comment, rant and encourage on this blog many times about my views regarding the voters' pathetic record regarding voting for who they're familiar with much more than who they believe to be the better candidate based on information. I've encouraged readers to research voting records and issues before deciding on a candidate.
Do the latest poll numbers, such as this one from The Washington Post, show that voters are finally getting wise and getting informed, therefore ready to clean out incumbents and start over, or do the polls simply indicate a dissatisfaction with the party in power?
Seems to me it's a justifiable dissatisfaction with the party in power, the Republicans; and for many, many good reasons. You can fill in the blanks yourself. While I think that's a good place to start, if the mindset of the voter doesn't include the realization that much that we're dissatisfied with can be attributed to overall complacency and arrogance, it will only be a start to a necessary house cleaning without a finish.
People need to realize that the minority party plays many of the same games, is beholding to many of the same special interests as well as specific ones of their own, has not done their job of being a watchdog on corruption (in fact, has joined in) and thus have failed us nearly as much as the Republicans have.
So while you're frustrated, angry and ready to kick the "bad guys" out by voting against the Republicans, realize that you're only doing half the job, therefore really not accomplishing anything, if you don't include the Democrats in your anti-incumbent passion. You'll simply be rewarding them for not being as bad, when in fact they are just as bad, just not in a position to take as much advantage of their power as Republicans.

So while I personally would rather see the Democrats in power come November than the Republicans (and that would be a good thing), it falls far short of my ultimate goal of a complete reforming of the system (read my previous series on Representative Govt) by infusing Congress with new blood, especially independents. While the Democrats will take advantage of the current climate, not infusing true independents into the mix and thus giving Americans more real choices and new ideas fixes nothing in the long run.

Cross posted in large part on
Watchblog.

ANNOUNCEMENT: I've started writing also at VOID, Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, the blogsite of an unconnected PAC whose mission is much as I've laid out here and other places, a perfect fit for the Zebster. I'll mostly be compiling poll data into short anti-incumbent updates, as well as the occasional editorial piece.

government politics citizens independent vote reform anti-incumbent Congress

North Korea open thread

2006-10-09T11:50:00.001-04:00

I'd be very interested to know what you think is the way(s) to deal with KIM Jong Il's rogue North Korea, now that they've apparently successfully tested a nuclear weapon.

Do we essentially continue a strategy of containment which doesn't appear to be containing much but the growth of the people? What else can you take away by way of sanctions? It would appear that his people going without is not a deterrent to this clown.
I've heard it suggested we offer China that we'll remove our troops from S. Korea in exchange for them taking out this leadership. Interesting theoretically but does China even have that ability, though they'd certainly be interested in no longer essentially having our troops on their border.
One of the biggest deterrents to military action has been all those North Korean missiles aimed at South Korea. That aside, what military action would make a difference? We're stretched awfully thin as it is militarily, but would you propose a surgical strike to try to take out the leadership or bombing them back to the stone age (oh, that's right, they're already back in the stone age)?
Do we just de facto ignore it, while using words of condemnation? They are not a threat today, especially since they can't seem to get rockets to work; but there's always the chance they could sell what they've learned.
Any thoughts?

On a personal note: Having my stepson on the border there makes me wary of where this may lead.
North Korea KIM Jong Il KIM Bush Taepodong China nuclear weapons

Unfortunate consequence

2006-10-06T09:13:00.001-04:00

While to many the Foley scandal's potential to be the final nail in the coffin of the Republican stranglehold on our government may be a blessing, what it also unfortunately does is take our eyes off more important issues.

If you assume for the sake of argument that even without the Foley scandal the Republicans would have lost the House anyway, then you could actually posit the idea that this scandal works to the benefit of those who have things to hide, who still have a sizeable percentage of the voting public fooled.

So while the press and American public is fixated yet again on its favorite type of scandal, sex, their prying eyes and minds are now not so much on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the countless other examples of corruption, the deficit, habeas corpus, the Constitution, Congress' dereliction of duty in being a counterbalance to the powers of the Presidency, et cetera ad nauseum.

As I've said many, many times before, we get what we deserve when our tastes lean toward the most salacious of scandals instead of matters of real consequence. This is why I and others will continue to harp on what's important to our country and its citizens.

Foley Bush Pages Hastert
power Constitution cover-up Republicans

Circling the wagons

2006-10-04T13:02:00.001-04:00

So the President comes out and says he knows Rep. Hastert and reassures us that Hastert wants to get to the bottom of the Foley mess, essentially that Hastert had nothing to do with a cover-up. Well, I feel reassured, thank you. Partisan support instead of a call for investigation always makes me feel better. How about you? "Let's rally around our cronies like they've done for us until we figure out the facts and then have a chance to spin it to the public."

Mr. President, if you want to reassure the public, then don't jump to anyone's aid until you know the facts. Tell the American public you insist on a full investigation and that you will see to it that anyone who covered up or had information and failed to act is punished. Instead you sent a message loud and clear that circling the wagons to hold on to power is what is most important to you and yours.

And talk about circling the wagons, is that what Rep. Reynolds was doing yesterday when he held a news conference surrounded by children? What exactly was the message that was trying to be conveyed there? That if he surrounds himself with children, then he couldn't possibly have known about risks to other children and did nothing? I won't even go into what it means that Mr. Reynolds refused to have the little children removed from the press conference so that journalists could ask questions of an adult nature about which a press conference was held to discuss an incident of an adult nature.

As for Hastert's noble actions, instead of getting to the bottom of the issue, he's making the rounds of conservative radio talk shows rallying or reassuring the base. Like anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh listens because they want to know the truth about something; that that's the place of the moral high ground.

What actions like these always seem to indicate is where there's smoke there's probably fire. They'll circle the wagons of denial and ignorance until they can find a loophole to squirm through.

How about you reassure us with leadership and action? Tell us all that you know and when you knew it and what you did about it, and demand that level of transparency from all others. Next thing you know they'll be blaming the other guy -- oops, too late -- or blaming the other party -- oops, too late -- or, even most cowardly of all, blaming the Pages themselves -- sigh.
Cross posted on Watchblog

Foley Bush Pages Hastert
power Reynolds cover-up Republicans

I for Integrity (Representative Govt VI)

2006-10-03T12:30:00.001-04:00

As it is becoming more and more painfully obvious that those we've elected have betrayed us, we must find the strength of conviction to set aside our partisan tendencies to believe those we want to believe and instead think for ourselves and demand from each and every one of them a strength of conviction, the courage to stand alone if need be and do what is right. Those who falsely hide behind the R of Righteousness and those who hide behind the D of Defender of the common man, only to prey on our society for their own gain, must be replaced by those of true Integrity, by those whose only motivation is to serve the country. Country before party, country before narrow ideology, country before self. They do exist and more of them will step to the fore with the winds of change...all we have to do is encourage them by voting for the independent thinker at every opportunity.

We are as much to blame as the politicians for the unfortunate state of our country, of our society. Where once we were trusted and looked upon as a country to follow, as a country whose government and citizens prized above all else the betterment of all, we are now seen as a country of pariahs, as a country with no integrity, as a country swayed by political winds at the expense of mankind.

