Sunday, October 22

Will Barack Obama run for President in 2008?

by Coltrane @ 10/22/2006 08:33:00 PM

Did anyone watch Meet the Press this Sunday (10/21/06)?

Tim Russert interviewed Illinois Senator Barack Obama which is of little surprise considering the media rounds Mr. Obama has made this week promoting his book. What was surprising was his stating that after the November elections he will think seriously about running for president and later during the roundtable discussion when a Clinton aide was quoted as saying, "Hilary won't run. Barack will run in 2008."

No disrespect to Carol Mosely Braun or Reverend Al Sharpton, but not since Jesse Jackson, and some might say not ever have we had an African American with a legitimate shot at winning run for the office of President. I spent the entire afternoon meditating on the gravity of a possible run.

What if he won? Would he be respected in the international community? Would he be assasinated by someone in a radical hate group? How many minorities would he nominate to his cabinet? Would this racially polarize the country? Who would his Vice presidential nominee be? Would a Obama-Powell ticket be too black? What prominent African Americans would come out in support of him? Which would come out in opposition to him? How would Karl Rove attack him? What hate ads would be run? How easy would the Barack Osama Bin Laden or he's a closet muslim ads take hold of the uneducated voters of the country? How polarized would the black community be? Could those that have joined the recently growing Black Republican movement really vote along party lines?

Just thinking about all this had me overwhelmed. Does this cat know what he's getting into? I was reminded of the funeral scene in the Godfather. Michael Coreleon's father had just passed away and as they sat at the funeral, Michael's brother Tom leans over with a worried look and asks his younger brother, 'Do you know how their going to come at you?' Without even Blinking, Michael details with remarkable accuracy how a meeting will be set-up by one of his Captains who will gaurantee his security and at this meeting he will be assasinated. We all know how that one ends. The classic Michael Coreleon do you denounce Satan... and all his works the priest recites at his nephew's baptism as the clips of each of the heads of the five families meeting their demise.

If Barack Obama were to run for the office of presidency there are a million and one questions to be anwsered, but what I really wonder is ....does he know how they will come at him?

Thursday, September 28

Watch. Learn. Vote.

by justmy2 @ 9/28/2006 01:18:00 AM

Keith Olbermann produced an absolute masterpiece this evening.

This is real Must See TV.

But while it has become conventional wisdom, although debunked by the 9/11 Report, that Mr. Clinton dropped an offer from Sudan to hand over bin Laden… it is rare to hear anyone discuss whether similar… but real feelers were extended to Mr. Bush.

And it is, we suspect, even more rare, to see this tape, of the Bush White House addressing reports of such feelers in February, 2001, after we knew al Qaeda had attacked the Cole:

Q: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States would drop its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

There is no record of any subsequent discussion on the matter.

Every American should watch this the next time they consider whether this Administration has made, is making, and will make America safer.

Wednesday, September 27

Can we Agree to Disagree?

by Coltrane @ 9/27/2006 11:52:00 PM

I was recently asked by a friend for my thoughts regarding comments made by former Sports Reporters Co-host and Kansas City Sports writer Jason Whitlock. Just to paraphrase his comments in the interview in the interest of time: Scoop Jackson and Flavor Fav are Bojangles and there is a war of coonification going on amongst Black Americans and yes we have to pick sides....... The 5 percenters vs. the 10 percenters.....

I read 'The Souls of black folks', and Dubois never mentioned the ignorant ass m*&^** 5 percenters in his book.

I disagree with Jason Whitlock's premise in the interview of a new war between Black Folks and a somehow parallel of this war to a new 21st Century Civil Rights Movement. Basically, he's played the Michael Eric Dyson card, when he went at Cosby, in this case ESPN Columnist Scoop Jackson. My issue with this is in both cases is this plays into the ultimate goal of Willie Lynchism. 'Divide and the they will never rise as a people'. When these public tiffs amongst black folks arise, I always think why not show a united front in public then work together and fix ourselves and our problems in private? Being a sports writer, you would think Mr. Whitlock would understand that concept. Most Championship Teams keep their dirty laundry in the house. Why air another brother out? What do we gain as a people?

Wouldn't another approach be:

"While I know Mr. Cosby and I are trying to get to the same place r

Can we Agree to Disagree?

by Coltrane @ 9/27/2006 10:25:00 AM

I was recently asked by a friend for my thoughts regarding comments made by former Sports Reporters Co-host and Kansas City Sports writer Jason Whitlock. Just to paraphrase his comments in the interview in the interest of time: Scoop Jackson and Flavor Fav are Bojangles and there is a war of coonification going on amongst Black Americans and yes we have to pick sides....... The 5 percenters vs. the 10 percenters.....

I read 'The Souls of black folks', and Dubois never mentioned the ignorant ass m*&^** 5 percenters in his book.

