Two Current Political Must Reads.....

-

I know I've probably been devoting way too much time to politics on here lately. For those who know me, and know my normall conservative leanings, it must be pretty surprising how liberal I am sounding, too. Bottom line is though: Our Republican president has been horrible to the utmost extremes of evil. He has misled (lied to) us into a war that has cost over 4,000 American lives. He has brought into practice the worst possible surveillance measures to a degree that we are now labeled as an "endemic surveillance society." He has promoted corporate growth to the detriment of the citizens, and attempted to shutter access to the knowledge of what he is doing from the officials who are supposed to be able to monitor and watchdog his actions. All in the name of terrorism. George W. Bush has been the biggest terrorist threat to our country since 9/11, and he has, in fact, been responsible for more American deaths.

As for McCain.... Well, McCain thinks we need to keep doing what Bush has been doing.... So, is a vote for McCain a vote for 4,000 more American deaths?

(Incidentally, I'm only tallying American deaths here, but, if you include Iraqi deaths, the tally is up more towards 100,000.... We pray about the Myanmar cyclone disaster and the China earthquake, but how often to we pray that leaders who purposely bring about the deaths of 100,000 people get thrown in jail? Bush, as the first article below stipulates, should be impeached....and tried for murder)

Article #1, "Vincent Bugliosi: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" is excerpted below. You can read it here

Perhaps the most amazing thing to me about the belief of many that George Bush lied to the American public in starting his war with Iraq is that the liberal columnists who have accused him of doing this merely make this point, and then go on to the next paragraph in their columns. Only very infrequently does a columnist add that because of it Bush should be impeached. If the charges are true, of course Bush should have been impeached, convicted, and removed from office. That's almost too self-evident to state. But he deserves much more than impeachment.

- Vincent Bugliosi - The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

Article #2, "McCain Confronted With New Iran Gaffe, Gets Facts Wrong Again" is excerpted below. You can read it here

KLEIN: Also checked, also checked with the Obama campaign and he never, he's never sai -- mentioned Ahmadinejad directly by name. He did say he would negotiate with the leaders, but as you know - Ayatollah,

MCCAIN: (Laughing) Ahmadinejad is, was the leader.

KLEIN: But if -

MCCAIN: Maybe I'm mistaken.

KLEIN: Maybe you are, because -

MCCAIN: Maybe. I don't think so though.

KLEIN: The Supreme, you know, according to most diplomatic experts, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the guy who's in charge of Iranian foreign policy and also in charge of the nuclear program, but you never mention him. Do you, you know, um, why do you always keep talking about Ahmadinejad since he doesn't have power in that, in that realm?

- excerpt from : McCain Confronted With New Iran Gaffe, Gets Facts Wrong Again

Followup on: Real, Modern, Illegal U.S. Government Propaganda

-

This story, found here, about the government's program of dispersing propaganda through supposedly neutral military "analysts", designed to bolster public support for things like the war in Iraq, etc., is probably something that every patriotic American should read. I posted on this a while back when it first started coming out. The only TV network brave enough to talk about it seems to be PBS. Everyone else has tried to sweep it under the rug to cover their culpability.

The bottom line is, our government is disseminating propaganda via supposedly "neutral" military analysts to an unaware public for the purpose of convincing people to buy their party line viewpoint on serious issues like Iraq.

Well, now, two of the top Dems in congress are demanding an investigation. House Energy Committee Chair John Dingell (D-MI) and House Agriculture Subcommittee chair Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) wrote a letter to the FCC chairmen, Kevin Martin about the issue saying, "The American people should never be subject to a covert propaganda campaign but rather should be clearly notified of who is sponsoring what they are watching". (quote taken from the linked article, Top Dems demand FCC review of Pentagon fake news)

I hope something comes out of this, but the reality is, like when congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) asked FCC chairmen Kevin Martin to investigate the telecom companies harvesting private data (i.e. recording your phone calls and emails) for the NSA, this will likely be ignored and rejected by Mr. Martin and the FCC.

Dear Chairman Martin:
We write to express our deep concern with regard to a troubling story recently reported in the New York Times detailing an extensive program within the Department of Defense (DoD) to recruit ex-military officers to support the administration’s position on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with efforts to combat terrorism under the guise of objective analysis on major television news programs and 24-hour cable news networks. Many of these military analysts were simultaneously representing more than 150 companies competing for billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts. While we deem the DoD’s policy unethical and perhaps illegal, we also question whether the analysts and the networks are potentially equally culpable pursuant to the sponsorship identification requirements in the Communications Act of 1934 (the Act) and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

As you may know, the program, which began in early 2002, ultimately included more than 75 retired military analysts who echoed administration talking points on television, radio, printed publications and websites. According to the Times, internal DoD documents describe these “military analysts as ‘message force multipliers’ or ‘surrogates’ who could be counted on to deliver administration ‘themes and messages’ to millions of Americans ‘in the form of their own opinions.’” As a result of the program, analysts, many of whom represented military contractors or ran their own military consulting or contracting firms, were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent. According to the report, analysts that were critical of the administration’s policy could “lose all access,” creating an environment in which these analysts felt compelled, and at times eager, to convey specific Defense Department talking points to the American public, even when they did not necessarily agree with them. It could appear that some of these analysts were indirectly paid for fostering the Pentagon’s views on these critical issues.

