EmptyHighway
I haven't figured it out either.

Al Franken took down a protestor at a Dean rally.

According to Franken,

"I'm neutral in this race but I'm for freedom of speech, which means people should be able to assemble and speak without being shouted down."

I have to admit, there have been numerous times I've wanted to do this. But I didn't, usually because the "heckler" was much more massive than I, as goes the general rule for obnoxious people. And I know no, wrestling moves. Go Franken!

I am officially giving my public endorsment for Gen. Clark for president, because I am sure everyone was waiting with baited breath. Take a look folks, this is a man who is going places, and can take us all along with him.

This just in folks. Federal court in L.A. finds portions of the Patroit Act vague and unconstituional.

As Howard Zinn says "You can't be neutral on a moving train." And I'm anguished with the direction this Presidential train has been moving these three years.

Let's reflect on a speech from earlier in the Bush Administration. Or if you prefer, hop on over to his recent State of the Union Address. When you finish, comment on what you see wrong/right over there or down below, then read on.

From August 21, 2001, during question & answer session following a speech President Bush delivered at Target, Bush answers how his tax cut will jump start the economy. The the full interview is available here (as of January 25^th, 2004).

Q Mr. President, do you think that the purchasing of school supplies and things people would buy ordinarily will, in fact, jump start the economy?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I think it's a cumulative. If you try to look at one isolated incident, it's easy to belittle $600 in a person's pocket. But $600 of additional disposable income all across America that amounts to billions of dollars will provide a part of the equation for economic recovery. Of course, if somebody buys a pencil, somebody's had to make it. But it is not just school supplies. That maybe kind of diminishes the effect of billions of dollars getting into the economy in a very quick period of time.

I knew I wasn't going to vote for Bush this election year, as many who read this site did as well, however I've been hard pressed to decide on a Democartic candidate. This year, unlike last year it seems to me, there are several solid candidates running, unfortunately they are all WASP's, but solid they are nonetheless. And like many "porgressives", I'm not just looking for a canddate that can win, I'm looking for a candidate that can represent the multi-faceted value structures and issues facing America and the World today. America should represent and lead in valuing the human spirit and every individual's right to live freely to pursue their own life free of opporession, as long as they don't infringe on others rights to do the same. I believe I've found a leader that can and will do that and I'll refine my reasons over the coming months as I delve deeper and grow more committed to the campaign.

One of the reasons Wesley Clark is appeals to me today, irregardless of his unavoweledly prior Republican alignment, supporting Reagan and Bush Seniors' Administrations, it seems to me he has the willingness, passion, and ability (through the benefit of hindsight) to bring realistic economic solutions to the forefront of leadership. Clark's economic plan disavows Reagan's trickle-down theory, which Bush has honed to a sharp edge and brought ever an embellished refinement.

In a speech I watched yesterday on Clark's website yesterday I couldn't help but confer what Clark says with what Bush said back in 2001.

An excerpt from Clark's speech at Dartmouth College:
"...what's going on in this country is that a lot of people are insecure about their future's. They're worried about jobs. They're worried about health care...the thing is..that the party that is in power, is doing the least to help them. It's program is taxcuts for the wealthy, with the assumption of trickle-down economics. And if you're at Dartmounth (this speech was given at Dartmouth), I'm sure you're aware that there is no academic merit in "trickle-down" economics. It should be taught in poilitical economy. Not in economics. (Applause)"

Wes Clark's tax plan make sense to me, and will probably be even more meaningful and beneficial to families like my brother's (4 boys all under 5). families who are a one-income family, that bring's home under $50,000. Read Clark's plan here.

Here's an excerpt of from his Families First Tax plan:
The majority of families will not need to file tax returns. Under Wes Clark's reform, more than half of American families will no longer need to file tax returns. The government will withhold the correct amount of taxes from the families paycheck or provide them with the correct tax credit. If they still want to file a tax form, they can. This system has been proven to work in thirty-six countries, including the United Kingdom.[1]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not naive enough to think this will pass through congress with flying colors. Even in the few minutes it took me to read, I saw a few glaring challenges. For example, his plan mentions several seeming inflexible target numbers, as oppossed to ranges based on cost of living analysis. As it stands it doesn't really take into consideration that different locales have different costs of living and hence different measurements of poverty. Nonetheless, it makes more sense than Bush's $600 for tissues or school supplies at Target, and waiting for the cumulative KA-POW of economic stimulus from that. We would have to wait until our states revenues recovered from his massive retraction of federal programs, that in the aforementioned speech above he claimed was laden with "pet projects". Mr. President, if Education, Health Care, and Labor rights are "pet projects" than perhaps you should consider running for the Chair of some board again, 'cause those "pet projects" ain't going away. I'm impressed that Clark's not just criticizing the Administration, he's getting his team to think about plausible alternatives, and making a stance on these in his bid for democratic nomination.

