And this is who runs our country...

[Front-Ranger]

The brain sandwiches were not my idea, they were Indiana David's. Chris, your comment made me decide to post the lyrics here to a song I heard at the Crosby Stills Nash & Young concert I went to last Thursday nite (I also have some other stuff about it on the Anything Goes site). This was written by Neil Young:

LIVING WITH WAR

And when the dawn breaks
I see my fellow man
And on the flat screen
We kill and are killed again
And when the right fails
I pray for peace
Try to remember Peace
I join the multitudes
I raise my hand in peace
I never bow to the laws of the thought Police
I take a holy vow
To never kill again
to never kill again.

Don't take no tidal wave
Don't take no mass grave
Don't take no smokin gun
To show how the west was won
But when the curtain falls I pray for peace
Try to remember peace
in the crowded streets
In the big hotels
in the mosques and the doors of the old museums
I take a holy vow
To never kill again
Try to remember peace

The rockets red glare
Bombs bursting in air
Give proof through the night
That our flag is still there

[Front-Ranger]

Just one more...

Lookin for a Leader

Looking for a leader
To bring our country home
Reunite the red, white, and blue
Before it turns to stone

Lookin for somebody
Young enough to take it on
CLean up the corruption
And make the country strong

Walkin among our people
There's someone who's straight and strong
To lead us from desolation
And a broken world gone wrong

To be continued

[Aussie Chris]

The brain sandwiches were not my idea, they were Indiana David's. Chris, your comment made me decide to post the lyrics here to a song I heard at the Crosby Stills Nash & Young concert I went to last Thursday nite (I also have some other stuff about it on the Anything Goes site). This was written by Neil Young:

Quite right FR, sorry about that, and thanks for posting the lyrics.  If only these were the sentiments all politicians held close to their hearts.

[Front-Ranger]

The rest of Lookin for a Leader, by Neil Young

Someone walks among us
And I hope he hears the call
And maybe it's a woman
Or a black man after all.

Maybe it's Obama
But he thinks that he's too young
Maybe it's Colin Powell
To right what he's done wrong

America has a leader
But he's not in the house
He's walkin here among us
And we've got to seek him out.

Yeah, we've got our election
But corruption has a chance
We've got to have a clean win
To regain confidence
America is beautiful
But she has an ugly side
We're lookin for a leader
In this country far and wide
We're lookin for a leader
With the great spirit on his side
Lookin for a leader
With the Great Spirit on his side

Someone walks among us
And I hope he hears the call
And maybe it's a woman
Or a black man after all.

[delalluvia]

While you were in Indiana, did you try a brain sandwich? I know it sounds disgusting, but they are quite good. Normally they are pig brains (I have had cow brains too). They are deep fried and served on a bun with lettuce and tomato. Most people will also add either mustard or mayonaisse. They look and taste like a tenderloin. You haven't been to Indiana unless you tried a brain sandwich!

While I was visiting relatives in Mexico as a child, I remember sitting in a restaurant for breakfast.  I can't recall what I had that morning, but I remember they were BBQ'ing kid outside on a rack (yummy!  I love BBQ cabrito) and my aunt had a plate of scrambled eggs and brains.

Yes, the brains looked exactly like what it was.   EEECCH!!   

Up in Northern Indiana, around Lake Wawasee, they serve deep fried frog's legs. Kosciuscko County is famous for them. You can also find them in Lagrange and Napanee Indiana.

Strange that they should serve frog legs so far north. Seems more normal that this would be a dish relegated to hotter, warmer swampy climes like Louisiana.

[Giancarlo]

Fair enough, no offence taken, but if you'll forgive me I don't think what you've described as libertarian is either self-explanatory or self-evident, and to say that you are at odds with the traditional political parties is like saying that you're against bigotry.  In short, and to be blunt, so what and who isn't?  So maybe I wasn't clear in my question.  I apologise.  I'll have another go at it.

So what? I was just provided my beliefs. Isn't this a place we can share our beliefs? I thought this was a relevant thread. A libertarian as I said is one who is for minimal government intereference in the economy, and a small central government.

