If you follow the link menu item on the far left side of the screen, you’ll find some of my favorite links!

Yea, I buckled. I did it. I couldn’t resist. I was just too curious…

*sigh*

I got a myspace.com page.

I know I know! It’s a bastion of poor web design! But I promise to bring Kooz style to my myspace site (not one of those pre-packaged “pimp” sites). In fact, after I’m done with my myspace..uh…space, people will beg me to pimp out their space!

However, I am having fun with the concept! And I hope kooz.net can incoorperate some of those concepts! It’s cool to catch up on friends, to get updates on them, and to be able to communicate with them in a structured, yet asynchronous fashion. Plus, I’ve been finding friends that I haven’t seen in years! I’m very happy about that! So, if you get a chance, head on over to my website over at The Real Kooz myspace.

Oh, plus I put up new pictures on my flickr website .

Hey everyone! Welcome to my new website! I bet you’re wondering, “Oh, what the hell is he up to now?!” And you’re right: I really don’t know. But check this bit out…

To all those worried, kooz.net is back! My e-mail should be working again and I have a new webhosting service. My last host f’d things up. I don’t know if I’ll keep this site’s design…I am rather fond of it though. Check back later as I’m going into website creation mode for the next couple weeks!
To get your fix of kooz stuff. Click here to go to the flickr.com site I created: I’ve uploaded some cool pictures! Peace!

As you can tell, I haven’t updated my website in about 6 months. I would say half the problem lies with me being distracted by other things while the other half lies with the fact that my newscript (the thing that allows me to post my thoughts on the web) has been broken. Don’t be fooled, it’s still broken: I’ve sucked it up, and I’m doing this the old fashioned way: I’m editing the output file that the script made. By the end of the next week, I will, hopefully, be using a new system of updating my website!

First let me note that this is: The 6th Anniversary of Kooz.net!!!!! Six years ago, on this day, I founded kooz.net and started this crazy adventure! No one thing in my life has given me more shit than this website! Everyone goes “Why haven’t you updated kooz.net?!” (So let me take this opportunity to shout out to Sweeney: SWEENEY!) as if my website is an important part of their life: well, it just maybe!! Ha!

As you might have known from my last post, my sister Debbie was pregnant and I was thinking about going back to school. Well, Debbie had her little girl last month, and her name is Alicia Marie, and she’s a real doll! And yes, I did go back to school and I started a master’s degree in Instructional Design and Learning Technology! It has been easy so far, but next semester should be quite a challenge! And now for some other news: I moved to Belleville, IL! A buddy of mine, Doug, from Truman State/APO days bought a house out here and is giving me a great deal on rent! Plus, this place is the ultimate pimp pad: inground pool, bar with cold beer on tap, poker table, pool table, and two big screen tv’s! It’s like living in a sports bar! And, it’s located near the Metrolink stop here in Belleville, and I can ride it to work! Well, I’m keeping this brief because I have to get ready to par-tay tonight as it’s NEW YEAR’S EVE!! PEACE!

It’s been five months? Gah! Writing anything for kooz.net is like working out: once you stop, it’s sometimes hard to get back on track! But if my track record for updating this website counts for anything, then I’ve backslid for the last 3 years! Ha!

I got an e-mail from my die hard Republican friend, Todd, a while ago, and he complained that my website had devolved into an endless parade (some would say, tirade) of my liberal opinions. And this is true (see, we Democrats actually own up to our behavior!). Sigh. But, I should come clean because I really needed a bit of an online intervention. Why?

Politics are my intellectual crack.

Yup, I’m a crack whore for partisan chicanery. There! I said it! Let the healing begin! The last several months, I’ve actually preferred to read in depth articles about the vagaries of our national political landscape over writing here. I know: I should be a better American citizen and watch American Idol (which I missed tonight! Who got voted off?! GAH!).

And why don’t I write about myself more often?! I talk about myself way too much as it is! For example, I ran into someone today who I hadn’t seen or talked to in over a year, and I could only talk about myself, “…blah blah blah…” Granted, she was working, but she’s one of the more interesting people I have known! All I could think about was what was going on with me! I didn’t ask if she was still in a dance troupe, I didn’t ask her about her family, or how her grandmother, whom she’s close with, was doing. Gah! At a minimum, it does prove that I’m a dork around women, but we all knew that.