I disagree with Jason Whitlock's premise in the interview of a new war between Black Folks and a somehow parallel of this war to a new 21st Century Civil Rights Movement. Basically, he's played the Michael Eric Dyson card, when he went at Cosby, in this case ESPN Columnist Scoop Jackson. My issue with this is in both cases is this plays into the ultimate goal of Willie Lynchism. 'Divide and the they will never rise as a people'. When these public tiffs amongst black folks arise, I always think why not show a united front in public then work together and fix ourselves and our problems in private? Being a sports writer, you would think Mr. Whitlock would understand that concept. Most Championship Teams keep their dirty laundry in the house. Why air another brother out? What do we gain as a people?

Wouldn't another approach be:

"While I know Mr. Cosby and I are trying to get to the same place regarding the urban black youth of America, I think we should take the following steps to do so. I believe the steps he's articulating as a means of eradicating the problem are slightly different, but in the end we're both worried about the same thing children"

"While I think Scoop has made some valid points and some points with which I don't agree, the great thing about America is there is a channel, website, periodical, blog for each of us to speak freely and honestly from our own perspectives. I'm not a 5'3 black man from the south side of chicago, so I can't really speak to his truths, but the great thing is we can all have medium to not only speak our views but feed our families in the process....That's the great thing about America."

"While I don't particularly enjoy the Flavor Flav show myself and some of the actions of the women are somewhat embarrassing, I do think it's great that hip-hop has grown to the point of there being a vehicle for militant conscience rapper like the former hype man from Public Enemy to still express himself. Yet another great thing about America'

Why can't black men agree to disagree without cutting each other's throat?

Our focus should be on getting the habitually racist Senator Allen out of Virginia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our focus should be on getting Congressman Harold Ford elected to the Senate in the state of Tennessee!!!!!

Our focus should be on taking legal action in the state of Maryland over voter irregularities, and getting a run-off so the true Democratic candidate Kweisi Mfume can run for the senate seat against Steele!!!!!!!

WE have a lot of work to do and having two irrelevant ass sports writer dish dirt on each other is a distraction we don't need..

Saturday, September 16

I'm not a buisness man I'm a buisness, MAN

by justmy2 @ 9/16/2006 11:29:00 PM

Well the names have all changed since you hung around,
But those dreams have remained and they're turned around.


Welcome back

Are you sure?

by justmy2 @ 9/16/2006 09:02:00 PM

Coltrane hits the nail on the head below...same product launch, new year. The least these guys could do is bring out a different fall line. But all this Administration knows is fear, as if they read the cliff notes to 1984 every monrning before breakfast and think "Hey, that could work."

But I digress...

What caught my eye today was these words out of the mouth of Jeffery Toobin in an interview he did on CNN yesterday...

So even if the president gets his proposal through, it is not at all clear that the court will approve it, especially given one provision we didn't discuss much ... secret evidence. And this is something that Sen. Lindsey Graham has focused on a lot. And he said, "Look, there's no court in America, especially the Supreme Court, that is going to uphold executing somebody ... based on evidence he never saw."

And I think Sen. Graham raises a very profound point there. So that's something that we've got to keep in mind. The politicians can agree or disagree, but they don't have the last word.

Those nine folks across First Street in Washington, they have the last word.

I never thought I would say this in my country, but I feel like we are one SCOTUS vacany away from not being able to be so sure that Sen. Graham is correct. Go back and read the dissenting opinions of the Hamdan ruling, and you quickly realize that certain justices are much more interested in protecting this President, than upholding the Constitution of the United States. The Congress has already decided they are no more than a rubber stamp, an with the recent Supreme Court appoints, SCOTUS isn't far behind.

As they say, absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

This is for all the marbles. Either we stand up to this end run around the Constitution and everything that makes us Americans in good standing in the civilized world, or we give in to our inner demons by acting like the bad guys and...let me quote The Decider here..."We let the terrorists win".

It's my POW and I'll torture if I want to!!!

by Coltrane @ 9/16/2006 08:35:00 AM

It's football season, so forgive me for using a Skins analogy. But, watching this administration is liking watching the Redskins in their first year of Joe Gibbs encore where he showed a penchant for running the exact same plays that won him three superbowls in the eighties and nineties over and over again, but with a 21st Century result that was not as favorable. If you walked out your door, you could hear countless beltway pigskin fanatics scream "run another play", "mix it up a little bit", "try something else". That's no disrespect to Joe Gibbs, because in an example of true leadership, Coach Gibbs realized that not only had the world drastically changed, but defenses had changed. Joe in seasons to follow gave up the reigns of playing calling and gave the task to someone who was more in tune with landscape of today's defenses. If only his neighbor from Pennsylvania Avenue, could make a similar call. See if I hear the President run the Give Fear a chance play one more time, then I will surely go crazy. There has to be another play in the playbook.

War in Iraq? Give Fear a Chance on silent count! Break. [Hands clap as they leave the huddle]

Wire tapping? Give Fear a Chance on two! Break. [Cheney and Rumsfield's knod as hands clap in agreement]

Abu Ghraib? Give Fear a Chance on one! Break. [Rice and Rumsfield pound fist as hand clap leaving the huddle]

Guantanmo Bay? Give Fear a Chance....... I think you get the point.

