George W Bush called for "Change".
Ronald Reagan called for "Hope".
Everyone calls for "Unity".
But, hey, Obama is "freaking awesome".

Posted at January 27, 2008 6:36 PM in response to The Clintons, Atwater, Rove, and the Future

The "role reversal" here is that you're promoting Republican talking points about Democrats.

Posted at January 20, 2008 4:47 PM in response to Role Reversal

This new threat story, conveniently leaked to ABC, appears to be related to Bush stating last week and again this week that the main enemy in Iraq is al-Qaeda and claiming (again, incredibly) very explicitly that they are "the same group that attacked us on 9/11." And we are told that civilian casualties are down, while we are suddenly killing more al-Qaeda (who dress like civilians).
As others said above, it's all al-Qaeda now. Looks like a coordinated propaganda campaign at a time when they are losing support and anticipating a negative report on the surge. I suppose any day now a Bushie will tell us something like "You know about the new threat from an al-Qaeda cell in America, maybe this is what happens when you have Democrats in Congress trying to set a date to surrender."
When in a crisis, Bush calls 911.
What I object to about this kind of news story is that they never tell us who initiated the story (even anonymously). If a Bush operative called ABC with the story, then maybe THAT is the story, and an appropriate question would be why they are pushing this story at this time, how credible it is, and how it ties in to other BushCo actions.
(If a Republican operative calls a reporter about Edwards' haircut, don't just tell us about the haircut, tell us that Republicans are trying to make an issue out of it and why they may be doing that.)

Posted at July 11, 2007 8:14 PM in response to Terrorist Crock of Crap, Part Deux

Right-wing propaganda tells us that some people have adequate health care, and we have to do something about that! The wingnuts say that some people, with government "subsidies", are getting what they call gold-plated, extravagant care - a strawman of their own invention. What we need to do is extend adequate care to everyone.
The service delivery model, and what it costs, is a separate issue. A not-for-profit HMO offering comprehensive care is more cost-effective
than a Medicare beneficiary running all over town trying to find providers who will accept Medicare and trying to coordinate a CT scan, lab work, purchasing prescriptions, etc.

Posted at July 6, 2007 9:31 AM in response to Sicko and the Health Care System: It’s Not About Values

You make some good points, but I don't think we have to fear a debate about how much we want government involved in our health care. People do want government involved in their health care, as it is in MediCare, which is a popular program. You are right that people would have the choice of opting out. I think it's a win-win debate.
Personally, I have a MediCare Advantage program, in which my HMO (a very good one) contracts with MediCare to provide my health care. It's an excellent option.
MediCare does have problems, i.e. nightmarish arcane regulations which drive costs up, and inadequate payments to providers but it's the best alternative and it can be improved.
I also think we also have to avoid the simplistic viewpoint that all health care companies are all bad. There is no need to demonize them. We just need a better system than what most Americans have now. MediCare is a good model.

Posted at July 3, 2007 5:42 AM in response to Sicko and the Health Care System: It’s Not About Values

We need a whole lot more love, contemplation, and humility, which can come via spirituality or other ways.

And we need to transcend our limited cognitive model of reality as Rumi does here in 13th century Islam:

"We are the mirror as well as the face in it.

We are tasting the taste this minute of eternity."

Posted at March 6, 2007 3:59 PM in response to The West Needs a Spiritual Surge

Briefly:
1. The purpose of demonstrations is not primarily "to change the minds of those in government".
2. Frustration with our current politics has nothing at all to do with "nostalgia".
3. Democracy in the streets is an ancient tradition, not some brief moment in the sixties.
4. No sarcasm intended, but try really listening to your friends instead of making assumptions.
5. Apology accepted.
6. Readers react to your statements about demos being ineffective and outdated because we hear it a lot, and we're as "sick of hearing it" as you are sick of what you hear, and we think you're wrong.

Posted at February 9, 2007 2:07 AM in response to Boomers, the 60s, street demos, and mea culpa

The real danger to Israel, to Iran, and to all of us, of course, is that the mighty US military is controlled by madmen in the White House who are now preparing a naval/air attack on Iran. That's their solution to the Iraq disaster, escalate it into Iran. They have shown us that they are fully capable of that insanity, and all the signs are there just as they were in the run-up to attacking Iraq.

Posted at February 3, 2007 12:30 AM in response to Is Another Holocaust Inevitable?

It may be even worse than a civil war, but there is no disaster that Cheney/Bush can not make worse. The signs of escalating the war with a naval/air assault on Iran are all there. We see it developing before our eyes while Congress goes through contortions trying to pass a non-binding resolution against sending more troops to Iraq. Would attacking Iran be insane? Yes. Would they do it? Absolutely.

Posted at February 3, 2007 12:13 AM in response to The New Iraq NIE: Pig Ugly, Little Lipstick

"It isn't that the Administration actually wants war with Iran, but on the other hand it does want to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. What Democrat will disagree with that?"

Wes Clark has had the courage to say that, given the reality of where we are now due to the Bush years, Iran with a bomb may be something we have to live with and not a great danger. He says it would be crazy to attack Iran to try and stop it from going nuclear, and who can doubt that after our Iraq experience. Clark is the true peace candidate among the possibilities for 2008, a true liberal, and unafraid to face reality (or to face AIPAC) and has the military credentials and diplomatic savvy to lay any Republican candidate flat in a debate over this.

He's been opposed to the Iraq war and warning about war with Iran for years and knows we are facing a crisis now due to Bush Administration provocations. I'm not so sure Bush & Cheney don't want war with Iran. They are sure acting like they do. We are now seeing a re-run of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. All the signs are there.

Posted at February 2, 2007 11:02 PM in response to Here in South Asia