Ok, so here I go writing about myself: I’ll start with my family! My Mom and sister, Beth, are doing well! Mom went on a cruise a couple months ago in the Carribbean with my Aunt and Uncle: they had a great time! My middle sister, Debbie, is pregnant! So, I’ll have 2 nieces, one nephew, and one free agent: it could go either way! Debbie also got a job at a casino which is cool because they always have good benefits! My best friend, Craig, had a little boy, Dominic, in February, and his sister, Courtney, got married last month in New Orleans!! Click here to see the pictures of Dominic and the wedding! I’m in the wedding pictures too, but you might not recognize me! I’m the dude with long indie rock style hair!! Ha! (It’s currently back to normal and under control). My other good friend, Ryan, sold his house, is building a new one, and just got his law degree (he’s up one graduate degree on me! grrrr!). As for me, in addition to travelling to ‘Nawlins, I went to Atlanta for the FIRST Robotics International Championships where I was a referee. I’m also getting old: my knee has been acting up on me since Atlanta, and this last weekend, I hurt it really bad playing softball (I have ice on it right now: for the fifth day!). Last, but not least, I’m going to SIUE next fall to start my second masters degree! It’ll be in Instructional Design and Learning Technologies! I’ve been wanting to do interactive educational material for a long time, and this will help me reach that goal! Plus, it’ll make my job at the Science Center more interesting! Other than that, I’ve been just chilling and enjoying the weather! Is that enough info, Todd?!

Update: 5/12/05 I know, I’m a political junkie, but I had to throw this in here. I hate quoting historical figures, but in keeping with how radical Republicans have gone, this is telling:

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires [*cough* Bush family *cough*], and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54

I like IKE!!!

On Spiritual Correctness: well, I had hoped to create a well thought out essay on this subject, go through several revisions, then post it. Ha! Yea right! Here it goes anyway:

In my last post (click on the journal link above), I lamented the outcome of the election and I was really saddened about the rhetorical and topical vapidness found in the presidential debates, and in general, the discourse of political talk amongst friends and acquaintances. Combine this with the rise of the fundamentalist (some would say radical) right who espoused “Moral Values,” it led me to a startling conclusion/point of action: semantic revenge!

Everyone has heard of Political Correctness, correc….I mean, right?! Political Correctness, or PC, has a derogatory connotation when used in almost any casual or political conversation. Any conservative or libertarian will start a sentence with, “I know it’s not very P.C. to say this, but….blah blah blah!”

What exactly is P.C.? At it’s basic level, it’s a way to communicate with people in a sensitive way. It doesn’t always succeed, but it’s an honest effort to treat people with respect and dignity. For example, calling a kid, “a retard” is not P.C., because that kid is special or maybe, handi-abled. I don’t think anyone will argue against the merits of communicating in this fashion: it’s a lingua franca for relating with people who are different from yourself and deserve dignity without sounding like an idiot. Don’t get me wrong, it doesn’t always succeed (like calling someone short, vertically challenged), but it’s an honest effort!

However, it’s been blown up to encompass anything that’s a liberal ideal! From environmentalism to accepting the rights of same sex partners, any liberal notion is considered derisively as “P.C.” Not only is this an abuse of P.C.’s original intent, but it’s just another example of the shallowness of the current political debate. By assigning a label to a cause/belief, it is belittled.

Why/how did this happen? I think it arises out of the right’s inability and frustration to control the linguistic/semantic debate (i.e. who sets the meanings for words used in a political debate) from the 1970’s to mid-1990’s. During this time, it was the Democrats and the media who set the tone, and it was hard for the right to get in a word edgewise.