Now we see the fearless Mr. President on the lawn of the White House in crossroads of history stating that the Geneva Convention's Common Article 3 is "vague" and "open to interpretation."

Can you guess what play will be run when questioned as to WHY these long standing rules of morality all of a sudden need to be changed?

I'll take give fear a chance for $200! Great guess.

"Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland," Bush said

"My job and the job of the people here in Washington, D.C., is to protect this country," Bush said. "This enemy has struck us and they want to strike us again, and we'll give our folks the tools to protect this country. That's our job."

Just to paraphrase the use of fear on this particular play. If you don't give me my law then the terrorist will strike again, so out of fear the American people should side with me and get Congress to change excuse me clarify article 3 of the Geneva Convention again out of fear.

That's it! That's his entire explanation. This has worked twice now and if you don't use we will be attacked.

" Excuse me Mr. President, countless experts and senior leaders of the GOP have gone on record stating that torture does not work!!"

To side with them is to side with the Terrorist are president said. I heard pundits on talk shows state that these people must want the terrorist to win. Huh?!?

At what point will we as Americans force this administration and it's mouthpieces formely known as the media to at least choose another play. Although, I must admit it is difficult to stop, since if another attack does occur the President will quickly blame anyone that opposed his actions. Think 200 lb. chubby kid up the middle in the predominately 85lb and under pee wee league. And just like in Pee Wee league, its going to take the entire team to bring this kid from Texas down.

See Colin Powell and John McCain and other leaders have to fight the fear of FEAR and face this debate head on.

Play callers beware.

Friday, September 15

What He Said

by justmy2 @ 9/15/2006 11:54:00 PM

Billmon listen...

What will be on the table then is the question of whether a nation as powerful and potentially dangerous to others as America (the proverbial bull in the china shop) can survive on brute force alone -- without moral legitimacy or political prestige, without true allies (save for the world's other leper regimes) and without "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind"

We're not there yet, but that is the direction we're heading, and a unilateral decision to redefine the Geneva Conventions (without actually admitting that we're doing it) would take us another few hundred miles down the road.

Click the link and read the entire thought provoking post.

Are we ready to surrender everything that has made us American, that easily?

Are we still the land of the free, and the home of the brave?

Wednesday, September 13

Bush Fears War Crimes Prosecution, Impeachment

by Coltrane @ 9/13/2006 05:15:00 PM

Here is an article I heard about that addresses what I was referring to yesterday. It’s the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Detainee Treatment Act.... Check it out (I bolded the parts I found interesting)...

Bush Fears War Crimes Prosecution, Impeachment
by Marjorie Cohn; September 07, 2006
With great fanfare, George W. Bush announced to a group of carefully selected 9/11 families yesterday that he had finally decided to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 13 other alleged terrorists to Guantánamo Bay, where they will be tried in military commissions. After nearly 5 years of interrogating these men, why did Bush choose this moment to bring them to "justice"?

Bush said his administration had "largely completed our questioning of the men" and complained that "the Supreme Court's recent decision has impaired our ability to prosecute terrorists through military commissions and has put in question the future of the CIA program."

He was referring to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the high court recently held that Bush's military commissions did not comply with the law. Bush sought to try prisoners in commissions they could not attend with evidence they never see, including hearsay and evidence obtained by coercion.
The Court also determined that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to al Qaeda detainees. That provision of Geneva prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment."

Bush called on Congress to define these "vague and undefined" terms in Common Article 3 because "our military and intelligence personnel" involved in capture and interrogation "could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act."
Congress enacted the War Crimes Act in 1996. That act defines violations of Geneva's Common Article 3 as war crimes. Those convicted face life imprisonment or even the death penalty if the victim dies.

The President is undoubtedly familiar with the doctrine of command responsibility, where commanders, all the way up the chain of command to the commander in chief, can be held liable for war crimes their inferiors commit if the commander knew or should have known they might be committed and did nothing to stop or prevent them.
Bush defensively denied that the United States engages in torture and foreswore authorizing it. But it has been well-documented that policies set at the highest levels of our government have resulted in the torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of U.S. prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo.
Indeed, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act in December, which codifies the prohibition in United States law against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners in U.S. custody. In his speech yesterday, Bush took credit for working with Senator John McCain to pass the DTA.

In fact, Bush fought the McCain "anti-torture" amendment tooth-and-nail, at times threatening to veto the entire appropriations bill to which it was appended. At one point, Bush sent Dick Cheney to convince McCain to exempt the CIA from the prohibition on cruel treatment, but McCain refused.

Bush signed the bill, but attached a "signing statement" where he reserved the right to violate the DTA if, as commander-in-chief, he thought it necessary.
Throughout his speech, Bush carefully denied his administration had violated any laws during its "tough" interrogations of prisoners. Yet, the very same day, the Pentagon released a new interrogation manual that prohibits techniques including "waterboarding," which amounts to torture.

