Issue:DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005�:

Specific:"Iraq's Shiite majority community said Friday that they had collected one million signatures demanding the withdrawal of US-led troops."

Comment: Mr. President - does this mean we are being asked to leave Iraq by Iraqi's? If not, who then is the legitimate party to make the request - Is it only the people the CPA appointed?

Issue:Blogcritics.org: Star Trek's James Doohan Dies:

Specific: "I believe Star Trek has always been about more than distant planets and strange looking aliens and lovely space sirens to whom Kirk can make love because he is the bold starship captain, a Caesar of the stars. No, I think the true and underlying reason for the mission is to find God. Why has the human race always looked to the stars? Because there is hope in the infinite reaches of space, the endless and inconceivable expanse between galaxies, and the unimaginable touch of time, all of which insinuate the existence of a creator. "

Comment:This is perhaps the best phrasing of the meaning of Star Trek. Perhaps this is the value of Star Trek!

Can I find God in the Mission from the Great Bird - Gene Roddenberry?
A spirituality with God that is accepted by the rest of society?
Or is such a faith doomed to be classified as akin to a druid or wicken - something not of a real belief system?

Issue:9 out of 10 teens on the Internet - is the banner head line - as if this is a concern to Matt Drudge:

Specific: "That's an increase of about 38 percent, compared with 2000 results."

Comment: Two things to note from this piece. First was the source of the hyperlink. This article was a hyperlink from the Drudge Report on 7/28/2005 at 10:22am Eastern time. Because it was a headline - it was very suggestive to me.

It suggested that I should be concerned about teens being on the internet. I asked myself why? Given that the Drudge report leans right, Santorum right, it suggested an exposure to things they should not be.

This raises an observation and a curiosity about the internet and the political right. I suspect that many who don't understand or use the internet and are of a right persuasion, believe that it is full of pornography. This is disappointing and depressing as a programmer.

On the upside however, the potential of a Massively Mulitplayer Online Game or a MMOG that has real world ties maybe high and politically valuable. Imagine a story game that awards points and powers for real-world/Real-time information. The more informed citizen like activities, the higher the point value. Say voting in an election getting the highest points...Volunteering to clean up a highway on an afternoon get so many points to vanquishing the evil dictator.

More on this another time - watch for it.

Issue:Sunnis Suspend Participation in Iraqi Constitution Panel - New York Times

Comment:Can you spell "Civil War"?

Issue:CNN.com - Bush vows to fire anyone who committed crime in CIA leak - Jul 18, 2005:

Specific:"...if anyone committed a crime in connection with the leak..."

Comment: Just like the House Republicans did with Tom Delay. Change the rules of the game. The ends justfiy the means. Karl Rove is an untouchable. It change from anyone "involved" to "committed a crime" or next convicted of a crime.

Hell, The Presidents administration covered this up for 2 years already. The President had to have known this much before this point.

And we are to believe him about WMD?

Issue:GOP.com | Republican National Committee :: Joe Wilson's Top Ten Worst Inaccuracies And Misstatements:

Specific:There is no specific thing to highlight

Comment:The thing to note is that question of who is leader, who is accountable? Joe Wilson (accurate or not) was attempting to question a policy that lead to a war that has killed thousands - some patriots, some innocent citizens of Iraqi.

And now this is twice, when the veracity or credibility of the President is very open to questions. Initially he very clearly that Rove had ANY participation in the Plame affair. There is also the assertion in the State of the Union that WMD existed.

Joe Wilson may have lied. The President may have lied. Rove may have lied. But of the three who is supposed to be accountable? Does the size of the lie make a difference?

Certainly the position from which the deception originated make the "size of the lie" bigger and more significant.

Issue:GOP.com | Republican National Committee :: In Case You Missed It: Karl Rove, Whistleblower:

Specific:"For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real 'whistleblower' in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove. "


Comment:This is logical. But it is also spin. It is this kind of argument that defines the need for an informed Citizen to have some sort of Decision Support System.

