This past weekend during a surprise visit to Iraq, President Bush took questions from Iraqi reporters for the first time. The reaction was not good. In fact, it was humiliating, for all of us. One of the Iraqi reporters threw not one but both his shoes at President Bush. No, this was not done in the form of a question. And no, this was not a symbolic gesture akin to welcoming Americans with flowers, as liberators. Rather, it was a supreme insult. As we all know by now, it was akin to calling Bush dirt. For good measure, the reporter also called President Bush a “dog.” The reporter did not mean to imply President Bush was a cute puppy. Dogs apparently are not very loved in Iraq. Being called a dog while getting shoes thrown at you is really really really bad.

I am in no way a Bush supporter or apologist. I have made no secret of my disdain for the Iraqi occupation, war, police action, new Vietnam, road to no where, or whatever it is now called. Yet, my reaction to this episode is not glee. Rather, I find it ironic and pathetic.

Iraq was long viewed as a Banana republic, the only difference between it and some third world country in Africa or Central America being its oil wealth. Because of its oil wealth, and the risk it would be develop dangerous weapon, Iraq had to be taken more seriously. But like most third world dictatorships, its leadership ruled by fear, totalitarianism and thuggery, and not by the rule of law or democracy.

Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot – or at least off the Iraqi feet. America’s intervention apparently has sparked in Iraq the freedom to speak out against tyranny. Unfortunately for Bush, however, he is considered the tyrant (aka the Decider, and the Dog), and not the liberator. Hence, the shoe throwing incident. Bush and his spinsters cannot blame this criticism on the media bias in the United States. This was unadulterated first hand testimony of Joe the Iraqi. By empowering Iraqis to speak out, Bush now sees first hand, perhaps for the first time, that perhaps history will not regard him as a liberator, as he apparently deludes himself into believing. I find that quite ironic, not to mention the fact that the shoe thrower’s supporters are seeking to cast his conduct as protected speech to protect him from prosecution.

Read the rest of this entry >>

On November 5, a majority of Californians who went to the polls voted to pass the controversial Proposition 8 and deny homosexuals the right to marry. Prop 8 seeks to add language to the California constitution to make clear only marriages between a man and a woman would be recognized as legal. Prop 8 was a response to a decision by the Supreme Court of California earlier this year ruling unconstitutional a family law provision that contained identical language to Prop 8. Thus, Prop 8 supporters sought to go over the heads of the Justices and take it to the people to change the California Constitution.

Prop 8 has commanded a great deal of attention since Election Day mainly because of the public outcry that followed its passage, as evidenced by very vocal (and sometimes violent) protests in California. The reaction to the reaction has been very polarizing and perhaps counter-productive to opponents of Prop 8 seeking broad public support for their cause. Many Californians were outraged by the protests because it extended their commutes, while others were forced to question their stereotypes of gays as passive and weak (obviously not watchers of the L Word). It also has had the unfortunate result of feeding the lunatic fringe of social conservatives who were all too happy to refocus their anger on homosexuals as the greatest threat to our Country, a label they had unsuccessfully tried to stick to President-elect Obama. I actually heard a discussion on conservative talk radio to the effect that the gays would not stop with being able to marry one another, but actually wanted the ability to marry animals.  Oh that’s right, I remember hearing about that…something about animal husbandry. Maybe its time to apply an IQ test to voters, just to make sure they have one. But I digress.

Read the rest of this entry >>

It has been a rough 4 to 8 years to be an American, and a time of incredible anger. I think that has become the predominant emotion, replacing pride and apple pie.

Many of us were angered by the way the reign of W began, not with a mandate of the majority but instead with allegations of voter suppression in predominately white regions of Florida, a recount procedure that seemed more akin to a cartoon with then Florida Secretary of State Kathleen Harris serving the role of goofy, and in the end the appointment of Bush to the Presidency by what many perceived as a partisan Supreme Court. The net result for the more than 50% of voting Americans who voted for Gore and not Bush was anger and frustration rather than stubborn acceptance of the will of the majority of their fellow Americans.

During the first term of W, we did not realize the promises made by W to be a compassionate conservative and to bridge the gap of bipartisanship that seemed to overtake Washington during the second Clinton administration. Certainly 9/11 provoked anger (and of course a great deal of fear) in any American who was paying attention. Initially the anger was directed at the “evildoers” – Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. That anger, in some quarters, became displaced by anger directed within – first toward fellow Americans who had the misfortune of being Muslim or having the appearance of anyone from the Middle East or northern Asia, much like we treated Japanese Americans during WWII, and then toward the Bush administration once we learned about the warning signs it ignored about the 9/11 attacks, either due to incompetence, denial or vacation. Anger and more anger.

Read the rest of this entry >>

I am neither a registered Democrat nor Republican, but rather an Independent who has voted in every Presidential election since I first was eligible in 1988.  I actually voted for a Bush for President once, though not the one who got in as a legacy.  I give this disclaimer to show that I try to think for myself and am not a dogmatic follower of either major political party, both of which I fear are run by corrupt and extreme elements that are out of touch with the mainstream, in hopes that maybe you may give what I have to say some consideration and not write me off as a “Liberal” whatever that means.

Read the rest of this entry >>