Before the Supreme Court decided the Hamdan case, the Pentagon intended to remove any mention of Common Article 3 from its manual. The manual had been the subject of revision since the Abu Ghraib torture photographs came to light.
But in light of Hamdan, the Pentagon was forced to back down and acknowledge the dictates of Common Article 3.

Bush also seeks Congressional approval for his revised military commissions, which reportedly contain nearly all of the objectionable features of his original ones.
The President's speech was timed to coincide with the beginning of the traditional post-Labor Day period when Congress focuses on the November elections. The Democrats reportedly stand a good chance of taking back one or both houses of Congress. Bush fears impeachment if the Democrats achieve a majority in the House of Representatives.

By challenging Congress to focus on legislation about treatment of terrorists - which he called "urgent" - Bush seeks to divert the election discourse away from his disastrous war on Iraq.

Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, is president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.

All I can say is the President is a bad dude…how you gonna change the law so you can’t get caught!!!! Ahhh it must be nice to be that powerful.

Monday, September 11

Reflections from 9/11

by Coltrane @ 9/11/2006 10:03:00 AM

Today is the fifth anniversay of the most horrific attack to happen in my lifetime on US soil. Our prayers and thoughts go out to all the family and friends of those who were lost in this tragedy. In my humble opinion, in remembrance of our fallen citizens the greatest gift we can give to those individuals effected would be to take the neccessary steps to reduce the chances of this happening again. Our government has made several changes in the last five years. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the requirement that cockpits in planes be secured, the reorginization and increased training of TSA, and countless other measures that I applaud. We have come a long way and still have a great deal further to travel in the measures to secure our country. But if there were one wish that I could have on this day of reflection and remembrance, it would be that our leaders discontinue lying about a connection between this tragedy and the war and occupation of Iraq. The two have very little to do with one another and to continue to link the two is not only dishonest but disrespectful to the citizens of this country.

As President Bush told Kate Couric this past week:

"My toughest job is making people see the connection between the Iraq War and 9/11..."

With all due respect Mr. President, that isn't your toughtest job. It's not even your job at all. If there was any job born from this crisis for you Mr. President, then it would've been to capture Osama Bin Laden and bring him to trial for this all the otrocities he has masterminded across the world.

Mission Not Accomplished!

Osama Bin Laden still roams the world spreading his message of anti-america via video clips over the internet. Al Qaeda is still very much operating.

Why don't we as a country take this day to not only remember those we lost, but to also remember the true enemy who attacked us and focus on really winning the war on terror.

Friday, August 25

Racism alive and well in America

by justmy2 @ 8/25/2006 12:10:00 AM

As Katrina showed us a year ago, and Sen. George Allen showed us as recently as last week, we still have long way to go. The fact that over 40% of Americans think everything went a-ok in Katrina's aftermath, and over 30% of Virginians don't find any fault with Sen. George Allen's statement's says a lot about the state of our nation.

Well, as if you needed more evidence, along comes this story from Lousiana that absolutely takes the cake....Did African American's civil rights get revoked when Rosa Parks died???

Black Students Ordered to Give Up Bus Seats to White Children

COUSHATTA --Nine black children attending Red River Elementary School in Louisiana were directed last week to the back of the school bus by a white driver who designated the front seats for white children.

The situation has outraged relatives of the black children who have filed a complaint with school officials.


After Richmond and Williams filed complaints with the School Board, Transportation Supervisor Jerry Carlisle asked Davis to make seat assignments for her passengers, Sessoms said.

"But she still assigned the black children to the back of the bus," she added.

And the nine children had to share only two seats, meaning the older children had to hold the younger ones in their laps.

As Survivor tries to create racial tension, it seems as though they may be leading indicator as opposed to an outlier. Consider these two points...

1) The driver still hasn't been fired...10 days later.

2) This hasn't been discussed anywhere that I can find in the national media?

If that doesn't make you sick to your stomach, I don't know what will. It is time to wake up and smell the latte my friends...

Monday, April 17

Drop the Q, Add an N

by justmy2 @ 4/17/2006 11:51:00 PM

From the here we go again files...

via Billmon...

Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says

   Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.

    Bloomberg News

    Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days

    April 12, 2006

My own highly placed sources in the intelligence community tell me this report is based on the debriefing of an Iranian defector codenamed "Spitball." But that's classified, so don't tell anyone except Judy Miller.

Are we really going to be using the exact same playbook?

Hey, why not.  It worked just dandy the last time.

So how did they come up with this estimate?

Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.

Journalists, what would we do without them?

Notice how there is no date as to when they will move to the 54,000 centrifuge configuration.  But somehow, we have a headline that would lead one to believe Iran is 16 days away from having a nuclear bomb, RIGHT NOW.

Ahh...truthiness at its finest.

Hey, while they are at it, why not throw a few more numbers out there to see if they stick...

Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use.

So now it is 13 years...big difference huh?  16 days, 13 years.  What's 12 years, 349 days between friends?

