An Arch Druid's take on the news

12:03:09 PM EDT
Feeling Disgusted
Hearing None

  Senator John McCain didn't figure that Senator Barack Obama could ever be a viable presidential candidate as long as he hadn't at least visited both Afghanistan and Iraq...  That he was dangerously naive and out of touch with his presidential plans to eventually reduce U.S. troop levels in Iraq in 16 months...  That only by visiting Iraq in particular could Obama see for himself just how wrong he was to oppose the surge and it's successes.  Then as Obama visits Iraq, comes the latest attack by McCain that because of the surge, was it possible for Obama to visit the country "safely."  —CNN reports that a car bomb in Iraq that killed one civilian.  —CNN reports that "violence is at its lowest since 2004."  But CNN proves that violence continues to be a fact in Iraq.  CNN had also broadcast a McCain statement that the U.S. would only withdraw from Iraq when Iraqi soldiers could take care of their own nation.

Thus, the reason for this post.

Remember when GW told Americans "We will stand down when they stand up?"  McCain bought into a variant of that theme that GW pushed over 2 years ago.  After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime; the U.S. led coalition forces undertook to train Iraqis to create a new military force and police force.  As post invasion Iraq spiraled downward into ever increasing violence, it was itself proof of what we had not accomplsihed as to our vision for Iraq.  "The surge" itself proved that the newly minted Iraqi military actually wasn't up to the task of taking care of their own country.  No more than the newly minted Iraqi gvt itself was.  "The surge" proved our failure.  We had to go back and refight old ground.  We had to quell the violence that the Iraqi gvt and Iraqi military itself seemed unable or unwilling to do.  Now if General Petraeus is prepared to argue that the security gains are fragile and reversible, isn't that an argument in itself that we really can't trust a "soveriegn people" to take care of their own future?  That isn't a "success" as McCain would like to argue, that's a failure.  Believe it or not, McCain would like to repeat the abject failure of Iraq in Afghanistan.

So this now begs the question, how long are we expected to stay in Iraq until "they stand up?"  McCain isn't any more candid about the facts of failure than GW was since 2004.  To put it bluntly, "they" should have stood up a long time ago.  Well, why should they?  As long as we continue to be there to do the heavy lifting for them, why would they ever find it necessary to "stand up" for themselves?

And with what CNN had also managed to briefly report, of continued party in-fighting within the Iraqi gvt itself, of important laws not being passed yet such as oil revenue sharing, election laws, etc. On the political level, "the surge" didn't seem to have worked there either.  Beyond the quelling of violence, we haven't had the "successes" that the surge was supposed to produce.  Did McCain recognize the irony of his above statement?  The reason why he criticized GW's mismanagement of the war?  That is quite a flip flop isn't it?  To criticize a Pollyanna approach to war managment while Senator and then buy the Pollyanna approach to war management in order to criticize or attack one's opponent.

Written by frmrid Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

9:24:14 AM EDT
Feeling Bored
Hearing None

Charles Krauthammer is getting republished in the Spokesman-Review on a trial basis.  And Doug Floyd who co-ordinates the editorials says that he wishes some thoughts on how people react or respond to Krauthammers views.  Well now, from what I am getting from a dose of Krauthammer's columns, he seems to be going off the deep end.  For a self-proclaimed "conservative" he surely isn't thinking.