If our elected officials will not have the courage and conviction to change their ways, will at least the voters of this country come November have the strength to look hard and strong in the mirror of self-examination, of realization that they do what they do at our bidding and that we now bid adeau.

There is still time, still an opportunity to vote not for a candidate who claims to stand for your prized issue at the expense of overall good but to vote for candidates who will in your stead examine every issue on balance. Do you have the courage to vote for independents, knowing that you could be "wasting" your vote and risking giving an election to the "enemy?" We all fear that, and it is that fear that's kept us from exercising our true power and reforming this political nightmare. But remember this, while the Republicans try to rally their base and Democrats will do likewise, if we independents all vote for independents, the others can rally all they want in futility because there are more of us than either of them alone. That would send a message for sure, but wouldn't it send an even stronger message if their bases did turn out but voted for independents as well?

Is it more important to you that your side wins and that, therefore, your handful of favorite issues might prevail or is it more important to you that this country is set once again on a path of intellectual reason over almighty dollar? There is no time like the present to start to turn this around. I for one plan to vote for every independent I can come November. Maybe I'll be wasting my vote, but I'll sleep well knowing I didn't encourage a process where he who has the most to spend wins. I'll know that if my underfunded candidate wins, that person will not have been bought by special interest. I encourage every one who reads this to do the same, cast a vote for Integrity, for Independent thought and Independent political power.

Cross posted at Watchblog

government politics citizens independent vote reform

Blog intro update

2006-09-28T10:41:00.001-04:00

It's been a while since I've written blog recommendations; and even though I haven't written much in the last couple of months, there's still new blogs to recommend. Also, feel free to include links to your favorite blogs in the comments. I look forward to checking them out.

Let me start with Watchblog. If you've been looking for a site that in a civil, respectful and professional way has political content from the left, right and center (or Democrat, Republican and Independent), then you will appreciate this site. I was asked to join them a couple of months ago as one of the writers for the "center." Until recently I haven't had time to post original content there but at least for now I have that time.

Independent Voting is the website for CUIP, Committee for a Unified Independent Party, of which I am an active member. The title is somewhat of a misnomer in that CUIP doesn't advocate an actual third party; it is an organization that promotes independent voting and issues most important to independents such as election reform and representative government. If you're interested in becoming an active independent, I recommend you start there.

My friend Robbie from San Diego, formerly posting at Greetings from America's Finest City and Independent Opinions (though I need to talk him into reviving that one) can now be found at El Mas Chingon, and he's madder than ever. An excellent site for thoughtful opinions on social and political issues, as well as sports and beer reviews. Leave anything out, Robbie?

Jerimiah Bullfrog at GoddamnILoveAmerica is perhaps best described as the Country Ninja Stephen Colbert. If you want to laugh your butt off while being reassured he's keeping us safe, visit there often -- actually, that should read "visit thar often."

All Things Zebster, my personal and sports blog. Also where I tend to blog when I'm too busy to write professionally here.

blogosphere blogging friends writing blog intros

Olbermann's Special Commentary

2006-09-27T10:21:00.001-04:00

For those of you who have not had a chance to see this, following is a link to Keith Olbermann's "special commentary" regarding the Bill Clinton Fox News Chris Wallace interview as it specifically relates to the former president's statement that he tried to get bin Laden and that leading up to 9/11 the current administration did not Special Commentary

While there is much in this 10 minute commentary that I agree with and much that I feel needed to be said by someone with an audience larger than the biggest blog site, its tone and lack of respect for the current president defeats the purpose. Though I do not respect President Bush, I respect the presidency; and though, as I said, there is much there that needed to be said and said strongly, Olbermann must understand that the way his message was delivered will turn off anyone who should hear it. He can use that "tone" when preaching to the choir all he wants; but preaching to the choir is just that, raving to the already-converted.
For the message to have true value, it must be delivered in such a way that those Americans who have yet to consider it or have not had access to the information which make up its points are willing to hear it.
If I sat in my seat and squirmed, what effect do you think it had on the people who in my opinion most needed to hear it? That's right, they immediately turned it off or, worse yet, it served to push them further away from the light, the light that should be shone brightly on the truth. There is much truth in what President Clinton said and in what Olbermann said, but there is also much truth available to counter-balance their side. So why not make a political commentary nearer the whole truth, thus nearer the middle where the vast majority of the hearts and minds of Americans reside?
Keith, you come across as disrespectful and biased. What point does that serve? What point does it serve to insinuate that our president is not a grown-up?

For a commentary such as this to have any real value, its messenger must deliver it with facts only, not intertwined with opinions as facts. To do so makes you no better, the same, as those you attack. The messenger will be seen as much a tool as the tools he hopes to shine the light of truth on. So while he fancies himself a crusader of truth and justice, he instead pushes us further from the truth.

Olbermann Bush terrorism al Qaeda
bin Laden MSNBC Taliban Iraq Clinton Fox News

Stay the course? What course?

2006-08-30T12:19:00.001-04:00

The President recently told us that as long as he's president we'll be staying in Iraq until the job is done, thus again telling us to support staying the course. You have to ask yourself though exactly what course is he talking about (course differentiated from plan) -- the current one that seems to be an irreversible sink hole or a plan yet unstated to alter the current course. I have to say that either would be a breath of fresh air -- a stated course or plan, or something that at least seems thought out and has a chance of working.

I've stated on this blog before that while I've always been dead set against going into Iraq, it is a mess we're responsible for fixing and leaving before it's fixed would have grave consequences. Yes, hard to believe graver consequences are possible. But in recent weeks I'm beginning to rethink that position (gee, what a novel idea, rethinking positions as circumstances warrant) and am getting closer and closer to feeling that we're headed toward the graver consequences whether we have our troops there getting killed and injured or not.

"Well, then you're just telling the terrorists 'we quit and you win.'" Exactly what terrorists might that be; an insurgency upset that we're there or those fighting a religious civil war? Am I the only one sick and tired of being told anyone who fights against what we (careful with that "we," Zeb) want is a terrorist? Think for yourself for once and ask yourself why that's the word of choice from this administration to describe seemingly any enemy, any combatant, any disagreer. We had Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently imply that those of us who are against this "war on terrorism" are akin to Nazi sympathizers; and the President, though in softer terms, echoed that sentiment. Well, if you put those things together, are we not far from being told that we who oppose them are the enemy?

Then you have the likes of Ken Mehlman on Hardball the other night making the case that we need to stay in Iraq because Ayman al-Zawahiri has said al Qaeda wants to turn Iraq into another Afghanistan with training bases. If you nut jobs hadn't invaded Iraq and opened it up like a can of worms, we wouldn't be worried about them setting up training bases there. This kind of backwards, illogical, keep-our-asses-in-office-at-any-cost rhetoric is what pisses me off more than anything.
You bungled a mission that you cherry-picked the evidence to support, and then your reason for staying there is essentially "We f'd it up so bad we have to stay to keep the terrorists out, and you have to reelect us because we're the party that'll keep you safe." Safer? I don't feel safer. "Well, we haven't been attacked since 9/11." Gee, I forgot it was an everyday thing before 9/11.

