Issue:Could be an opportunity for VDSS - Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/22/2005 | Democrats: Machines must get vote:

Specific: "Jordan B. Yeager, an attorney for the Democratic Committee, told the commissioners at yesterday's year-end meeting in Doylestown that the state election code and the state constitution require the referendum."


Comment: Maybe a call is in order.

A Few obeservations with using a bit of emotional intelligence:

Alaska's Senator Stevens was visibly upset that the Arctic drilling amendment to a defense appropriations bill was removed. His dismay was expressed on the floor of the senate while wearing a tie for the graphic novel character - "The incredible HULK". I think that tie took away some of the impact of his message. Or was he saying I tried to sneek one passed you and I got caught? He may not know. But the tie was saying something as loudly as any of the emotion of his words. It is a shame that the clarity of his message was lost.

-------

I spend quite a bit of time thinking about the President of the United States. I want to be able to follow the emotional reasoning of his policies, words, actions. When I find myself in disagreement with someone - I look to resolve it. I think that if I can empathize with his being - "walk a mile in his shoes" it might be possible to accept him and support his policies. He only wants to do well for the country. beyond that last sentence, I start having difficulty.

It occurred to me recently, that there is at least one fundamental issue. The word "Mankind" has a different interpretation for the President from my understanding. When I think of "mankind" there is a vagueness to it. This ambiguity is derived from the fact that I cannot know or imagine all of the possibilities of what it means. I sense that the President feels he must know.

This in important because his policies involve a lot of anger and revenge. It involves physical pain. He does not see bad guys as human. The History Channel had a show on the WWI Christmas Truce. This is the real story of how ordinary foot soliders from both sides came together at Christmas for a period.

The thought is that in order for peace, this kind of activity must be imaginable. The history suggests the profitability of such sentiments. The Administration does not clarify the nature of the "evil", and therefore one cannot begin to imagine peace with "evil" - so a perpetual state of war will continue.

It suggests that this could be a motivation for the administration. Not even oil is as valuable to the administration and his supporters than a permenant state of war. No one made a buck from peace.

Peace on Earth - 'tis the season. Oh wait - even here Bill O'reilly thinks Christmas is being attacked and eeds defending. The History Channel offers yet another instructive lesson with a show on the History of Christmas. The word that comes to mind from watching the show - evolution.

Christmas in America, according to the broadcast, has not been the same since day one and has been changing. December 25th is not really the actual birth date of Jesus Christ - according to the experts in the show. According to the show it was an accomodation by the church to pagan to bring them into the "fold". It was an evangelical move of sorts. It seems there was a pagan "sun" god name Mithra who was celebrated to be born on the 25th.

The evergreen christmas tree in America was an accomodation to recent immigrants of the "old country" as another means to celebrate.

Many of the things that are considered "traditional" are not religious at all. The are habits or customs started with the design to bring people together in the cold of winter.

Bill O'Reilly would have Christmas be cast in stone and never change. This is predictable of the "conservative" mindset. Never improve, never change - is that why the President is always reminding us of how far we've come? Is it possible that he thinks America is better off with a reality of his choosing that will not change? A culture that will stagnate. A culture full of fear of the new and changing? That's the neo-con ideology. That's a culture that can be politically controlled and mainpulated for profit by the corporations and not the individual.

Issue:Credibility of the President - Spying Program Snared U.S. Calls - New York Times:

Specific:"without warrants has captured what are purely domestic communications in some cases"

Comment:What are the preventive measures to stop the President from changing the definitions of who is a threat to national security - as Richard Nixon did as part of the Watergate scandal. What is to stop the President from using the results of this power for purely domestic purposes? When does the opponent of his policy become a threat to national security?

Issue:The best explanation I've heard - What's wrong with intelligent design, and with its critics | csmonitor.com:

Specific:"Intelligent design shouldn't be taught in the science classroom any more than Ptolemaic astronomy and for exactly the same reason: They are both poor accounts of the phenomena they seek to explain and both much improved upon by other available theories."

Issue:Consequences - What Consequences? CNN.com - Transcript of Bush speech - Dec 18, 2005:


Specific: "I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss -- and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial -- yet being your president requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. "

Comment:The man does not have to face a re-election. The Judicial Branch has minds sympathetic to his political philosophy. Congress is controlled by his party. When he leaves office, he will have health care and personal protection for the rest of his life.

What consequences could he imagine? What is a threat ? He has proven time and again that he is not swayed by polls. He as indicated that he doesn't make mistakes. There is the questions about his reading/news habits. Either he is in touch with the news and lied about not reading the papers or actually is in the "Bubble" that Newsweek perceives and is not getting all the information. He has a network dedicated to spinning news to being favorable to him.

What consequences?

The line for the Mel Brooks movie "Blazing Saddles" comes to mind in combination with executive order to spy on American. "..Badges??, we don't need to stinking Badges..."