Issue:Past White House Briefings on C.I.A. Leak Case - New York Times:

Specific from 9/30/2003 - 2 years ago:
"Q. Have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him
A. Listen, I know of nobody - I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing."


Comment: Supports the notion of power for the sake of power alone. Easily as bad a Nixon. He is covering up an illegal act. There is no evidence that is all. Republicans chased Bill Clinton for 8 years with Ken Starr and WhiteWater. When it is their own boy, Republicans look past it. Just ask Tom Delay.

Issues:Why Bush Has To Fire Rove - Yahoo! News:

Specific: " Either Rove knew that he was revealing an undercover officer to a reporter or he was identifying a CIA officer without bothering to check on her status and without considering the consequences of outing her. Take your pick: in both scenarios Rove is acting in a reckless and cavalier fashion, ignoring the national security interests of the nation to score a political point against a policy foe.
This ought to get Rove fired--unless he resigns first."

Comment:Bush is too loyal to his Friends. Bush puts friendship above national security. Above all else.

Just ask Condi who got the WMD wrong.
Ask Rumsfeld who got the post-Saddam Iraq wrong.
And there are more...

Issue:WSJ.com - Cooper Email Identifies Rove As a Source:

Specific" "After a week of seemingly contradictory reports, one fact appears to have solidified: Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and architect of President Bush's election victories, was a key confidential source used by Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper in his July 2003 article about a Central Intelligence Agency operative."

Comment:Guess who will get a "walk" - and on a "technicality" - the kind of thing Republicans used to complain about.

Issue:Terrorism: Goals and Responses:

Specific:"Islamofascist actions might be tactically motivated by a real or alleged injury of the objects of their emotional identification. Strategically, however, these battles are only a detail of a war. It is aimed in its first stage at reestablishing control over whatever Islam might have controlled or had claimed historically."

Comment:This is a truly unique perspective. The concern is that he ignores 9/11 and America. Why bring America into the battle either tactically or strategically? What is the advantage to fighting America now?

This is characteristic of conservative writings.
It leaves me with more questions, rather than making me feel I understand and maybe agree with the perspective.

I will not agree with or go along with a perspective that I don't understand.
One of many reasons to go along with any perspective is the abscence of questions and or concerns.

The 9/11 hole in this writer's logic is too big a question for me.

Issue:Bush finds no friends at networks -- The Washington Times:

Specific:"President Bush just can't win with the broadcast networks.
More than two-thirds of the news stories on ABC, NBC and CBS covering the first 100 days of Mr. Bush's second term were negative, according to an analysis released today by the District-based Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). "

Comment: This is propaganda. It is slanted because it does not evaluate the legitimacy and accuracy of the negative stories.

Where is the quantification of actually negative stories. Example: The story of the President falling off his bike at the G8 conference. The only way to "spin" this story into a positive is to not report the story or dismiss it as irrelevant.

So is the story of the President falling to be counted as a "negative story"
So is the story dismissing the original story as irrelevant to be counted as "negative"

Objectivity or scientific rationality is one method of reducing partisanship.

Issue: CNN.com - Al Qaeda 'targeting UK recruits' - Jul 9, 2005:

Specific:"'Extremists are known to target schools and colleges where young people may be very inquisitive but less challenging and more susceptible to extremist reason/arguments,' the report says, according to the newspaper"

Comment:Some of the talking heads immediately following the London Bombing indicated a disbelief that message was for something in response to London getting the Olympic. They indicated that the preparation time was too short for such a complicated effort.
This is reasonable and I agree

They indicated that it was intended to make some kind of commentary on the Financial system or sectors.
This also seems reasonable and I agree

They also indicated that the patterns were designed for maximum damage. It was intended to create a maximum body count.
This I'm not certain I agree.

What about Live8?
If the terrorists wanted a message to get out - with the world watching that concert
Why was there not an attack on the concert?

