Refuting a Bushie or why "experience" doesn't necessarily matter too much

Recently my Bushie friend claimed that "no white candidate with as little experience as Barack Obama had ever been remotely considered" for the office of PResident of the USA. I pointed out that Eisenhower had never held an elected office, but obviously had great leadership skills. Also pointed out various other presidents with no political experience. But then I did some serious research and I came up with the follow.

To be clear, I am comparing nothing but EXPERIENCE of these two men PRIOR to their “consideration” for the nomination of President. I’m not making predictions of what type of President Obama might be nor any judgments of either man’s character, I’m basing this SOLELY on experience prior to consideration.

So, I did this comparison because the parallels are so striking.

Enjoy

Facts

Lincoln, considered by most historians as one greatest Presidents in US history, never attended college or law school, served two more years that Obama in the Illinois Legislature, but fewer years in the US Congress. Professionally, they are probably a wash considering they both worked as lawyers for about the same amount of time.

So, it’s obviously untrue that “No one with Obama’s experience has been remotely considered” when Lincoln, who has the same level or experience (or LESS), was not only considered, but was elected and then saved America.

I’m going to save you some time now , so don’t respond with “you’re comparing Lincoln to Obama?” response. Just like you did with Eisenhower. You’re claim was about experience, I’ve disproved your claim with 5 Presidents now(a couple of guys were only nominees), and proven to you that Lincoln PRIOR TO BE ELECTED President had the same or less experience than Obama has.

Who to vote for?

So it's the day after SuperTuesday and I'm not sure what I think about out next President. I've always liked McCain, but I lost respect for him after he ate all the shit that the Bushies forced on him in South Carolina 8 years ago. He wanted to be Prez so badly that he didn't defend himself or point out the dirty tricks that the Bushies were guilty of. There is that and that he's getting pretty old...oh yeah and he seems to be campaigning on a dead end issue..."let's stay in iraq". What is that? we have one the war didn't we? Saddam is dead, there is no WMD, they held elections. now we're just in the middle of a civil war, excecpt both sides hate us.

Hilary. Never had much against her, but not a lot of love either. I always said she had too many negatives and that if she were the Dem nominee that she would bring out every redneck, evangelical and anyone who lives in the 1930's and think a woman should know her place. Would the Dems affection for her be able to over come that?

It seems that I'm currently rooting for Obama. I was disappointed that yesterday was such a "draw". I think his ideas are very similar to those of Hilary, but he brings a passion and an eloquence that this country desperately needs.

So...at this point, I've got nothing.

Open Letter to Entertainment Weekly

I don’t write letters to magazines and I’m not sure that my comments are worthy of writing this time, but I just had to write after reading another love letter to “Juno”. Let’s get this out of the way. I LOVED the movie; I loved Ellen Page and every other major character. I loved the soundtrack (I bought it the day after I saw the movie). I loved the screenplay. But I must wonder if EW’s incessant cheerleading for Juno has to do more with validating the hire of Diablo Cody as a “columnist” or the quality of the movie. (Do I have to insert the required allusion to Ms Cody’s past as a stripper and sex phone operator or can we stop doing that now?)

I was pretty shocked when I saw that Ms Cody was going to be a columnist, but again after the near weekly references to her in your pages even before Juno hit screens maybe I should have seen it coming. I was also skeptical after months of reading, what amounts to Stephen King’s blog on your last page. But at least Mr. King has decades of cred and is the most famous and successful master of his genre. Ms. Cody has one credit, but her deal with EW pre-dated the arrival of Juno. Hmmm.

So, I must wonder if the constant cheerleading is to drum up legitimacy for your new columnist. Just because someone can write a screenplay doesn’t necessarily mean they can write a column on culture and entertainment. No more than being the world’s best horror writer makes one an entertainment columnist. There are two legitimate culture and entertainment columnists out there while these two cross professional boundaries. I don’t blame EW for this as in America in recent years we’ve come to believe that the only way a person can be an expert on anything is to be a famous participant in what they comment. Honestly, does anyone think Terry Bradshaw provides better analysis of sports than Bob Costas or Mike Tirico? The same goes for EW columnists. Celebrity has replaced competence/merit in America. And EW is no exception. And maybe that should be expected in an entertainment magazine.

