unFocus

How does the U.S. have any credibility in foreign relations after what we did, excuse me, are doing in Iraq, especially where the United Nations is concerned?

Is the U.N. only a good thing when it is in your best interest? Of course. This makes perfect sense. The rules if a baseball game include one that says three strikes and you are out. When you get up to bat and that last swing was number three on your strike list, you too will want to disregard the rules and what another try.

Can you see the similarities between U.S. foreign affairs and baseball? Let me show you. The U.S. is at bat. We want to go into Iraq, the United Nations says, alright, explain why. Answer: Hussein is linked to Al Qaeda. Swing one. No? How about: Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Swing two. No really it is true, let us have inspectors to show you. We promise we know where they are. Swing three, all misses.

Picture a child, around eight or nine years old. Now picture the Bush Administration saying, “Wait, wait, I want a redo!” That is our wonderful country in this scenario. I never would have thought I would be making that kind of comparison, but hey when the mitt fits. The U.N. however likes to play by the rules, and says no. We go into Iraq anyway. No weapons of mass destruction have been produced, by the way. Four strikes. This is going to be a long inning.

So the U.S. has a policy of treating foreign policy as a game. Faith level in my government– plummeting. Interest in baseball–on the rise, I no longer put it on when I am trying to go to sleep.

Not only are we making a game out of international affairs, but WAR as well. Now I am just as big a Risk and Axis and Allies fan as the next geek, but if it came to real people, my strategy might change. Not Bush number two though. We are crying when, after blatantly cheating (ignoring U.N. warnings not to invade Iraq), others are not playing fair. Scott McClellan was quoted as saying, “Syria has not fully complied with the Security Council resolution and the demands of the international community.” Syria is refusing to withdraw forces from Lebanon. Mr. McClellan continues, “Syria needs to comply fully with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559, and that means getting all their intelligence operatives out of Lebanon.” Does anyone remember when the U.S. was not obeying U.N. resolutions? Syria is up at bat, and after several redoes and excuses on the U.S.’s part, McClellan is stomping his foot at Lebanon’s rule breaking?

Had we not completely removed ourselves from intelligent and rational international discussion in March of 2003, I would think of Mr. McClellan as standing up for poor Lebanon. Unfortunately the U.S. chooses its policies unilaterally, only backing those who can benefit it. Where was this crazy idea of playing fair when the U.S. was up to bat? Irritated, this is the point when all the other kids refuse to play with you ever again and walk away.

Didn’t your Mom ever tell you “Practice what you preach? It is so funny how those types of saying are annoying as a youngster, and yet so applicable as an adult. If we could only understand when we are children, many problems could be avoided. So the lessons today folks are play fair and listen to your mother.

Share This

This business of calling every scandal under the sun “something-gate” is a practice that ought to stop. It does nothing to help educate people about the issue, and does much to trivialize whatever issue it is trying to convey.

Watergate was the name of an important part of the case that lead to the resignation of Richard Nixon.

Take “Memogate” - in this case, I think it would be more important to remember the details of what this case is really about, rather than some slogan that refers to another time in history when a president of the US was being impeached for completely unrelated - and I’d say less serious - charges. There is no reason why we shouldn’t expect people to learn and remember the details and importance of “Downing Street Minutes” scandal.

BTW, you can find more information about the Downing Street Minutes scandal here.

Here’s an interesting summary of the original Memogate.

Share This

A friend sent me this link - it’s quite scary.

I could respond all night, but here’s a general impression of kinds of crap that these people actually go around saying:

Beverly LaHaye (Concerned Women for America) - “Yes, religion and politics do mix. America is a nation based on biblical principles. Christian values dominate our government. The test of those values is the Bible. Politicians who do not use the bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office.”

and from the US Constitution, Article VI- Clause 3:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

I guess Beverly LaHaye didn’t read the US Constitution before she spoke that complete nonsense.

I stopped reading this crap less than half way down the site - I was getting nausious, so on second thought save yourself some aggrivation, and just skip reading this complete garbage.

Share This

I got permalinks working on IIS - I consider this a small accomplishment, because I was unable to find an easy way to do it on the support boards :-).

