Open Letter to Scott McClellan

Dear Scott,

What the hell happened to you? Did you have an attack of conscience? Did someone put the fear of God into you? Did being a loyal Bushevik no longer pay off? Did the publishing industry of New York make a bargain with you that they'd only publish if you came clean about your role as Bush's propaganda minister? I mean, you titled your book "What Happened", so what the fuck happened anyway? Why turncoat now? Why did you wait so late? What would possess you to come clean with the truth after all these years? I mean, when you were ordered to pass on the official lie to the press corps in your official duties as the president's press propagandist, where was your conscience then?

Forgive me if I think this book is little more than an egotistical mea culpa in which you hope to redeem your piddling place in history. There is no doubt that you will go down as one of Bush's ineffective propagandists. There's no escaping culpability here. You are guilty by association with the worst band of thieves, liars, murderers, and plunderers this nation has ever seen. You are responsible for the lies that were passed around, for the smears against anyone who questioned the claims and anyone who disagreed with the views of this White House. I don't care if you got an attack of conscience when feeding your children breakfast and you realized what kind of country they'll inherit (actually, I say that without knowing if you even have children and what ages they might be). The fact remains, when America needed people who are loyal to the founding document...the U.S. Constitution...to stand up for the truth when it mattered the most, you failed to speak out and became a mouthpiece for a lie. Your loyalty to Bush was more important than American values, the truth, and people's lives.

Go ahead and cry. It's funny to watch the reactions of people like Cheney and Rove and Ari Fleischer...all claiming that your words don't reflect the man that they knew. Because you turned coat on them, you just lost friends among the people you served with for years. Do you expect to be embraced by the people you once lied to? You are a fool. Watch the film "Benedict Arnold." That man died a lonely death in England because he betrayed Washington and the Patriots while the Royalists in England never truly trusted him. That's what happens when you turn coat on people. No one likes you. The liars hate you for exposing their lies as one who was once a part of it. The people you lied to don't like you because your motives are questioned as to "why now?" Had you resigned at the first instance you were asked to lie, you might've gained respect. But when you wait to reveal the truth in a memoir, it's too late. Hell still has a room with your name on it. You might want to pack your bags for Baghdad to get used to the heat in your retirement years.

If you truly are remorseful, here are some things you can do for your country:

(1) Donate all proceeds from the sale of your book to veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan;

(2) Speak at the Democratic National Convention about how you were conned by the lies of George W. Bush and reveal everything you know about John McCain.

(3) Tell us what the real relationship is between Bush and that gay escort James Guckert / Jeff Gannon, who posed as a reporter for an online journal to ask softball questions of the president.

(4) Serve in Iraq for the rest of your days on earth or until we leave Iraq, whichever comes first.

(5) Vote Democratic in the November election.

Failure to do any of these five things reveals that you are not serious about being remorseful over the part you played in carrying out the lies of this administration. You deserve no honour, no awards, no financial benefits for coming clean now. You are a despicable human being who I hope will go to your grave with a nagging guilty conscience for failing to speak out when it mattered most. The lives of over 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are on your conscience. You cannot escape your role in this immoral war. Just as the Nazis had their propaganda minister who was charged with war crimes at Nuremberg, so are you just as guilty of war crimes.

If Bush never speaks to you again, even though you still admire him, I hope you understand why. He values loyalty and you just betrayed him for what benefit? Nothing you've written about is news. We all know he lied relentlessly and forgive my cynicism, but I just can't understand the timing of your mea culpa. Five years late doesn't bring back the dead.

The only thing I appreciate about this is seeing how rats abandon a sinking ship. I love seeing all these smug Busheviks scrambling over themselves to make sure history doesn't implicate them in the disaster that is Bush's administration. You know Rumsfeld's memoirs are going to be harsh on Bush and apparently Rove is having a hard time finding a publisher for his memoirs (who wants to read propaganda?). Earlier this year, Richard Perle (the neo-conservative architect of the war in Iraq) cried fowl because "Vanity Fair" had published an article in which even he was critical of Bush's competence regarding the war. After the level of nastiness shown towards those who were against the war in Iraq, it is a little satisfying to see conservatives jump all over themselves to condemn the Bush Administration. Yes, when ego and history are at play, no one wants to continue to dance on a sinking ship. It's every man for himself, Bush be damned.