Our chief concern is that as a result of the analysts’ participation in this DoD program, which included the DoD’s paying for their commercial airfare on DoD-sponsored trips to Iraq, the analysts and the networks that hired them could have run afoul of certain laws or regulations, among them the sponsorship identification requirements in the Act and the FCC’s rules. For example, we are concerned that the military analysts may have violated Section 507 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 507, which, among other things, prohibits those involved with preparing program matter intended for broadcast from accepting valuable consideration for including particular matter in a program without disclosure. Similarly, the Commission’s rules require a station to make an appropriate announcement when it receives a disclosure from someone involved with preparing program matter for the station, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212.

When seemingly objective television commentators are in fact highly motivated to promote the agenda of a government agency, a gross violation of the public trust occurs. The American people should never be subject to a covert propaganda campaign but rather should be clearly notified of who is sponsoring what they are watching. We therefore respectfully request that you immediately commence a full investigation of this matter to determine whether any violations have occurred.

We thank you for your prompt attention.



The preceeding is the full text of the letter written to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin by House Energy Committee Chair John Dingell (D-MI) and House Agriculture Subcommittee chair Rosa L. DeLauro (D-CT) (Text copied from: Hill Wants FCC to Investigate DOD 'Experts' Program

Technology and Elections in 2008

-

I was just reading an article entitled "FCC 2.0: Change we can believe in?, it mentioned an interesting tidbit about the three remaining candidates for President of the Unites States and their viewpoints on the future of communications technology. (i.e., big media mergers, net neutrality, the deployment of broadband throughout the U.S., etc.) On these topics, the candidates stances apparently are something like as follows:

• John McCain....apparently has no stance. His issues page says nothing at all about technology or the future of it. The closest he comes is with a small section on "America's Space Program", and it quotes, "Let us now embark upon this great journey into the stars to find whatever may await us." Apparently, he supports NASA. (nothing to do with the internet, net neutrality, etc.)
  
  
• Hillary Clinton....has a page on her site devoted to "innovation". It slightly touches some of the issues. Focuses more on jobs and wages.
  
  
• Barack Obama....has a big big page complete with a detailed analysis of the problems, and a spelled out plan on how he wants to alter the scene. It's good. It's real good. If you know the issues and read his page, you'll quickly see that he (or at least his staff) seem to have a firm grip on the issues that are big and important in this sector. (I'm not saying I agree with him on everything he says, but it's at least a well thought out plan...as opposed to the big nothing offered by his competitors...)
  
  

"Sir, to show your solidarity with them you gave up golf?!?!"

-

"Mr. President, you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?" - Interviewer

"Yes, it really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the Commander-in-Chief playing golf....


...I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best I can with them. And, I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal." - Our President, George W. Bush

- A May 13th, 2008 interview with Politico.com and online users of Yahoo!

Bumped because I think it's important.

Funny Chevy Commercial

-

"Does it do that a lot?"

"Yeah."

- the above commercial

Thoughts on Chapter II of "The Everlasting Man", by G.K. Chesterton

-

I haven't finished it yet, but chapter II of "The Everlasting Man" seems to give one of the strongest arguements to the rationality of evolution as I have ever read. Chesterton meticulously lays out a complex arguement based on the idea of : "Modern science says [this], but how does it really know?" he bases it on a seemingly common practice of the time for professors studying ancient man to infer behaviors and characteristics of said man without having any real evidence of said behaviors or chacteristics at all. For example, the idea (and even modern association) of the caveman / cavewoman relationship involving some sort of clubbing over the head behavior. (Mel Brooks even draws upon that common assumtion about the caveman in his "History of the World, Part I"

It's always been fascinating for me how science can claim they have the only valid/scientific account of the beginning of the world on the logic that, in order for something to be scientific, you must be able to disprove it if it is incorrect. They argue against religion and creationism with this logic, suggesting that a theory like intelligent design must not be taught in schools because it would require God, someone who's existance they cannot disprove. It is, to me, silly then for them to cling do tightly to a theory which is equally unable to be disproven.

The bottom line is, until we have the ability to travel backwards in time to the beginning of the world, both theories are simply that: non-disproveable theories.

It's been a good book so far. It's always hard to get into Chesterton's non-fiction work. I've been trying to make progress in it, but I have not gotten yet. I did recently purchase one if Chesterton's fictional works: "The Man Who Was Thursday" it was a very good book. I was riveted until the end. I highly recomend it, too.

Enough about Chesterton though...

I have some cool news:

Lilly has discovered that it may be (probably is) possible for her to get her German schoolwork concerted into a bachelors after all! Yay!! This is an awesome blessing from the Lord! She's already looking into it. If it ends up going smoothly, she might even be able to get into a teacher certification program in time to get certified for the upcoming school year! Yay!!!

So, I'm pretty excited about that. She, naturally, is, too!

Last, but not least, I just want to ask everyone to pray for my friend Nate tonight/this morning/when you read this. He and his wife are waiting on a visa so she can enter the U.S. Lilly and I are very familiar with that process, and I can feel a bit of his pain as he needs to have it come through asap (as in tomorrow/today) so that they will not lose their place on the list for the married couples dorm at his school. So, please pray for them...(I would say her name here, too, but I'm not sure how to spell it, and I don't want to butcher it!)