The article I just finished (EW #977) made it sound as if Juno is the first strong female character in the history of film, even while your sidebar points out strong young female characters in recent years. Of course Ms Page couldn’t relate to The Breakfast Club, but neither could I and I was in high school at the time it came out. I went to a tiny semi-rural school in, which was a million miles away from the preps and stoners of Hughesian fantasy.

The point of all this? While Juno is a fantastic movie, it didn’t invite the strong female lead. While Diablo Cody has written a fantastic screenplay, she isn’t Orson Welles (or Walter Winchell) yet. I wish her well; in the meantime EW should exhibit a little critical detachment.

Thanks

Movie Review: Devil and Daniel Johnston

Ok, I watched this last night. A good documentary, not great. But I think Mr. Johnston is an example of when self-important hipsters deem someone as the greatest thing ever and that momentum just carries on strictly by word of mouth and legend. If this documentary was supposed to show me his genius…it didn’t. I would assume his finest music was featured but the comparisons to him and Dylan or that he was better than Dylan were laughable. His music is incredibly basic and his lyrics are childish in their simplicity. The rhymes were so often forced, but reminded me of the lyrics of an awkward teen. There was no genius in the words. Sorry. Musically he doesn’t hold Dylan’s jock (listen to Dylan’s guitar instead of the words some time)

I’ve said this before but the guy from DiG (Brian Jonestown Massacre) was a genius. A very similar documentary on the descent into madness that creates great art, but just b/c you’re crazy doesn’t make you great. When the claims that Johnston ’s work are better than “Pet Sounds” are made people lose credibility. Daniel Johnston ain’t Brian Wilson.

At one point, his manager compared his early work to that of Dylan’s first five albums. That’s where they lost me. Dylan’s early work is possibly the greatest streak of music in rock history. (this conversation came about with a former co-work as we tried to come up with a string of albums by any artist that was better than the Stones streak of Beggar’s Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street . Other than Dylan, the Beatles, there really wasn’t anyone else in that neighborhood). Sorry, songs about Casper the Friendly ghost just don’t approach “Highway 61 Revisited” or a “Hard Rain’s Gonna Fall”.

Sharpton doing his best to fan the flames, not finding solutions

Reason 213 why Sharpton’s an idiot:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22556443/

If the guy she said it about is ok, then Sharpton should shut the hell up. Apparently, not enough people were paying attention to Al, so he’s got to make sure he gets in the news. I would think he would serve his constituency better by working at the local Rescue Mission as opposed to getting “outraged” over a poorly chosen phrase about a multi-millionaire. Obviously real racism exists in this country, but every time he makes up these “issues” it diminishes instances of real racism. It does a disservice to his cause for the sake of his vanity.

I propose a lifetime moratorium on the phrase “it is what it is”. it si WAY overused these days and often adds nothing to a conversation, often used when the speaker has nothing else to say. A verbal punt, if you will.

This joins “surreal” (the reigning overused/misused phrase for the past 3 years) and “samwich” , among others, on the all time list of annoying.

"best" medical care in the world...if you can get it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22357873/

When actuaries overrule the medical decisions of doctors at UCLA, what chance to any of us have?

Romney gets all Clintonesque or "when seeing is not seeing".

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/20/528873.aspx

The questioning did not relent. "I'm an English literature major," he insisted
at one point. "When we say I saw the Patriots win the World Series, it doesn't
necessarily mean you were there." (He meant the Super Bowl, of course.)

OH YEAH AND WERE IS ALL THE REPUBLICAN OUTCRY THAT THE GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS DOESN’T KNOW THAT THE PATRIOTS PLAY FOOTBALL. THEY GAVE ALL KINDS OF SHIT WHEN KERRY MISPRONOUNCED LAMBEAU FIELD. THIS IS A MUCH BIGGER MISS.