With friends like you, Bush must be feeling betrayed, hurt, and shocked. He expected loyalty at all costs. What he didn't count on was the magic ability of New York publishing houses to offer enough money to make any loyalist turn coat. Thanks for the short thrill, but you're not excused from being a liar all these years. I really hope you will work on redeeming yourself in a more honest way...which is more than words. I want to see action, like helping Iraqi refugees or military veterans at home. Unless you do this, your words are hollow and vain. I'd hate to have a friend like you because friends are supposed to be honest and upfront with one another instead of enablers and true friends don't betray the relationship in a book for public consumption.

I honestly hope this is the last we'll see of the likes of you. You deserve to have a place next to Benedict Arnold in the history books, because you first betrayed America by enabling the liars, then you betrayed the people you were supposedly loyal to. How can anyone trust what you have to say? You are a poster boy for the worst kind of friend imagineable. Now go crawl back into your hole.

Don't know when this photo was taken, but it's interesting to see a sunny Scott walking next to his hero, a sour-faced Bush. Was something going on between them already when this photo was taken? Maybe Bush sensed a rat in his administration.

"What, me worry?"

Our beleagured president experiences another betrayal. I think we're only seeing the trickle before the dam finally breaks. I expect a tidal wave of anti-Bush books from his former administrative officials who have egos large enough to blame him in hopes of salvaging their reputations. The only loyal Bush books I can see will be written by Laura "He's misunderstood" Bush, Condoleezza "My husb--" Rice, Harriet "You're the best president ever, sir!" Miers, Karl "Can I suck your dick again, sir?" Rove and Dick "You're the Man!" Cheney.

Crush on Obama Girl

During my visit with Nathan, he introduced me to the videos of Obama Girl. I had heard of Obama Girl before but thought it was little more than a joke. I didn't think there were actually music videos and a song about this lady's crush on Obama. Nathan, being the best friend that he is, was all too willing to show me these videos (much to his wife's disliking, I sensed) and now I have a crush on Obama Girl! I'm a fan. So, for this week's Fun Friday, enjoy!

California Dreaming

Ahhhhhh...California! What can I say about California? Since childhood, it's been my favourite state in the union and one I've always dreamed of living in. Yet, the three times I had a choice, I always chose the option that wasn't California. Dumb? Not really. The first time was at my "A" School with the U.S. Navy. I had second choice from a billet sheet of 22 duty stations for my first assignment. I had wanted to move to California since I was at least 8 years old when I asked my Air Force father to put it on his dream sheet. He never did because he never desired to live there like I did. But, despite having a choice of at least 6 different duty stations in California (including a couple shore billets and the rest ships), I chose La Maddalena, Sardinia...because my desire to return to Europe was far greater.

When that duty assignment was up in 1994, I called my Navy detailer for duty stations in San Diego, but he basically told me that my choice was limited to any ship in Norfolk. Not what I wanted to hear. Norfolk was the last place I wanted to be assigned to, but it turned out for the best because that was where I met my best friend Nathan, whom I visited last weekend in San Diego.

For college, I had wanted to go to the University of California at Berkeley, but I knew I couldn't afford it. I feel like the answer to my prayer for direction was to go to BYU, so I did. I don't regret that decision either because of the great friends I made and the growing experience I had where my spiritual views were tested in ways far greater than anything else I could've imagined.

Then, in 2006, when I turned in my resignation letter at my last job in Atlanta, I wrote that I was moving to San Francisco. However, after a summer sabbatical at my parents' house, when I weighed the options, I was actually torn between Portland and San Francisco. In the end, Portland won.

The California Dream...MY California Dream remains deferred. Who knows? If I don't find my dream job by year's end in Portland, perhaps I ought to suck it up and see about Grad School in California. Perhaps once and for all, I should just see if California holds the key to my destiny instead of dreaming about it and finding myself in a very good place mentally whenever I visit there.

