John Edwards to fight povery from new, 29,000 square foot home

If there are two Americas, John Edwards is living in the high-rent district of the first. Edwards and family have recently moved into a 29,000 square foot home, the largest in the county. The house sits on a 102 acre estate.

The main house is all on one level except for a 600-square-foot bedroom and bath area above the guest garage. The recreation building contains a basketball court, a squash court, two stages, a bedroom, kitchen, bathrooms, swimming pool, a four-story tower, and a room designated “John’s Lounge.”

“The Edwardses’ residential property will likely have the highest tax value in the county,” Orange County Tax Assessor John Smith told Carolina Journal. He estimated that the tax value will exceed $6 million when the facility is completed.

I can't even concieve of 29,000 square feet or 102 acres. All I know is his 600 sq foot bedroom is the size of the apartment I was living in two years ago. That said, I am not above such opulence. Hell, for me to be happy all I need is my health, and my millions of dollars, and my gold house, and my rocket car. But if I were running for President on a platform which consists of preaching about the evils of the system, the systemic problem of poverty, and how so many are being left behind, I don't think I'd be building a $6 million dollar house.

You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

In Defense of 'Hateful' Bloggers (and the Rest of the World)

Dick Cheney emerged and, before hopping a plane to Australia, gave an interview with ABC news saying that a Democratic plan to stop the troop surge would "validate al-Qaeda."

"The al-Qaeda strategy is to break the will of the American people, knowing they can't win in a stand-up fight, try to convince us to throw in the towel and come home and then they win because we quit," he said. "I think that is exactly the wrong course to go on. I think that is the course of action that Speaker Pelosi and Jack Murtha support. I think it would be a mistake for the country."

This remarkable statement came on February 21, the day after White House Press Secretary Tony Snow lamented about "hateful" politicizing bloggers.

So, I'll ask you: which is worse? Bloggers being "hateful" or the Vice President? Seriously. The message disseminated from the White House and received by its followers is that if you don't agree with what they're doing you are an unpatriotic, al-Qaeda loving coward. The latest shot has just been fired by the Dick Cheney himself. It's hard not to sound a little hateful when that is what the Vice President thinks of your efforts.

Cheney may have been referring to Pelosi and Murtha but he is talking about the majority of Americans who no longer have faith in the administration's judgment, and do not believe a surge will work. If Pelosi and Murtha are simply doing their job and representing the majority opinion, what type of contempt does Cheney hold the rest of the country in?

And it's not just Pelosi, Murtha, or the majority of Americans who have lost faith in the administration and the troop surge, almost no one anywhere agrees with it.

I think we can accept as certain fact that almost every country now has a vested interest in Iraq, which has gone from being a regional pest to a world-wide crisis.The war in Iraq has ignited turned a small jihadi fire into a conflagration which now produces terrorism world-wide. Therefore every country is carefully considering what to do about Iraq. And what no one is doing is adding more troops. Oh, except us, because, well, we don't want to "quit" or be called "cowards." That is the level we're operating on with so much at stake

I find it interesting that Cheney has flown to Australia where he was greeted by a large protest which led to 10 arrests. Why do the Australians care so much about Dick Cheney? Because his "fever" for Iraq has made their world less safe too. Also interesting is that the Prime Minister of Australia recently blasted Barak Obama's Iraq plan as being helpful to al-Qaeda. Obama responded by saying that if Australia sees war in Iraq, and a strong troop presence in Iraq, as so detrimental to al-Qaeda, why don't they commit 20,000 troops?

The truth is no one sees it that way. Even Britain, our closest ally in this endeavor, is preparing to withdraw its 7,000 troops from the project. If a surge is indeed the right move, how come everyone else has reached the opposite conclusion? Does their decision validate al-Qaeda? Or has the entire world invalidated the hateful and foolish thinking of a man like Dick Cheney? Perhaps, considering he has been wrong on everything, we should be a little annoyed when he continually calls our judgment and patriotism into question. He is an insult not only to us but to the world.

The Difference Between a Dubya and a Washington

Once upon a time an American president stood up to dedicate a battlefield cemetery, noting with great humility that nothing he said would add any substantial value compared to what the soldiers who struggled there had already done. That was then, this is now.

Once, Abraham Liconoln struggled to find the words to convey his respect for what the 46,000 fallen soldiers had done at the three-day Battle of Gettysburg. Their sacrifice, the same as any asked to give their life for their country, was breathtaking, and Lincoln understood how meager his words would sound in comparison. Today our war is compared willingly, politically, with wars of the past. Today our President compared the war on terror to George Washington's long struggle that gave birth to our nation.

