The purple map of the US

We have all seen the depressing red and blue map of the United States but magpie at Pacific Views has a "reality based map" that shows the states in shades of purple. Not nearly as depressing, check it out.

The Federal Government Protecting Your Heath and Pocket Book, NOT!!!!!

Vioxx heart risks apparent for years
While the federal government has been spending massive resources to fight the use of medical marijuana over the last four years nothing was done with the evidence that Merck's Vioxx resulted in an increased chance of stroke and heart attack.

Lets look at the reasons behind this:

• Vioxx: The popular arthritis drug was responsible for about 15% of Merck's profits.


• Marijuana: There is clinical evidence the marijuana is helpful for treating glaucoma, cancer and multiple sclerosis but it has one serious drawback, the large drug companies can't make any money on it and it is a substitute for drugs they can make money on.

As we can see the federal government's concern is to protect the profits of the drug companies not the health and well being of the citizens.

Cross posted at Middle Earth Journal

Angry White People

I posted this over at MEJ yesterday and although it is unpleasant I think it is something we need to think about as we try to figure out how to neuter the Bush cabal. I'm not going to comment on it other than to say I am looking at my own attitudes to the "red" citizens.
From xymphora

People aren't entirely prepared to admit it, but there really is an underclass of very unhappy white people in the United States who are still fighting the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and the Civil War. The dissatisfaction in their lives is caused by the powerlessness they feel in the face of the fact that they fall further behind with each generation. The Republicans manage these people with great skill, and use the full force of the media to direct all their anger and hatred to liberalism. The fact that many of them are evangelical Christians is more a symptom of the same malaise that it is the cause of their hatreds. Nutty religion is their opium. While many of them are terribly misinformed and stupid, I don't think it is entirely fair to say that they misunderstand their class interests. They have come to the conclusion that they are going to be screwed regardless of which party is in power, and they prefer to be screwed by a group that doesn't appear to hold them in contempt. Indeed, you get the impression that their hatred is so great that they are taunting the liberal attempts at policy solutions to their problems, almost saying we hate your contempt for us so much we'll prove it by voting against our own interests.

Why Bush Won

As a follow up the Jazz's post below some more post election observations. Bush won because Rove got out the Evangelical Christian vote, in other words Bush won because of the abortion issue. Many, if not most, of those Evangelical Bush voters are hurting and are worried about the situation in Iraq but voted for Bush because it was the "Godly" thing to do. Those of us in the "Reality Based Community" have only one way to combat this, we have to convince the Christian Right that the Theocon Republicans can't deliver their flat earth wingnutery. Maybe then they will vote their best interests.

Old Soldier

I am on the downhill side of 58 and realize that the damage that has been done in the last four years and the damage that will be done in the next four will not be undone in my lifetime. Like Jazz, I think Bush did get the most votes. I think I would feel better if I thought the election was stolen. Political and social institutions, like their carbon based creators, have a lifespan. If you have read the words of the founding fathers you know that their grand experiment has already lasted longer than many of them thought it would. You would also know that in spite of what Pat Robertson says they specifically warned against becoming a "Christian Nation". Unfortunately few Americans have read the words of the founding fathers. Although in the Abrahmic sense I guess you would say I am an atheist I have read the Bible and found great wisdom in the words of Jesus. I can only assume that many of the people today that call themselves "Christians" have not read the Bible.

The problem is not Bush, the problem is not the media, the problem is the people. I don't know how you fix that. I'm glad I don't have grandchildren today. This old soldier is ready to give up the fight.

I took in my flag today.

I'm not feeling very patriotic or happy today. I'm probably going to have to change the "Defend America Defeat Bush" to a more appropriate bumper sticker that says something like "F**K BUSH" but that may be too mild. I have to take off the other bumper sticker now too- it said, "We support our troops, just not the current unelected White House occupant." I'll have to find something with just "We support our troops" on it. They need all the help they can get.