What is it about California, anyway? The state has held such a mythological sway over my mind since childhood. To me, it is "the promise land", paradise, Shangri-la, El Dorado, Atlantis, Zion, Heaven on earth...every mythological place of perfection you can imagine all rolled into one cool, zen vibe. That's California in my mind.

This is a view of San Diego's bay that I got off of a Google image search. All photos in today's posts are lifted from a Google image search. When I develop a roll or two from my trip, I will include them, but for now, this will have to do.

The bridge you see (the Coronado bridge, linking the peninsula that contains the town of Coronado and one of the Navy bases) was one that I went over quite a few times during my visit with the Hagmans. One of Nathan's Navy buddies is stationed on the USS John C. Stennis, an aircraft carrier, that was in town for the holiday weekend. Nathan didn't know about it until I had mentioned to him that it was in town, so he got to spend some time with another Navy buddy, and he introduced me to him as "the best man." Man, he never forgets! At his wedding eight summers ago, I remember telling him that I hated to lose the status of his best friend, to which he replied, "but you'll always be the best man!" True to form, that's how I was introduced and I was quite pleased. Serving in that capacity was a great honour. Glad to see the "title" still holds after all these years.

The visit was great, which I'll write about more in depth in Saturday or Sunday's post (when I hopefully have personal photos to post). Here's some of what I did on my trip:

Visited Old Town San Diego on Saturday, which reminded me a little bit of Santa Fe, New Mexico. It was more interesting that I thought it would be and I spent more time there than I had planned. Then, I walked down the waterfront between the USS MIDWAY museum and the Convention Center, into the Gaslight District which was crowded due to some outside music festival just getting started. I rode the San Diego Trolley (yes, they actually call it by the term that other cities like San Francisco, New Orleans and Portland cringe at) all the way down to the border with Mexico so I could see the border myself and take a few pictures of Mexico without having to set foot there (I've never been to Mexico and have no intention of ever going there--at least not Tijuana). It was interesting to see the border (that there is an actual wall, and that Tijuana is on a hillside that looks down on the U.S.), especially since I crossed the U.S./Canada border on the opposite end of I-5 in January.

On Sunday, we walked around Balboa Park, which was pretty awesome, but crowded with people. Monday, we went to the LDS Temple in La Jolla (because it's one of my favourite architectural designs) and the beach in La Jolla. I realized later that I had forgotten to "mark" the starting and ending times of the Young Adult retreat that I had cancelled. I wanted to at least observe the time of the retreat to make this vacation extra special. When I thought back on it, I realized that when the retreat was supposed to have started (noon on Saturday), I was in the LDS "Mormon Brigade" Museum / Visitor's Center in Old Town San Diego and when the retreat was to have ended (noon on Monday), I was at the LDS Temple in La Jolla. Dang...I can't escape the Mormon influence in my life. But, it was a neat little "juxtaposition."

This is a scene from Amtrak's Coast Starlight run. It goes from Los Angeles to Seattle and let me tell you, the scenes of the beaches on the coast from Santa Barbara northward were absolutely gorgeous! I stopped reading my book to just stare out the window at the scenes. I was that way during most of the trip. I left San Diego at 6:10 a.m. on Tuesday and the scenes between San Diego and Santa Ana were fantastic. I was especially pleased to see a little bit of Oceanside, because in a high school memory book that I put together, I had written that in ten years (that would've been 2000), I saw myself married with two children, living in Oceanside CA, with a successful writing career. Okay, so that didn't come true, but then again, I didn't run off to California like I thought I would when I graduated from high school.

I wasn't impressed with the whole Los Angeles area or the San Fernando Valley. I used to want to live there at one point as well. Santa Barbara, on the other hand, I've never been to, but after seeing it from the train, I think I'm going to have to make a special vacation where I fly into L.A. and drive north through Malibu, Santa Barbara, Solvang, San Luis Obispo, up to Salinas, Monterey, and San Francisco. That would be a dream driving vacation. But watching the scenery from the train was awesome as well. One scene I especially liked was when a bird flew on the ridge of a wave, like it was surfing. It would keep doing that and I thought how much fun it was having. I also saw human surfers out there and it was like watching a commercial about California. The California lifestyle is true!

