In 1988, a hoax created quite a stir in Australia. A man named Luis Alvarez claimed that after a motorcycle accident, he was able to channel an ancient person into his consciousness and allow this individual to speak through him. Carlos, as he called himself, had the wisdom of the ages it appeared, speaking in generalities about truths that are common among people, he quickly developed a following in Australia, including members of the press who helped promote his little budding religion.
What was interesting about this hoax, is that it was the brainchild of skeptic James Randi with the objective of showing just how gullible and susceptible people are to a hoax of this nature. Discussing the charlatans out there that would prey upon us, Sagan made some rather prophetic observations back in 1996.
“Most of these figures are only after your money. That’s the good news. But what worries me is that a Carlos will come along with bigger fish to fry- attractive, commanding, patriotic, exuding leadership. All of us long for a competent, uncorrupt, charismatic leader. We will leap at the opportunity to support, to believe, to feel good. Most reporters, editors and producers-swept up with the rest of us- will shy away from real skeptical scrutiny. He won’t be selling you prayers or crystals or tears. Perhaps he’ll be selling you a war, or a scapegoat, or a much more all-encompassing bundle of beliefs than Carlos’s. Whatever it is, it will be accompanied by warnings about the dangers of skepticism.”
To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel, “where have you gone, Carl Sagan, our nation turns it’s lonely eyes to you……
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Tooele County Convention Update
The Democratic party of Tooele County held their convention last night, and despite no contests to be voted on, there was quite a few people in attendance. A lot of the regulars who have devoted so much time to the Tooele County party were in attendance and it is always good to see them.
It was good to see and hear from many fine candidates for public office. Bob Springmeyer, candidate for Governor made it, and gave a fine speech, as did Morgan Bowen, candidate for Congress. One of my favorite speeches was given by Jean Welch Hill, who took it to our lackluster, but pro-bluster, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. She seems to have the fire to make it an interesting race.
One suggestion I’d give to Bob Springmeyer, is that he bring with him to each speech a ribbon to cut, a baby to kiss and a camera to pose in front of. If he is going to run against Jon Huntsman jr. he needs to learn the implements of the trade. Or I suppose, he could do what he is doing, and just address Utah’s pressing issues. Naw, it’ll never work.
It was good to see and hear from many fine candidates for public office. Bob Springmeyer, candidate for Governor made it, and gave a fine speech, as did Morgan Bowen, candidate for Congress. One of my favorite speeches was given by Jean Welch Hill, who took it to our lackluster, but pro-bluster, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. She seems to have the fire to make it an interesting race.
One suggestion I’d give to Bob Springmeyer, is that he bring with him to each speech a ribbon to cut, a baby to kiss and a camera to pose in front of. If he is going to run against Jon Huntsman jr. he needs to learn the implements of the trade. Or I suppose, he could do what he is doing, and just address Utah’s pressing issues. Naw, it’ll never work.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton and the "Low Road to Defeat"
Congrats Hillary. You damaged Obama and took Pennsylvania. In ways, she dregged up the past to defeat the future. It is true, that industrialists have used african-americans, desperate for jobs, as scabs in the past. In the rust belt of Pennsylvania, the idea of voting for a black man still has a certain repugnancy. Hillary preyed into that. Congrats Hillary. You've taken the low road to a nomination that would result in your defeat in a general election.
I have come to lose a certain amount of respect for Hillary Clinton. Admittedly, she is formidable, well-informed and tenacious. But now, I saw how morally bankrupt she truly is when she claimed to have won the popular vote, when all of the other Democratic candidates agreed to NOT campaign in Mighigan and Florida, yet she counts their votes.
Hillary to me seems to have a sense of entitlement to the Democratic nomination, and she would rather have John McCain be President than see her own personal goals set aside.
I no longer feel that Hillary Clinton is someone who should be trusted with the future of our country. I know for a fact, that John McCain, and his newborn conservative lafferesque, neocon nonsense is sustainable nor less prudent. The only future our Republic has, is for an Obama Presidency.