However, two things have happened since then: the Pro-Life Movement and the Fairness Doctrine’s repeal in 1986/corporate takeover of the media. With the Pro-Life movement, it opened the door for the right’s M.O.: rhetorical entrapment! Yes! For example, “You’re not pro-life?!! Are you telling me that you are against life!!” See how insipid and shallow that remark is as it glosses over a substantial debate on a woman’s reproductive rights! Another recent example is “Personal Accounts.” A phrase that the right uses to endorse the idea of privatizing social insurance (throw in the word “crisis” and people go nuts! Maybe I should try this in my dating life! My love machine is, indeed, in a crisis! Nuts, I tell you!). Combine this with the legalizing of journalistic laziness and corporate oversight of the editorial process (i.e. repeal of the Fairness Doctrine which required all broadcast news to present both sides of an issue, and let me throw in the DMCA for good measure), and you have a dangerous situation: the debate is controlled by the lowest common denominator. Who is it? The Right who, we all know, kowtows to religious and corporate interests! Unfortunately, this should not be news to anyone who has been paying attention the last 9 years, and if not, you’ve been suckered into thinking that Fox News practices journalism and that Rush is a voice of moderation! However, the end result is that it’s not only acceptable, but profitable to be non-P.C.: even though being P.C. had nothing to do with news or political debate in the first place…and now it is, unfortunately.

At it’s root, the revolt against P.C. stems from our individualism as Americans: we don’t like to be told what and how to talk! But seeing how P.C. is more of a social protocol and not a political one, I don’t think that sentiment is well founded. But since it’s now political….

I know you’re thinking, “Where the hell is he going with this?” Ha!

Since P.C. is politicized, I’m going to introduce my semantic revenge on the Right: Spiritual Correctness. Yes! S.C.!! At it’s root, Spiritual Correctness is an ecumenical protocol. It’s a Christian’s desire to do right in the Big Guy’s eyes. And there’s nothing wrong with that! Heck, a Christian should know if she should rest on Sunday or Wednesday! In fact, Jesus was my kind of liberal! Do unto others as you would do unto yourself, the rich die spiritually poor, and turning water to wine (Partay!).

Unfortunately, not everyone is Christian, and more importantly, a Christian can take what’s in the Bible and try to force it on others. At it’s root, being spiritually correct is not a bad thing for your personal life: it’s a problem when it becomes political! As such, I’m politicizing S.C. And as we all know, the Right is trying to politicize Christianity by:

giving money to “faith-based organizations” or in common terms, Christian Churches! Oops! I know that’s not very S.C. for me to say!

“defending marriage!” But, gays and lesbians deserve equal rights and that straight couples aren’t going to file for divorce anytime soon to take same sex lovers (well, Jerry Falwell might)! Ooops! I know that’s not very S.C. for me to say!

endorsing “Creative Design.” Even though it discriminates against non-Christians/atheists and has no scientific value! Ooops! I know that’s not very S.C. for me to say!

endorsing a “pro-life” stance! Even though it would set back women’s health care and reproductive rights back to the late 19th century! Ooops! I know that’s not very S.C. for me to say!

I could go on and on! I know saying that Bush is the worst example of a Christian, isn’t very S.C., but what the heck! I’m on a roll! Being S.C. is a bad thing because, (in my best old 49′er/John Ford movie accent) “Dagnabbit! I don’t want no mamby pamby religious wacko telling me what I can do or what I can say! hhmmpf! They’re always sayin do this and don’t do that!” Ha! How many times have you heard a modern conservative say that about liberals!?

Now I want to challenge all my liberally minded friends to pick this up and use it derisively whenever debating with a Republican. Drive them nuts!! Pound it home! Because we all know, substantial debate is a waste of time!

(It’s called irony folks.)