More scenes of Amtrak's Coast Starlight run (this train is obviously heading southbound).

Another photo I lifted from a Google image search. This one is to show you how much leg room you get on a train (versus a plane). People keep asking me why I take the train when it's so long (the L.A. to Portland portion is about 29 hours). I did fly down to San Diego on Friday (with a change of planes in Las Vegas) and while I love the speed of airlines, part of my vacation was the relaxing train ride. I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed visiting my best friend Nathan and his family. It truly is a relaxing way to travel and meet people. The service attendant for my entire journey was an awesome African American lady with blonde curly hair who was very talkative and funny. When a bunch of teenagers (120 of them with only a few adult chaperones among them) got on board at Santa Barbara for the journey to Klamath Falls, Oregon, they were crazy wild. The service attendant also told some of us that these kids were spoiled in how they trashed the car they were riding in and wanted her to clean up after them. She was funny when she said, "let me tell you 'bout spoiled rich kids!" She kept her sense of humour and is exactly the kind of person you enjoy meeting on a rail journey through some of America's most beautiful scenery.

I'm such a fan of Amtrak and this is my third year in a row where I did a long journey on Amtrak (and in 2004, I also rode the Coast Starlight from San Francisco to Portland and back). I hope to continue with this, as I'd like to ride all of the journeys they offer (San Francisco to Chicago; Los Angeles to Chicago; Los Angeles to Jacksonville; Chicago to San Antonio; Chicago to New Orleans; Chicago to Boston; New York to Miami). If you've never ridden on Amtrak, what are you waiting for...an ingraved invitation?!? Make plans! See America by train. You'll love it.

Anyhow, the trip was awesome. Simply one of my better vacations I've been on. It's great to visit a good, longtime, best friend who knows me probably better than anyone else. I appreciate the laughs, the advice, the friendship, and the new scenes to fill my mind with nothing but beauty and gratitude. With that, all I can do is sigh a big "ah" with Californiahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Have a Great Memorial Day Weekend

Ean sharing a meal with his dad.

This weekend, I'm in San Diego visiting one of my best friends Nathan, his wife Lisa, and their 20-month old son Ean, whom I'm just meeting for the first time. Have a great holiday weekend and I'll get back to a regular post on Thursday, 29 May.

An Engineer's Guide to Cats

For Fun Friday, I'm posting a video I watched last week on YouTube, which I found to be quite hilarious. Enjoy!

Indy's Close Encounter of the Worst Kind

Last night, I went to the midnight premiere of "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." I can't believe that the last time we saw Indiana Jones in theaters, it was the great summer of 1989 (when "Batman" also came out, which it does this year as well). The summer before my senior year. But this year, we won't have a "Dead Poets Society", a "Ghostbusters II", a "Casualties of War" as we did in the summer of 1989. I'll just have to be satisfied with Indiana Jones and Batman, I guess.

The new "Indiana Jones" movie did start out promising with some intriguing ideas that I love reading about. It was going in a very good direction and the sense of humor was apparent throughout. It was obvious that Lucas and Spielberg were making it for the fun of it. They had fun with it. I loved that they allowed Indiana Jones to age appropriately (the time frame for this film is exactly 19 years after his "Last Crusade" adventures). There's a lot they did with the time frame...1957, when America was entering the nuclear age and getting paranoid about communism run amok in America.

Instead of the Nazis, we have Russians, led by the strangely seductive Irina Spalko (played by Cate Blanchett channeling the lead singer of Swing Out Sister). I was intrigued by her performance. Shia LaBoeuf was also a welcome addition to the cast, as we get to see the flip side of the whole father-figure / son role that worked so well between Sean Connery as father and Harrison Ford as the son. Now he's a mentor to a mysterious kid who arrives on the scene like a mix of James Dean, Marlon Brando, and Jack Kerouac.