Address:http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.transcript/index.html

Issue:Material to Remember when reading about the surveillance story - George Bush and God A hot line to heaven Economist.com:

Specific: "I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president. "

Comment:To what ends will someone who holds such a belief go to identify enemies and protect what he believes needs protecting?

Evaluate the logic in the Valeire Plame story and Bob Novak's recent revelations, in combination with the President's faith and the surveillance story. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the War on Terrorism and Iraq is motivated for reasons other than the protection of the American people?

Remember, New Orleans was a democratic town, and the rebuilding is still a second tier consideration for the administration in terms of dollars. The President didn't cause it in anyway. He has not responsibility for rebuilding it - except that he pledged that he would.

The War effort is rumored to get another 150 billion dollars to the 3.1 Billion that New Orleans is getting.

What are the true motivations of this President and administration. He is having credibility issues and the logic of his policies are not synchronized to making sense.

--------------
Address: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3502861"

Issue:DRUDGE REPORT FLASH 2005: Drudge is a NEO-CON sympathizer - Is the Cold War Over?

Specific: "NYT 'SPYING' SPLASH TIED TO BOOK RELEASE
Fri Dec 16 200 11:27:16 ET

**Exclusive**

Newspaper fails to inform readers 'news break' is tied to book publication

On the front page of today's NEW YORK TIMES, national security reporter James Risen claims that 'months after the September 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States... without the court approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.'

Risen claims the White House asked the paper not to publish the article, saying that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny.

Risen claims the TIMES delayed publication of the article for a year to conduct additional reporting.

But now comes word James Risen's article is only one of many 'explosive newsbreaking' stories that can be found -- in his upcoming book -- which he turned in 3 months ago!

The paper failed to reveal the urgent story was tied to a book release and sale.

'STATE OF WAR: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration' is to be published by FREE PRESS in the coming weeks, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Carisa Hays, VP, Director of Publicity FREE PRESS, confirms the book is being published.

The book editor of Bush critic Richard Clarke [AGAINST ALL ENEMIES] signed Risen to FREE PRESS.

Developing... "


COMMENT:The observation is that Drudge is more alarmed that the NYT didn't reveal something than he is of the Federal Government not revealing something. He is more concerned about the power of the NYT, than the power of the Federal Government.

This suggests that he is less concerned about the "body politic" the individuals than the government.

A theme that I've seen else, but was less inclined to accept, is the notion that the middle class is under attack. This presentation by Mr. Drudge and this policy of surveillance combined with the Administration secretiveness suggest a social category is indeed under attack.

The elevation of concern about China's market by financial media elites supports a notion that maybe the neo-con feels that the need to clear out the American middle-class in order to make room for the rise of a Global middle-class to be dominated by foreign markets like China. Perhaps Corporate American board room feel they can maintain growth by courting the markets of the developing world - like Inda and China.

Perhaps the cold war is not over - but it simply partner have changed. Who brung ya to the dance is not who you go home with.

-----------------
Address:"http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9nyt.htm"

Issue:Credibility - Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts - New York Times

Specific: "Under a presidential order signed in 2002, the intelligence agency has monitored the international telephone calls and international e-mail messages of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people inside the United States without warrants over the past three years in an effort to track possible 'dirty numbers' linked to Al Qaeda, the officials said. The agency, they said, still seeks warrants to monitor entirely domestic communications"

Comment: There are 2 aspects of this that are troubling. First and foremost is that it was without judicial branch supervision. The President did not feel encumbered by any sense of check or balance. The other is that it has been 3 years it has been going on.

Remeber, this is an administration that has been inclined towards propaganda and disinformation. So, when after 3 years, we NOW find out that about the surveillance - is it reasonable to believe that it was ONLY international calls?

I recognize that "conspiracy" thinking can enables one to jump to conclusions too soon. That is a bad thing to do. To be avoided. Let's face it, even the President did that concerning WMD. Oh, excuse me - he had faulty intelligence.

But it is worth noting that social click's do exist. Social groups don't have to be secretive to not share information. They simply do not communicate. So as I have suggested on past occasions, there could be a social group that happen to be in control of both the federal government and a popular political party - that simply does not communicate. The Neo-Cons could be should a group.

Is this group something to be discussed? Just not over the phone. Where can one have privacy?

Address:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?hp&ex=1134795600&en=c7596fe0d4798785&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Commentary on the President's most recent Iraq speech

I watched the speech and wrote down a couple of notes that may or may not make sense without a fuller context - but here goes.

In terms of the word "victory" - there is some kind of specific objective event that has a temporal delineation. When the clock runs to 0:00 in football, the game is over and the winner is known. In WWII, victory was known with the bombing of Hiroshima. The cold war ended with the collapse of the Berlin wall.

These are icon that mark the moment of victory. What will be the icon for the end of the War on Terrorism and define the victor?