Cafeteria Christianity to justify prejudice (and of course pander)

To those who hold to this ridiculous view that our founding fathers were Bible-thumping Baptists in the vein of Pat Robertson, et al.

You need to go back and look at the various religious beliefs of the presidents. Deists and Quakers and Presbyterians don’t share a lot of dogma with Southern Baptists or what passes for “Christian” these days in America . (I’m not going to prove to you again how un-Christian the small but very influential and vocal group of southern Baptists are, nor how unrepresentative they are of Christianity in America ).

And for your very irrelevant shout out to your obsession with gays…the gay marriage issue is a fake issue that you and your sloganeering buddies like to trot out to avoid REAL issues. (I’ve been waiting for you to tell me for years now, why you care who I marry, without trotting out incest and goats, but you’ve got nothing…PROVING how little of an issue it really is).

Did Truman and Kennedy talk about gay marriage? Nope. But then again, Washington, Lincoln and Jefferson didn’t talk very much about Civil Rights, does that mean that rights for blacks are not consistent with “Traditional Values”? The point: you can’t live in the past. Tradition doesn’t make it right. The world moves on. You and your gay-fearing buddies will be tossed on the scrapheap of history along with people who opposed a heliocentric system, suffrage for women and civil rights for blacks. Picking and choosing obscure biblical passages while ignoring the ones right next to it, doesn’t really seem like a “value system”, it seems like cherry-picking to support your prejudice.

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

"They (shellfish) shall be an abomination to you; you shall not eat their flesh, but you shall regard their carcasses as an abomination." (Leviticus 11:11)

Deja Vu all over again

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/iran_usa_dc_3

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new U.S. intelligence report says Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and it remains on hold, contradicting the Bush administration's earlier assertion that Tehran was intent on developing a bomb.

Bush disappointed?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071203/ts_nm/venezuela_referendum_dc_32

Now he can’t invade, at least not right now ( I kid, but you know Bush likes to invade countries on little more than a leader saying mean things). But did you read the Constitutional Changes that Chavez wanted to institute, they are the exact type of executive Powers that Cheney has been pushing for. I’ll bet Bush sees a kindred spirit in Hugo. After all he did see into Putin’s soul and look what a good guy Putin turned out to be.

One of the things the Chavez wanted to do was remove legal controls on his actions when a state of emergency exists, one that he would declare. Just like Bush did with his “we are at war” stuff (which we are not b/c only Congress can declare war and that has not happened). Not that it’s a new idea…all executives/royals that wanted to expand their powers did so in “defense of the state/country/homeland”.

The Venezuelans voted AGAINST giving more power to the executive. Too bad America didn’t get to vote before Bush decided he was above the law.

Bloomberg/Hagel?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/29/hagel-criticizes-arrogant-bush-white-house/


he’s been saying what’s needed to be said for years, but now that he’s not running again he’s really saying what he feels…like every other person that has left this administration.

question about zealotry

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071129/ts_nm/sudan_prophet_dc_21

So, it’s an “insult” to name the bear Mohammed, but aren’t there millions of guys walking around the world of Islamic faith that also have that name? Why isn’t it an insult for a mere mortal/non-prophet to have that name? In fact, isn’t Mohammed the most common name in the world, or maybe that’s just urban legend? If it’s the “most common” wouldn’t it lose its sanctity? Or if its use is honorary, why wouldn’t naming something else also be honorary?

So many questions about religious zealotry…

On the topic of religion, just finished reading a book called “Misquoting Jesus”. Maybe you’ve heard of it, but it’s about how the current version of the bible came to be. Written by Christian biblical scholar, an interesting read telling the story of how the current version went from oral history, through good and bad translations, good and bad copying, and intentional changes supporting various agendas. A little dry in spots, but might be worth a read if you’re so inclined.

Remember this when Fox "News" is losing its mind over "Happy Holidays"

Obviously the degree is different, but the religious zealotry is the same. So, when Gibson and O’Reilly are decrying the end of civilization because the Wal-mart greeter says “Happy Holidays” (which we all know means Thanksgiving, New Years and Christmas and maybe even GOD FORBID, Hanukah) recall what religious zealotry begets.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1687755,00.html?cnn=yes


Or should I just lump this act with those of the Church that goes around to soldiers’ funerals and celebrates their deaths and lump them all together as the “Logical outcome” of Conservative thought?