The film builds and builds, explaining the idea behind the Crystal Skull and what it's supposed to do. The motive of the Russians is based on history, as the Soviets were quite open about the use of psychic powers to "see" what their enemies were doing or planning. Ultimately, they want to have the ability to control people's minds without the people knowing that they are being controlled. Our government is basically the same way, so it's interesting that people who work in that part of government are more open to the ideas of remote viewing, channeling, automatic writing/drawing, and other psychic phenomenon...while pretending to be strictly Christian to their supporters. Oh, that's not really mentioned in the film (about our government's role, anyway), it's just my thoughts on how Americans seem to be more closed minded than our government is about other sources of information and experiences.

As I watched, I wanted to learn more about the mythology behind the Crystal Skull and I thought the film would've been truly great if they had gone in a realistic direction. Without giving anything away, I was disappointed by the resolution of the film. It was cheesy. Then again, you could say that all the Indiana Jones films have a cheesy element on purpose, since they are supposed to be little more than an expensive update of old serials that Lucas and Spielberg grew up on. Besides, I knew in advance from the interview I had read in "Entertainment Weekly" magazine that it would have "this element" (I don't want to give anything away) in the film to illustrate the time period it's set in, when Americans were in the midst of paranoia about invasions. There were certain movies that were quite popular at the time, so if you see this film, be mindful that it's a lot different from the previous films in how the adventure gets resolved.

All too many scenes remind me of ones I've seen in the film "Congo." But, no use complaining about it. This story is one that George Lucas said he had to tell. It's his whole reason for bringing Indiana Jones out of mothballs. Will it be successful? Undoubtedly, yes. But I have a feeling that fans are going to be about as angry as "the Matrix" fans were about that trilogy's resolution. You just can't please the fanboys, but the film is what it is. And "Raiders of the Lost Ark" it ain't.

Harrison Ford and Shia LaBoeuf (sp?) discover a mystery they can't seem to explain

Cate Blanchett as a highly decorated Russian Agent in charge of psychic phenomenon, who believes the legend of the Crystal Skull and the lost city of El Dorado.

A Look at the Numbers

For the Portland City Commissioner -- Position 1 race, I got the latest numbers and was pleased to see that John Branam dropped into fourth place. After paying his campaign manager double what other campaign managers make, it makes me wonder what good was it? The whole thing seemed like a massive fraud to begin with, like someone concocted a scheme to access $150,000 in taxpayer funds to run a race for City Council and hiring a buddy to run a campaign, paying him a cool $25,000 for three months work. Fleece the city and move on. One alternative weekly newspaper, in assessing the candidates, had called John Branam's campaign "trifling." Ouch, that had to hurt. That's perhaps one of the worst things you can say about a candidate. But I concur. There seemed little reason for him to run other than to offer his buddy a nice paid gig for three months at taxpayer expense and to pad a resume with this kind of experience. That Jeff Bissonnette managed to pull in more votes than Branam indicates to me that there is justice in Portland! I would have voted for Bissonnette if I hadn't discovered the Charles Lewis campaign two weeks before turning in my ballot. I hope Bissonnette will run for political office again.

Amanda Fritz

The front-runner who received a whopping 62,249 votes (44%). She was expected to come in first for the fact that this is her second campaign and that she's the only female running for this position. Her campaign seems to be little more than "we need to bust up the boy network in City Hall" and that's not a good reason to run. She'll be a formidable candidate though and has a good chance of winning. However, the numbers makes me wonder, especially when I heard some people mention that they voted for someone else simply so she couldn't get the 50% +1 to avoid a run-off. I'm glad, because with so many races, we need a bit more time for the candidates to make their case why they'd make a better City Commissioner.

Charles Lewis

Came in a distant second with 18,369 votes (13%). One of those votes is mine. While the gap is pretty large, you could easily say that the close votes between the three men (or even all five) might indicate a split among undecideds who don't want Amanda Fritz as City Commissioner. In 2004, Nick Fish (who won a clear majority with over 60% for another City Commissioner position) was forced into a run-off with Sam Adams. He had received more votes than Sam in the primary and then managed to lose the election in November. I'm hoping it will be the same with Charles Lewis. I'm hoping that the majority of voters who voted AGAINST Amanda will turn around and vote FOR Charles Lewis in November. That would be a great turn-around, but not altogether unexpected. Like I said, I see that the majority who voted against Amanda split their support among five men. Charles has slightly more name recognition than any of his male opponents, which is probably the reason why he came in second. Now, his challenge is to increase his name recognition and supporters for November. It's certainly do-able.