One would think that would be enough from this esteemed journalist, but low and behold, another magical estimate appears even deeper in the story...

Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.

``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.

You mean the same Natanz you used to come up with the headline number of 16 days?  The same one used to write the nonsensical headline!!!!

Ok...that is it.  My head officially hurts...

Does Bloomberg have an ombudsmen?

Let's be clear.  New product season is on the way in September.  An Iran Resolution of some sort will be on the table in the House and Senate before the mid-terms.  

And this is just the warm-up...

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that we are really in for a doozy come this fall and the only question is how obedient the media will be this time around.  Your guess is as good as mine.

I know you have read it before, but this quote remains as scary as ever.  

Goering: Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or

a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Goering: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

--- Hermann Goering, made privately to Gustave Gilbert, during the course of the Nuremburg Trials

Will the United States of America be the first country to break the mold?

Saturday, March 18

All-In: Political Poker and How Democrats Start Winning

by justmy2 @ 3/18/2006 10:11:00 AM

Can someone please get me into the weekly Senate Democrat poker game? I have got to believe it is one of the biggest fish tanks in the world.

This week's past events related to Senator Feingold's censure resolution unquestionably demonstrates Democratic Leadership gets outplayed at every turn. They don't realize that you have take a stand at some point and come over the top. When are they going to go all-in?

Check out the flop below to see why Democrats could use a good poker lesson and how it will take some real sharks to get rid of the current regime.

Have these people ever asked themselves the following question? If the Republican's didn't want there to be a debate on censure, what would be their response and talking points? I am betting it would go something like this

'Bring it on, we dare you to try it'...

What is their alternative? "Oh please Democrats, don't censure the President?" Get real!!!

It is pure poker and Democrats are amateurs. They look at their hand and take the action without considering their opponents hand. Let's put this into poker terms.

The Democrats look at their hand. "Wow, a flush!!!" Republicans, sensing the Democrats have a very good hand, and knowing their hand "a pair" is suspect at best, decide it is time for a little table talk.

Republicans: I know my hand is better than yours. You better fold or you are going to lose all of your money!

Democrats: Darn, I only had a flush. Why are you so lucky? I guess I have to fold. :(

Rinse and Repeat.

From getting Democrats to apologize for accurate statements, to making them run and hide on judicial votes, to running from the current censure resolution, it is same old story and Republican's have the Democrats game down pat. The Democrat's table image is atrocious.

How do you counteract this nonsense?

A professional poker player rarely considers their own hand. They review their opponents actions, assess what the believe is their opponent's most likely hand, determine what their opponent would want them to do, and they do the opposite (if it benefits them).

Mike Caro's Great Law of Tells states: "Players are either acting or they aren't. If they are acting, then decide what they want you to do and disappoint them."

Great players take advantage of the slightest edge and exploit it to it the fullest extent.

In this case, their opponents have a hand that includes a brewing rebellion in Congress and an incompetent President with polls in the toilet. It is actually pretty simple.

In other words, Republicans and short stacked and desparate.

Boxers are trained to bounce on their toes or even smile after they've been hit hard so that the judges won't think that the opponent scored a blow. It's called smiling through the face of adversity

But the Democrats don't take their table image, or their opponent's actions into consideration. They simply continue to play the same lazy, lackluster, poker game they have played for the last 20 years. It is a leak, in poker terms, of tremendous proportions. Unwilling to take any chances, Democrats keep getting their blinds stolen from them because they are unwilling to stand up to the bully at the table.

Republicans appear to understand the game and have continuously used this expertise to their advantage. Karl Rove simply looks at his opponent's hands and does the opposite of what is expected. If you don't believe me, see his recent campaigns against John Kerry and John McCain. He could have cared less about his hand; the ineptitude, incompetence, and ridiculous "record of failure" of his candidate. He knew his opponent's hand and expectations, and then proceeded to represent the hands that would beat them, pushing his opponents off of the winning hand.

Represent: To play as if you hold a certain hand...

For instance, if you raised before the flop, and then raised again when the flop came ace high, you would be representing at least an ace with a good kicker.

For example, the swift-boating of John Kerry was a classic semi-bluff in poker sense. It was a calculated risk, where you are behind, but could pay off if your opponent folds immediately; or if his opponent called, he still had a chance to win if his hand improved with the next card. As you know, Kerry essentially kept calling and Rove kept raising, eventually getting the result he wanted, by ruining Kerry table image at the time of courage and strength.

The proper play in many situations, especially if you have an advantage, is to RERAISE!!! The key is to put pressure on your opponent and continuously put them to the test by forcing them to make the tough decisions. It doesn't matter what is in your hand. It is more important to understand your opponent's tendencies and take advantage of them. Republicans know this, Democrats apparently don't.

Just know that showing weakness under duress can only make the problem worse. Your ability to conceal your hand is often your best negotiating tool.

Any time a major raise has been put into the pot the last six months, Republicans reraise all in, usually calling for an immediate vote, and win without having to showdown there hand because the Democrats fold instead of calling their bluff. That is power and the Democrats need a refresher course, stat.