I've been spending a fair amount of time in analyzing the candidates on my own, and I still have a long ways to go before I am fully committed to one Candidate, but this much I can say, Clark, Kerry, Edwards, and even Dean, all look a lot better than the current Administration.

Clark seems the strongest and most capable of meeting Bush on his National Security platform, and as Clark proclaimed this past week in NH, "...I can go toe to toe with George Bush on National Security..." and I agree. And I've read a plethora of varied sources to boot. Watched video after video of debate, interview, etc. of all of the leading candidates and Clark seems far in front of the pack to me.

Of the top candidates, Clark speaks with the most decisiveness on all the issues he's weighed in on to date (which are many), yet allows openness for counsel from experts and debate at the same time. One of the things I've most disliked about Dean, is his waffling nature, to me, that spells defeat and clear centrist, middle-of-the-roadeness, that we don't need.

I remeber another waffler from my home state, George Bush was accussed of being a waffler back in Texas. He managed to win two gubernatorial races, before he marched on to D.C. The problem back then was that we didn't know what his stance was on most issues,a nd he waited till he got to the Whitehouse to let the full brunt of his decision fall on the American public,a nd took an opportunity to play his agenda once we faced the crisis of post 9-11.

Wesley clark sounds committed to Openness in the Federal Government and has made adamantly clear his stance on the most common and basic issues facing the American public, and in turn one of the first things he's done is provide a 100 Year Vision for America. And his vision is weighed by careful integration with his stance on issues. I can't remeber Bush ever clearly stating his stance on anything (besides issues that are clearly outside the realm of governmental intervention, i.e. religious beliefs, unbased in fact) , and I know that is not good for our country. Leadership must lay out their vision and be willing to hear and take criticism and amend their vision accordingly. It seems Wes Clark has stepped out leaps and bounds above the rest.

Read Clark's Pledge to Open Goverment...Or his Tax Policy...Or his 10 Pledges on National Security...or his stance on Education...Job Creation...

Well I have avoided this for a few days, but now I just have to let it out. During George Bush´s "State of he Union Address" this week, Bush once again made his feelings on gay marriage clear, this time without actually using a reference to homosexuals.

Along with so many others from the christian right Bush wants to create a constitutional amendment that would ban making gay marriage legal. In a time when republicans are yelling for smaller less intrusive government, they ae still showing their true colors. Republicans tout states rights, but it seems only if the state is in line with their thinking.

I think taking this to the point of constitutional amendments shows a sense of fear, and wanting for control. It is almost as if the right s saying “Ok, all you queers, we gave you everything else because we had to, but there is no way we will ever let you feel like equals completely.”

Sexuality in the oppressive mind of the right seems to be an exclusive club, tying into the debate on religion. Still after all these years, the only people they want to feel like are complete, and worthy citizens are white christian heterosexual males. If you are anything less, you are strictly second class.

In Alabama when the Ten Commandment “monument” was removed, the christians were screaming that their right to freedom of religious expression was being trampled. Still, is there anyone in this world that believes the christian right of Alabama would stand by and allow someone to erect a two ton Buddhist altar with burning incense in the middle of the court house? Where do you think their civil rights activism would be geared then? Or how about a giant pagan goat head in the middle of a pentacle? Oh, I am sure they would just be up in arms if someone tried to have it removed, right?

The motto of the republican party seems to be “You can have all the same rights as we do, as long as you become one of us. Everyone has the right to be equal, you have just as much a right to marry someone of the opposite sex, and turn your life to Jesus as we did.”

So does freedom of religion mean using personal religious beliefes to alter the constitution?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020129-11.html

http://www.dontamend.com/

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of persons described in section 1 of this proclamation would, except as provided in sections 2 and 3 of this proclamation, be detrimental to the interests of the United States.

I therefore hereby proclaim that:

Section 1. The entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of the following persons is hereby suspended:

(a) Public officials or former public officials whose solicitation or acceptance of any article of monetary value, or other benefit, in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of their public functions has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States.

(b) Persons whose provision of or offer to provide any article of monetary value or other benefit to any public official in exchange for any act or omission in the performance of such official's public functions has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States.

(c) Public officials or former public officials whose misappropriation of public funds or interference with the judicial, electoral, or other public processes has or had serious adverse effects on the national interests of the United States.