I cannot resist sharing a poem I grew up with. It is found in the book, "Poems for the John" by Jackie Kannon published in 1960.

The election is over, the result is known.
The will of the people is clearly shown.
Let's forget our quarrels and show by our deeds-
We'll give our leader all the help that he needs.
So let's all get together and let bitterness pass-
I'll hug your elephant, and you can kiss my donkey.

Map

Good election map at C-Span Here

What could have been

I did my daily scan of the op-ed pages and found one commentary that said it all, E.J.Dionne's piece in the Washington Post. He talks about what could have been. George W. Bush could have had a landslide victory in a united country today.

Instead, the president is perilously close to defeat. The best he can hope for is a narrow victory that will leave the nation bitter, divided and angry. One of Bush's achievements will be exceptional voter turnout and a renewal of the idea that elections and political parties matter. The downside, for him at least, is that a large share of the country has been activated for the primary purpose of ending his presidency.
In the days after Sept. 11, Democrats put aside their suspicions of Bush and rallied to his side. "We will speak with one voice," Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle declared on that awful day. "All of us stand with the president," said Sen. Joe Biden. And stand with the president we all did.

For several months, Bush, too, stood above party. In assembling both a domestic and international coalition to wage war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, the president put aside his critiques of unilateralism and "nation-building." As I wrote at the time -- yes, even I admired Bush that fall -- the president "grafted the language of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman to the martial rhythms of Ronald Reagan." He sought broad support, not narrow majorities, for the Afghan war and his emergency spending proposals.

Instead of building on that unity the neo-cons, theo-cons and neo-feudalists tried to take advantage of it.

But Bush interpreted his prodigious approval ratings not as an opportunity for something new but as a chance to push the same ideological agenda he was pursuing before Sept. 11. It was a chance to create a Republican majority in Congress in the 2002 elections. It was a chance to push through even more tax cuts, and never mind the deficits created by all that new spending. If the Senate, facing the 2002 elections, could be badgered into giving the president broad authority to wage war against Saddam Hussein, why not short-circuit a more searching debate and just grab the power? And if forcing an early Iraq vote put his potential 2004 opponents -- John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt -- in a bind, why not seize that advantage, too?

It worked for a while. And should Bush squeeze out a narrow win, his supporters will no doubt claim a victory for the president's audacious style.

But the cost of such a victory will be paid off for many years -- perhaps for as long as we're paying off the debt.

So, even if Bush loses, and I think he will, we will all be losers. "A Country Divided Cannot Stand", and divided we will be after this election.

Al Qaeda as a political party

Juan Cole has a post today on the Bush administration and how a Kerry administration will differ. Nothing that will be new to most of us here but buried in the middle is a paragraph on the aspirations of al-Qaeda and the real significance of Osama bin Laden's tape last week.

Al-Qaeda has ambitions beyond just blowing a few things up, no matter how horribly. It is now a cadre organization, that is, it consists of a few thousand committed fanatics. But it wants to be a political party. That is the significance of Bin Laden's most recent videotape. He is posing as a champion of "freedom" in the Muslim world (mainly freedom from US hegemony, but he maintains also freedom from authoritarian and corrupt regimes in the region backed by the US). Bin Laden is making a play not just to be a cult leader but to succeed to the position of Gamal Abdul Nasser as an anti-imperialist icon in the region. Ultimately al-Qaeda would like to get control of entire states, and merge them into an Islamic superstate, a new caliphate. It is a crackpot idea that will fail, but many crackpot ideas that fail (e.g. the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia) do a great deal of damage along the way.

We make a serious mistake if we think the "War on Terror" is simply a war against a bunch of "killers". Perhaps the real importance of having a Kerry administration is that there will be a realization that we are dealing with more than good vs evil or black vs white. We may live in a digital world but thinking digitally is very dangerous.

Redskins lose

There's a superstition that says if the Redskins lose their last home game before election day, the incumbent party in Washington will be booted out. Normally, I'm not much of one for football or superstition, but with the lovely blowout they just experienced, I'm going to hope they continue this 15 years in a row tradition.