His attacks are on Obama and what Krauthammer sees as his "inflated sense of self-importance" King Canute style.  Okay.  That being what shrill and irrational Krauthammer wishes to see it, so be it.  So let us get down to the nitty gritty; Obama wants to provide educational opportunities.  But to get them, the young people need to work.  And Obama provides options for getting those educational opportunities such as some form of community service or national service.  In short, young people wanting to go to the college or university of their choice would not get something for nothing.  And therefore no incentive to not appreciate what they were given, a helping hand, but not a hand out.  A chance to learn how to fish, as it were for the job opportunities that a community service-based resume that would flesh out landing a successful job.  And isn't the job one of the means to get this country back on track?  Or is Krauthammer happy with this country's high jobless rate, the only people profiting in the short-term are the business interests favored by GW.  I can definitely see where Obama follows the path of FDR, who made federal directives of putting people back to work during the years of the depression before the war.  Because FDR provided such federal directives (King Canute style or was it instead "socialism") that the middle class saw its birth post World War II.  And Krauthammer is a recipient of such federal largess.  Or he wouldn't now be in the business of filling felled trees with a lot of yes, self-important drivel.  But instead of thanking the guy who could make it more possible for Krauthammer to be read by more people able to buy the newspaper or magazine that he works for because they can now afford to; they have jobs after all, because of those "King Canute" initiatives from on high (Washington, D.C.).  Instead, I guess that Krauthammer would rather they were on welfare.  Then he can attack them for lacking the necessary work ethics to move onto the path that leads to the road of success.  That is less the definition of a conservative, a guy who is at least consistent in principle and more the definition of radical.  A guy who's wild-eyed vision can have him jumping off the cliff because the prize is directly below him and that seems to be the shortest distance to reach it.  The mindset so narrow, that he is no longer using the intelligence he was born with.

Obama has not made the argument that he is just going to provide federal hand outs.  And as a consequence, be attacked as a Democrat who will simply provide us with yet again, a "socialist/welfare state."  No, but he is making an emphasis that to get this country back to any kind of economic health and other types of well-being, it may indeed take federal level initiatives to accomplish it.  After 8 years of federal level neglect.  And therefore, an activist president would have to indeed work from a large canvas that seeks to heal a country.  Unless Krauthammer would really rather continue to work and live in one that is broken. 

Even Senator McCain makes plenty of activist presumptive presidential speeches.  What he would do on high "King Canute style" if he were elected.  But, because he is a Republican? he won't get mocked for equally pretty speeches.  Tells you just how much Krauthammer toes the party line. 

The last act of Krauthammer's really unfortunate and over the top editorial was to push Christ into the same paragraph as Obama.  Christ only healed the sick...  Apparently Krauthammer doesn't like to take a good close look at his bible.  Christ was also working from a humongous canvas.  Not only teaching those who would listen about the need to care for the poor and those in prison, the strangers at the gate; but also, what it would take to bring a religion (Jewish) and a nation (Israel) back on track and righteous before the God he believed in.  That's a tall order for a traveling Rabbi with no permanent address.  If Krauthammer is prepared to mockingly equate Obama with Christ, it must be that Obama is doing something right.

Written by frmrid Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

11:20:18 AM EDT
Feeling Cynical
Hearing None

Am I on the terrorist watch list?

I don't travel.  And for that reason, I don't have to worry about facing some special hassle at any airport of not getting my luggage checked at the curb.  Of not being pulled aside for special searches or searching questions.  Of not having to wait forever for the TSA to take my name off the list.  The list, so CNN and "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" report seems to have grown to a million names.  How many of those names involve Americans who's job requires them to board a commercial jet X times a year?  As necessary as it is to track terrorists as a threat to the continued safety of American citizens, there is a good idea here that the list itself is subject to political abuse.  If you have a criticism of the gvt. or if you are of the wrong party, what is the possibility of being on such a list without your knowledge?  Because it is secretive.  And the rationale of anyone's name being on the list isn't subject to public review.  It begins to remind me of the Soviet Union, where the people who live in the U.S.S.R. lived their lives always suspected of being a threat to the regime.  The terrorist watch list, yet another way to take from Americans the rights found in the first ten amendments.

I wouldn't care to speak ill of a dead man...