(d) The spouses, children, and dependent household members of persons described in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) above, who are beneficiaries of any articles of monetary value or other benefits obtained by such persons.

Then again, as we read on, maybe he's smarter than we think...

Sec. 8. This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party, against the United States, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

So, in other words, we can hae officials that walk freely in corruption but you can't? Something smell funny to anyone else?

Pres. Bush 1:20pm EST—"Part of the things you'll hear me talk about is how to continue the growth. I mean, we're growing. This economy is good. It can be better, so more people find work. "
—Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/20031205-4.html

Then how come so many damn people are being laid off still!?

Here is a List of people I know, who've been: laid off, can't/couldn't find steady work, are underemployed, etc. during this BUSH/CHENEY Presidency(Note: They didn't have this problem during the Clinto Era. Coincidence? Maybe.):

• Tracie (my girlfriend)
• Peter (her dad)
• Julie (her Mom)
• Stepha (my roomate)
• George (my dad- As of today, no less. 27 years for the same company, and oh what a few years before retirement, sorry..out the door. ..."..this economy is good." mr. bush Have you read a paper, or listened during your cabinet meeting's!)
• Ken (My current boss, was unemployed for 16 months before he got his job a year ago).
• Mike Boston
• Dan (co-worker-laid off)
• Leslie (co-worker-laid off)

That's all I can recall at this moment...but I know there are more. And we all know there will be more. When the soldiers come home, there will be even more. Anyone recall, "Vietnam" or "Desert Storm". It's seems to me that the only people who have jobs come in two categories:

• Those who: work like slaves and are lucky
• Those who work all the slaves and take the money

Sure, I sound cynical, and on the whole I tend to be, but I do have passion for: this country, democracy, fairness, justice, equanamity, and humanity. Where has all of it gone? Not only are we waging an unjustified war in a foreign land, lacking domestic support, under a popularly un-elected President...but we are also spiralling into the largest economic black hole of debt in the history of the world.

Today, when I found out my father was laid-off, I was angry, devasted, pissed, crushed, exhausted, and then I realized that I've been that why for a while, and this is just another time it has really hit home. I mean I am grateful that he has his health and has incredible intelligence, work experience, and more to come, but I am furious that he's been tossed aside like someone's used trash. The man worked (slaved...as so many else have) for my entire life at this company.

Not only, did he work for this company for 27 years, but he had been there several years before it became one of the many companies it was renamed to (when his employment was finally considered non-contractual work and a "full-time" employement - and Dad, correct me if i'm wrong here?). And it seems like only yesterday (although it was about a year ago), when he and I were talking about how his good friend Tommy had been laid off from said company, the same way, just before retirement.

Because, you know, we are living longer, so maybe we should all just work our asses off until we drop steaming hot dead in our jobs.

So, I came home, having decided I need to do something about this crap, and started to just poke around and see if there was anything about: economic growth, unemployment, workers rights, laid off, etc., on the world wide web. And what ahve you, i found numerous resources on unemployment and laid-off workers rights, and I found the speach mentioned above, coincidentally from this afternoon, around the same time I found out about him getting laid off. Wow, what a surprise.

Now we can't blame this all on Mr. Bush, but I'll tell you what, searching his former state, I sure can't find a helluva lot about laid-off worker's rights, infact the only thing found was this and it was on the Department of Labor's site. And the hilarious thing is that I was hard pressed to find the word "fired" laid-off". It seems they've renamed it...

Bush to Secretary of Labor
Elaine L. Chao —

Bush—"'Laine honey darlin, what's a better word for fired or laid off? I need a synyrnym for this here crossword puzzle?"

Chao—""Shoot hun, how 'bout...uh..´dislocated worker´...?"
Bush—"hrm...too long...but I like the ring it has...can't we do something with it?"

If you are a dislocated worker, then you may need this site.

I'm sorry, but I'm with George Carlin on this "...when are we going to dispense with the euphemistic language and call shit what it really is?"—a derivative of what he said in a routine form a long time ago.

What the hell can a person do about this?

What are you supposed to do if you are in midlife and you've been laid-off from the one place that you invested your life's work?

How can we prepare for this if we haven't even reached mid-life when this happens?

What happens when it hits home right away, when you're young?

What if you never even have a fair opportunity?

What the hell is going on in the world?

We need to act. I suggest we all try as damn hard as we can to stick it to each other, find some answers to these questions and more, and stop taking this crap! We have to stop sedating ourselves, and work our minds in this country to solve our problems, 'cause in case you haven't noticed, borders are dissolving, and our problems are becoming world problems. That's why we have to intervene, because often we are at fault. Of course that's easier said than done, I haven't had my experience with a layoff...yet, but I'll be damned if I won't.