The only caveat I would provide, is that a McCain Presidency with a Democratic Senate and House, might actually be workable for four years. But I'm not sure our Republic can afford another four years of Republican judicial appointments. co
Come on Obama, finish it off, and tell this entitled former first lady, that she may be smart, and politically savvy, but she is not what our nation needs or wants. And to my blue-collar Democratic friends who vote for Clinton, I encourage you to face the music. Your votes for Hillary is a vote for McCain. Your votes will ensure your demise. Blue-collar democrats in Pennsylvania didn't shoot themselves in the foot, they shot themselves in the temple. Great job.
I have come to lose a certain amount of respect for Hillary Clinton. Admittedly, she is formidable, well-informed and tenacious. But now, I saw how morally bankrupt she truly is when she claimed to have won the popular vote, when all of the other Democratic candidates agreed to NOT campaign in Mighigan and Florida, yet she counts their votes.
Hillary to me seems to have a sense of entitlement to the Democratic nomination, and she would rather have John McCain be President than see her own personal goals set aside.
I no longer feel that Hillary Clinton is someone who should be trusted with the future of our country. I know for a fact, that John McCain, and his newborn conservative lafferesque, neocon nonsense is sustainable nor less prudent. The only future our Republic has, is for an Obama Presidency.
The only caveat I would provide, is that a McCain Presidency with a Democratic Senate and House, might actually be workable for four years. But I'm not sure our Republic can afford another four years of Republican judicial appointments. co
Come on Obama, finish it off, and tell this entitled former first lady, that she may be smart, and politically savvy, but she is not what our nation needs or wants. And to my blue-collar Democratic friends who vote for Clinton, I encourage you to face the music. Your votes for Hillary is a vote for McCain. Your votes will ensure your demise. Blue-collar democrats in Pennsylvania didn't shoot themselves in the foot, they shot themselves in the temple. Great job.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Think Global/Act Local- Green Objectives for 2008
With Earth day upon us, it is always a good idea to review some of my objectives for the year and welcome suggestions from fellow bloggers on how to do my share to help the environment. Below are my Top 15 green objectives for the year.
1- 20% increase in my use of mass transit over last year during the same periods.
2- Carpool as often as possible with others to reduce harmful emissions and save money.
3- Plant a larger garden and better utilize the harvest of the garden to reduce our purchases of products that will need to be shipped vast distances. Share excess harvest with friends and neighbors.
4- Utilize local farmer’s markets to meet some of the same objectives as #2.
5- Increase consumption of vegetables, fruits and whole grains while reducing the consumption of red meat.
6- Plant additional trees and shrubs in my yard and ensure that they are wildlife friendly.
7- Plant additional flowering perennials in my yard that will provide habitat for pollinators such as bumble bees, hummingbirds and hawkmoths.
8- Plant two additional fruit trees that will in the future meet some of the same objectives as in #2.
9- Take fewer long trips, keeping our vacation activities reasonably local.
10- Continue to recycle newspapers and aluminum cans.
11- Utilize re-usable shopping bags for groceries and other items.
12- Ensure the seafood I eat is eco-friendly, coming from sustainable fisheries.
13- Allow as many seed-bearing perennials as possible to go to seed and make them available for wintering seed-eating birds such as finches, chickadees and juncos.
14- Continue to utilize certain areas of my yard for xeric plants that require little to no water.
15- Continue to compost garden and kitchen wastes to recycle these wastes into my vegetable garden.
I certainly welcome other suggestions.
1- 20% increase in my use of mass transit over last year during the same periods.
2- Carpool as often as possible with others to reduce harmful emissions and save money.
3- Plant a larger garden and better utilize the harvest of the garden to reduce our purchases of products that will need to be shipped vast distances. Share excess harvest with friends and neighbors.
4- Utilize local farmer’s markets to meet some of the same objectives as #2.
5- Increase consumption of vegetables, fruits and whole grains while reducing the consumption of red meat.
6- Plant additional trees and shrubs in my yard and ensure that they are wildlife friendly.
7- Plant additional flowering perennials in my yard that will provide habitat for pollinators such as bumble bees, hummingbirds and hawkmoths.
8- Plant two additional fruit trees that will in the future meet some of the same objectives as in #2.