Tony Snow in his lifetime had always been a very ideologically driven individual.  He made his mark in extreme media, the more extreme the better.  Then he found his perfect niche fronting for GW as press secretary and passing along the bull that GW wanted the press to report on.  Only in his passing does Cal Thomas start discussing his personal life; that likely most of us wouldn't have known about.  But the eulogy that Thomas gives seems at a sharp contrast to the Tony Snow of public and published view.  The question I would have for Mr. Snow, given the background that Thomas mentions, if he were in fact alive today:  why would an earnest Christian go to work for the liars' club that is most definitely the GW administration?  Why would an earnest Christian show a lack of compassion toward his fellow American citizens?  So he loved his wife and kids?  Nice.  But how about his neighbor as himself?  An earnest Christian would have been respectful of his moral grounding and biblical teachings.  And Snow never actually impressed me in his written statements in particular that he appreciated those things.

McCain on public education

Just now on CNN, McCain informing the NAACP how gvt run amok will support charter schools, etc. that at the same time, undermines "failing" public schools.  By refusing gvt support for public schools that are "failing" after years of No Child Left Behind, that is a further effort at guaranteeing they fail.  McCain will spend as president 250 million of your hard earned cash on state  to state programs to further expand virtual charter schools.  Meaning education by way of a computer.  Not every child has access to one, because after all, not every school has access to them.  Because depending on how rich or poor the district, the tax dollars might not exist for those schools to get any.  McCain speaks of freedom of choice.  For those parents of those children who have the $$$, they have their freedom of choice.  But if you are a child of parents or parent who financially struggles, you are sure to be left behind by McCain as president.  Then McCain does a remarkable about face by saying just how much government is engaged in profligate spending...  Just after he discusses his own profligate spending for "education" reform.  Proofs of flip flops.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A recent letter in the Spokesman-Review in which the author hollers about how much Obama would spend on domestic programs.  Then again, in the last 8 years the gvt we have now has spent very heavily yours and mine tax dollars.  What have we seen as a benefit?  Besides what the oil companies have gotten, pharm and insurance companies have gotten, foreign trade interests have gotten...  I guess that the writer doesn't like the idea of billions of dollars being spent on us. 

Written by frmrid Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

12:30:34 PM EDT
Feeling Cheerful
Hearing None

Froma Harrop is making this extraordinary argument that Senator Obama should make a narrow appeal to his base and demonstrates  a disappointment that he isn't.  As republished in the Spokesman-Review, "Obama's views are moving targets," 12 July 2008.  It seems to me that it is too bad Ms. Harrop is taking what Obama said out of context while whining in her republished editorial.  Senator Obama in any of his speeches has sought to appeal to the broadest base possible:  Democrats and Replicans disgusted with GW, "liberals" and "conservatives," black, white, brown...  In trying to make that sort of broad-based appeal, seems to me that would be an argument of ultimately making shifts to try to appeal to the broadest possible ideological spectrum.  If it means that the hard core old left get disappointed sometimes, the thinking center probably won't be.

___________________________________________________________________

On the other hand, David Broder of the Washington Post sees no less than Obama's shifts as confusing the GOP.  Maybe this Republican doesn't have a problem recognizing what Senator Obama actually would have to struggle with.  Being president would be a ginormous job.  The "message" you submit to the voters is basically your daily, weekly, monthly interview for the job they hire you for.  You are going to be at one point, addressing the voters needs, at another point, the special interests.  You are going to be facing potential foreign and domestic problems, how that is addressed before the people  who put you in office, or your opponent, may very well change.  There is nothing wrong with some changes in position.  As long as the underlying message really hasn't changed.  The message is after all the principles that you bring to a job.  What would you do if say Prez Putin decided to re-create the Soviet Union?  Would you shrug off the hypothetical treating Russia's behavior toward its neighbors as a "What ever" given Putin's "alliance" in the global war on terror?  GW has done a lot of shrugging off of despots and tyrants where he is a little too willing to do economic and foreign policy business.  The above is but one example of what the news media could be asking.  Would this foreign policy issue conflict with the message of the candidate(s)?  That would be critically important given how much GW's own actions conflicted with his stump speeches of 2000 and 2004.  What he would publicly say one day and reverse his policy actions the next.