POWER: When you can get what you want and the other party still wants to do business with you, you have negotiated successfully. You set the stage for this when you take the time to walk in the other party's shoes.

Someone needs to teach Democrats that they need to change the table image, and change their game. The first step is to get rid of their tight passive image.

They play very few hands and when they do decide to play, they rarely bet or raise. They are content to sit back and wait for an absolute lock and will take whatever the pot will give them.


Tight passive players rarely win. This is due to paying blinds and winning so few pots which are often small.

Fortunately, they are playing against loose, aggressive Republicans, who while tougher to beat, can be brought down with a disciplined, but not risk averse, strategy.

Loose aggressive players will often raise with inferior hands. They will bet for no reason and overuse bluffs.


Loose aggressive players can obviously be beat. Keep in mind that when playing against a loose aggressive player you will need the best cards to win. Don’t get caught up in trying to prove that they play bad hands by calling when you shouldn’t. Be patient, wait for your moment and you can lure loose aggressive player into a huge pot with poor cards.

Well, the Republican's cards are not going to get much worse. Their leader has BROKEN THE LAW, and their disapproval numbers have not been higher since the Nixon regime. Democrats need to learn to attack aggressively when they have the advantage. They need to stop playing amateur poker. They need to forget their hand and start playing like professionals. They need to determine what their opponent's want them to do, and then disappoint them. Censure is a great start.


Tuesday, September 27

What I learned in the Washington Post today...

by justmy2 @ 9/27/2005 07:48:00 PM

The Washington Post was in fine form today. And I was lucky enough to have an entire plane ride to take it all in.  They really outdid themselves.  Their sources, opinion writers, editors, and editorial board really went out of their way to boost the sales of advil today.

Lesson 1:  If a newspaper reserves space for your story on a protest no one attends, write a story about a different protest, but go ahead and keep you original headline.

Let's see.  There is a protest that 400 people attend.   Hmm...that may make it difficult to fill two pages worth of copy.  What should a reporter do?

First, start out by not mentioning how many people attended.

The afternoon rally was tiny in comparison with Saturday's antiwar demonstration, for which D.C. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey gave a crowd estimate of at least 100,000.

And then, dedicate 65% (19 of 29) paragraphs to the protest.  Use the other 10 paragraphs to bury the story about anti-war protest across the city on the same day, WITH MORE PEOPLE.

In the ballroom of a Holiday Inn on Capitol Hill, about 350 "jurors" sipped coffee and ate desserts as they watched a mock trial of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, former CIA chief George J. Tenet and U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. The men were accused of violating U.S. law and the Geneva Convention in supporting torture.

"Obviously, this isn't a real court of law," said Jennifer Harbury, a coordinator of the program. "I don't expect Mr. Rumsfeld to show up here and answer questions."


A few blocks away on the Mall, about 200 people who planned to be arrested today if President Bush would not agree to meet with them gathered in tents for a workshop on what to expect from police.

Ah..the smell of false equivalence in the sky on a fall day.  The Washington Post and the DC Media at its best.

Lesson 2:  Learn the mantra.  If something is repeated over and over, then it must be true.

In an actually pretty well-thought out and informative article regarding evolution, I find this gem.

Asked to provide examples of non-obvious, testable predictions made by the theory of Intelligent Design, John West, an associate director of the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based ID think tank, offered one: In 1998, he said, an ID theorist, reckoning that an intelligent designer would not fill animals' genomes with DNA that had no use, predicted that much of the "junk" DNA in animals' genomes -- long seen as the detritus of evolutionary processes -- will someday be found to have a function.

(In fact, some "junk" DNA has indeed been found to be functional in recent years, though more than 90 percent of human DNA still appears to be the flotsam of biological history.) In any case, West said, it is up to Darwinists to prove ID wrong.

As soon as Mr. West proves the Theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is implausible, I will embark on this effort.  May Mr. West be touched by his noodly appendage

Lesson 3: A course is a course, of horse of horse...horsesh** that is

Now I have heard of moving the goalposts, but is it politically legal to morph them into a lottery ball drum of randomness?

President Bush and other administration officials continue to speak about Iraqi democracy in glowing terms, but you don't hear similar language from the military. After watching Iraqi political infighting for more than two years, they're more cautious. "I think we'd be foolish to try to build this into an American democracy," says one general. "It's going to take a very different form and character." The military commanders have concluded that because Iraqis have such strong cultural antibodies to the American presence, the World War II model of occupation isn't relevant. They've sharply lowered expectations for what America can accomplish.

What Abizaid and his commanders seem to fear most is that eroding political support for the war in the United States will undermine their strategy for a gradual transition to Iraqi control. They think that strategy is beginning to pay off, but it will require several more years of hard work to stabilize the country. The generals devoutly want the American people to stay the course -- but the course they describe is more limited, and more realistic, than recent political debate might suggest.