9- Take fewer long trips, keeping our vacation activities reasonably local.
10- Continue to recycle newspapers and aluminum cans.
11- Utilize re-usable shopping bags for groceries and other items.
12- Ensure the seafood I eat is eco-friendly, coming from sustainable fisheries.
13- Allow as many seed-bearing perennials as possible to go to seed and make them available for wintering seed-eating birds such as finches, chickadees and juncos.
14- Continue to utilize certain areas of my yard for xeric plants that require little to no water.
15- Continue to compost garden and kitchen wastes to recycle these wastes into my vegetable garden.
I certainly welcome other suggestions.
Friday, April 18, 2008
KSL.com, the local propaganda network
I sent KSL.com the following e-mail, but was given a message that it "couldn't be received because I don't have a current account with them. I don't have a current account with them because the kicked me out!!!!! My account has been suspended so they asked me if I had any questions to e-mail them, but I guess they didn't want to hear from me. So below is my ill-faited email to the nincompoops at KSL.com.
"Why would I be suspended as Obi wan liberali? It shows a level of intellectual weakness that is embarrassing. That dissent to the majority point of view that you seem to support reduces your credibility as an organization. If KSL is only open to those who agree with your corporate position, you guys aren't a news organization, but one based upon an objective of propaganda.
BTW, I have never had any reason articulated to me via e-mail explaining why I would have my account be suspended. Are you only open to one point of view? If so, I call into question whether KSL should be taken seriously as a source of news because you are clearly biased.
I welcome your response.
"Why would I be suspended as Obi wan liberali? It shows a level of intellectual weakness that is embarrassing. That dissent to the majority point of view that you seem to support reduces your credibility as an organization. If KSL is only open to those who agree with your corporate position, you guys aren't a news organization, but one based upon an objective of propaganda.
BTW, I have never had any reason articulated to me via e-mail explaining why I would have my account be suspended. Are you only open to one point of view? If so, I call into question whether KSL should be taken seriously as a source of news because you are clearly biased.
I welcome your response.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Book Review- The One Percent Doctrine
"The One Percent Doctrine" by Ron Suskind is a very compelling book. Addressing the Bush Administration's reactions to the events on 9/11/2001, it provides a detailed and very interesting analysis of what transpired within the intelligence community. To the CIA, the success of Al Qaeda's attack was a groin shot to their service, and there was a tremendous effort to find and kill Al Qaeda operatives. You can tell by the narrative that Suskind admired many within the CIA, Tenet in particular, whom he characterizes as a tragic victim of the ethically challenged Bush cronies.
The basic thesis the book addresses is ultimately the driving force behind the Bush Administration, namekly, "the Cheney doctrine". This notion, of considering a one percent probability threat as if it were a certainty, came to define U.S. foreign policy after 9/11. The implications behind the Cheney doctrine are quite alarming, but very explanatory towards the behavior of the Bush administration. That a country like Iraq, that had never attacked the U.S., could by atleast potentially being a threat, be invaded by the United States shows the degree to which the Cheney doctrine resonated within the administration.
On an individual level, the doctrine also resonated. That detainees, by their just their potentially being a threat, were subjected to that detainment without legal recourse, or were potentially subjected to torture. Americans could be spied upon, because they are a potential threat. The Geneva conventions could be ignored on the basis of potential threat. Any uncertainty, could be used as the basis for unlawful actions by an out of control executive branch. All in the guise of keeping us safe!
Cheney, a long-time believer in an imperial Presidency, used the 9/11 attacks for his own agenda. "The One Percent Doctrine" is the story of how it all came to be. Suskind's admiration for the ground-level intelligence officers contrasts sharply against his disdain for the Bush administration.
The picture Suskind paints of George W. Bush, is one of a weak President who was easily led by strong-willed subordinates. In this regard, his analysis is consistent with many other authors such as Thomas Ricks in the book "Fiasco." Despite the tough talk, Bush is ultimately ruled by his gut, and his gut usually went with whoever sounded the most sure of themselves. In the immortal words of Carl Sagan, "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain.....is likely to get me into trouble." In the words of Bill Engvald, "there's your sign."