Instead, the news media chooses to discuss style as did Froma Harrop and Broder, over substance.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heard today on "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," a Senator McCain supporter who made the argument about what differentiated Senator McCain from the prez he hopes to succeed.  ...And drew a blank, how funny.  Then ended up discussing where McCain was in fact on the same page as GW, of course, NAFTA.  Also, a GOP campaign adviser for McCain, that tax increases would only create job loss.  So how does the lady campaign adviser take into account the job losses when taxes were reduced? 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McCain throwing the "fear factor" at women business owners or would be business owners and working women or would be working women.  How much harder it would be under a President Obama for these women to get jobs or own businesses.  Governor Politano reminding the voters that Senator McCain voted against benefits, etc. for women in the work force.  So is what McCain said a case of projection?

Written by frmrid Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

12:14:11 PM EDT
Feeling Frisky
Hearing None

Reading the latest editorial in the 7 July 2008 edition of the Spokesman-Review, I noticed that Penn and Teller were weighing in on global warming.  More precisely, Penn Jillette was actually writing the editorial republished to the Spokesman-Review.  First of all, Penn and Teller are a magic act that performs in Las Vegas.  And so where these gents perform fake magic to wow the crowds; they also make the presumption that just like James Randi, their fake magic will help them get at the truth. 

Penn Jillette first starts off with scoffing about   U.F.O.s and goes from there to scoff about   psychics  before turning his attention to global warming.  He touts James Randi as his "hero" who taught that fake magicians can expose the fraud and deceit of psychics and U.F.O. watchers.  Well, if you have never seen a U.F.O. it is easy enough to dispute it.  However, there is no mistaking a U.F.O. once you have.  It is also easy to dismiss psychics as people who will bilk you out of your hard earned cash.  However, James Randi made a profession of basically being a fraud that bilks people out of their hard earned cash.  And why could he do it?  Because people love to be fooled.  What Randi never did apparently get sceptical about was that politicians are also in the profession of bilking people out of their hard earned cash.  If elected, I promise you... easily made on the campaign trail, and then a total about face once in office.  And why could people put such politicians into office?  Because, I expect, they love to be fooled.  If they didn't, both magicians and politicians would be out of a job and would have to do real work for a change.  So, I found it to be the greatest irony that a fraud would try to claim that he could expose the fraud of others. I have been a U.F.O. watcher from back since I was a child. It is very easy to know the difference between a U.F.O. and an airplane or commercial jet, you can hear the latter, they have flashing tail and wing lights, they also travel slower and lower than a thing that seems to appear at the edge of the atmosphere, leaving no tail, and may appear to be a single spot of fast moving bright light in the night sky. Even further, fades out or follows no known flight path because you know where the airforce bases are as well as the local airports. They are too high up after all to be lights dancing along power lines. Which makes the argument that you have to wonder who is the more dumb or ignorant.

The sceptics after all aren't in the business of finding out the truth, but rather they are in the business of telling you how stupid or crazy you happen to be. Unfortunately, Randi was the guy who directly attacked his own customer base. And he personally persuaded me that I had better things to spend my hard earned cash on that watching magicians presuming that their customer base was both stupid and crazy. I might watch a magic act performed on TV. But I'd never visit such an act performing locally.

Now on to global warming.  The politics of global warming is that of environmentalists against business interests, and on that basis, Democrats v Republicans.  The fear factor of what must surely happen when we put too many pollutants into the atmosphere.  The fear factor of what must surely happen if this nation actually honored the Kyoto treaties.  Why business interests would go broke, and we can't allow that to happen.  Unfortunately, since Republican G.W. has been president, businesses have gone broke, and that has come from many factors; deregulation in food safety and abruptly millions of dollars of contaminated food gets pulled from the market at steep costs to the industry that produced it.  Or because we favor trade with China first and foremost, businesses that can not compete now go under.  Also resulting in massive job loss.  Fuel costs will also dictate whether you buy a Hummer today or a Tyota the next.  Fuel costs will effect sharply where you shop, whether that pricey boutique today or the bargain store tomorrow.  And the pricey boutique is now more likely to go under before the bargain store does.  There is no arguing with market realities.  And quite frankly, there should be no arguing about these realities in the facts that severe weather is becoming the norm in the U.S. and globally as well.