Got that...Everyone needs to stay the course, as soon as we get around to telling you what this week's course is...Can someone please give me a call when David Ignatius returns to the english speaking world?

Lesson 4:  The Washington Post Editorial Board has hired mind readers.

Fred Hiatt and company apparently have performed a mind meld with John Roberts.

A second important factor is temperament. One reason Judge Roberts seems so different from conservative justices such as Antonin Scalia is that he does not project a desire to use the bench to wage a war for the future of American society. Rather, he portrays the court as a place to resolve disputes between parties that cannot do so on their own. Mr. Bush should once again avoid a nominee who displays a grandiose vision of the judicial function. Similarly, nominees who display a commitment to precedent are far less threatening to those who disagree with them than ones who appear eager to overturn decisions with which they disagree. Justice Clarence Thomas is the court's most radical justice precisely because of his blithe willingness to revisit holdings that are decades old.

You know what, after reading the following quote from the confirmation hearings, they may have a point .

"I think overruling a case or reconsidering a case is a very serious matter. Certainly, you would have to be of the view that a case is incorrectly decided, but I think even that is not adequate. There are some cases that you may not agree with that should not be overruled. Stare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision-making, I think it is a very important and critical concept. A judge that wants to reconsider a case and certainly one who wants to overrule a case has the burden of demonstrating that not only is the case incorrect, but that it would be appropriate, in view of stare decisis, to make that additional step of overruling that case."

Well, if you put it that way, who would dare label this person a radical justice.  OH WAIT!!!

That was Clarence Thomas in 1991.  MY BAD.

It is nice to know that psychics now are writing for a national news source.  However, I will stick with actually waiting for Judge Roberts to make a few rulings before I determine his judicial "temperament".


What a privilege it was to be a Washington Post reader on such a glorious day...I needed good laugh that early in the morning.  I just wish I was reading the comics while I was laughing.  My head also hurts.

Pass the advil.

Saturday, July 9

Blair vs. Rove

by justmy2 @ 7/09/2005 11:48:00 AM

Based on the quotes below, I would love to hear what Karl Rove and President Bush think about Tony Blair's approach to the War on Terror, if I were a member of the elite Washington press...

Karl Rove - June 22, 2005

Rove, in a speech Wednesday evening to the New York state Conservative Party just a few miles north of Ground Zero, said, "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers." Conservatives, he said, "saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Tony Blair -- July 9, 2005

In an address on British Broadcasting Corp. radio Saturday, Prime Minister Tony Blair said Britain must defend against terrorism _ but must also strive to understand the underlying causes of the violence, which he identified as deprivation, lack of democracy and ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

"I think this type of terrorism has very deep roots," Blair said. "As well as dealing with the consequences of this _ trying to protect ourselves as much as any civil society can _ you have to try to pull it up by its roots."

That meant boosting understanding between people of difference religions, helping people in the Middle East see a path to democracy and easing the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, he said.

I wonder if anyone in the Monday White House briefing will be interested in finding out the President's opinion on this dispute between Mr. Rove and Prime Minister Blair...

Tuesday, May 17

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

by justmy2 @ 5/17/2005 07:39:00 PM

Via Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing...

Joe Hagan writes in the Wall Street Journal about how the Newsweek story has again raised questions about anonymous sourcing.

" 'We get bashed for all the anonymous sources but the administration is the one that insists on it,' says Dana Priest, who covers national security for the Washington Post. 'I don't think people realize that.'

Which is sort of analogous to saying "My husband beats me, but I stay because I love him."

If the media is continually ridiculed for respecting the requests of The White House, who in turn bashes them for using the same techniques that they requests, why on earth would the media continue to use these journalistic practices. It is like some strange twilight zone self fulfilling prophecy.

Two Words: Access & Money.

The press is profit driven, and they somehow believe that being first to market translates into dollars. If the CBS and Newsweek experiences are not enough for them to figure out how outlandish the pitfalls of this approach, they deserve exactly what they get and I have no sympathy for them.

Monday, May 16

I agree!

by justmy2 @ 5/16/2005 11:14:00 PM

On my way home today, I heard a conservative radio host on the radio state that there should be a thorough investigation into the negligence of those who put United State's Soldiers in harm's way by relying on single sourced evidence of wrongdoing that could not be later confirmed and appeared to be politically motivated.

I agree wholeheartedly.

And when the investigation into the manipulation of facts to suit the Administration's Iraq policy is completed, it may be a good idea to look further into any potential journalistic lapses that caused Newsweek to make this retraction...

Too Little, Too Late

by justmy2 @ 5/16/2005 03:44:00 PM

When will the media learn?

Newsweek apologized yesterday for an inaccurate report on the treatment of detainees that triggered several days of rioting in Afghanistan and other countries in which at least 15 people died.

Editor Mark Whitaker expressed regret over the item in the magazine's "Periscope" section, saying it was based on a confidential source -- a "senior U.S. government official" -- who now says he is not sure whether the story is true.

BTW-It looks like ship has already sailed...