I'm seriously going to consider moving to Ireland if ConstipatedMonkeyface is elected. I simply fear for America and the safety of all Americans if he stays as president, and could not bear it. I dread what tricks he may pull to stay where he is. I'm still genuinely frightened that he may try some sort of shenanigans to have himself declared president or make the election void.

How can they say this stuff??????

In 2000 the Portland Oregonian endorsed George W. Bush. In 2004 the Oregonian became one of the many papers that found it necessary to change horses and endorse John Kerry. I'm sure there was at least one dissenting voice in that decision, the Oregonian's own Bush shill, David Reinhard. In his op-ed today he tries to tell us why in this time of war we should vote for George Bush. I have read Reinhard for years and in fact have usually found myself in complete disagreement with him but today's column was just too much. I will pick out a few of the most absurd points he tries to make.

Bush has conducted himself through all this with consistency, persistence and courage. He's shown the hard virtues required of a war president and endured the abuse of the nation's smart set, the media and Hollywood glamoratti, with humility and grace.
Years ago, I worked for Ronald Reagan as a low-level political appointee, and I'm more proud of that fact with each passing year. But George Bush? Yes, I know so many people have an unbecoming hatred of the man, but I love the guy. This president has become a profile in Christian character.
He faces a man without two essentials in this time of war -- a strategy to win the war and, well, honor.

Let's take a look at this.
"Bush has conducted himself through all this with consistency, persistence and courage."So when is it a plus to be consistent and persistent when you're wrong and how is it courageous when you can't admit you were wrong?
"This president has become a profile in Christian Character". Excuse me, unlike many Christians I have actually read the Bible and the words of Christ. I don't think that Christ would look kindly on a man who needlessly sends over a 1000 Americans to their death in a war that is all about empire building; and let's not forget the 50-100 thousands of Iraqis who have died. There is evidence that Bush is losing support among the right wing Christian base.
"He faces a man [Kerry] without two essentials in this time of war -- a strategy to win the war and, well, honor." I guess Reinhard doesn't even read his own paper. Bush's strategy thus far has been to lose two wars through sheer incompetence, alienate the rest of the world at a time that we really need friends and become the greatest recruiting aide that al-Qaeda could have asked for. As for his comment that Kerry has no honor, that doesn't even deserve a rebuttal.
Reinhard hard has shown himself for what he is, a third rate David Brooks from the backwoods of Oregon. If you are truly into self abuse you can read the entire column here
Shamelessly cross posted at Middle Earth Journal
(edited only for minor spelling-Georg)

Taking Bush at His Word

Middle Earth Journal is blessed with a resource that knows I would rather read Science Fiction than the Newspaper, Bill In DC. So Bill sends reads the papers and sends us links to the good stuff. Today's tip is this op-ed by Nicholas Kristof. He compares the words of George W. Bush in 2000 - 2003 with the reality of 2004. I'll give a couple of examples to wet your appetite.

� Oct. 11, 2000: "If we're an arrogant nation, [foreigners] will resent us. If we're a humble nation but strong, they'll welcome us. ... We've got to be humble."

It's a good thing Mr. Bush tried to be humble, or the U.S. would have an approval rating even lower than 5 percent in Jordan, and Osama bin Laden's approval rating in Pakistan would be higher than 65 percent.

� Nov. 5, 2003: "In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. ... We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society."

Abortions declined in the U.S. in the Clinton years; the abortion rate dropped by 22 percent in the 1990's. But while data are incomplete, abortions appear to have increased sharply since Mr. Bush took office. Glen H. Stassen, a Christian pro-life theologian, estimates that 52,000 more abortions occurred in 2002 than would have been expected based on the previous trend. Professor Stassen attributes the rise in abortions in part to the troubled economy and concerns among pregnant women that they cannot afford to have babies.

There is a lot more, it's worth the read.