Once again, another rare entry by me!! Of course, I have no real excuses.
As you may have figured out, the November elections have weighed heavily on my thoughts lately. Am I disappointed? Of course. I thought people realized that Bush never proposed practical solutions to the current problems our country faces. In fact, he only attacked Kerry as being a liberal from Massachusetts. Any rational person should have realized that this added nothing to the debate. What should have Kerry said? “Your just a radical conservative from Connecticut who’s a carpetbagger living in Texas?” It doesn’t say anything!! Bush attacked Kerry for not being a descisive leader. Once again…adding nothing to the debate because Kerry is a Senator whose job as a Congressman is to compromise and politic. Shocker!
It was as if the electorate didn’t want to hear substantive debate and well articulated arguments (see John Stewart on Crossfire as a footnote to this). When Kerry articulated his thoughts clearly, many friends of mine said that it was just a politician’s blathering. Another friend said that Kerry never articulated a plan for Iraq and this person isn’t even deaf! It seemed people were aghast that Kerry criticized bush unfairly because there was a war! Shocker! A political opponent was offering a different solution/point of view to a critical problem: and in an election year! My god! Stop the presses! People didn’t vote for Kerry because he was “liberal?” So what?! And, as Kerry pointed out in the debates, it’s just a word that has no meaning when used in a derogatory fashion!? To those who voted for bush and believe Kerry was a liberal, did you actually read John Kerry’s proposals on his website? Or more importantly, did you listen to Fox News and Republicans constantly repeat the word, “liberal,” over and over again? Sigh…
What really pissed me off about the election was that the largest concern people had for voting this November was “Moral Values.” Keep in mind I’m capitalizing this term. Why was this an issue when people run for public office because of the, “I Would Run the Government Well and Better than My Opponent” issue? I’m sorry folks, but Moral Values is NOT family values or govermental ethics. It is code for an anti-homosexual/pro-choice, evangelical agenda. Please, someone inform me how these Moral Values could have prevented the death of 1200+ American troops, put people back to work, put cops on the streets, prevent the spread of AIDS, stopped the violence in Sudan, and kept down the deficit. I’m not disparaging anyone’s values, but do these values have any bearing on how the government is run?! NO! And here’s the kicker: do you really think Republicans CARE about these Moral Values? NO, because once again, it has no bearing on their political philosophy on how government is RUN! Are they stupid for espousing these Moral Values? NO! It gets them votes! Are the people who vote for these candidates stupid? NO! But unfortunately, they may not have made the connection between values and the material world. I hadn’t until someone connected the dots for me: it’s good values to put people to work! When the economy does well and the middle and lower classes have steady jobs, people are more likely to bring a child into this world! A family with a reliable income is a stronger family! A cop who can prevent crime means a stronger and safer community! A system that keeps businessman and bureaucrats accountable for illegal and unethical activity IS GOOD REAL WORLD VALUES AS APPLIED TO GOVERNMENT! Think pragmatically: can Roe v. Wade ever be overturned? Probably not! So why listen to a politician posturing about banning abortions? Additionally, does it make a difference whether two people practice monogamy? Having a stable home is a family value, and why do we listen to politicians who want to tear such homes apart? It sickens me. What I’m talking about is that no single politician can frame a debate properly unless they talk about the execution of their obligations as a Congressperson or President: and that’s not happening on either side of the aisle! Sigh…
What does this so-called shift to the right mean (although that’s debatable)? It means I can have fun shifting the rhetorical backlash to the left, and with my swift judo like abilities, turn it back onto the right. Since I’ve gone long on this post, let me give you a preview of my next post: The right has lambasted the left for it’s political correctness. Well, now it’s my turn to lambaste the right for their spiritual correctness. Ha ha ha! I bet you can’t wait for me to explain that one!

First of all, I want to give a shout out to Dave Sweeney and Ryan! About 30 of us went to the Mount Pleasant Winery on Saturday (Craig went too!) and we had a blast! The weather was great, we played some cards, ate tons of food, drank wine, and then watched the first World Series game.

Speaking of the World Series….ok that’s enough of that. Just remember, the Cards won the National League title and what happened with the Red Sox was just a bad mirage.

On to politics…

Remember the news about 360-380 tons (~770,000 lbs) of RDX and HMX explosives? Quick reminder: The Iraqi Government and IAEA (International Nuclear Inspectors) said the stuff was missing from Al QaQaa, the largest ammo depot in Iraq for such things, and was probably looted. The week before the war around mid-March 2003, IAEA put their seal and lock on the explosives then left town. The administration said these explosives were probably moved by Saddam during the invasion (which lasted three weeks) because the army divisions who were there on April 3rd and 10th didn’t find the explosives. Is there evidence to the contrary? Of course. The 3rd infantry who was there first said they didn’t search extensively but found a white powdery substances that wasn’t a chemcial weapon (Globalsecurity.org) and didn’t leave a security detail as per orders, the 101st said they didn’t do an extensive search on the place (and the NBC emdedded reporter, Lai Leng Jew, said as much, too ) and didn’t leave a security detail because Baghdad was where they were needed, the Iraqi manager of the site said the explosives were still there post-invasion, a pentagon offical said they were there post-invasion in a report via the AP, and lastly, a week after the 101st left Al QaQaa, an embedded reporter from KSTP(MN) GOT THE STUFF ON CAMERA (here and here).