We have to fight back, and as some say regime change begins at home. you can guess who's going to be one of the first scapegoats I pen it on, well, he does deserve it. Also, I'm going to continue my research. This may be the impetus for me finally going for a law degree.

To be continued...in the meantime a few resources for the "Dislocated Workers":

• Employee Benefits Security Administration
• Pension Issues
• Want ot know who else is experiencing what you are?
• Oh..they do use it...LAID OFF?
• more stats

And if anyone is reading this. Please tell us what you know with you comments.

And it never ceases to amaze me how one can stumble upon good resources or tutorials on the web in the strangest places. I'm learning SQL for and ColdFusion right now and I happened upon this off of Sumit's home base. Who would've have thought?

Indeed I have connections in Microsoft. Our friend Sumit Basu...Dear Sumit...

Sumit Basu does not need these glasses, but it's nice to know he's doing interesting work. Too bad it's in rainy, cold, grey (hey wait a sec, that sounds like Boston) Seattle, WA.

Truth is, I am not one of those guys going around screaming that marijuana should be legal. Do I think it is silly that it is not, sure, but I am not going to go join some advocacy group. Still watching tv recently (yeah, I know, that was my first mistake) I have seen an incredibly annoying "PSA" for the war on drugs, maybe you have seen this too.

In it, they show a kid sitting at a roadside memorial and say that in one third of all fatal accidents the driver tested positive for marijuana. This is in no way a lie, but it's implication is misleading. They fail to mention that alcohol is present in more than 50%, and almost the entire third mentioned earlier falls into this category. While alcohol will only stay in your system for a few hours, and marijuana stays for days, this only proves that the person is irresponsible.

First off they were driving drunk, which I am sure we can all agree plays a pretty large factor in the accident. This shows the person is fairly irresponsible to begin with, so to say that they smoked pot, is not a far stretch. The point is that there are irresponsible people out there. A blatant disregard for the law, seems to show a person may not be all that concerned with other factors. Yet this is never mentioned.

This is very much like the "www.thetruth.com" commercials. In their antismoking campaign ads they have spewed more propaganda than the Nazi party. See, that is how you do it. Throughout history there have been so many to use propaganda on a daily basis, yet I use the Nazi's as an example, thus creating an association.

The fact is that there are more factors involved than any of these groups talk about, and neither are lying. It is all in how you say things kids. The information that you leave out, can often make what you say more powerful. They don't say in the marijuana PSA that these people were under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident, all they say is that person HAD smoked marijuana recently enough to still test positive. That is all.

In a "Crazyworld" ad from www.thetruth.com tv spot, they have a parking lot game show where they have to find the product in the shopping cart without ingredients listed on it. Of course, it is the pack of cigarettes. They proclaim "even bottled water lists ingredients." What they don't mention is that alcoholic beverages do not. Neither do many over the counter and prescription drugs (though they will list the main ingredients, they do leave many off.)

The fact is that these are nothing more than propaganda. The question that remains is, does misleading advertising help or hurt the groups in the long run, and where do these "soldiers for health" draw an ethical line? Sure, I am all for keeping kids from picking up the habbit, but is misleading people the best way to do it?

I looked at this site a few days ago and said to myself, "Uh…woops, it’s blank." And then I turned the computer off, and read a book. Now several days have past and I really have had a lot to think about over the past month and even several days. I figured why not write these thoughts down. Before I forget them, as so frequently happens.

I don't know how many people read my site, and frankly I don't really care (quality over quantity), but I like to use this as what it really is, a journal of sorts. Albeit, one that could succumb to electronic maelstroms and atmospheric interference, but what wouldn't? I mean, if I had a paper journal and I started to write frequently and then some natural disaster came along. The most frequent natural disaster for many of my journals has been me, leaving them somewhere or spilling liquids on them, so why not write my meanderings here. At least someone out there can take a hack at my concept of the world. Maybe?

I digress, or maybe I just meander into meaning. I'll let you sort that out.

The Holidays or Post-Partum Depression?
Christmas. Yea...anyways. You got love your family. No really, you HAVE to, I mean it's written somewhere. Isn't it? (Mom, don't read this as about you if you read this, this is about the whole process more than any particular person. I put this here so that many of you can laugh at me and say yea, right, but I know that my Mom is good at worrying, and this is really nothing to worry about. )
Well, if it's not, I think I'm going somewhere else next year. It's not that I dont love my family, I think it's something else.

I think that family’s actually need a holiday from each other. Next year that is exactly what I'm suggesting and participating in. I think I'll volunteer a few weeks abroad somewhere...maybe Iraq (Peace Corps anyone?).