  How do you dispute being neck deep in flood waters that sweeps away home, business, the crops on your farm.  That would be a bit difficult.   Just as it is difficult to dispute tornadoes occurring in places where they were never known to exist before.  How about the spring that never came to North Idaho with 5 feet or better of snow starting in January, quickly melting off in the lower elevations, by February and then abruptly, more snow falls in March and April.  That is the description of severe weather that comes as a consequence of climate change, the global warming that produces the sort of instability that as a consequence, destroys much of the farm crop in the midwest for a year.  Yet, for all of the damage that weather has produced, you still have people who question the hows and the whys. Mr. Jillette is amusing. But he is the sceptic that buys into the politics of global warming. Whereby "he doesn't know" what the answer is, but he'll voice his opinions anyway. And it is the politics you have to take with a grain of salt.

Written by frmrid Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 2 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

11:39:05 AM EDT
Hearing None
Let us first start with a letter to the editor published in the Roundtable of the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington.

Look up Obama's friends

Before this election, check out Obama on the Internet for yourself. It's a cinch; the media isn't going to do it for you! Although you'll have to sort through some extremist junk, both left and right, cluttering the web with totally unverifiable claims, it shouldn't take you long to notice the sheer volume of things that his supporters cannot deny but merely ignore, downplay or rationalize. Forget his speeches and his book; what does he really do, who are his friends and, most important, what do they believe?

Go to his church's Web site, then find out what black liberation theology is all about. Look up Tony Rezco, William Ayers, the Weather Underground, Vallmer Jordan, Frank Marshall Davis, Maya Soetoro-Ng and Father Pfleger. Then check out his relatives in Kenya: his father, the Luo Tribe, Abongo Obama and, best of all, his friendship with Raila Odinga and his hideous ODM party. Are these the poeple you'd like governing America? Don't be fooled. This election isn't about race; it's about the major clash of diametrically opposed ideologies. It's not the color of his skin that bothers me; it's the color of his heart.

Tom Frisque

Usk, Washington

Besides the fact that this is a remarkably ignorant letter...  Kenyan politics is not something that I would particularly know much about.  What we do know about it is going to get filtered through (western) news media eyes, western politics and even geopolitics.  However, Mr. Frisque seems to know more about the late father of Barack Obama than even the son does.  Since the father, as is my understanding, abandoned the son and his wife when "Barry" was quite young.  The father's bones are also buried in Kenya, so he would hardly be in a position to "govern this country."  No more than Obama's Kenyan past via his father, could "govern this nation" either.  On that basis alone, Frisque really is making Obama's race and geographical history an issue even as he goes on to engage in "diametrically opposed ideologies."  He is in fact all about what he takes offense with Obama's relations and friendships.  And on that basis, we should judge the man.  Problem is, that Frisque hasn't exactly said anything new and wraps up his version of bigotry in how I can justify it by bringing in all those "scary others."

While Frisque attacks Obama for his friends, Kathleen Parker then proceeds to attack Obama for "throwing them under the bus."  Especially Reverend Wright out of political ambition.  If on the one side the presumptive Democratic nominee for the presidency can be attacked for his past associations and then attacked when he distances himself from them; I'd have to say that the attackers are saying a lot more about themselves than they are about the Dem candidate.  So, it was an interesting juxtaposition of letter and editorial published on 3 July 2008.