You want to make me feel safer? How about you deal with al Qaeda, bin Laden, The Taliban, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. There's a course, nay a plan, I could support.

On a different note...I was recently invited to be a writer for the independent/third party section of Watchblog, a three-perspective blog site that I've had linked for quite some time but don't believe I've introduced. So great for me, and hopefully Watchblog as well; but the time between applying and acceptance ran over me going back to working all those hours (yesterday 4:00 a.m. to 8:45 p.m.). So I won't get the opportunity to blog stuff there that I'm not blogging here. I barely have time to put up personal updates on All Things Zebster.

Rumsfeld Bush terrorism al Qaeda
bin Laden al-Zawahiri Taliban Iran Pakistan

A Good Thing? (Rep Govt V)

2006-08-30T09:09:00.001-04:00

So the Republican Party ascended to power over the last 25 years by polarizing the nation with its "you're either with us or agin us" tactics, by falsely setting itself up as the moral center of the country, and by taking advantage of what it's traditionally done best and Democrats have failed at...governing.
Now that the current inept and uncredible administration has shown us what we get when we vote by "tradition," by sound bite and by focusing on the possible negatives instead of proven positives, the Democrats have a chance to regain power, either half or all of Congress this year and perhaps the White House in '08. But will it be a good thing for the country if they do so by using many of the same tactics, by rallying its base further to the left and making the country even more polarized, thus leaving the majority of the country in the middle essentially unrepresented?
So while we're left to decide between a course without a plan or a plan without a course -- or is it neither -- keep in mind that we should be voting for candidates who represent positions on issues held by the majority of us, which can be substantially different from what we're told our majority position is, a sadly successful tactic because far too many of us wait to be told what our position should be or we're told what supposedly the majority position is and then go along with it.
The only way we can truly have a government that represents our views is to have views based on as much unbiased and divergent information as possible.
government politics citizens independent vote

On the tarmac?

2006-08-17T14:30:00.001-04:00

I've been working a lot of hours and haven't had time to stay in touch with the world as much as I'd like or am used to; but when I first heard about this incident with the woman having a "fit" on that flight from London to Dulles, I knew it was an over-reaction. This is a 59-year-old woman, and no one on that flight can tell she's having a panic attack and is not a threat? Sure, terrorists can come in any shape and size, but what did she do that made people think she was a threat? Doesn't there have to be some reasonable presumption of a realistic threat before hundreds of people are inconvenienced? Hell, they weren't just inconvenienced...this person comes undone and everyone else on the plane becomes a suspect.
Even though I'd be very frustrated and probably angry if I'd been on that flight and it was diverted, I'd give them the benefit of being overcautious for our benefit. But if you make me a suspect because of someone else's actions, there'll be hell to pay. You've already searched my person far more than I'd appreciate, searched all my belongings as well, and then you're going to do it again on the tarmac of the airport after you've taken everyone off the plane? I have a very strong suspension that had I been on that flight and had that happen to me, this woman who's at the center of the situation wouldn't have been the only one arrested for throwing a fit that day!

terrorist airplane Logan Airport

When politicians speak (Representative Govt IV)

2006-08-14T17:17:00.001-04:00

Editor's note: Hi everyone. This is something I've been working on off and on for weeks. Since being back at my old job is as time consuming as ever, I thought I'd just put this up to have something new published.

When politicians speak, who are they talking to? Are they talking to other politicians of their own party? Are they talking to the voting members of their party? Could they be talking to undecided voters? Perhaps, but what's their true motive? Are they talking to those who've funded their campaigns, which is most likely?
Even when someone says all the right things to us true independents or swing voters, can we trust their motives? Are they just using buzz words like reform simply because they know that's what we want to hear? Even if they propose or vote for things we want, such as reform, can we trust that it's not based on political expediency, thus political survival?
How do we tell the difference? I propose one way to tell the difference is for the American voting public to stop having such a short memory. When politicians tell you they stand for something, we need to remember what they stood for, when and why. We need to be willing to research voting records and quotes in newspapers when those issues arise again. We need to ignore what members of their party tell us is that person's motivation, their position. We need to base our opinion of their motives and their positions on their actions and nothing else.
We most certainly need to drop our mental magnets that make us blindly nod our heads in agreement because the person making the statement or opinion is a member of the party we're aligned with. If that politician says something, evaluate it case by case. If you agree with that person 90% of the time, that's fine if you call them on the other 10% and if there's a true basis for agreeing with them the other 90.
I feel being an independent, which helps me keep my mind open to all views, has served me well in ensuring I have a basis for supporting a particular politician; and I've voted for nearly as many Republicans as Democrats and a fair number of indies through the years. I was raised that way and come from the only state, Maine, that has elected two independent governors through the years.
I would really appreciate the thoughts of others on both sides and the middle on this one, or I'll be forced to write a blog I've been thinking about doing related to why people rarely comment on blogs.

If you're interested in a life and work update, please check out All Things Zebster. I appreciate your support.
politicians independents voters Democrats Republicans reform politics

Personal news

2006-08-08T20:29:00.001-04:00

Good news for Zebster, sort of, and bad news for the blog. Given that I've been unemployed for far too long looking for a job that would pay well enough to take, time was running out, so I' ve accepted an offer to go back to my old job driving a bread truck for IBC. The good news for me in that? Obviously first and foremost, a job and, secondly, a very good paying job. The bad part of it is that it's a physically demanding job that I was working on average 60-70 hours a week, and I don't ever have 2 days in a row off. Oh well, I need the work.
Obviously it's going to put a huge crimp on the blogging. I'll try to stay informed with my XM while driving around between stops, and hopefully I'll be able to put something up two or three times a week. If anyone's interested, I'm planning on putting some work-related updates on All Things Zebster.
I do plan on continuing the work search as much as possible to find a new career that I really want, but until then THE BREADMAN IS BACK! Thanks everyone. Peace!

Maine news...pigs heads and pigheads

2006-08-08T10:52:00.001-04:00

First, an update on whether the Maine Public Utilities Commission will undertake a formal investigation into whether Verizon violated privacy laws if they, in fact, cooperated with the NSA "wiretapping"program, something which Verizon in part denies doing. It is an update only to the extent that the MPUC voted to delay making the ultimate decision.
If you're not familiar with this story, KEVIN WACK of the Portland Press Herald reported last Friday that "The Bush administration is threatening to sue if Maine regulators decide to investigate whether Verizon Communications illegally turned over customer information to the National Security Agency." as is suggested in this letter from the US Justice Dept to the MPUC, "We sincerely hope that, in light of governing law and the national security concerns implicated by the requests for information, you will decline to open an investigation and close these proceedings, thereby avoiding litigation over the matter." You already know where I stand on this issue and how I feel about transparency in government. So I'll only say this at this time: We may be a little state with just 2 votes that usually vote Democrat. So we're politically safe to threaten. But there's no place in this country that's more independent and more against being bullied. Unfortunately, it'll be beauracrats who'll make this decision on whether to proceed. Also, what are you trying to hide? This potential investigation will not reveal what information you may have received, only whether Verizon broke the law in giving it to you.