Terrorism is a tactic not an ideology and therefore will never go away. Only the people who are defined as terrorists will change.

Islamo-facism is not a state specific principle, so what will be the Hallmark of the end? China is still communist, so did the collapse of the Berlin Wall really end the cold-war against communism?

The President made the observation that the Terrorist can't defeat our military - and he is right in the traditional sense. But this is an unconventional enemy in and unconvetional form of warfare, so why is the President committed to defining victory in rhetorically conventional terms?

Should not victory and defeat be defined for this unconventional war in unconventional or non-traditional terms? Is this President doing that?

Hurricane Katrina wiped out an entire American City - and America survived. It can be argued that we thrived based on the 3rd quarter GDP figures.

Without being indifferent to the deaths in N.O. or in Iraq or even 9/11 - there is an observation to be made.

We have taken the best punches of nature and bad guys and survived and flourished. Is this not a notable fact for determining motivations of the Administration and the neo-con's of the Republican party?

It goes to control.

It is my understanding that the War on Terrorism is fast approaching 500 Billion dollars. If 100 billion have been committed to New Orleans I would be amazed.

What is the definition of Homeland Security in the context of these observations?

The President admitted it was his decision for go to war on faulty intelligence, and he would do it again. Why? What's the need?

It seems that if we could raise a culture to build and construct things that was as passionate as the gun culture, then destruction could be seem as an opportunity for renewal rather than revenge.

A HomeDepot culture instead of NRA culture, removes the ability for terroist to do us harm. A HomeDepot Culture would mourn the dead and care for the injured by rebuilding bigger and better. The NRA culture (lead by the NEO-CONs) seek revenge because it enhances different priorities that are not specific to the individual.

Issue:Bush Acknowledges Heavy Toll in Iraq - New York Times - but is that the point of my opposition?:

Specific:"For the first time, the president also put a number on the approximate numbers of Iraqis killed - 30,000 he said - since the beginning of the American-led invasion in March 2003"

Comment:Let's be clear. The President is a simplistic, straight-forward in his rhetoric. No shades of gray or subtly in him. So I will be on that level. Peace in the Middle-east is of great value.

There is a price.

Now we are simply haggling over the price. This should have been done before - not after.

Are we really haggling rhetorically about the price? Is this really about Peace in the Middle East? Is this really about protecting Americans and the Homeland?

30 thousand Iraqi's dead. More than 2 thousand American soldiers. Countless families disrupted or torn apart by the injuries to the mind and body.

Let me put something else to be considered on the bargaining table. The City of New Orleans. It has been better than 2 months since city was destroyed - does it matter if it was by a force of nature or the hand of man? This President sold us the Iraq war against Saddam by using the twin towers to amplify the fear of what happened in New Orleans - the destruction of an American city. So what if the destruction came from a storm cloud instead of a mushroom cloud.

It has happened, and the President is looking in the other direction. He choose violence and destruction, and would do it again. His Neo-con element would do it again. I believe it because it is the alogrithm or logic of this administration. They are seeking power and only power, for the sake of power and control.

If what motivated this administration was truly the welfare people of the United States, then New Orleans would be rebuilt before Baghdad, alternative fuels would be elevated to Moon-shot levels, and practical security like harbor protection, border security.

Ok, given that we have no choice - I ain't buying from this sales organization for nothing more than he got WMD wrong. If he was so wrong about that why should we trust him now? What's he going to be the next thing he is wrong about?

This President decided to change humanity by believing that it is better to lead with the power of fear than by reason.
This President decided to change humanity by playing on a human weakness - fear.
How long will a change based on a weakness last?
It is a good to build from something that is weak?

"There is nothing to fear but fear itself" is famous because of the empowering sensation of the logic and reason, than the man who said it. It plays on a strength - courage, logic and reason.

President Bush and the neo-cons do want "we the people" to feel empowered. This is why I reject this President or any poltical force or entity that does not want to enable one to be politically empowered. This is a principle.

For me th Iraq war debate is not about staying or going.
It's about the powershift involving the American citizen.
What's the price of this powershift? That's the debate

--------
Address: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/12/international/middleeast/12cnd-bush.html?hp&ex=1134450000&en=0dfcf1cab7fc0691&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Issue:Characterisitic attiude of the element controlling the Republican Party -courant.com | Ann Coulter Cuts University Speech Short :

Specific:"'I love to engage in repartee with people who are stupider than I am,' Coulter told the crowd of 2,600 Wednesday. "

Comment: This is another indication of the character of the neo-con elements that are in control of the Republican party, White House and Congress.

Yes, she was indeed being heckled. I don't mind that she took a shot back. The character flaw is that it lacked humor and bite. It was a demonstration of a lack of thought that is the flaw.

If this was her first experience confronting a hostile crowd, a lack of thought would be understandable. But she has been out there for some time. It is clear that she is indifferent to what other think or feel about her opinion. This is characteristic of the controlling element of the Republican party.