Jeff Bissonnette

He received 17,838 votes (12%). Had I voted on May 5th, he would've gotten my vote. What changed my vote was the eight page "scrapbook" political flyer I received in the mail from Charles Lewis. I wonder how many others were similarily swayed. The reason my vote changed was because Lewis' political mailer showed a depth to him that the media failed to do. Dismissing him as a Portland Duck Tour operator was wrong. Lewis has a background in politics. Had Bissonnette run for Erik Sten's vacated seat, I would've voted for him in that race. I certainly hope he'll run again.

John Branam

He received 17,528 votes (12%). I'd love to look at the numbers and see if his campaign was hurt at all by the lack of endorsements, the revelations of his paying a buddy double what normally is considered reasonable for campaign manager, his being named in a lawsuit by a disgruntled employee for being hired for a job he didn't qualify for (with a plush salary), and a newspaper dimissing his campaign as "trifling." Will he have a political future? That remains to be seen. But, I was glad to see him finish behind Lewis and Bissonnette.

Chris Smith

Mike Fahey received 14,987 votes (10%) and Chris Smith finished dead last with 13,383 votes (9%). All the people who voted for candidates three through six, I wonder who they will support in November. I'm hoping that a vote for one of the five candidates automatically translates into a vote for Charles Lewis in November. Or some could have been supporters of Amanda who wanted more time for her to make a case, and wanting to avoid giving her the victory she needed to avoid a run-off.

That makes this race one of the more interesting ones to watch in November (besides the Obama vs. McCain contest). This is like a new experience for me. I've never been interested in local politics before. I've been a globalist since childhood and my preferred politics is interesting races in other countries (such as South Africa's historic 1994 election). I always viewed local government as ineffectual, uninteresting, and irrelevant. What cured me of that was Republican domination of national government, which forced me to look for local candidates to support since I had no hope of the national political scene improving. Now, I'm hooked. Who becomes City Commissioner does make a difference at City Hall. May the best person win!

Introducing the Next Mayor of Portland

Well...it's official! In a field of 13 candidates (including 21 year old Kyle Burris, the slacker who garnered some 340 votes), Commissioner Sam Adams cleared a major hurdle and won 58% of the vote when all the ballots were tallied. That's a huge victory over rival Sho Dozono, who earned about 33% of the vote.

With his stunning victory, Adams promises to work hard for the city of Portland. He also joked that he will put Portland to work as well. In his victory speech, he thanked family, friends, volunteers, and especially his staff, whom he acknowledged that there's only one thing tougher than being a city commissioner and that's being a staff member of a city commissioner.

Since he is a well-known policy wonk who often puts in 18 hour days and seven days a week, he's just the energetic and outgoing politician we need for our city. The victory was sweet. I haven't felt this happy over a political victory since Barack Obama won the U.S. Senate race in 2004. This is a great day for Portland.

Huge kudos go out to campaign manager Jennifer Yocom, who is now two for two on campaigns won under her managerial leadership. Maybe she should be making Phil Busse's campaign manager salary (he's the one who was paid $25,000 for three months work on a campaign that apparently has come in third place and out of contention for the run-off). In the months I've known Jennifer and worked for her as a volunteer, she always had a great smile and sense of humour. She was an absolute joy to work for and I love the energy she brings across in everything she does. Here's hoping that she'll be on Adams staff. If she's a die hard campaigner, any campaign out there would be wise to snatch her up if they really want to win.

Sam Adams talking with a supporter at his party at the Jupiter Hotel in Portland last night (May 20th). I did not take any of these photos (I lifted them from a Google search because I'm shameless like that...but mostly because I don't have a digital camera and take forever to develop my rolls of film).