From the All Politics is Local department, the latest in the ongoing multi-party, multi-sided squabble over campaign funding ethics, which Barbara Merrill finds herself in the middle and on both sides of. Isn't local politics great? Each side accusing the other of cheating, which gets even more interesting when you have at least 5 candidates going at it. You can read more by clicking the link above to the Lewiston Sun Journal article, but here are a couple of snippets from it. "Gubernatorial candidates seeking public financing must follow a strict set of rules and procedures, which includes collecting 2,500 $5 contributions to the Maine Clean Election Fund. Qualifying candidates stand to receive as much as $1.2 million to fund their general election campaigns. According to Michael's complaint, Merrill used public money to pay off obligations that she incurred before she was certified. The complaint says the payments to Harold Webster and Richard Dyer were illegal." To which Merrill's campaign responded thusly, "There was never any report of a debt to them in this period because there was none to report," Phil Merrill, Barbara Merrill's deputy campaign treasurer, wrote in the response. "On the day that the effort (to qualify for public financing) was completed, the candidate expressed a debt of gratitude and that was it." No wonder we haven't had our questions answered yet.

An update from the Biggots and Idiots Even In Maine department: A month ago some knucklehead thought it would be funny to throw a pig's head into a make-shift mosque in Lewiston. I guess he thought it would be a two-fer since it was a mosque used by Somali immigrants...desicrate a mosque and make a statement to people whose skin is way too black. Now he's saying he had walked into the police department beforehand to find out whether it would be illegal to do so and was told by the officer that the best he could tell he'd only be guilty of littering. I don't know who's the bigger moron in this instance to tell you the truth. The policeman said he actually looked into it and that's all he could find. If my police officers can't imagine what other legal issues might be involved in such a stunt, maybe they need to go back to the academy. This is the best quote from the article though, this "gentleman" "claimed in court papers that he didn't know pork was considered offensive by some Somalis and "never assumed" the vacant dual storefronts at 21-23 Lisbon St. he had walked past "nearly every day" were treated by Somalis as a mosque." Really? So why there and why a pig's head? Pure coincidence, I guess. He probably has a rebel flag in the back window of his pickup because he thinks it's pretty.

And finally, an update in the ongoing Dirigo Health squabble. This issue is more convoluted and complicated than I can wrap my little mind around but I know folks are interested. Too bad there isn't some other way?
Maine Merrill Lewiston pig's head governor Dirigo Health politics NSA campaign FOIA Verizon clean elections MPUC Public Utilities Commission USJD Bush Somali mosque

Darfur matters too

2006-08-07T10:10:00.001-04:00

Why isn't what's going on in the Darfur region of Sudan important enough for the national press to write about or is it that we don't care? It's likely the latter, I'm afraid. You can say what you want about the press; it is a business and largely driven by what people want to read about. We'd rather read and hear about Mel Gibson or watch reality shows. Funny that. The networks would actually show us reality if we cared about reality. Sure, the press is hard at work in the Middle East; but it's the latest story and it makes good news...bombs are more interesting that rounding up civilians and shooting them. True, what's going on in the Middle East effects the security of the region and effects the security of the rest of the world, but this matters too.
So while war rages in two areas of the Middle East, parts of the world like the Sudan go largely ignored. The death toll in this most recent wave of genocide has topped 200,000 people. And do you know why there's no United Nations peacekeeping force in there to try to stop it? The most recent obstacle, though in many ways an ongoing obstacle, is the president of Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir. He has refused to allow UN forces in his country because he claims -- get this -- that it would lead to the colonization of his country. Now there's a man who cares about his country! And he's able to get away with this because China threatens to veto that UN action. Why? Oh, don't be foolish. Oil, of course.

And where is the most powerful and generous country in the world while this is going on? We're certainly not in the Sudan. We don't even have an envoy there. I understand this is complicated and difficult. Everything on the world stage is difficult. But there must be something we can do. We certainly could use some positive image building, if nothing else. Whether you agree with the rest of the world or not, it does matter how the rest of the world views us. Now is as good a time as any to get involved in a tragic situation just for the sake of the people. Until then, I'll do my little part in trying to get this issues into as many minds and hearts as possible. Won't you join me?
Middle East Darfur Sudan China United Nations veto peace bombs genocide oil Omar Hassan al-Bashir

Mash's plea

2006-08-04T08:10:00.001-04:00

As things in the Middle East seem to get worse instead of better, as evidenced by these developments:

"The leader of Hezbollah, Hasan Nasrallah, threatened Thursday night to fire rockets at Tel Aviv if Israel expands its bombing attacks against Beirut."
Hezbollah Threatens Tel Aviv

to which Israel seemingly responded by bombing southern Beirut...

And in Iraq a pro Hezbollah rally:

"The demonstration was the biggest in the Middle East in support of Hezbollah since Israel launched its attacks against the guerrillas in Lebanon on July 12. The protest was organized by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose political movement built around the Mahdi Army militia has been modeled after Hezbollah."Death to Israel

I enthusiastically join Mash's request in adding a link to his chain, which was motivated by Ehud Goldwasser’s father and wife appearing last night on Larry King Live. Mash in his post Proof of Life has this request:

"I ask all bloggers who read this post, as a gesture of peace and good will, to repost this plea on your blogs. Ask the same of those who read your posts. Let this plea spread across the blogosphere. Perhaps this plea will be posted on the blogs of our Arab and Lebanese friends. Perhaps this plea will make a difference in saving at least one life."

If we in this country are sick and tired off war -- of seeing brave men and women in uniform return home dead or injured, of hearing the ever-rising civilian death toll, of hearing the sabre rattling on all sides, except from those actually standing in the line of fire -- imagine how the people actually caught up in it feel or those who have loved ones caught up in it feel. I, therefore, urge anyone who reads this post to join Mash and I and others in writing a plea of their own or use Mash's linking back to the CNN transcript of the interview above, and ask others to do the same.
Middle East Israel Lebanon Hezbollah Nasrallah Goldwasser peace Iraq al-Sadr

So what is a liberal?

2006-08-03T14:25:00.001-04:00

Per my 1993 version of Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition: We'll start with the derivation, "adj [ME, fr. MF, fr. L liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, fr. liber free; perh. akin to OE leodan to grow, Gk eleutheros free] (14c)."
I will include every definition so as not to be seen as picking and choosing.
"1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts. b archaic: of or befitting a man of free birth. 2 a: marked by generosity: OPENHANDED (a ~ giver) b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c: ample, full. 3 obs: lacking moral restraint: LICENTIOUS 4: not literal or strict: LOOSE (a ~ translation) 5: BROAD-MINDED, esp: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy or traditional forms 6 a: of, favoring or based upon the principles of liberalism b cap: of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism: esp: of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual esp. economic freedom, greater individual participation in government and constitutional, political and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives -- liberally adv -- liberalness n...syn LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given (a teacher liberal with her praise). GENEROUS stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift (a generous offer of help). BOUNTIFUL suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing (children spoiled by bountiful presents). MUNIFICENT suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes (a munificent foundation grant)
2Liberal n (1820): a person who is liberal: as a: one who is openminded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional or established forms or ways b: cap: a member or supporter of a liberal political party c: an advocate or adherent of liberalism esp. in individual rights."