Want more? Read this! (This is sub-filed under “Holy Shit!”) David Kay, the man in charge of searching for WMD in Iraq, was on CNN.

Here’s former weapons inspector David Kay on Aaron Brown this evening delivering the news …(a little more of my commentary after this)

Aaron Brown: We saw at the top of the program there is new information to factor in. Pretty conclusive to our eye. So we’ll sort through this now. Take the politics out of it and try and deal with facts with former head UN weapons inspector, US weapons inspector, David Kay. David, it’s nice to see you.

David Kay: Good to be with you, Aaron.

AB: I don’t know how better to do this than to show you some pictures have you explain to me what they are or are not. Okay? First what I’ll just call the seal. And tell me if this is an IAEA seal on that bunker at that munitions dump?

DK: Aaron, about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it which, obviously, I would have preferred to have been there, that is an IAEA seal. I’ve never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15 years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of that shape.

AB: Was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?

DK: Absolutely nothing. It was the HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.

AB: OK now, I’ll take a look at barrels here for a second. You can tell me what they tell you. They, obviously, to us just show us a bunch of barrels. You’ll see it somewhat differently.

DK: Well, it’s interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this, and inside the barrels a bag. HMX is in powder form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons. And particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still photos, as the soldier dips into it, that’s either HMX or RDX. I don’t know of anything else in al Qaqaa that was in that form.

AB: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over?

DK: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker, and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through, and there were others there that were sealed. With this one, I think it is game, set, and match. There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken. And quite frankly, to me the most frightening thing is not only was the seal broken, lock broken, but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean, to rephrase the so-called pottery barn rule. If you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security.

AB: I’m — that raises a number of questions. Let me throw out one. It suggests that maybe they just didn’t know what they had?

DK: I think you’re quite likely they didn’t know they had HMX, which speaks to lack of intelligence given troops moving through that area, but they certainly knew they had explosives. And to put this in context, I think it’s important, this loss of 360 tons, but Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took over the country.

AB: Could you — I’m trying to stay out of the realm of politics. I’m not sure you can.

DK: So am I.

AB: I know. It’s a little tricky here. But, is there any — is there any reason not to have anticipated the fact that there would be bunkers like this, explosives like this, and a need to secure them?

DK: Absolutely not. For example, al Qaqaa was a site of Gerald Bull’s super gun project. It was a team of mine that discovered the HMX originally in 1991. That was one of the most well-documented explosive sites in all of Iraq. The other 80 or so major ammunition storage points were also well documented. Iraq had, and it’s a frightening number, two-thirds of the total conventional explosives that the US has in its entire inventory. The country was an armed camp.

AB: David, as quickly as you can, because this just came up in the last hour, as dangerous as this stuff is, this would not be described as a WMD, correct?

DK: Oh absolutely not.

AB: Thank you.

DK: And, in fact, the loss of it is not a proliferation issue.

AB: Okay. It’s just dangerous and its out there and by your thinking it should have been secured.

DK: Well look, it was used to bring the Pan Am flight down. It’s a very dangerous explosive, particularly in the hands of terrorists.

AB: David, thank you for walking me through this. I appreciate it, David Kay the former head US weapons inspector in Iraq.
(end transcript)

What does this mean? Whether or not you think invading Iraq was right or wrong, the evidence from the beginning of the war to now DIRECTLY POINTS TO THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S INCOMPETENCE. Not only were there not enough troops to stop general looting, but they didn’t have enough troops to stop munition dumps from being looted. This isn’t a “Whoops!” Any idiot intelligence official knew where the munitions in Iraq were! Doesn’t that freak you out that “Iraq had two-thirds of the total conventional explosives that the US has in its entire inventory?!” Al QaQaa is just the tip of the iceberg!!!! Blatant incompentence. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLANNED FOR!! Support our troops! Vote BUSH OUT OF OFFICE!