Suskind is to be commended for putting together this book. I suspect that 100 years from now, when people try to understand the tragedy that was the Bush administration, Suskind's book will be one of the first to be examined as well as Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. Our nation's collective over-reaction to the attacks on 9/11/2001 have undermined our Republic in ways that may take the hindsight of history to fully appreciate. Suskind does an admirable job of examining the period as a contemporary. A very important and significant book.
The basic thesis the book addresses is ultimately the driving force behind the Bush Administration, namekly, "the Cheney doctrine". This notion, of considering a one percent probability threat as if it were a certainty, came to define U.S. foreign policy after 9/11. The implications behind the Cheney doctrine are quite alarming, but very explanatory towards the behavior of the Bush administration. That a country like Iraq, that had never attacked the U.S., could by atleast potentially being a threat, be invaded by the United States shows the degree to which the Cheney doctrine resonated within the administration.
On an individual level, the doctrine also resonated. That detainees, by their just their potentially being a threat, were subjected to that detainment without legal recourse, or were potentially subjected to torture. Americans could be spied upon, because they are a potential threat. The Geneva conventions could be ignored on the basis of potential threat. Any uncertainty, could be used as the basis for unlawful actions by an out of control executive branch. All in the guise of keeping us safe!
Cheney, a long-time believer in an imperial Presidency, used the 9/11 attacks for his own agenda. "The One Percent Doctrine" is the story of how it all came to be. Suskind's admiration for the ground-level intelligence officers contrasts sharply against his disdain for the Bush administration.
The picture Suskind paints of George W. Bush, is one of a weak President who was easily led by strong-willed subordinates. In this regard, his analysis is consistent with many other authors such as Thomas Ricks in the book "Fiasco." Despite the tough talk, Bush is ultimately ruled by his gut, and his gut usually went with whoever sounded the most sure of themselves. In the immortal words of Carl Sagan, "I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain.....is likely to get me into trouble." In the words of Bill Engvald, "there's your sign."
Suskind is to be commended for putting together this book. I suspect that 100 years from now, when people try to understand the tragedy that was the Bush administration, Suskind's book will be one of the first to be examined as well as Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. Our nation's collective over-reaction to the attacks on 9/11/2001 have undermined our Republic in ways that may take the hindsight of history to fully appreciate. Suskind does an admirable job of examining the period as a contemporary. A very important and significant book.
Friday, April 11, 2008
War Criminals Among Us
Remembering the Nuremberg trials that occurred at the end of World War II, I find it illustrative to look at the main charges.
1.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2.Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3.War crimes
4.Crimes against humanity
On one and two, looking at the efforts of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith to not only look for the justification to go to war with Iraq, but to sell evidence they knew to be highly suspect to the general public and the legislative branch, suggests conspiracy, planning, initiating and ultimately waging an unprovoked war of aggression. George W. Bush’s complicity in this crime is quite well documented as well. When George Tenet presented the evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda and with weapons of mass destruction, his response was “is this all there is?” Tenet then put the noose around his own neck when he said, “slam dunk.”
On the first two counts under Nuremberg, I would have to say that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and possibly Condi Rice and Colin Powell would be subject to indictment with a high probability of successful prosecution under Nuremberg.
As for the latter two counts, the rejection of the Geneva Accords (treaties signed by the United States), would constitute a crime against humanity, as would the use of torture, extraordinary rendition and detainment without recourse. In my opinion many in the Bush Administration are indictable under the third and fourth counts at Nuremberg. Accessories to these counts would be the legal advisors who provided the legal justification for violation of the Geneva Accords as well as torture. As a result, John Yoo and David Addington would also be indicted under under Nuremberg three and four.
Because the United States has the most powerful military in the world, these charges will never be made. But in a theoretical world where we are the loser of the war, under the rules of Nuremberg, would Bush and much of his administration be convicted as war criminals? Would an independent Robert Jackson willingly prosecute Bush and his cronies? That is an interesting question. In my opinion, he would.