"Liberalism n (1819) 1: the quality or state of being liberal 2 a often cap: a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usu. based on free competition, the self-regulating market and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d: cap: the principles and policies of a Liberal party."

I AM A LIBERAL! Perhaps you are too and didn't know it.
I'm sure there are opinions that differ from this definition, and I would encourage any to comment who has a dictionary with a vastly different definition. I'd also be curious what a newer version has to say.

The 3 words I was surprised to not see as part of these definitions are questioning, curious and skeptical.

government politics philosophy independent liberal liberalism Webster's dictionary definition

Yes, even in the blogosphere...

2006-08-02T11:55:00.001-04:00

Even the blogosphere -- filled with articulate, intelligent people as it is -- is susceptible to a couple of traditional woes of mankind; those being the herd mentality of irrational thought or lack thereof, and the fact that the more popular you get the more afraid you are to take a stand.
Since I'm not popular (yet) or particularly articulate, I'll let Booman at the Booman Tribune speak for me, as he does it so well in this post discussing why much of the liberal left is afraid to take a stand against Israel, even in part.

The latter issue regarding herd mentality I feel I can speak well on. I am a lifelong liberal and a lifelong independent, both by choice. To me being a liberal has always meant being open minded and thus better done by being a political independent...open minded to the prospect that right and necessary and possible can come from any direction. "But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal." JFK

If you are not unwavering in that ideal of open-mindedness, you are easily susceptible to the herd mentality, susceptible to the tendency to judge right by affiliation, susceptible to closing your mind to the possibility of being wrong; and nothing in my opinion is more dangerous than that combination.

So while the internet and blogs in particular are a wonderful place for open dialogue and discourse, it is also plagued by the herd mentality, of close-mindedness, ergo a lack of full thought. A wonderful line in a post by Fallen Monk sums it up poetically and succinctly. It's like "a bunch of ducks trying to fuck a football."

So in these trying times I beseech all, regardless of what pole you stand closest to, to keep an open mind, to base your opinions as much on fact and as little on emotional reaction as possible; otherwise, it defeats the purpose of this whole idea of open discussion as a means of change and progress.
government politics philosophy independent liberal

Blog intros

2006-08-01T13:40:00.001-04:00

While all of these blogs are linked from Inside Zebster, I think it's important to point out why I like these blogs. Plus, it's been awhile since I've done this and many have been added since. I also don't know whether people try the links without a reason.

I feel Mash's blog, Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying is one of the best written and researched blogs that I've found. You'll find plenty of blogs where people say a couple of sentences that are linked to journalist's stories. With Mash it's like reading a professional journalist. Agree with his stance on issues or not, he makes thoughtful and compeling arguments that he backs up with plenty of information.
Another very well-written blog is Pen And Sword, by Jeff Huber, a retired Navy flight instructor. As was the case with Mash, Jeff writes very well and backs up his arguments with fact. Both of these guys make yours truly look like the amateur he is.
Ingrid at BloggerRoundtable. I call her the Pied Piper of peace. You won't find anyone more passionate.
Brent at Dakota Democrat. What I like most about Brent is that he writes about things we should be paying attention to while the bigger stories are going on. Yesterday he reminded us to keep an eye on the situation between the Iraqi Kurds and Turkey, as well as updating us on Afghanistan.
Brian at Burn The Liberals. Yes, another sarcastic liberal...right up my alley.
Worldwide Sawdust, another former Marine who's mad as hell and writes as passionately as anyone. He has a very interesting site as well, with quotes from thinkers past who should be remembered.
Some balance? I confess to not having yet delved into the conservative blogosphere very much, though I'm sure there are those blogs that I would recommend and would agree with on many issues. I really just haven't looked much yet. But my friend Coach Dave at Here I Stand is an old Nascar message board friend I've known for 10 years. I think he'd say I was right in saying he's a moderate conservative. He's a Lutheran Minister and blogs regularly about the issues people of faith face on a regular basis. I'm also told he makes a wicked good homebrew.
Finally, I'd like to introduce a couple of other Maine bloggers who are active in local politics and do a very professional job of writing about those issues, Lance at MaineWebReport and Tor at Tor's Rants.
No slight to the other blogs I have linked. I believe I've introduced them before in My Early Travels.... Let me know if I've slighted you. Also, do not hesitate to introduce me to blogs as well.
Maybe I haven't introduced BoSox Tavern. It is a blog written by myself, my brother, my cousin and a friend. We not only rant about our beloved Red Sox but also do beer, music and movie reviews.
blogosphere blogging friends writing Maine

Join me in condemning Hezbollah as well

2006-07-31T11:05:00.001-04:00

We on the left have not hesitated during this war between Israel and Hezbollah to condemn Israel, and justifiably so to a large extent, for waging its war in a way that has a high civilian, thus innocent, death toll. But we also need to fill our credibility gap. Hezbollah's strategy is to fire rockets into Israel indiscriminately...they only have a vague idea where those rockets will land. Their targets with these missiles is the civilian population of Northern Israel; and unlike Israel, they've not warned civilians to leave the area.
It seems to me that Hezbollah's goal is to fire rockets from high-density civilian areas in the hopes (that's right, I said hopes, thus goal) that Israel will immediately retaliate by firing a rocket there, killing plenty of civilians. The more civilians that Hezbollah can entice Israel into killing, the more outrage from Arab and non-Arab nations alike will be heaped upon Israel. But in particular they want outrage from the Arab people. It's a recruiting tool in its effort to at some point trigger a war with Arab nations on one side and Israel on the other because they do not want Israel to exist.
It is a despicable way to wage war. Not only are they hiding behind civilians, their goal is to kill civilians...kill civilians in Israel with missiles that will result in Israel firing rockets at them, which will kill Lebanese civilians. And it's working wonderfully, from a propaganda standpoint and from a purely goal-oriented strategery standpoint.
I confess I have no answers. But let me ask you this: If there was a large terrorist group in Windsor, Ontario, Canada with sympathies among a large portion of the Windsor population, and if that group deployed the Hezbollah strategy and fired inaccurate missiles into Detroit, Michigan, USA, would we feel exactly the same way about the resultant civilian death toll in Windsor from our retaliation as we feel about Israel's?
Just once I'd like to see a television interview or read a newspaper interview where a Shia civilian in Lebanon condemned the actions of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is much more to blame for these civilian deaths than Israel. So while I will continue to point out the folly of Israel's strategy or lack thereof, it's high time we emphasize where most of the fault lies.

On the flipside, it would be nice to hear the right say the things we on the left have been saying from the beginning...that Israel is falling into a centuries' old trap; that the war cannot be won this way; that for every Hezbollah killed, for every Lebanese civilian killed they're creating multitudes and generations of Hezbollahs.

Middle East Israel Lebanon Hezbollah United States terrorists peace bombs Lebanese Shia

Southampton Dock, The Final Cut

2006-07-28T13:41:00.001-04:00

While I'm busy today with resumes and trying to do more networking with Maine Independents, I thought this would be a good time for the next installment of Pink Floyd's "The Final Cut." As the album is laid out, this song immediately follows "The Fletcher Memorial Home," which is in a blog called Overgrown Infants. Enjoy, or not...how about ponder.