(BTW, to the religious right friends of mine, Bush tolerates gay civil unions–oops! There goes your “moral” high ground. Well, any high ground was abandoned once you supported Bush and his war…A vote against W would be the right thing to do!)

I wrote this to some friends who are conservatives and are supporting Bush….

One thing people are confused about this next election is that it’s perceived to be about liberalism vs. conservativism. It is not. It’s about a progressive view of government vs. neo-conservatives. My thesis in this post, Bush is NOT conservative.

Traditional conservatives espouse 3 things (as a recent add in the NYT from 20+ GOP officials/governors).
1) Fiscal Responsibilty:
It seems that the last 12 years has born this out: The Democratic party is dedicated to fiscal reponsibility (dem pres. surpluses vs. republican pres. deficits). No one can refute this. It seems our country works best with a conservative house, moderate senate, and progessive president.

If you are an avowed conservative: has the Bush administration delivered? A 500 billion dollar YEARLY deficit is anything but that: the tax cut has not created one job (as there is still a deficit of 1 million jobs) and if the tax code wasn’t touched, (even with 9/11, economic downturn, and that horrible strategic error called Iraq) the deficit MIGHT have been kept under 50 billion and that’s being generous. No president has ever espoused a tax cut during a time of “war,” and any red blooded conservative should be pissed off. This is ESPECIALLY egregious because Republicans control both houses in Congress (i.e. the purse strings).

2) Conservation:
All Republicans from Theodore Roosevelt to that cold blooded bastard Nixon were still environmentalists (Reagan’s and Bush I’s legacy is a milquetoast on this) and have been rather progressive in this regard. They realized the importance of having a healthy environment by signing into law such things as the National Park Service (TR) and the Clean Water Act (Nixon). In this regard, a traditional conservative believes in conservation. As the Bush administration has clearly shown is that they have no regard for the environment and science in general. By using oil company “research” on greenhouse gases to halting higher standards of mercury emissions from power plants to the Orwellian named “Healthy Forests Initiative” (which will actually be used to cut down old growth trees and in fact destroy vast tracts of wilderness in order to “save it”). This administration is not conservative in that regard. Any red blooded conservative should be pissed off.

3) Small Government:
This seems to be the bread and butter of the conservative mantra (which is intrinsically linked to fiscal responsibility). Under Bush II, government spending has gone up. It even went up under Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton (but Clinton was progressive and not conservative). The number of people employed by the federal government has gone up. A true conservative believes in shrinking the government in all regards. There are three forms of this: a) Letigously shrinking government: like keeping the Bill of Rights/Constit. simple, upholding civil rights like privacy/search and seizure, and keeping regulations at a minimum. b) keeping beaurocracy small and non-invasive c) financial responsibility from a smaller government thereby lowering the tax burden. All of these things are perfectly legimate political ideas and true conservatives have espoused these ideas (I don’t necessarily disagree with this). Unfortunately, the Bush administration has failed in this regard too. By passing the Patriot Act in the middle of the night on a Friday, the administration has invaded our privacy by making it legal to track our library/bookstoore habits. This administration has suspended the writ of habeus corpus for Americans, like Jose Padilla, by calling them “enemy combatants.” (Certainly, these Americans are shady characters, but they are still U.S. citizens who deserve rights: if you want to call them traitor, then look in the Constitution because even traitors have rights Article III, sec. 3). And don’t get me started on prison abuse….

Whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, the idea of “big government” is a misnomer. Republicans believe in “small government” when it comes to social programs, but when it comes to the military, Republicans certainly believe in “Big Government.” Democrats believe in the power of federal social programs and especially during the post-Cold War, a smaller military. Neither *political party* believes in small government. Personally, I don’t know how a bigger military could have prevented 9/11. With strong allies around the world, why have a big military? With a healthy intelligence community (an egregious oversight of both Bush I and Clinton: after the Cold War, intelligence spending went down because many didn’t realize the new threat) why do we need a big military to fight terrorism when when it’s boundaryless? Terrorism’s problem is universal, but our adminstration, for some reason, thinks it’s our sole burden and is unwilling to work with other countries. Why? They don’t realize (and neither does Mark) that our country doesn’t need to convince the ultra-extremists that we’re O.K., our country needs to reach out to those who *might* sympathize with the extremists. These normal people who live in the Middle East have no reason to believe EITHER SIDE and they want change but don’t know who to trust. Well, Bush II gave them a reason to align with the extremists because of Iraq. Why should Joe Arab believe us when we invaded a country without SOUND PROOF. We gave them no reason to believe us! Attacking an oil rich country is EXACTLY what Bin Laden wanted (btw, where is he?), and those moderates are more in Bin Laden’s camp. That’s an utter failure.