The administration of George W. Bush has so soiled what our country should be about, that previous generations of Americans would be ashamed if they lived to see it. Those who have enabled and supported this behavior are also culpable. To the flag waving enablers of war criminals, I say repent. Admit what you did, confess your sin, and promise that you will never support the lawless war-mongering neocon world view again. We have descended to a level of barbarism that leaves our rhetoric regarding human rights and liberty impotent in the world. American exceptionalism and hypocrisy has seriously undermined not only who we are, but who others see us as.
Is the Bush Administration as bad as Nazi Germany? Certainly not. But the fact that plausible comparisons can be made between Bush Administration actions and the Nuremberg charges, should atleast give us pause.
1.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crime against peace
2.Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3.War crimes
4.Crimes against humanity
On one and two, looking at the efforts of Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith to not only look for the justification to go to war with Iraq, but to sell evidence they knew to be highly suspect to the general public and the legislative branch, suggests conspiracy, planning, initiating and ultimately waging an unprovoked war of aggression. George W. Bush’s complicity in this crime is quite well documented as well. When George Tenet presented the evidence linking Iraq with Al Qaeda and with weapons of mass destruction, his response was “is this all there is?” Tenet then put the noose around his own neck when he said, “slam dunk.”
On the first two counts under Nuremberg, I would have to say that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and possibly Condi Rice and Colin Powell would be subject to indictment with a high probability of successful prosecution under Nuremberg.
As for the latter two counts, the rejection of the Geneva Accords (treaties signed by the United States), would constitute a crime against humanity, as would the use of torture, extraordinary rendition and detainment without recourse. In my opinion many in the Bush Administration are indictable under the third and fourth counts at Nuremberg. Accessories to these counts would be the legal advisors who provided the legal justification for violation of the Geneva Accords as well as torture. As a result, John Yoo and David Addington would also be indicted under under Nuremberg three and four.
Because the United States has the most powerful military in the world, these charges will never be made. But in a theoretical world where we are the loser of the war, under the rules of Nuremberg, would Bush and much of his administration be convicted as war criminals? Would an independent Robert Jackson willingly prosecute Bush and his cronies? That is an interesting question. In my opinion, he would.
The administration of George W. Bush has so soiled what our country should be about, that previous generations of Americans would be ashamed if they lived to see it. Those who have enabled and supported this behavior are also culpable. To the flag waving enablers of war criminals, I say repent. Admit what you did, confess your sin, and promise that you will never support the lawless war-mongering neocon world view again. We have descended to a level of barbarism that leaves our rhetoric regarding human rights and liberty impotent in the world. American exceptionalism and hypocrisy has seriously undermined not only who we are, but who others see us as.
Is the Bush Administration as bad as Nazi Germany? Certainly not. But the fact that plausible comparisons can be made between Bush Administration actions and the Nuremberg charges, should atleast give us pause.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
The Flag Banned in St. George
During the last couple of days, I was down in St. George representing a financial institution I have an affilation with. I got up in the morning and put on some shorts, looking forward to a charity golf tournament I would participate in behalf of that financial institution. However, the temperature in the morning was a bit colder than I had anticipated, and I decided to put on some jeans. Showing up at the Entrada golf course, I was instructed that my presence was not welcome, unless I went back to my hotel and put on something that wasn't, denim related. Wow! My financial institution is working in tandem with this golf course and donating mucho dinero to a worthy cause, and I am instructed to go back to my hotel room and get some dockers, ironically made of the same fiber, cotton, that is contained in denim.
I did so, but I came to wonder, what is behind this nonsense? Is golf a sport, or just a game. If you are worried about dress code, I would suggest that if golf is a sport, it is a wussy sport. I was irritated, but frankly, because the event benefited native americans, and hey, the young ladies who were native americans melted my heart (they were cute, sincere and man they had amazing apparel on them)I rolled with the punches and played the game. It was a wonderful event. I got a free golf clinic from Johny Miller and I met some wonderful people. But I still am irritated that cotton colored in a certain color and texture is somehow considered unworthy by the log cabin association of St. George, because frankly, that is both gay and Republican, to be so worried about apparel and appearances. Gasp, I played poorly, given this was my first golf outing of the year. But I had fun and felt good participating in a good cause, and relished playing a beautiful course.