And its not like the Holidays are an uplifting time anyways. Past 3 years someone close, close to those I love, or someone who just was there for me in some important way has died around this time. First it was my Mother's Mother 2 Christmas's ago, then it was my Dad's and now it was my Great-Step Uncle Bill (and let's just say that like in business, titles don't express the significance of a person Bill was a treasure to us).

And yet, I didn't even get to the funeral this time. My travels over the past few years are still accruing interest as I type, so no dice. And I had already taken the plunge to get more debt (the car) just before the holidays, which exacerbated the tenuousness of my pocketbook's heft.

So, net year, I'm going on strike during the holidays and I'm going to work somewhere else. Screw it. Who needs a vacation? I love seeing everybody, but I also need a break from all of them anyways.

Back to work...
Cynic #1:Yea, and so what of it? Are you changing the world now that you are back for the new year? Well, are you?

Wayne: Well, yea. Sort of. Hey...leave me alone. No really, leave me alone, I mean it.

Cynic#1: Well, how involved are you in your community? What are you doing to change the regime to something worthwhile?

wayne: Well, for starters…this.

Politics. Elections. Ethics (in the same heading are you nuts?)

I read a lot. No I really do. But I finish things slowly. Lately, I've taken to reading short stories. It gives me a sense of accomplishment, and faster than a book. I've had great fun with McSweeney's over the past months, and their publications. In fact I purchased this tome a few months back and received it just prior to the holiday break.
And I started to read that, Howard Zinn's "A People's History..." and got a bit overwhelmed with the seriousness of it all. Everything is already serious enough right? That's why so many of us talk so damn much about movies. The economy is collapsing, our (popularly unelected) President has taken us into a Vietnam'esque war , our World Economy sucks because our laws and governments allowed so few to get so rich so damn quickly, off the sweat of all our backs, and we talk about the latest movie. I guess that qualifies as 'talking politics'.

Then when we do talk politics, so many of us, think we know everything there is to know about every issue, that we ignore what the hell the other is saying and walk away just as pissed and more unlikely to initiate a conversation about politics again.

So, with all of this on my mind and the desire to learn from history, I read. One of my own key failures in life has been not questioning enough and being distracted by too many interests. Lately my interests have centered around three things: history, history of war, and how to win a war (and I don't just mean a multi-nation war either, I mean personal ones as well). So, I’ve read.

Some conclusions have been made, some inclusions observed, and some ideas discussed. Tracie and I talk about what we each read, see and hear, late at night lying in bed. This is one of those great perks of living and sleeping with some one, part of being committed and seeing the multi-faceted benefits of not living an alone life. I live one of those for so long, longing for something I did not understand, and only understand bit by bit each day.

Not only have I read, but I’ve browsed. In my browsing, I came across, of all things, a PBS special biography on Jimmy Carter (I link to Amazon here, but I found it in my local library. He was President when I was 6, so I didn't really know a lot about President Carter. However, since organization's model of Clinton as a poster child for National Service, originally stemmed from stufying President Carter's innate goodwill and actions that he performed following his Presidency with Habitat for Humanity, and how it benefitted that organization. I had an intuition that the more important aspect of the man was what his service embodied, and being an assett to the organization was only a side affect, and for me the video rang this hypothesis true. I need to read more about him soon. I htink it will also help structure my thoguhts on this Presidency and how I can participate more fully. It is never too late.

Libraries are wonderful things, and rather than steal tax dollars from states they are an investment in a state or community, made by tax dollars. Interesting.

Why have I forgetten about libraries? Why do we forget about them? Do we need 4 color ads in the paper to remember they are there? Do they have to have a Starbucks in or next door to make the attractive?

I think one campaign to increase their popularity could be two-fold. Raise your taxes by as much as you spend on Starbucks and Amazon.com a year, and increase your libraries desirability by threefold. A) You can use those tax dollars to build houses for the homeless that stay there during the day. B) You could by at least twice as many books ('cause we all know Amazon and B&N.com mark their books up by 100%) C) You could pay for equitably raised and procured, great tasting coffee, at 1/4 of the price of a cup of Starbucks coffee. And yea, this cup would taste good. D) We could outfit those libraries with internet stations that didn't charge for internet access 1 for every 10 people in the library, and make http://www.vote-smart.org, http://www.thomas.gov, http"//www.thenation.com, http://www.alternet.org, etc. favorites, to make removing terrible leaders that much easier. It could work. And maybe I'll look back at this post someday soon and come up with a real plan. Or maybe one of you will.

I don't know, but I'm glad we talked. Good night.