"They disembarked in '45, and no one spoke and no one smiled...there were too many spaces in the line (my emphasis). And gathered at the cenotaph all agreed with hand on heart to sheath the sacrificial knives.
But now, she stands upon Southampton Dock with her handkerchief, and her summer frock clings to her wet body in the rain. In quiet desparation, knuckles white upon the slippery reins, she bravely waves the boys goodbye again.
And still the dark stain spreads between their shoulder blades, a mute reminder of the poppy fields and graves; and when the fight was over, we spent what they had made. But in the bottom of our hearts we felt the final cut."

This was obviously written in reference to the boys leaving for the Falkland Islands. So just add another chapter for today's boys who have and will embark.
Final Cut Roger Waters Pink Floyd Fletcher Memorial Home Southampton cenotaph Falkland Islands

Barbara Merrill update

2006-07-27T09:18:00.001-04:00

I did indeed attend her coffee tour stop this morning, though it became evident to me early on that this was not a good forum or setting to get our questions asked, answered and relayed back to you in an efficient, accurate way. She has graciously agreed to respond to our questions in written form. So I'll spend the day today reformulating, updating and putting those questions into an email that I'll send off later today. So if you've thought of something else you'd like to ask or a better way of asking your question, there's still time.
While we wait for her answers, I would suggest you check out her website, as it does address to a fair degree some of the issues we've discussed.
I did get to sit and chat with her and a couple members of her campaign staff. My take meeting her in person is that she's earnest and genuinely cares about the people of Maine and the issues they face. Perhaps the best way of stating it is that I think she understands those issues, and that is in large part due to the fact that she in my opinion is one of us...an everyday Mainer. She seems informed on the issues, she's intelligent, down to earth and most importantly open minded. She understands that the current political environment is not conducive to change, not conducive to new ideas and, therefore, not conducive to getting things done that will make a real difference in the lives of Mainers.
Obviously it would beg the question of whether, if elected, could she overcome the current intransigence in State politics and get things done. Would she be able to get reforms through. I believe any elected official in a position like governor can get a lot done if it is the will of the people. The electorate can demand, believe it or not, that their elected officials reform government; but you can't put that kind of pressure on politicians by doing nothing, nor by simply voting. If we truly want something done, we need to exert as much pressure as possible through being active in all the ways that are available; and if they don't do what we want, throw them out.
And there's also this from the Kennebec Journal , which Barbara only had a chance to refer to briefly, in that it was taking up a lot of time recently.
Maine Merrill legislature Blaine House governor women politics reform campaign

The Rest of the World

2006-07-26T13:04:00.001-04:00

I'm taking a hiatus from the Middle East conflict for a few days because the more I watch and read and hear, the more angry and less open minded I'm becoming about the situation. Not that that will help my clarity but it's worth a try, and I'm sure I'll have somewhat of a refreshed opinion soon. If you'd like to see what other people are saying about it, the blogosphere is all abuzz. You can start with the great blogs I've chosen to be in my blogroll or you can click on Global Voices and start there.
Thanks for the questions and ideas regarding Barbara Merrill, and I will be attending her stop tomorrow. Hopefully I'll be able to find a way to accurately convey everything she's asked and her responses, as I realized last night I no longer have a tape recorder and finances are kind of tight to go buy one.
So I decided to ponder independent politics and also to look around the world news a little. Here are a few interesting things I found.
The Chinese Government accuses the Dalai Lama of having links to the CIA, which is putting the kibosh on talks of a compromise over the future of Tibet vis-a-vis autonomy or independence from China.
Of course, the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Malikiis in Washington today and spoke before Congress this morning. "Let me be very clear," al-Maliki said. "This is a battle between true Islam, for which a person's liberty and rights constitute essential cornerstones, and terrorism, which wraps itself in a fake Islamic cloak." Okay, gotcha. But what about Hezbollah? Oh that's right, I was taking a break from all that. I don't like his position on this issue; but hey, he is the duly-elected leader of Iraq. And all the politicians who voted for this war, "You don't have a dog in this fight." He's the leader of a sovereign nation; he can have whatever opinion he feels is best for his country. (heavy mix of truth and sarcasm) Did you know more people die every day in Iraq than in Lebanon and Israel? Combined both "altercations" are worth in the neighborhood of 150 a day, but neither one's a war apparently.
More Big Dig fun. Apparently an official after a 1999 inspection said he wouldn't be surprised if the ceiling plates came down because he didn't think the bolts were strong enough. As you may know, it did fail and a woman lost her life because of it.
There is a Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, et al rant in my future but I did find this. This link is to a page where you'll find a video link. I can't seem to link the video directly. The video is a teaser clip for tonight's "Big Idea with Donny Deutsch" on CNBC, Coulter says, speaking of former President Clinton, "I think that sort of rampant promiscuity does show some level of latent homosexuality." Do I need to say anything?
And finally, kudos to Republican Senator Arlen Specter. At least someone is finally going to try to do something about at least one area of President Bush's abuse of power, the signing statement. “We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will...authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president’s acts declared unconstitutional,” Specter said in regards to submitting a bill which would allow Congress to sue the President over this issue in federal court. You can read more
here.
Opinions, thoughts and perspectives on any of these stories are welcomed.
Middle East Israel Iraq Lebanon
Hezbollah Dalai Lama China Bush Clintonh Coulter signing statements
Specter Deutsch al-Maliki Tibet

What would you ask?

2006-07-25T11:10:00.000-04:00

I will be attending one of Barbara Merrill's Coffee Tour stops tomorrow morning in Winthrop; and if the opportunity presents itself, I'll ask a question or few. My intention is to ask questions of relevance related to the fact that this candidate is an independent running for Governor of Maine. So I'm not planning on asking questions about the Middle East or fires in California.
If you're from Maine and want to know where she stands on an issue particular to us, let me know. If you have a question of national importance that where her answer has relevance, ask away. I intend to ask a question related to Independent election issues...I just haven't framed it as of yet. This is your opportunity to use me as your vehicle of information. So don't hesitate to propose a question.

Maine Merrill government Blaine House governor women politics reform campaign independent

Representative Government, Part III

2006-07-21T18:33:00.000-04:00

As I've said many times in other posts, particularly "Representative Govt," we need to be vigilent. We need to remember what our politicians say, when they say it and why they say it because, if we don't, they'll continue to make fools of us. They know we have short memories.
Why do I bring this up? Take a look at a few of these quotes put together by The Psychotic Patriot and see if that doesn't make your blood boil enough to kick the whole lot of them out. The Psychotic Patriot: Let Us Recall What They Said....
Some examples?