Any politician isn't going to have a fully principled or squeaky clean past.  Any politician can be rightly criticized for his failures to exploit his elected office to an advantage.  Obama has no doubt done his share—but so have any and all other politicians.  Obama has no doubt had his own variety of questionable associations.  But then again, I only have a cousin, whom I haven't seen in years, who has been in trouble over drug use and has seen the inside of prison.  Were I to run for public office, would this cousin be used against me?  I'm sure that would be true.  But the cousin has not to date dictated that because she indulged in drug use and has seen the inside of prison, that I'll ever do the same.  What Frisque and Parker refuse to recognize is that Obama can and does make his own decisions and can only be held to account for what he has done in his own life, not for the behavior or conduct of his friends or past associations.  "God as the judge;" that is how God in their bible would see it.  So I find such self-righteousness coming from both authors to be highly disgusting.

Then Ms. Parker thinks that she can compare Senator McCain to Captain McCain who went on to endure torture and deprivation in Vietnam because he refused to leave behind fellow Americans.  That was nice of Senator McCain to remind us of the sort of man he was 30 years ago.  But it is his Congressional record that concerns me more.  He doesn't mind throwing fellow veterans under the bus because GW really wants to think of them as cannon fodder for whom this nation ought to owe nothing.  And it would be too spendy (like the war in Iraq isn't spendy enough) to materially thank them for their service to this country, say with increased pay or a G.I. Bill.  He can throw fellow Americans under the bus by being "pro-amnesty" McCain when it came to lining up with GW over being more supportive of illegal aliens than the American workforce.  Or flip-flopping over taxes, what he once said in the Senate, isn't what he is prepared to say on the presidential campaign trail.  Out of political ambition.

So a note here to Ms Parker, putting on some blinders before setting down to write the latest editorial.  Finding nothing to complain about as long as she can trot out McCain's ancient history war record.  Finding everything to complain concerning Obama, without fleshing out the hostility the man is already facing such as found in the above letter.  Parker you are displaying an appalling and willful ignorance.

Written by frmrid Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

7:23:26 PM EDT
Feeling Bored
Hearing None

 General Wesley Clark criticized Senator John McCain recently over his war record; Senator McCain started whining about how "inappropriate" it was.  This convinced Senator Barack Obama to "reject" the lack of civility among his "surrogates."  Which prompted McCain to whine some more that Senator Obama needs to put a leash on his surrogates, in so many words..

I am not anyone's surrogate, I am a Libertarian Republican.  While I never served in combat, I was only a Sgt in the U.S. Army Reserves, I only served in Germany during the Cold War, I was aware of the terrorist threat close up.  And so, I get very tired very quickly when political candidates for the office of the presidency start whining about how they are "picked on"  when the opposing camps have questions or criticisms about them.  McCain hasn't been "picked on" since the year 2000.  That was when GW could make use of the new left religious activists to question McCain about his "pro-life" views.  That was when McCain lost the candidacy to GW.  Why didn't McCain push back about how "inappropriate" it was for GW's surrogates to talk about him that way?  Why did he wait 8 years and make that kind of whine now?  News for McCain, he should expect slings and arrows on the road to the White House.  If he can't stomach criticism today, how qualified is he to be president tomorrow?  After all, we only put in office another fellow who couldn't stomach criticism either.  And he proved to be quite a bust for a president.  So here is my sling and arrow; I lost a cousin in Vietnam.  What was left of him after he stepped on a land mine came back in a closed coffin.  I have no heartburn with Vietnam veterans and those who lost their lives as a consequence of the "politicians' war."  But I do have heartburn with the sort of guy who'd trot up his war record as proof that he has all the national security credentials under his belt.  Vietnam was over 30 years ago, buddy.  Or traveling the world as a member of Congressional delegations puts him a head above his young Democratic opponent.  So?  A little reminder here, when Senator McCain traveled to Iraq, he was under heavy guard, it wasn't a "touriststyle" walk in the park.  And he only went places that were deemed "safe."  At least for the moment.  That is not a "foreign policy" credential.  That is an ambitious politician's photo op.  Big deal.  As for what we know of his other national security and foreign policy credentials, he has been "pro amnesty" McCain lining up his immigration policies (no matter what the consequences to the American citizenry) with that of the GW administration.