Bush style Democracy taking hold in Pakistan

A friendly partisan Supreme Court upholds the "election victory" against the will of the people...and I worried that Bush couldn't export his version of Democracy, boy was I wrong:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21925944/

Happy Thanksgiving

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse...fully supported, encouraged and covered up by the Bush WH

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1681265,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

Bushies, I would imagine that being former Conservatives, you’d be appalled at this blatant disregard for the effective use of our tax dollars, but your blood should be boiling that those tasked with rooting out this fraud and abuse have been thwarted by the current administration, which leads to even more waste, fraud and abuse.

Shameful

It’s always the guys who never put their own lives in danger by actually entering the military that have such a love for torture and those who’ve actually put their lives on the line for America oppose torture.

I guess it’s easy to support the methods of Stalin, the Gestapo and Pol Pot if you never had to worry about them being used on you. (In 1947, the US tried a Japanese soldier for war crimes for using waterboarding…he was sentenced to 15 years hard labor)

How the hell does Bush claim that America represents democracy, morality and freedom for the world when he directs his minions to behave like a barbarians? The military code still forbids waterboarding explicitly which is why Bush has to make civilians (or goons from other countries who we have on our terrorism list). Oh yeah…and physical torture doesn’t work.

A New Low 07 Nov 2007 09:21 am "Waterboarding is
something of which every American should be proud," - Deroy Murdock, National Review. Have you noticed
that the pro-torture right has gone from saying that torture is abhorrent to
saying that torture isn't occurring to saying that torture is not torture to now
saying that torture is "something of which every American should be proud". And
why not indeed? The Cheney logic is impregnable: the president is not bound by
the law or the Geneva Conventions; torture reveals information that allows the
government to seize individuals who might at some point commit terror attacks;
the president's job is to prevent terror attacks. Torture is thereby a good.
Alas, the American constitution clearly does not say that the president is above
the law; the Geneva Conventions do apply to all captives in wartime and the bar
on mistreatment far less than torture is clear; the only source we have for the
fact that these terror suspects were terrorists is the government that uses
torture against them; torture itself has no way of determining what is true or
what is false and was designed in the first place to produce false confessions.
And the president's first job is to uphold the Constitution.

Then, of course, there is the question of morality. But if you follow
Murdock's reasoning that torture saves lives, and your moral rubric is entirely
utilitarian, then torture itself is obviously an active moral good. I have no
idea why more "conservatives" don't aggressively propose expanding it. And
here's a prediction: after the next terror attack, they will.

More of that Bush restoring ethical behavior to the executive branch

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21589678/

It’s a good thing that Bush was going to restore ethics to the Executive Branch; I can’t imagine how much further they’d extend their unethical behavior if he hadn’t promised to do that.

It’s been lucrative to work for the King in other countries throughout history. Fortunately for the Friends of Bush, he restored Royalty in America (Divine Mandate and being above the law of the land and all) and now all his buddies are really cashing in. It’s not only great to BE the King, it’s great to KNOW the King.

According to our President...this isn't torture

This is not torture, it’s “Aggressive Interrogation” as these techniques would not bring about organ failure or death. So, it’s all good. Nothing illegal here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21659520/

George W. Bush…Bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East since 2001…

George W. Bush…Bringing peace and democracy to the Middle East since 2001…

At least 28 killed in attack on Afghan lawmakers
5 parliamentarians slain; doctor says toll could be much higher
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21650763/

Pakistan protests met with violent crackdown
Bush calls on Musharraf to relinquish army position, restore democracy
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21609019/

2007 becomes deadliest yet for U.S. in Iraq
Military announces deaths of soldiers and sailor, raising year’s total to 853
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21650614/

Oil prices soar past $97, setting new record
Concerns about bombings in Afghanistan , inadequate U.S. supply
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/