It’s actually just a simple 404 hack. I created a file called wp-404-handler.php and then set IIS to use that as the 404 handler. File contents:


< ?php
$_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'] = substr($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'], strpos($_SERVER['QUERY_STRING'], ':80')+3);
$_SERVER['PATH_INFO'] = $_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'];
include('index.php');
?>


That’s it! It’s not very robust, but it gets the job done. It even works with Scott Yang’s Permalink Redirect plugin.

Share This

It’s time to get active, and contact your state senators, and let them know to stand up for campaign spending limits. The US Supreme Court made a mistake when they declared that spending money is speech. In Buckley v. Valeo, they said that spending money on a campaign is free speech. Oddly, in the same case, they said that donating money to your candidate is not free speech.

So, basically, if you are a private citizen, spending money on your candidate is not free speech, but if you are a candidate, spending money is free speech. Boneheaded.

Aside from the obvious hypocrisy contained within this decision, they also ignored the simple fact that money is not speech - it is property - property that you trade for other property or services. Also, you can own money, in the same way that you can own a house, or an SUV - both not free speech - neither is money.

Limiting what candidates can spend on a campaigns doesn’t limit speech, it limits the ability to spend money on goods and services, which congress has full rights to regulate (See the US Constitution - Article I. Section 8 for example).

This stuff seems pretty simple, and I really struggle to see what these guys were thinking in 1976.

Anyway, click the link and tell your senators to sign on to a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Court to hear Landell v. Sorrell.

http://pirg.org/democracy/democracy.asp?id=174&id3=CFR&id4=ES&

Share This

Laura Bush got up one Saturday night at the White House correspondents dinner and put on a show. This previously camera shy first lady, stood in front of a large live audience and television cameras and performed a so-called comedy routine. Who would have thought, and who would have guessed that she would get some laughs too. I admit, as I watched I giggled a little bit at the attempt, I did not think though that the jokes were a laughing matter. Then I got to thinking (Danger, Will Robinson!), what inspired Laura’s bold act? I have come up with several prospective reasons.

She is trying to muster up some white house support as Bush’s domestic policies are being challenged (No Child Left Behind) and the war in Iraq looks more and more like Vietnam with no end in sight. If this is the case, I guess you cannot blame her for her effort. I think this option is unlikely, however. Who is Bush trying to win over? He cannot run for office again, so it matters not who dislikes and disagrees with him.

O.K. so hmmm, what else could have spawned the routine?

Laura Bush, being the good wife that she is, is covering for the fact that her husband cannot tell a joke. This reception is supposed to show the lighter and funnier side of the President. Maybe during rehearsal, George W. got bank stares and an occasional chuckle from the eager-to-impress-brown-noser in the audience. While this would be an altogether great reason, I have to discard it. In defense of Mr. Bush, I think he is quite funny. Haven’t you watched any of his speeches? Hilarious I tell you, the man was born with the gift of a comedian. More than cover for a man that is not funny, I believe that Laura’s intention was to purposely make the audience laugh at her hubby. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em, right?

As I sat pondering the root of Laura’s speech I asked myself, “Was Laura’s speech really cry for help? I then responded, “Self, I think you may be onto something!” Think about it. I mean, come on, that speech was more of a cry for help than Robin Givens talking to Barbara Walters about Mike Tyson.

I will undertake the responsibility of decoding Laura’s words so you can better understand her plea. “Nine o’clock, Mr. Excitement here is sound asleep.” Translation: He is dreadfully boring. “His answer to all problems at the ranch is, cut it down with a chainsaw.” Translation: He is crazy and destructive. “Ladies and gentlemen, I am a desperate housewife.” Hello, need she say more.

Why hasn’t anyone run to her aid, didn’t anyone hear her? No, instead they dessert the poor woman in the Whitehouse with him all the while giving her rave reviews of her performance. I can see her eyes rolling now, Poor thing. What will it take for American’s to help a woman in need? I know that she coyly voiced her cry for help, unlike Ms. Givens. Robin came out and said that she was scared, and was then trampled by the papers and public opinion. Well, Laura I guess we will see you in 10 years discussing your trials and tribulations with Oprah.

Share This

Well, I finally did it. Here is my new blog. I will probably not publish very often, but at least something is here Check back every so often and see what’s up.

Update 2005-07-05 - I just saw the movie I was quoting there in the title (Coming to America), and realized that the quote was wrong! Well it has been corrected now

Share This