In the City Commissioner race for position one (Sam's seat), there were six candidates running and thankfully Amanda Fritz didn't clear the 50% +1 hurdle, so she faces a run-off with the second highest vote earner, which is CHARLES LEWIS by a mere 610 votes over third place finisher John Branam. Whew! However, he's 30,000 votes behind Amanda and that's a lot of people, considering that Lewis won some 13,000 votes (12.5%). He certainly has his work cut out for him. It's do-able, though, because three of the male candidates were running neck and neck in the 10-12% margin with several hundred votes difference between the three of them. With Amanda as the only female in the race, it looks like voters were split on her main three rivals, so getting better name recognition for the November election is going to be crucial.

I'm happy to be able to devote my free time to another campaign to help another great guy get elected to City Council. I'm already excited about Sam's leadership starting in January and now it's time to help elect a great city commissioner to fill his old seat. Charles Lewis is that person. You'll probably hear more about him (through my blog) in the next six months.

Decision Day in Oregon

Barack Obama addressing the multitudes in Portland on Sunday, May 18th. Who says he's not patriotic?

View from the grandstand

So, this is what 60,000 people look like! That's how many made it into the fenced off area by the time Obama made it to the stage. There was an additional 12,000 still in line at 2:30 for many blocks downtown. Like I said...I've never seen anything like this in my life. You'd think it was the second coming of Jesus or something.

This is Portland. The Obama event was held in that grassy "knoll" area you see in the middle left of the picture (between the boat marina and the closest bridge you see).

That's a tiny space for so many people. And yes, it was too crowded. I got crushed at one point in my attempt to get closer to shake Obama's hand after the speech. I barely got close enough to glimpse his face for a brief second.

So, today is the day Oregonians finally get to have their say in the Democratic Primary. Well, also the Republican one since Ron Paul is still on the ballot...but I haven't seen the obnoxious Ron Paul supporters around town in months. They kind of disappeared like the "9/11 Truth" people. I'm so glad that the election turned out to be longer than pundits predicted. They thought it would all be over on Tsunami Tuesday back in February. We were a mere afterthought. Ha ha. I love it when pundits are wrong and they've been consistently wrong all year.

That's why I don't worry too much about people saying that America is still a racist country that won't vote for a black man for president. Gee...what America are they living in? Most of the rap music cds are bought by white suburban kids. Will Smith is one of the most bankable actors in Hollywood. He can even make crappy movies ("Hitch") into hundred million dollar hits. Michael Jordan was the most popular athlete during his time. The younger generation (Generation X and the Millennials) are not as hung up on race as the Boomers are...and it is the Boomer pundits that keep harping on the racial issue. This could be the election that inspires young people to vote en masse. It's amazing to see the turn-out already in primaries all over the country. Democrats have broken records in state after state in terms of new voters, voter turn out, fundraising, campaign volunteers. It's completely phenomenal.

The Republicans are running scared because they have no ideas. They can't even keep up with the amount of money Democrats have raised. The only way they can win is playing the race card, but I don't think it will work this time around. Destiny is with Obama. Consider it karmic retribution against the forces of darkness that got rid of King and Kennedy forty years ago. Political eras generally last between thirty and fifty years. The pendulum swings back and forth. This year is the end of forty years of Republican misrule. We are coming out of the wilderness into a new era. Cynical naysayers had their chance to lead, now they need to step aside and let someone else take the leadership reigns.

Here's to an exciting evening watching the poll results. I plan to visit two political parties. I love nights like this! I guess you can say that I live for politics.

How I Voted (Because You're Dying to Know)

For those that don't know about Oregon's voting system...the state did away with the tradition where people head to polling places to cast a vote on election day. Instead, we are sent a voters guidebook in the mail (with each candidate having the opportunity to submit a half page write-up) and a ballot. We usually receive them two weeks in advance of the day its due (in this case, Tuesday, May 20th by 8 p.m.). Though I love going to a polling place and voting in a booth, I've voted a few times in Oregon's system and have come to appreciate the leisure I can take with voting as I read up on the candidates and issues. Once I marked up my ballot (I've never done it all at once; I usually take several days to completely fill it out), I can drop it off at my convenience, which I'm doing later on today. With that, here's how I voted...