Newsweek magazine may have apologized, but to many in the Muslim world, it's too late and much too little.

Muslims brushed off an apology to readers that appeared in this week's edition of the newsweekly that acknowledged errors in a story alleging U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay desecrated the Koran, Islam's holy book.

Interestingly enough, Newsweek has an Arabic issue but there was no mention of the apology in this week's issue. Critics called it a strategic move in the face of the overwhelming and violent reaction.

I thought the press had the privilege of revealing their sources if the source proved to be untrustworthy. If the source told you something untrue, there is no reason for that person to remain anonymous. I am not sure why they have not, but it is interesting that they have not.

Why the press continues to use anonymous sources as the rule as opposed to the exception is beyond me? This Administration has successfully taken down the credibility CBS (Non-Denial of the National Guard story), the NYT (Miller WMD reporting), attempted The Washington Post (Mike Allen on the Schiavo Memo), and now Newsweek (w/WaPo due to their ownership) via this story with another non-denial that the Newsweek relied upon and threw back in their face 11 days later. They sit there in gaggle briefings with the Press Secretary literally laughing in their face and not giving them a straight answer for days on end, and then they report him telling them they need to get their facts straight. And they take it over and over again...There are a few metaphors I could use hear, but this is a family site.

There is a reason journalist's first job is to be skeptical. The lack of skepticism is now becoming the MSM's achilles heel. The MSM continues to chase their tails while Rupert Murdoch laughs all the way to the bank.

I have no sympathy for Michael Issikoff or Newsweek. I still have not seen any evidence that the story was untrue. But tell me again, why is the editor checking on sources after the story was published instead of before? It is like the Mike Allen Schiavo memo story. They retract a bit and then unretract a bit, but the damage is already done. They have only made the situation that much worse.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, they report that the story is absolutely true next week, would anyone believe them? That is the problem here. The same way the President has been using up his political capital, the MSM has just about used up there capitial and they don't get any new capital every 4 years.

You can forget about any adversarial stories from Newsweek for the next two or three years. There are not many investigative journalists out there and Newsweek just blew it. Perception is reality here, no matter how loud Juan Cole protests (and I happen to agree with the majority of his assessment)

As everyone who frequents this site should know by now, I am no tinfoiler, but let's take a look at the current state of affairs for the Neo-Conservative power structure.

Executive Branch...check

Legislative Branch...check

Judicial Branch...taking care of that this week

World Bank....check


Delegitimize the UN and International Law...check with Bolton cleaning up loose ends

Delegitimize major non-conservative media outlets...check

As an Independent, this scares me just as much as a Democratic checklist of the same type would. I sincerely believe absolute power corrupts absolutely and absolute power is suddenly within reach.

Stranger than fiction?

by justmy2 @ 5/16/2005 02:33:00 PM

The third installment has somehow set off another debate on the world view of the current Administration

But there were also murmurs at the parallels being drawn between Bush's administration and the birth of the space opera's evil Empire.

Baddies' dialogue about bloodshed and despicable acts being needed to bring "peace and stability" to the movie's universe, mainly through a fabricated war, set the scene.

And then came the zinger, with the protagonist, Anakin Skywalker, saying just before becoming Darth Vader: "You are either with me — or you are my enemy."

I have heard and read that many are suggesting a correlation between The Empire and the Bush Administration. Without getting into the particulars of whether this is true or not, I would like to ask supporters of the Administration a simple, but yet what I believe is a poignant and important question.

Why is it that so many recent movies "appear" to be jabs at the current Administration via the antagonist? Once again, I have not seen the movie, but movies from "The Manchurian Candidate" to "Minority Report" to this one definitely have a point of view.

But take the current Administration out of the equation...Are the points being made by "The Good Guys" valid? Are they too Utopian?

If not, why are we at the point where the first interpretation of all of these movies is that our current Administration takes the view of "The Bad Guys"? What would be the storyline of the movie that fits the world view of the current administration? Maybe the "24" storyline, although I have never seen that show.

I am not asking this rhetorically. It seems to me that there is a difference between right and wrong. However, these movies appear to be making the distinction more clear, but in reality they are becoming more and more blurred. Should we be moving toward more clarity or less at this point in history? Is reality simply less clear than we would like to believe?

I do not know when the dialouge for this movie was written. However, Lucas says the story was written more based on his experience with the Vietnam War than any recent events according to the linked storty. But I still believe that it is very telling that 30 years later we have reached a point were a "viable" interpretation of this movie could be that the US is closer to the role of the Empire that the "Good Guys"?

I am trying to organize my thoughts around this, but I would love to hear your opinion. I would like to here the counter argument from a supporter of the Administration on this subject. Why is the interpretation not viable, even if you believe it does not represent the full reality of the situation. I certainly would like to think that this is a ridiculous interpretation of the movie, but unfortunately, recent events make this interpretation much closer to reality than it should be, even if it is only 5% (an arbitrary number).

Join in a discussion here in the comments section.