The lack of an attack on Live8 supports a couple of notions.
It supports the notions of Tom Friedman that Al Queada and/or the Terrorist Bombers are a response to American/Western activities in the Middle East.

It supports the notion that they are discipline and intelligent - and therefore can be reasoned with.
Peace can be had, as England acheived with the IRA of Ireland.

It supports the notion that a motivation of Al Qaeda is a humiliation factor.

I cannot be more emphatic about this next point.
The Bombings in London, 9/11 or the attacks in Madrid or Bali are the most horrific and terrible acts.
These kinds of things must be stopped. No doubt. No Hesitation.
America should be protected.

The Terrorist cannot be defeated unless we can think as they think.
My doubts lie in the ability to defeat anything that is not understood completely.
The Bush Administration policy suggests it believes it does understand.
The Bush Administration policy suggests it is simple as Evil.
Defeat Evil and you win.
And the circle continues.
And the war continues.
The perpetual war.
The never ending war.

America is then protected by transforming into a culture of war
Who has won?

Issue:Rush-Hour Strike Wounds Up to 1,000; Blair Sees G-8 Link - New York Times:

Specific:"...No arrests have been made. The attacks were 'deliberately designed to kill and injure innocent members of the public,' Brian Paddick, London's assistant police commissioner said in a news conference"

Comment:"Barbaric" is appropriate. On the highest order.

Some observations
- Barbarians are not defeated with more or different violence.
- London was physically geared to Terrorist
- sepcifically from the Irish Terrorist
- the "Circle of Steel"
- Camera's focused on every square inch of the city

Yet despite the focus - it still happened
American ports are not secure
American chemical facilities are not secure
The President's air space has been violated a number of times in the past couple of months
Only one party is in charge.
And they are spending BILLIONS in a war that had NO TIES to Terrorism.

It is not unlike the scopes Monkey trial and the play "Inherit the Wind"
The event and the play may have served to refocus attention or to reset the perceptions of what is really the concern.

The perception or point of the play is to draw the attention to McCarthyism. The definitions of the war, and the dangers need to be reassessed. "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror" and Tom Friedman's essay's and columns indicate the kinds of things we should be focused on.

Issue:NPR : Attacks on Cooper, Miller are Attacks on Press:

Specific:"NPR Senior News Analyst Daniel Schorr says that the case of Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller, two journalists ordered to reveal confidential sources, amounts to a full-fledged attack on the press."


Comment:The logic he uses is quite reasonable. According to the Government - 3 writers know who made the leak.
2 have cooperated with the government. Yet, the Republican controlled Government is putting the 3rd into jail.

The obeservation is that they are not seeking the truth. They are seeking to punish.

Is there a reason to pursue the rule of law once the truth is known and justice is served? What relevant information could the third writer have that is not in the record already?

Issue:Supervisor makes change from Republican to Democrat (phillyBurbs.com):

Specific: "Fawkes hadn't heard of Eisenhardt's announcement until contacted by a reporter. 'She was a registered Republican, but acted like a Democrat,' Fawkes said. 'I don't pay that much attention to what she does. "

Comment:Good Stuff!

Issue:How Quantum Physics Can Teach Biologists About Evolution - New York Times

Specific: "It is evolution's acceptance of nature as the only true scientific authority and its capacity to fall in the face of a more effective explanation that make evolution science, far more than its mere correctness"

Comment:This illustrates a characteristic of typical of the Republican Neo-Con that make them unique and not part of the traditional GOP mindset.

It is the RIGIDITY. The article itself make a beautifully reasoned and logical point about science. The point that science is capable of learning and adjusting a mindset.

The Religious right and or the Republican Neo-Con's cannot and do not allow change in dogma. This is why Alberto Gonzales - GW's best friend - is getting static from the right. This is what makes them dangerous.

The Neo-con's are into power for sake of the power.
The Religious right are into power for the sake of God.