But then the next morning I played with some associates at Coral Canyon. Another incredible Utah golf course, which has some really tough holes. I showed up with my previously unused jeans, as well as a U.S. teeshirt with the flag prominently showing on it. And, guess what? On our fifth hole, my threesome was approached by the marshall, whom I graciously acknowledged, and was told that my flag centered teeshirt was not up to code and that only collared shirts were allowed on the prestigious Coral Canyon golf course.
O for two. I must not be much of a dresser. My flag dressed teeshirt means I am not a "gentleman" but riffraff worthy of expulsion. Well, they didn't go that far because I committed that at the turn, I'd put on a collared shirt. So after nine holes on this prestigious and fashion conscious golf course, I went into the gift shop and bought a shirt. Luckily, an associate I was playing with thought that such an expenditure was "business related" and put it on the company credit card. So I now have a new shirt, that I am actually wearing as I write this.
I love golf. There is nothing more therapeutic than smacking the hell out of a little white ball. My co-workers and subordinates will thank my financial institution for giving me this opportunity to smack that cursed ball. But my lord guys. If you want golf to be a sport, it ought to act and smell like one. "Gentle" men aren't men as in the "golf defintion", they are fashion conscious, status seeking, girly men who mistake status for manhood. Manhood is about being! Status is about perceiving! There is too little manhood in Utah, and as I found out the hard way, there is too little manhood in St. George.
Get real girly men. Just saying.
I did so, but I came to wonder, what is behind this nonsense? Is golf a sport, or just a game. If you are worried about dress code, I would suggest that if golf is a sport, it is a wussy sport. I was irritated, but frankly, because the event benefited native americans, and hey, the young ladies who were native americans melted my heart (they were cute, sincere and man they had amazing apparel on them)I rolled with the punches and played the game. It was a wonderful event. I got a free golf clinic from Johny Miller and I met some wonderful people. But I still am irritated that cotton colored in a certain color and texture is somehow considered unworthy by the log cabin association of St. George, because frankly, that is both gay and Republican, to be so worried about apparel and appearances. Gasp, I played poorly, given this was my first golf outing of the year. But I had fun and felt good participating in a good cause, and relished playing a beautiful course.
But then the next morning I played with some associates at Coral Canyon. Another incredible Utah golf course, which has some really tough holes. I showed up with my previously unused jeans, as well as a U.S. teeshirt with the flag prominently showing on it. And, guess what? On our fifth hole, my threesome was approached by the marshall, whom I graciously acknowledged, and was told that my flag centered teeshirt was not up to code and that only collared shirts were allowed on the prestigious Coral Canyon golf course.
O for two. I must not be much of a dresser. My flag dressed teeshirt means I am not a "gentleman" but riffraff worthy of expulsion. Well, they didn't go that far because I committed that at the turn, I'd put on a collared shirt. So after nine holes on this prestigious and fashion conscious golf course, I went into the gift shop and bought a shirt. Luckily, an associate I was playing with thought that such an expenditure was "business related" and put it on the company credit card. So I now have a new shirt, that I am actually wearing as I write this.
I love golf. There is nothing more therapeutic than smacking the hell out of a little white ball. My co-workers and subordinates will thank my financial institution for giving me this opportunity to smack that cursed ball. But my lord guys. If you want golf to be a sport, it ought to act and smell like one. "Gentle" men aren't men as in the "golf defintion", they are fashion conscious, status seeking, girly men who mistake status for manhood. Manhood is about being! Status is about perceiving! There is too little manhood in Utah, and as I found out the hard way, there is too little manhood in St. George.
Get real girly men. Just saying.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Misreading Cheney and Bush
I was going through my files last night when I stumbled upon an essay I wrote back in January of 2001. This was before I even knew what a blog was, but I wrote personal essays at the time. As someone with an "addiction to rightness", this essay really struck me. Check out this quote
“On the bright side, Bush atleast has an experienced and capable Vice President. Though I’ve been very concerned about a general lack of sophistication coming from our new President, Cheney has always impressed me as someone who is pretty level-headed. He’s certainly more conservative than I am, but I think a simpleton like Bush will need someone with his experience and knowledge.”