Leslie Sanchez was among the "best political team" that vented on CNN's "The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer."  Hosted today by John King.  Of course she talked up the "flip flops" of Senator Obama's past statements including gun control.  But, giving credit to Jack Cafferty and a gent who works for "Time Magazine."  There only happens to be bigger issues than the "wedge issues" of abortion and gun control.  The economy is more important to most voters.  And on the economy, McCain has done as heavy a flip flopping that would shame Senator Kerry.  On the economy, Senator Obama has been far more consistent.  Of course, Sanchez wouldn't care to get into that.  Cafferty and etc. reminded Sanchez that it was time to get past those things and move on to what was most important to Americans.  I applaud them.

Written by frmrid Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

10:22:09 AM EDT
Feeling Disgusted
Hearing None
    It was taking considerable time to download free office software onto the ol' laptop.  So I was not blogging at all for about 4 days.  However, what Cal Thomas wrote that was republished in the Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Washington was highly instructive.  He goes through the usual blather that the news media doesn't bother to publish anything about our war in Iraq that might prove just how much our ventures there have truly been a success.  But, violence does continue, even if it has "decreased by some 80%" according to U.S. Military sources.  American troops do still die there, according to what Lou Dobbs reveal on his show, "Lou Dobbs Tonight."  Not that Thomas as cheerleader cares to discuss that little matter.  He wants to attack The Bush haters and Senator Obama supporters in and out of the news media.  However, what Mr. Thomas also informs us toward the end of his editorial is this:

Another sign of progress was the announcement that the Iraqi government will award contracts to 41 foreign oil firms in an effort to increase production. It's the first time foreign energy companies have been allowed in Iraq since Saddam Hussein expelled them 36 years ago.

 

That to Thomas is the best indicator of progress in Iraq, the real proof of "victory" for which GW wants his successor to have to deal with once his own term is over with.  And McCain wants a U.S. presence to stay in Iraq not necessarily to "establish a democracy" in Iraq but rather to assure profits for foreign energy firms, and perhaps at the expense of the Iraqi people.

 

And a few days later, a letter to the Roundtable of the Spokesman-Review became an addendum to the Cal Thomas editorial:  Titled, "Big Oil is back in Iraq" Bob Valen of Grand Coulee, Washington provides quite a history of foreign energy company investment in Iraq starting in 1912.  Mr. Valen also concurred with Mr. Thomas about the fact that Hussen expelled the foreign energy companies from Iraq when he took power.  What Mr. Valen also mentioned was the fact that the news media in general took a pass on the fact that big oil was back in Iraq.  Most of the news media did, I am sure, take a pass, except for Mr. Thomas.  But then there might be a reason, our troops die in Iraq to guarantee profits for BP, Exxon/Mobile and etc.?  Perhaps the news media wants to discuss "defeat" in Iraq as Thomas histrionically likes to accuse them, but neither do they want to make the end months of the GW term in office more miserable than it already is.  That is, exept industry shill Cal Thomas, who couldn't wait to gloat over our "victories" without perhaps considering the ramifications of what he reveals.  We went to war over a commodity.  We cost or were responsible for the loss of health, wealth and lives of 10s of thousands of Iraqis just so that foreign energy companies could get some kind of agreement with our puppet gvt in Iraq.  How about that.  You get the feeling again just how much this administration and indeed its apologists have tended to lie.  Now, how would that potentially hurt Senator McCain?  My guess, a lot as long as Moveon.org can use a variant of an ad that now includes "big oil" as to why McCain really wants to continue a hundred year war in Iraq.