You have said that libertarians are for open markets and minimal government policies.  Well what is that exactly?  If there was a new political party that came into existence that called itself libertarian, how would these policies be different than the others?  Would it somehow fall between the two extremes of socialism and capitalism?  If so, isn't this naive since all politicians would describe themselves in this way?  The disgust that have in both the republicans and democrats, is that because they are republicans and democrats or because the current batch of politicians are corrupt and it has nothing to do with the policies they are supposed to promote?  I welcome your challenge to me, as I hope you do too, and I hope that I have successfully worded this without offence.  I also often find myself at odds with friends, family, and colleagues with regard to politics.  My question to them is always rather simple: are you just complaining or do you have a practical alternative in mind?  Unfortunately that tends to end the debate rather quickly.  For university students, being an activist too easily becomes the point of activism.  I've often wondered why all those university students from the 70's and 80's who are now the world's leaders now seem (presumably) so in favour of conservatism (read: anti-progressiveness).  So my question to you is what makes you and your ideas so different?

Libertarians for the most part, are for Adam Smith style policy. They are basically capitalists. One who wants little government intereference in the economy. That is the best I can explain it. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, then I don't know how to clarify. Libertarians are certainly closer to capitalists then socialists. And neither political party in the United States is for smaller government. Both parties are for these big pork barrel projects where money often disappears (Boston tunnel I think is one of them) and gets used incorrectly. We libertarians just call for accountable and a reduction of redtape.

What do you mean that 'I'm just complaining'? And by the way, universities are far different now then they were in the 70s and 80s. Students (those 18-24) are far more ignorant of current policies (and it really shows in their voting record, which is very weak).

My ideas aren't different. My ideas have existed for many centuries, since the time of Adam Smith. It is just that neither the democrats or republicans do not want smaller government (as a whole). One focuses on corporate subsidies and defense, and the other on welfare and social programs. I am for a big defense budget (because frankly, we need one) but I'm not for big corporate subsidies, and large welfare or social programs. Look at it this way, my views exist in this country in both parties but as far as I'm concerned... only a minority of politicans from either party believe the same as I do.

Arnold Schwarzenegger for one is streamlining government and that is why I campaigned for him, regardless of his political party (he's no conservative republican, and he has been at odds with Bush numerous times).

[Aussie Chris]

So what? I was just provided my beliefs. Isn't this a place we can share our beliefs? I thought this was a relevant thread. A libertarian as I said is one who is for minimal government intereference in the economy, and a small central government.

Yes it is, of course it is, all of what you say here.  I thought this might happen: that you'd read my questions as an attack on your beliefs.  Seriously, that is the opposite of what I was trying to do.  The only provocation I was aiming for was a bit of a healthy (and harmless) debate.  Clearly I have failed in that, so sorry.

You have gone further into this in your reply so I do now understand a little better, not that I understand who or what an Adam Smith style policy is.  And I now understand about the focus on capitalism, which I wasn't expecting, and reduced government bureaucracy.  The "so what" part is merely an observation that just about everyone says this regardless of their political alignment.  But none of this was meant to be taken personally, and my question about people who complain was just that, a question, and in fact was related to the people in my life whose only interest is pointing out the problems with governments without considering what the alternatives might look like.  To them I say, if you got everything that you ever wanted, what would that world look like, and how would it be different to today?  I was just trying to establish where you place yourself in this context; I was not accusing you of complaining.

Giancarlo, please accept my apologies and take this post as a complete back-pedal.  I really was just looking to explore U.S. politics with you because you sounded like you had some interesting ideas (or did I misinterpret "what this country needs is bigger change"?), but more importantly I had never heard of libertarian before.  Please do not let my ignorance and clumsy writing make you think that I think there is anything wrong with your beliefs.

A great friend of mine has a quote that I often borrow: "There is no one in the world that is higher than me...  And there is no one in the world that is lower than me".  I use a cruder one: "Opinions are like arse-holes, we all have them...  Some are nicer than others, but really, they all have the same purpose and they're all full of sh*t".

All the best, Chris.

[Giancarlo]

Yes it is, of course it is, all of what you say here.  I thought this might happen: that you'd read my questions as an attack on your beliefs.  Seriously, that is the opposite of what I was trying to do.  The only provocation I was aiming for was a bit of a healthy (and harmless) debate.  Clearly I have failed in that, so sorry.