One other misconception is that taxes will go up under Kerry and/or that your taxes will go down with Bush. Wrong. For us in the middle class, there are other taxes that we carry an undue burden. When you go to pay the taxes on your car,house, or food, that’s a state and local tax. In fact, state and local taxes have gone UP because the federal government can no longer send money to municipalities for stuff like police officers, firemen, and education: the states/cities have to make up for this lost revenue or cut services. Why? See conservative principal #1 and how there is now no fiscal responsibility!! In fact, the tax burden (as a percentage of total federal income taxes paid) of the middle class has expanded under Bush!

Lastly, the media is NOT liberal (usually this refers to broadcast media). Republicans have been crying about this for the last two decades. It’s a simple method used by coaches in sports: it’s called working the ref. They yell and yell and insult until the ref/media cowers. Look at any of the broadcast media: they’re owned buy huge coorporate interests!! Huge coorporate interests that overwhelming donate to the Republican party (opensecrets.org)! Look how GE, Westinghouse, and News Inc donate to the Republicans. Look at the coorporations that ADVERTISE on the networks: they overwhelming donate to the Republican party. There are only three categories that donate overwhelmingly to Democrats: Labor, Lawyers, and Entertainment. I hate to burst your bubble, but Entertainment, does NOT include GE and Westinghouse and certainly does NOT include the newsrooms (plus, look at some of the news orgs inside the Entertainment subsection: they give about 50-50 to the parties with Fox News…well you know how they lean). Here is the most profound thing you’ll hear from this paragraph: THE NEWS MEDIA IS NOT LIBERALLY BIASED, BUT PROFIT BIASED (thanks Al). They will report anything that will turn a profit (and not report if it will hurt the bottomline). What other proof do I have? CNN/FOX, et al, did not question our war in Iraq!! Where was this so-called liberal media when they never really questioned the motives and most importantly, THE EVIDENCE of Iraqi connections to Bin Laden and WMD?!?! I don’t want to toot my own horn, but before the war began: I REALIZED THAT IRAQI WMD AND AL-QUAEDA CONNECTIONS WERE A RED HERRING!! Look at my website: click on the “Journal Link” then go down to the March 12/13, 2003. If you had been reading international news in addition to blogs and the Knight-Ridder news service (Reuters, AP, and the Rev. Moon owned UPI also failed to report this stuff), you would have realized that there was no nuclear program, that there were no connections to Al-Qaeda, and that if there were bio/chem weapons in Iraq, why didn’t he use them against us in the last 13 years? WHY DIDN”T THEY ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND GIVE THESE PITIFUL REASONS FOR WAR ANY SCRUTINY? The thing is: They didn’t!!! How dare you accuse the media of being liberal when they utterly failed to do their job and became a mouthpiece of the administration.

I will say this: I have respect for the traditional conservative political philosophy because it’s well developed and cohesive (I disagree with some of its tenets, but that’s…just politics), BUT I GIVE NO QUARTER TO THOSE WHO SUPPORT NEO-CONSERVATIVES. People who support this president and its administration are intellectually lazy or are voting for Bush out of personal gain. I don’t know who you are voting for or if you’re voting: just remember George Bush is NOT a conservative. If you want an alternate view, and in my opinion, a more comprehensive vision of our future, go to johnkerry.com and look up his views. Also, listen to the media with a better understanding of their motive, and take Republican/Democrat smears with a grain of salt. However, I categorically say that those who vote for Bush are WRONG !!! A traditional conservative SHOULD NOT support this administration. Thank you. Maybe next time, I will tell you why voting for Kerry is RIGHT for a conservative..