___________________________________________________________________

On another front, Pentagon reports that in Afghanistan the Taliban have regrouped, have become a major insurgency and that more American troops are certain to die there.  Two points to consider:  Iraq as terrorist training ground, not as some "in the future" problem only if we leave Iraq too soon.  But on-going.  There had been brief news blurbs about what effective attacks the Taliban had engaged in, inclusive of IEDs to target U.S. led coalition forces in Afghanistan.  Wouldn't an increase in violence in Afghanistan tie directly with A.  GW taking his eye off the real Al Qaeda threat that continues to center near if not in Afghanistan?  B.  His fumbles with Pakistan as to any resolution about Taliban strongholds in Pakistan?  Training grounds in Pakistan?  Point two, the foreign fighters in Iraq have got their terrorist training in real time under their belts and are now beefing up the Taliban and Al Qaeda to give the U.S. presence still in Afghanistan a lot of grief.  Thomas, though, you see, doesn't want to discuss our failures to create a stable state for Afghanistan.  But then, the Iraqi oil, you see is so much more important.

Written by frmrid Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

1:22:32 PM EDT
Feeling Disgusted
Hearing None
  There had been a number of letters to the editor, mostly to the Spokesman-Review regarding developing our own energy resources.  On Huckleberries on-line this featured link that debunks much of the pro oil industry arguments being made in most of the letters presented.  It is the environmentalists, so guys like Steve Hintyesz yells.  Where as, Don Graham has a somewhat more rational letter.

Can America become hopelessly crippled? Perhaps yes; simply by making fuels prohibitively expensive. Unfortunately, our country lives on oil.

Mr Graham goes on to ask, "I have several questions: Why doesn't (e.g.) General Motors quickly produce an all-electric commuting car? They did in the 1990s — the EVIwhich used NiMH batteries. For what ever reason, all EVIs were quickly collected and crushed."  The technology was certainly there to wean this country off of foreign energy dependence for at least a decade, but auto makers did not care to utilize it.  The oil companies might have lost profits?  I can think that would be one reason why the EVIs were quickly collected and crushed.  Also of relevance, before Mr. Graham goes on to make the same "drilling argument" that Mr. Hintyesz makes, "Why do foreign automakers produce highly efficient automobiles when American automakers will not?"  Well now, I can think of a reason, the expense of imported oil being higher in Europe than in the U.S.  And therefore, to accomodate such an expense, Europeans and the Japanese produce more fuel efficient cars.  Here in the U.S. oil companies would lose profits if CAFE standards were tightened.  And the auto makers bow to the oil companies.  The blog link is interesting reading.  And useful ultimately that governs how we may just vote for a president in November.

And consider Senator McCain adopting "green technology," as a campaign promise.  If we open up more areas of drilling for domestic oil, why would we presume that we would exploit "green technology" that has been in existence certainly since the 1970s?  Given Graham's letter, it won't necessarily happen.

Written by frmrid Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

1:07:44 AM EDT
Feeling Thoughtful
Hearing None

Got to hand this one to Jack Z. Smith, his editorial first appeared in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and was republished in the Spokesman-Review on the 19th of June 2008.  He is of course discussing at length how population growth is causing problems in climate change and fuel and general energy supplies.  The increasing limits of our resources as millions more people are born each year and begin to overpopulate the earth. 

I expect that it is a valid enough argument to make. Unless of course you happen to be an anti-abortionist to whom "family planning" would be deemed anathema.  But consider this, conservation of resources is a valid argument.  But there are limits to how much you can conserve before it runs up against the inevitable hungry mouths to feed.  Conservation v poverty and of course starvation.  Just as we are already dealing with "alternative energy sources" v skyrocketing food prices that the poor can no longer afford.  So, encouraging all these humongous birthrates does what?  I can see a practical need for family planning.  Unless the anti-abortionists want to invest in the development of a number of Starship Enterprises to carry young people to brave new worlds, they are going to have to realize that forcing babies into the world where they face certain chaos over energy, water and even food doesn't do a d#$n thing for them.

    

Written by frmrid Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own