I had to think this over a while before responding. I know you were not attacking my views, but you were pretty critical of what I believe. I felt like I had to strengthen my defense in my own beliefs and was on the defensive.

You have gone further into this in your reply so I do now understand a little better, not that I understand who or what an Adam Smith style policy is.

If you don't know much about Adam Smith, I can direct you to a book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0553585975/sr=8-1/qid=1153784248/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7405490-8948802?ie=UTF8

The Wealth Of Nations was written by Adam Smith, but I must warn you... it is over 1,200 pages. I have read it three times myself, but that was because of I usually have a niche for reading books like that without dozing off.

and my question about people who complain was just that, a question, and in fact was related to the people in my life whose only interest is pointing out the problems with governments without considering what the alternatives might look like.  To them I say, if you got everything that you ever wanted, what would that world look like, and how would it be different to today?  I was just trying to establish where you place yourself in this context; I was not accusing you of complaining.

I am not one of those people. I am myself getting my degree in political science, and I frequently take part in elections. I do not believe people who don't vote should complain.

  I really was just looking to explore U.S. politics with you because you sounded like you had some interesting ideas (or did I misinterpret "what this country needs is bigger change"?), but more importantly I had never heard of libertarian before.  Please do not let my ignorance and clumsy writing make you think that I think there is anything wrong with your beliefs.

Libertarianism exists in many different countries (under different names). In Europe it can often be European conservatives (who are nothing like US conservatives). Libertarianism respects the personal lives of inidividuals.

[YaadPyar]

This is from The Onion, a satirical newspaper.  It's one of my favortie news sources, along with The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. 

 
 
Bush Grants Self Permission To Grant More Power To Self
August 1, 2006 | Issue 42•31

WASHINGTON, DC—In a decisive 1–0 decision Monday, President Bush voted to grant the president the constitutional power to grant himself additional powers.

President Bush announces announcement of the new power-granting announcement.

"As president, I strongly believe that my  first duty as president is to support and serve the president," Bush said during a televised address from the East Room of the White House shortly after signing his executive order. "I promise the American people that I will not abuse this new power, unless it becomes necessary to grant myself the power to do so at a later time."

The Presidential Empowerment Act, which the president hand-drafted on his own Oval Office stationery and promptly signed into law, provides Bush with full authority to permit himself to authorize increased jurisdiction over the three branches of the federal government, provided that the president considers it in his best interest to do so.

"In a time of war, the president must  have the power he needs to make the tough decisions, including, if need be, the decision to grant himself even more power," Bush said. "To do otherwise would be playing into the hands of our enemies."

Added Bush: "And it's all under due process of the law as I see it."


"The president can grant himself the  power to interpret new laws however he sees fit, then use that power to interpret a law in such a manner that in turn grants him increased power."

In addition, the president reserves the right to overturn any decision to allow himself to increase his power by using a line-item veto, which in turn may only be overruled by the president.

Senior administration officials lauded Bush's decision, saying that current presidential powers over presidential power were "far too limited."

"Previously, the president only had the power to petition Congress to allow him to grant himself the power to grant more power to himself," Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said shortly after the ceremony. "Now, the president can grant himself the  power to interpret new laws however he sees fit, then use that power to interpret a law in such a manner that in turn grants him increased power."

 In addition, a proviso in the 12th provision of the new law permits Bush the authority to waive the need for any presidential authorization of power in a case concerning national security, although legal experts suggest it would be little exercised.

Despite the president's new powers, the role of Congress and the Supreme Court has not been overlooked. Under the new law, both enjoy the newly broadened ability to grant the president the authority to increase his presidential powers.

"The only thing we can do now is withhold our ability to grant him more authority to grant himself more power—unless he authorizes himself to strip us of that power."

"This gives the president the tools he needs to ensure that the president has all the necessary tools to expedite what needs to be done, unfettered by presidential restrictions on himself," said Rep. John Cornyn (R-TX). "It's long overdue."

Though public response to the new law has been limited, there has been an unfavorable reaction among Democrats, who are calling for restrictions on Bush's power to allow himself to grant the president more powers that would restrict the powers of Congress.

"This is a clear case of President Bush having carte blanche to grant himself complete discretion to enact laws to increase his power," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said. "The only thing we can do now is withhold our ability to grant him more authority to grant himself more power."