"Today, we're fighting a new war to defend our liberty and our people and our way of life," said Bush, standing in front of Washington's home and above a mostly frozen Potomac River. "And as we work to advance the cause of freedom around the world, we remember that the father of our country believed that the freedoms we secured in our revolution were not meant for Americans alone."

Such words cheapen the struggle of war. If the sacrifice of the soldier can not stand on its own, if it has to be packaged and sold by the President as one of historical importance, it sounds alarming. Bush is the type of person who, after a child sincerely gives a gift, feels the need to explain the gift, when it is obvious to everyone, and thus cheapens the entire event. This is probably because he himself doesn't really understand the nature of such things.

Abraham Lincoln seemed to understand it perfectly. He did not care if his words were remembered in 1863. In-fact, Lincoln did not want what he said to stand in the way of the sacrifice Americans had made. In less than 300 words, delivered in two minutes, Lincoln summarized the sacrifice of American soldiers by saying almost nothing, by hesitating to make any comparisons or clarifications, by pointing-out that the real message was what the fallen soldiers had done, and what they felt they were dying for.

George W. Bush is our Edward Everett, who, before Lincoln, spoke for two-hours, and almost 14,000 words. His bombastic speech is little remembered, and in comparison to the humble speech that followed, is viewed with contempt; Everret, the main orator for the ceremony, used the dedication of Soldiers' National Cemetery at Gettysburg as a chance to be heard.

Bush does not hesitate to make comparisons before their time.

"I feel right at home here. After all, this is the home of the first George W. I thank President Washington for welcoming us today. He doesn't look a day over 275 years old," Bush said to laughter. "In the end, General Washington understood that the Revolutionary War was a test of wills, and his will was unbreakable," said Bush.

Of course there is almost no comparison between the first George W. and the second. In-fact, I can hardly think of a greater contrast. The first George W. was, above all else, capable, thoughtful, and his integrity was never questioned. His farewell address was a primer for America and a warning on involvement in foreign wars, political factionalism, and debt. He said things like, "The
nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or an habitual fondness is in some degree a slave." I don't even need to mention the obvious juxtaposition to our current President George W.

Washington knew he could not defeat the British, and that wasn't his goal. Instead he had to win enough to get the French involved in the war. In the process he lost many battles but won just enough, at key moments, to allow Benjamin Franklin to gain French support. Had he tried to crush the British head-on, unwaivering, with no retreats, no compromise, the Revolutionary War would have ended almost as quickly as it began. But the British were un-coordinated, and over-confident, a mind-set that mirrors closer to our own arrogance. Perhaps we are the bloated Empire facing a determined enemy that wants rid of foreign intervention. Perhaps these are things our President should have though of, before wondering how he'd compare in history.

The Civil War deeply saddened Lincoln. His words reflect a president with a heavy heart, enduring a war forced upon him. I see no such reflection from President Bush who seems almost pleased to be a "war president" or "Commander n' Chief." He constantly reminds us what a good job he's doing, and how his dedication makes this whole thing worthwhile. Lincoln viewed the sacrifice of American soldiers and, when the time came, compared to what they had already done, could barely bring forward any words. He noted simply that their death, their "last full measure of devotion," dedicates us all, not the other way around.

Goode and Stupid

I almost feel bad for him. Almost.

Fox News unveils new form of torture

It's The 1/2 Hour News Hour, Fox News's answer to The Daily Show except without a trace of humor or intelligence. Fox's more conservative version comes with a laugh track and stinks like shit. Watching it has is like having distemper and very soon Mr. Murdoch will take it out behind the shed and blow its brains out while the film canisters are be shipped to Gitmo, secret CIA prisons, and John Gibson's den to break those who have been arrested without cause.



Track-posted to: Orlando Sentinel: Fox News Channel bombs with comedy show.

Bush 'certain' Iran suppling weapons in Iraq, and by 'certain' he means 'there's no proof'

Consider the opening paragraph of a new AP article form White House correspondent Terence Hunt:

President Bush said Wednesday he's certain the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.

That, really, is all you need to know. That should be enough to terrify every American who considers sound judgment a virtue. Because, as we have all painfully discovered, all it takes for this President to do something horrifying is a hunch, a sneaky suspicion, a gut feeling. No proof is necessary for the man who has spent so much time ignoring facts about global warming, stem cell research, evolution, and foreign affairs..

