Thursday, September 20, 2007

Webb Amendment

Has anyone seen an explanation of the senate vote which was 55 to 45 (approx.) in favor but it didn’t “advance” Wtf?

[The 56-44 vote, “four short of reaching the 60 needed to advance — all but assured that Democrats would be unable to muster the support needed to pass tough anti-war legislation by year’s end.”] - AP

I’m guessing that it’s because it’s an amendment it needs 60 votes instead of 51. How about if it were a standalone Bill? At least send it to the chimp and make him veto troop support. Oh yeah, and once again John Warner sells out while posing as a patriot opposing the President’s war. I'm proud to say that I voted for Webb in the primary and general elections and if the Va Republicans don't get their shit together, the next Senator Warner might be 60th vote.

I should know more about the process of making law, because I have a degree in Political Science, but the only thing I carried away was that it was designed to eliminate non-serious legislation, normally a good thing. Since the founders could not have forseen giving so much power to the executive and the senate was supposed to represent the States' interests, I don't think the problem is procedural. The Congress is Plato's cave.

I’m proud to say that I voted for Webb in the primary and general elections and if the Va Republicans don’t get their act together, the next Senator Warner might be 60th vote. Plus, he’s a Dem that’s good on guns. Interesting times… I have no faith in our political system, but they somehow keep bringing me back in. Sucker.

Wednesday, September 19, 2007

Wouldn't it be nice...

If OJ and Britney got married and moved to Portugal to help the McCann's find the real killer.

Thursday, September 13, 2007

The Fox Republican "debate" was somewhat surprising in that, aside from the expected ill-treatment of Ron Paul, they also ripped Romney for his past remarks, already retracted and apologized for, and didn't give the any of the others a clear win. I suspect that the tactics are still evolving on the best way to dispose of Dr. Paul. (full disclosure - I love conspiracy theories, but only for speculative exercise). In one of the previous debates, I first thought ABC made a mistake by giving RP as much rope as they did in the "debate" with Stephanopolos, but I came to think that they were allowing him to make the other Republicans look bad, which he did. If they had completely ignored him which I had assumed they would do, it would have allowed the others to coast on their strengths while ignoring the war.

I think Fox is doing something similar. I also noticed them dumping on Romney, but I felt they were also letting Guiliani and McCain hoist themselves with their respective prissy and robot personnae. They(Rudy McRomney) got the word not to shoot down at RP and leave it to the other dwarves to handle him. I'm surprised that the hit man wasn't Duncan Hunter, but he probably doesn't have the mental horsepower to go toe-to-toe with Paul, ditto Tancredo. The mini-debate was also a big surprise to me, especially on Fox, because, as you noted, they can just leave the slime to the moderators.

Bottom line, Fox is also trying to weaken the Republican side, for Fred (who I think will be the designated loser [think Bob Dole] in the general election to Hillary), or ultimately, for Hillary, when the neocons jump the Republican ship. Here's why I love conspiracies; Fred has lymphoma, so his VP will be important - they can get someone smart to balance Fred, in which case they can keep their war going for at least 4 more years, or worst case Hillary wins and they can keep their war going indefinitely.

So far, they've all underestimated Dr. Paul, I hope they have underestimated the People as badly.

Monday, September 10, 2007

First Let's Stop Killing People

The new Machiavellism, the manipulation of ethnic religious and nationalist groups for long-range strategic advantage, as illustrated in the Balkans and Iraq can also be seen at work in American domestic politics. The puzzling, yet undeniable split (although never joined) in the anti-war "movement", is such a case; the attitudes of the various sub-groupings, especially the leadership contribute substantially to it's ineffectiveness. "Divide and conquer" would seem to be the prime directive and Agency the primary method. Of whom, it doesn't really matter; supply your own villain, let's say The Devil uses some quirk of human nature to invariably cause human differences to outweigh similarities.

The divide in the anti-war camp is curious, in that it seems to be caused more by mutual blind spots rather than overt hostilities. Small-l libertarians are used to this, having been ignored for so long. We like to think it's because we're too difficult to defeat intellectually, rather than being numerically not worth the effort, but if libertarians have a blind spot it's occupied by the left, whose many, many species and sub-species, that for us share one characteristic; good or bad, their ideas won't work because people suck. I love the ideals of the left up to when they need to start cracking eggs to make omelets, because I see myself as more likely brunch than bruncher. My job as a citizen is to try and prevent collateral damage from programs undertaken in my name, precisely because I can't control these programs. A pro-active golden rule;
do not allow others to do unto you that which would be undesirable if done unto them.

Backing Democrats Has Pulled the Anti-War Movement to the Right
Why "Inside-Out" is a Dead End

This is the second article I've read referring to "the anti-war movement" as being a subset of progressives who have been ignored by the Democratic Party. As she puts it
"We have to build an antiwar movement that not only recognizes the Democratic Party’s shortcomings, but understands that it is part of the problem."

Hey!Elizabeth! Get a clue; there are a whole bunch of non-progressives who are anti-war and understand that the DP is part of the problem. Ya'll can't see us, but we're here. We also recognize that the UN is part of the problem, and every other organization that uses our taxes to work against out interests, but we will work with you in anyway to end USG imperialism. It's not so much we are unconcerned about the third world and don't want to help, but that we have no control over what's done in our name with the taxes that are coerced from us. We, though invisible, were here first, and may be forgiven for thinking that progressives helped enable Bush when they allowed Clinton to "save" the Bosnians and Kosovars. If that was okay, then you're not anti-war, you're anti-Republican war, but we say Welcome Aboard, let's do this thing!