"Unless he authorizes himself to strip us of that power," Reid added.

Despite criticism, Bush took his first official action under the new law Tuesday, signing an executive order ordering that the chief executive be able to order more executive orders.

In addition, Republicans fearful that the president's new power undermines their ability to grant him power have proposed a new law that would allow senators to permit him to grant himself power, with or without presidential approval.

© Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.
The Onion is not intended for readers under 18 years of age.

[vkm91941]

I got this e-mail today thought I'd share....



Dear Victoria,

United with one voice, Democratic leaders from Joe Biden to John Murtha sent a clear message to George Bush -- it's time for a New Direction in Iraq. Our plan is straightforward: we believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin by the end of 2006. And our soldiers in the region should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, force protection of U.S. personnel, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces.

Read the letter below and add your name by visiting:

http://giveemhellharry.com/iraq

Thank you,

Harry Reid


July 30, 2006

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

While the world has been focused on the crisis in the Middle East, Iraq has exploded in violence. Some 6,000 Iraqis were killed in May and June, and sectarian and insurgent violence continues to claim American and Iraqi lives at an alarming rate. In the face of this onslaught, one can only conclude that the Baghdad security plan you announced five weeks ago is in great jeopardy.

Despite the latest evidence that your Administration lacks a coherent strategy to stabilize Iraq and achieve victory, there has been virtually no diplomatic effort to resolve sectarian differences, no regional effort to establish a broader security framework, and no attempt to revive a struggling reconstruction effort. Instead, we learned of your plans to redeploy an additional 5,000 U.S. troops into an urban war zone in Baghdad. Far from implementing a comprehensive "Strategy for Victory" as you promised months ago, your Administration's strategy appears to be one of trying to avoid defeat.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops and taxpayers continue to pay a high price as your Administration searches for a policy. Over 2,500 Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice and over 18,000 others have been wounded. The Iraq war has also strained our military and constrained our ability to deal with other challenges. Readiness levels for the Army are at lows not seen since Vietnam, as virtually no active Army non-deployed combat brigade is prepared to perform its wartime missions. American taxpayers have already contributed over $300 billion and each week we stay in Iraq adds nearly $3 billion more to our record budget deficit.

In the interests of American national security, our troops, and our taxpayers, the open-ended commitment in Iraq that you have embraced cannot and should not be sustained.

Rather, we continue to believe that it is time for Iraqis to step forward and take the lead for securing and governing their own country. This is the principle enshrined in the "United States Policy in Iraq Act" enacted last year. This law declares 2006 to be a year of "significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq." Regrettably, your policy seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

This legislation made clear that Iraqi political leaders must be informed that American patience, blood and treasure are not unlimited. We were disappointed that you did not convey this message to Prime Minister Maliki during his recent visit. Reducing the U.S. footprint in Iraq will not only give the Iraqis a greater incentive to take the lead for the security of their own nation, but will also allow U.S. forces to be able to respond to contingencies affecting the security of the United States elsewhere in the world.

We believe that a phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin before the end of 2006. U.S. forces in Iraq should transition to a more limited mission focused on counterterrorism, training and logistical support of Iraqi security forces, and force protection of U.S. personnel.

Additionally, every effort should be made to urge the Iraqis to take the steps necessary to achieve a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources. It is also essential to disarm the militias and ensure forces loyal to the national government. Finally, an international conference should be convened to persuade other governments to be more involved, and to secure the resources necessary to finance Iraq=s reconstruction and rebuild its economy.

Mr. President, simply staying the course in Iraq is not working. We need to take a new direction. We believe these recommendations comprise an effective alternative to the current open-ended commitment which is not producing the progress in Iraq we would all like to see. Thank you for your careful consideration of these suggestions.

Harry Reid, Senate Democratic Leader
Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Leader
Dick Durbin, Senate Assistant Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer, House Minority Whip
Carl Levin, Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee
Ike Skelton, Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee
Joe Biden, Ranking Member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Tom Lantos, Ranking Member, House International Relations Committee
Jay Rockefeller, Vice Chairman, Senate Intelligence Committee
Jane Harman, Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Daniel Inouye, Ranking Member, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee
John Murtha, Ranking Member, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee

Add your name now:

http://giveemhellharry.com/iraq