And so you get this:

"I'm going to do something about it," Bush pledged, displaying apparent irritation at being repeatedly asked about mixed administration signals on who was behind the weaponry. "To say it is provoking Iran is just a wrong way to characterize the commander in chief's decision to do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way," Bush said.

Uh, oh. Bush is getting irritated again. Nothing gets the President more worked up than a request for some evidence. You might as well ask him how he knows Jesus Christ is the son of God.

Bush spoke a day after Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cast doubts on the claims that higher-ups in the Iranian government had authorized the arming of Iraqi Shiite militias. Pace told reporters that materials used in some of the munitions could be traced to Iran, "but that does not translate that the Iranian government per se, for sure, is directly involved in doing this.

Peter Pace? What does he know? The only fact that matters is that many people around the White House are clamoring for a war to start. This is exactly how you do it: up the rhetoric against your target to bolster support, then, regretfully, take action. This type of thing happens all the time.

The usual suspects are already getting on-board, rattling their cold, limp sabers. Richard Perle has already said, "I have very little doubt that Bush would order “necessary military action” against Iran. The American Enterprise Institute has chimed in as well with Joshua Muravchik saying, “Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office."

Don't you see? The world through the eyes of a shadowy think-tank member sees less than two years to start another war. The clock is ticking. Some people are saying war in Iran may begin this spring.

Meanwhile White House Press Secretary Tony Snow has been instructing journalists to " calm down" after being asked a few hard questions. Calm down, indeed. Is there any reason why we should trust this administration with any judgment call? Give me one thing they have been right about? Even the recent North Korean agreement is essentially the 1994 framework established under the Clinton administration which Bush demolished after taking office.

It's not even a matter of trust. Why should we believe this administration is even telling the truth? Or even capable of it? After all the scandals and lies, half-truths, half-cocked assumptions, half-assed leadership; after what we have seen in the ongoing trial of I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff of Vice President Dick Cheney, why should we believe this administration on anything?

There is just precious little time left for Bush, Cheney, and the neoconservatives to make up for those eight years of peace and love under the Clinton administration. They only have two years left to piss on the rest of the world. There's no time for facts. There's only time for the agenda.

The Official Eddie Murphy Crappy Movie Intervention

You think Eddie Murphy has any regrets about making "Norbit"? It's not just a stupid movie, but a re-fried affair; a supposed talented actor dressing up as an obese woman and acting like a total asshole. It's time for an intervention.

Come on, dude. You're better than this. You're Eddie Murphy, man! You were..the guy during the 80s. Axel Foley! Cutting edge comic. SNL star. WTF happened? You treat your career and talent like Bobby Brown treats Whitney Houston. It's painful to watch.

Flashes of your brilliance came back in "Dreamgirls" and you were handed a Golden Globe. It was nice to see you get recognized. Everyone loved it and you deserved it. But I feel almost foolish thinking so with a movie like "Norbit" in front of us. Forget about the Academy Award. There's just no way. Academy Award winner Eddie Murhpy *is* Norbit? Are you kidding me?

And being #1 at the box office is little solace during this Jan-March dumping period for movies. It's like winning the NFC North. Who cares? Enough of this. Movies like "Norbit" and "Big Mamma's House" and "Big Mamma's House 2" and "White Chicks" are not just lame and offensive they're fucking creepy. OK? The obsession with putting on prosthetics, layer after layer of makeup, wigs, and crashing your way through a movie all reeks of some kind of dysfunction. Enough. It's been done. Move on. Get a better agent.

Thoughts About Service, and Lt. Watada

I'm not into First Lieutenant Ehren Watada, or his refusal to serve in Iraq. Many on the left view him as a hero, even Sean Penn has appeared in his corner, reminding us all on "This Week" that Thomas Jefferson once said "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." I have a hard time believing George Washington felt that way as men deserted him at Valley Forge.

The story of Ehren Watada goes like this: He was a young man who signed up for the Army after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Maybe he was like me, and other officers I knew, in that he just didn't have much else going on and wanted to help out in the military and gain a little life focus. He graduated from Officer Candidate School, a competitive military commissioning school which many career enlisted officers dream to be accepted to. Watada then served one year in South Korea and then re-assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington. There, he learned his unit would deploy to Iraq and Watada began to have second thoughts about his commitment. He refused to go to Iraq and now faces a court martial.