What I didn’t know, was that Cheney secretly was a war-monger who would exercise complete control over the Presidency. I correctly anticipated that Bush was weak and had a lot of flaws, but in retrospect, I confused experience for wisdom when it came to Dick Cheney.
I also misread Bush on a few things as well. Here’s another quote from that January essay.
“This has been a very divisive election. I’m encouraged that Bush seems to want to help heal the divisions that pervade our nation. Though I’m concerned about Bush’s intelligence, I do sense that he is basically a good person, and as an American first, I feel it is important to give the new President a certain benefit of the doubt and hope that his Presidency will be successful.”
I cannot think of a more divisive President our nation has had than George W. Bush. I did not see that Bush was an immature, easily-led, and deceitful individual. Though concerned about his lack of sophistication, I didn’t see just how that failing would make him overly sure of himself, and therefore closed-minded. I didn’t see that his response to crisis would be to over-react, and over-extend the reach of the executive branch of government.
By 2004, I had figured Bush out much better when I wrote,
“As for a General, I find President Bush to be very decisive, but not particularly thoughtful, lacking the tactical subtlety that great military leaders generally possess. As a General, he reminds me of the Civil War Confederate John Bell Hood who recklessly attacked regardless of the strength of the opposing force and the disposition of their troops. Just as Gen. Hood wrecked his army in critical battles in Georgia and Tennessee, I fear Gen. Bush has our military over-extended, misplaced, and vulnerable. As a Commander and Chief, I expect the President to react flexibly to situations that arise and General Bush isn’t that type of leader.
Since George W. Bush was elected President, our credibility has declined internationally, our military has become over-extended, our economy has sagged and our war on terrorism has been so misplaced that it has created more enemies then allies. The war on terrorism has also caused a decline in our fundamental civil rights. These will be the legacies of the Bush Administration. Let’s be decisive in November and end this “reign of error”.”
So how did Bush put it, “fool me once”?
“On the bright side, Bush atleast has an experienced and capable Vice President. Though I’ve been very concerned about a general lack of sophistication coming from our new President, Cheney has always impressed me as someone who is pretty level-headed. He’s certainly more conservative than I am, but I think a simpleton like Bush will need someone with his experience and knowledge.”
What I didn’t know, was that Cheney secretly was a war-monger who would exercise complete control over the Presidency. I correctly anticipated that Bush was weak and had a lot of flaws, but in retrospect, I confused experience for wisdom when it came to Dick Cheney.
I also misread Bush on a few things as well. Here’s another quote from that January essay.
“This has been a very divisive election. I’m encouraged that Bush seems to want to help heal the divisions that pervade our nation. Though I’m concerned about Bush’s intelligence, I do sense that he is basically a good person, and as an American first, I feel it is important to give the new President a certain benefit of the doubt and hope that his Presidency will be successful.”
I cannot think of a more divisive President our nation has had than George W. Bush. I did not see that Bush was an immature, easily-led, and deceitful individual. Though concerned about his lack of sophistication, I didn’t see just how that failing would make him overly sure of himself, and therefore closed-minded. I didn’t see that his response to crisis would be to over-react, and over-extend the reach of the executive branch of government.
By 2004, I had figured Bush out much better when I wrote,
“As for a General, I find President Bush to be very decisive, but not particularly thoughtful, lacking the tactical subtlety that great military leaders generally possess. As a General, he reminds me of the Civil War Confederate John Bell Hood who recklessly attacked regardless of the strength of the opposing force and the disposition of their troops. Just as Gen. Hood wrecked his army in critical battles in Georgia and Tennessee, I fear Gen. Bush has our military over-extended, misplaced, and vulnerable. As a Commander and Chief, I expect the President to react flexibly to situations that arise and General Bush isn’t that type of leader.
Since George W. Bush was elected President, our credibility has declined internationally, our military has become over-extended, our economy has sagged and our war on terrorism has been so misplaced that it has created more enemies then allies. The war on terrorism has also caused a decline in our fundamental civil rights. These will be the legacies of the Bush Administration. Let’s be decisive in November and end this “reign of error”.”
So how did Bush put it, “fool me once”?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