"These international war crimes were led by Gen. Wesley Clark...who clicked his shiny heels for the commander-in-grief, Bill Clinton." Michael Savage
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy...There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory." Tom Delay(R-TX)"
Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is." Gov. George W. Bush(R-TX)
"You think Vietnam was bad? Vietnam was nothing next to Kosovo." Tony Snow, Fox News, 3/24/99

And you should keep some things in mind when people tell you they're glad we now have a president who's tough on other countries, tough on terrorists, one who knows there's more to being President of the United States of America than talk; not like Bill Clinton. So there's this from Driftglass. But I'll pull an exerpt:

Jack Kemp "On the horrors of unbridled Executive Power: “What Clinton did to Yugoslavia was bad enough, but what he did to the United States Constitution was even worse. He stole from Congress its constitutional power to decide when and if America goes to war. He stole from the Senate its treaty-ratification power by agreeing -- without Senate approval -- to change the mission prescribed in the NATO treaty from defensive to offensive."

I would encourage you to read these other blogs, as I only pulled out representative samples to make a point. Also, I realize I'm picking on Republicans here this time; but as I've said in previous installments of Representative Govt (June Archives), I find the Democrats just as guilty most of the time. "I voted for it before I voted against it," for example. And I'm sure my conservative friends could give many other examples. Yes, I have conservative friends. This particular post is an effort to show the hypocrisy between two periods of time to make a point.

government politics citizens independent vote Democrat Republican Bush Tom Delay Michael Savage Tony Snow Kemp

Overgrown Infants

2006-07-21T12:18:00.001-04:00

I've been drawn back recently to the last Pink Floyd album with Roger Waters, "The Final Cut." I wonder why. It was timeless then and poigniant now. I plan to periodically post the lyrics to selected songs, and hopefully they'll make you think as much as they make me think. The first selection I'll post musically starts out with ballroom dancing music, violins.
As you read, you can easily be drawn back 20 years ago when it was written, and you can also easily replace the names to today and get the same effect. In fact, I think he was 20 years ahead of himself in many ways. This album was the final nail for Pink Floyd, as the rest of the boys were tired of this direction in their music. In my opinion it's a masterpiece. It shows the madness and brilliance of Roger Waters, flaming liberal that he is.
If memory serves me correctly, the Fletcher referred to is Roger Waters' maternal uncle who fought in WWII. I don't have the album jacket at my fingertips. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.
There is a video for the song but I find it distracting from the lyrics. So I'll link it here if you're not familiar with the song.
The intro is called "Get Your Filthy Hands Off My Desert," which you won't hear on the video.

"Brezhnev took Afghanistan, Begin took Beirut, Galtieri took the Union Jack; and Maggie over lunch one day took a cruiser with all hands, apparently to make him give it back."

Now "The Fletcher Memorial Home:"

"Take all your overgrown infants away, somewhere, and build them a home, a little place of their own; the Fletcher Memorial Home For Incurable Tyrants and Kings. And they can appear to themselves every day on closed circuit TV, to make sure they're still real; it's the only connection they feel.
'Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Reagan and Haig, Mr. Begin and friend, Mrs. Thatcher and Paisley, Mr. Brezhnev and party, the ghost of McCarthy, the memories of Nixon, and now adding colour a group of annonymous Latin American meat packing glitterati.' Did they expect us to treat them with any respect?
They can polish their medals and sharpen their smiles and amuse themselves playing games for awhile...boom, boom, bang, bang, lie down you're dead.
Safe in the permanent gaze of a cold glass eye, with their favourite toys; they'll be good girls and boys, in the Fletcher Memorial Home For Colonial Wasters of Life and limb.
Is everyone in? Are you having a nice time? 'Good time'. Now the final solution can be applied."

I hope that even if you don't agree with this in all its specificity, you'll agree with and appreciate its sentiment.
Final Cut Roger Waters Pink Floyd Fletcher Memorial Home

Barbara Merrill drops by Inside Zebster

2006-07-20T09:13:00.000-04:00

Welcome, Barbara, to Inside Zebster! She took time from her busy schedule in the State Legislature and campaigning to respond to my earlier post about her Independent candidacy for Governor of Maine.

"I just wanted you to know I'm listening in and will check back once in a while so I can answer any questions which might arise.

If I could comment on a couple of points, I would like to say that I think looking closely at my experience as a lobbyist is very understandable. I was not a hired gun in the sense that I would represent anyone and am proud of the businesses and nonprofits which I served. But the question always follows, that now that I serve the public as a whole am I able to to seperate myself from this past work. I believe my record in the Maine House demonstrates that. I hope you all come to the same conclusion.

I don't know if you know this but Governor King once worked as a lobbyist before the Maine legislature. He lobbied for environmental groups. He also worked on the inside of government for a brief period as did I. His work was for the US Senate, mine for the Maine Senate. I think the fact the King saw the world as an outsider but had experience as an insider made him effective. I hope my similar experience will serve me as well.

Finally, mention is made of the fact that the state got into financial problems in King's second term and that things have improved under Gov. Baldacci. I agree with the former and strongly disagree with the latter. In King's defense, he was the first Governor elected after the Maine government shut down and as such was understandably worried about pushing back too hard on a legislature which wanted to spend more. Having observed this first hand, I have made clear that when I am elected, there will be no budgets passed by a simple majority and I will veto any budget which isn't fiscally responible.

It is very important to avoid any shut down of government services but it is even more important to fashion a government which we can afford which is managed soundly. "
8:41 AM, July 20, 2006

Thank you, Barbara. We look forward to hearing more from you in the future.

Barbara's website has been updated here, and I see she'll be in my area on Wednesday. Hopefully I'll be able to attend one of the stops on her coffee tour, and better yet maybe get a chance to ask her where she stands on independent issues like election reform. And she must be doing something right, as I see on the website that the Governor's staff felt it important to "take issue" with her current campaign ad.

Maine Merrill legislature Blaine House governor women politics reform lobbyist Angus King Baldacci veto budget campaign

Lighter, not necessarily brighter

2006-07-19T16:40:00.000-04:00

The Daily Show - Taint

I just really felt the need to lighten things up a great deal. This clip is hysterical. It's a little off color but clean...everything's just implied. If you don't know what your taint is, it taint your scrotum and it taint your butt. Enjoy. It is political...sort of.
I'll be mostly blogging for the next couple of days about the British Open on All Things Zebster. Come over for an update.

Also, if you can't watch the video, like at work -- like you're actually working at work -- please enjoy these links:

I found all of these on MSNBC.com
"SYDNEY, Australia - A man caught with six eggs from endangered species in his underwear as he was preparing to fly to Bangkok was fined 25,000 Australian dollars (US$20,000) Monday by a judge who rejected his claim that he only wanted to surprise his girlfriend." Is that an endangered species in your pocket?

Since I'm from Maine, I had to include this story about the two-toned lobster. "BAR HARBOR, Maine - An eastern Maine lobsterman caught a lobster last week that looks like it's half-cooked."

From the definitely not brighter category, "BERLIN - A 61-year-old German on trial for theft got himself into more trouble when he stole from the judge during his court hearing, police said Thursday." Read more here Look also on this page and you'll see a link about a woman in Oregon who called 911 trying to get a date. Unfortunately it's a video and I can't figure out how to link it here. Basically police came to her house to tell her to turn down her music. After they left, she called 911 because she thought he was cute and wanted him to come back.

"FULDA, Minn. - It's probably not a good idea to switch drivers while the vehicle is moving." At least they had the cruise control set. Don't laugh too hard...you've done worse while driving; haven't you?!