Here's what his civilian attorney had to say:

Well, we expected him to be charged with missing movement or violating an order to get on a bus to accompany his unit to Iraq. We did not really anticipate that they would charge him with additional offenses based upon the comments and the remarks that he's made. And that opens up a whole new chapter in this proceeding, because what the Army has clearly tried to do by the nature of these charges is send out a message to people in the military, that if you criticize the war and if you criticize the decisions that were made to bring the United States into this war, that you, too, could be charged with disloyalty, contemptuous remarks and disrespect for higher officers, and in this case, specifically in this charge, the President.

Honesty, I'm amazed his attorney sounds so surprised. No, you can't openly criticize a war when you're in the military and the reasons for this are so obvious I wont even waste space to mention them. The military sends out that message from day one. That's how it goes. You volunteer to serve, you sign the agreement saying you'll give your time and freedom and the government will pay you, train you, and give you tax breaks, you take the government's money, time, training; you get to be lauded, but you may have to die for your country. What you don't get to do is have the good without the loss of freedom or the increase in risk. Such is life.

Lt. Watada started reading about Iraq once he learned his unit might get deployed. What can I make of this? He's such a bright, thoughtful person he wanted to learn all about the area he was going to deploy to? If that's so you'd think someone like this would have been much more concerned about Iraq before he signed his life away in the army. Maybe he was like many I knew who thought "Oh, I'll never get sent to Iraq" but had he read a few articles before signing up maybe he would have realized how shady the whole thing was.

It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out, even back in 2003, that Iraq was a misguided, illegal war. I was in the Air Force at the time, I signed up before Iraq, and as our country went to war there I wondered whether or not I would be deployed. But, obviously, I had considered deployment into a combat zone before I signed up. Who wouldn't think about that? I can't believe anyone signs up for the army and hasn't considered deployment to a combat zone or being asked to do something disagreeable.

Had I been asked to go to Iraq I would have gone, even if I disagreed with the war, because, simply, that was what I agreed to. The Air Force gave me free training, decent pay, tax exemptions, tuition assistance, free housing, a rate reduction on my debts, and career assistance. And that's just the beginning. Their end of the deal was upheld, the least I could do was uphold mine. Honestly, I'm a better person for having known what I wanted out of the military, giving them my time, and giving them what they wanted out of me.

To his credit Lt. Watada tried to resign his commission before going to Iraq. The Army obviously refused. They want to get a return on their expensive investment. They want their end of the deal. Can everyone just resign from the military once they get an unpopular assignment? It is, after all, one of the few jobs where you may be called to give up your life for a cause. Something like that requires not only foresight, but honor to uphold.

I have little patience for people who suddenly become enlightened and objective the moment they find out they will be deployed. The time for such philosophical thinking, perhaps, was before taking the oath, and someone else's place at OCS, and before parading around as a hero. Anyone who puts their lives in the government's hands, and says they are willing to sacrifice themselves for what is deemed the greater good, should be held in reverence. But to have that honor you must submit and serve.

The Police Open Grammys (Video)

Hopefully you got to see Stewart Copeland kicking some ass again. Here it is in-case you had better things to do:

Anna Nicole Was Our Freak Show

News of Anna Nicole Smith's death is barely 24 hours and I am already weary of the articles about how much we cared for her. Such dribble is both a lie and a shameless attempt to make us feel better about the way we treated her life. She was a metaphorical blow up doll for our sick pleasures.

Let's be honest, Anna Nichole was our own freak show. She probably thought we were giving her the one thing she wanted most in the world, love, when we were really just ogling her body or giggling about her life as a train wreck. It's sad that self-respect is in such short supply that most people can't even tell the difference between attention and compassion. If we had cared about her we would have stopped rewarding such superficial and damaging behavior. Her death is our own.

Honestly, I never paid her much attention, and I generally am unsympathetic about bad decisions. I don't know anything about her mom but I it must be hard watching your child's self-destruction get fueled by society. And now, we eulogize her with trite, the ultimate disrespect. Her premature death has given us a chance at self-reflection, which is being used the way we always used her.

My prior post was a commentary on how ridiculous and confused her life was. It stands as an alarming symptom. I hope her next life treats her better. I hope she finds a little peace. But for the living, the only question now is: who is next?

Bernie Taupin seemed to get it right when he wrote "Candle in the Wind."

Hollywood created a superstar
And pain was the price you paid
Even when you died the press still hounded you
All the papers had to say
Was that Marylin was found in the nude
Goodbye, Norma Jean

She was nothing more than sexual, and then an oddity to all of us. Nothing more than our Anna Nichole.