Daily Show John Stewart taint humor

Two questions

2006-07-18T18:13:00.000-04:00

Can someone explain to me how Israel's strategy in its war against Hezbollah is in Israel's best interests? I understand that getting rid of Hezbollah or weaking them and getting them away from the Lebanon/Israel border is in Israel's best interest. But I'm talking about the strategy here, the mechanics, as it were, of accomplishing this task.
A prosperous, stable and democratic Lebanon is in Israel's best interest as well; a country on its border that does not learn or re-learn to see Israel as its enemy, as an invader. Is it in Israel's best interest to be at war with the government of Lebanon, the people of Lebanon and even the military of Lebanon? How can bombing the airport, bombing ports, destroying roads, bombing military installations and killing Lebanese soldiers be in the best interest of Israel?
Isn't it more likely that the result of this strategy, whether the stated objective is achieved or not, is that the Lebanese people and the Lebanese government will see Israel as a threat? Isn't it likely that from these ashes will be born new members of Hezbollah or new hezbollahs? Doesn't this play into the hands of Syria and Iran? How can Lebanon ward off the influences of Syria or more importantly defend itself from Syrian-backed terrorists and infiltrators when the Lebanese government is weakened, when its people grow to hate Israel and respect Hezbollah because of the humanitarian things that Hezbollah has done in Lebanon?
There are members of Hezbollah in the Lebanese government. Do you think this strategy that is harming the citizens and government of Lebanon as much as it is hurting Hezbollah will result in more or less members of Hezbollah being elected to the Lebanese government?

Is the United States strategy, or lack thereof, of standing by Israel while not seeming to be standing by the people and government of Lebanon a smart one? Is not Lebanon an ally of the United States? Is not a stable, democratic, prosperous (stop me if this mantra sounds familiar) Lebanon, a good neighbor and friend of Israel, in the best interest of the United States? Can't we support Israel and yet be supportive of Lebanon? Can't we do more than publicly tell Israel to use restraint as it pummels its neighbor, a neighbor who is an ally of the United States.
You wonder what our strategy is, what our government thinks is in our best interest in this situation as we watch Israel bomb the Beirut airport, destroy roads and other infrastructure, even bomb military installations that result in the deaths of Lebanese soldiers.
Shouldn't we at the very least appear to care about what's happening to Lebanon? The result of standing by and appearing not to care is that we'll have one less ally in that region, actually likely one more enemy...another nest of future jihadists and killers of infidels, terrorists, insurgents, etc. Wasn't and isn't our purpose in being involved in this part of the world to make us safer at home?
Middle East Israel Jihad Lebanon Hezbollah United States Iran terrorists peace bombs insurgents infidels Syria revenge Beirut Lebanese

The price of right?

2006-07-17T20:11:00.000-04:00

Regardless of the intent of Hezbollah in taking Israeli soldiers, the intent of Iran and Syria in backing Hezbollah and the right of Israel to defend itself, the bigger picture of this back and forth is one of diminishing returns long term. Israel now has the mind set to hopefully cripple Hezbollah or at least get their rockets and Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon where they aren't nearly as much of a threat, but in so doing Israel has undertaken a strategy which I fear falls right into the hands of all those who hate Israel, the Zionists. Every Israeli bomb that explodes in Lebanon seems to kill civilians, and every time that happens a whole new generation of revenge is born. On top of that the haters of Israel are smiling, knowing how Israel's reaction is playing in the Islamic world. They can envision future generations of jihadists eagerly waiting to take part in their war on infidels.
On top of that our government in the United States has been disengaged from the politics of the region since the current administration took office, yet President Bush blindly supports Israel's right to defend itself. Yes, Israel does; but there we are unhesitatingly, unwittingly even, taking Israel's side without publicly addressing all the other issues that are involved in the situation. So in the eyes of the Arab world, much of whom already wishes us harm, there we are taking Israel's side again as if no one else in the region mattered.
There is no easy solution to any of this, but I for one fear that bombs over diplomacy will again hurt Israel and the United States for generations to come.
Middle East Israel Jihad Lebanon Hezbollah President Bush Iran Zionists peace bombs diplomacy infidels Syria revenge

Middle East...new story, old story

2006-07-15T20:50:00.000-04:00

The more I watch the news, read editorials, blogs, historical backgrounds I come to the conclusion that this situation in the Middle East, while more complicated because it's been going on back and forth seemingly forever, is no different than any conflict between peoples and nation states and countries throughout mankind. It is about not taking responsibility, not really wanting peace more than wanting revenge. It is about who has been more wronged, whose cause is more just, which people and which religion is more right and holy. It is about power, yes; but also self-preservation too. But it most certainly is not about truly wanting peace. People and countries who want peace find peace. Those who want to dominate, control, blame, be more powerful and influential will not find peace.
Israel in the name of self-preservation gives up (well, on paper) Gaza, the West Bank but will not recognize its people as people. So while self-preservation is valid to a degree; the way it's being handled is counter-productive to say the least. Many of the Arab nations of that region, the people and the leaders, do not feel the Jews and the nation of Israel should exist. Well, that's a fine attitude to have if you really care about the safety and well-being of your own citizens. Let's talk again about being counter-productive. If you threaten the existence of a people and a nation, don't be surprised about the response...but then don't be surprised at the response to the response...
Too simplistic and naive? Perhaps, but it's not like this is a situation where there's a clear culprit that starts something new. This has been, again, going on back and forth for generations. It takes courage, I know, to stand against convention, to put aside perhaps nationality or family or religion to insist and do all that's necessary for peace. So who will it be that ultimately gets this going in the right direction? Israel, Hamas, Jordan, Iran, Hezbollah, some mullah or other, the United Nations -- don't get carried away, Zeb.

Updated today, July 17, to include a link to a blog by Jonathan in Israel that I think everyone should read. Intellect or Insanity

Middle East Israel United Nations Lebanon
Hezbollah Hamas Jordan Iran mullah peace Gaza
West Bank Palestine Syria

Trying to understand it all

2006-07-15T14:59:00.000-04:00

Or at least enough to try to talk intelligently about it and have an opinion...the latest crisis in the middle east, that is. Aside from most of yesterday when I was visiting family at camp, this is what I've been doing instead of blogging here.
Hopefully I'll have something intelligent to say soon. Please feel free to jump in with your opinions though, or perspective or facts. I would welcome any information I can get.
While I do this, I'm sampling the special release of Samuel Adams Brewer Patriot Collection, which I've started to review at All Things Zebster So if you like good craft beer or just are interested to reading something light for a while, you could jump over there. Hopefully I won't get less intelligible as I drink more.

UPDATE: The United Nations Security Council unanimously condemns North Korea regarding the launching of their missiles and demands it suspend its ballistic missile program and stop procurement of weapons of mass destruction. It's about time, China and Russia. Will North Korea comply? I suspect they won't but this is a necessary step in getting them to realize we're serious.
Well, that was fast...45 minutes later North Korea rejects it and storms out! No surprise, I guess.

Middle East Samuel Adams United Nations Security Council
ballistic missiles Russia North Korea