For the Democratic Nomination for President

Barack Obama

I know I flirted with the possibility of voting for Hillary Clinton because it would be interesting to see not only a woman president, but also what role former President Bill Clinton would play in her administration. Her health care plan might be better than Obama's and her attempt in trying to bring Americans universal health care in 1993 provided a lot of necessary experience from which to work with in making it successful reality this time. Ultimately, though, I have to go with the candidate I had hoped would run for president in 2008 when he won the U.S. Senate seat in November 2004. His election was the rare bright spot in an otherwise demoralizing election. If Kerry did one thing right in his campaign, it was making Obama (merely a State Senator at the time, in a campaign for the Senate seat) a speaker during the primetime broadcast. He nailed it! It truly will be remembered as the speech that made Obama look presidential. He spoke of a new kind of politics, especially with his memorable line that "we worship an awesome God in the Blue States and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States." His point was clear...the media-created differences of Red States versus Blue States only helped to serve Bush's policies of divide and conquer.

His relative inexperience might make some people a bit cautious in supporting him, but I believe he is called by destiny to lead America in this time of divisiveness. Our greatest president Abraham Lincoln was also relatively inexperienced in politics. But Lincoln said it best in a quote: "a house divided against itself cannot stand." There are many challenges that America faces in the next four years and beyond. We cannot continue on the present course of having a president who disregards the majority of opinions while sticking to his tunnel vision of America in hopes that history will vindicate his presidency someday. We need a true leader who inspires people to their best, to challenge us to look beyond our racial prejudices, and to offer us hope for a better world. That person simply is Barack Obama. I am proud to cast my vote for him to become the next president of the United States. We might not see another politician of his gifts, vision, and calibre for awhile. If we truly are in "the fierce urgency of now", he is the best one to lead us back into the community of nations, to restore justice and human rights, and to be a president for ALL Americans.

For the Democratic Nomination for U.S. Senate

Jeff Merkley

He helped lead the Democrats back into the majority in the Oregon state legislature. He brings his state legislative leadership experience with him as the best candidate to defeat Senator Gordon Smith in November. While Steve Novick (his main opponent) is a witty guy and a character (short in stature and has a hook for a left hand), I don't think he has a chance to defeat Senator Smith. And you can suspect that Senator Smith thinks so as well, because his ads mostly attack Merkley. Why Senator Smith is running ads against Merkley already (when he has an opponent on the Republican side) indicates to me that he prefers to run against Novick. He's scared of losing his seat in the Senate and he ought to be. When I interned in D.C. in the OVP for Legislative Affairs eight years ago, I saw Senators up close and I can easily see Merkley among them. We have Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and I believe that having a fellow Democratic colleague will be good for Oregon...especially when renewable energy and environmental sustainability will become major issues in the next decades. Merkley knows what it takes to win and he does it without flash. Senator Smith has every reason to fear Jeff Merkley. His career as a Bush-policy voting politician has a serious chance of coming to an end.

For U.S. Representative for the First Congressional District

David Wu

Though he's not the most exciting politician and I kind of wished that I had moved into Congressman Blumenauer's district (east of the river), none of his opponents have the kind of stature to bring something new to the office and the district. What I like about Congressman Wu is that he was born in Taiwan (like me) and he has been consistently tough on China regarding human rights (even when he has Intel and Nike corporations in his district, which both want more trade with China). His main opponent is a computer engineer at Intel, fueling speculation that he might be an Intel plant to gain influence in Congress. Until we get another candidate with more interesting experiences, ideas, and personality, I'm sticking with Congressman Wu for another two years.

For Attorney General of Oregon

John Kroger

His opponent Greg Macpherson has run ads accusing Kroger of basically being a carpetbagger, but man...what a carpetbagger! Oregon is lucky to have enticed Kroger to move here. Here's a basic bio: He got his Bachelor's and Master's at Yale; a Juris Doctorate at Harvard Law; he served in the U.S. Marine Corps in a special operations unit; he worked in the Clinton Administration as a policy analyst in the Treasury Department; then he became a federal prosecutor who helped convict mafia killers, drug traffickers, corrupt government officials, and prosecuted Enron executives. With a resume like that, no wonder why his opponent has gone after his lack of Oregon roots. Kroger claims to have fallen in love with Oregon when he made a cross-country bike trip. He's currently a law professor at Lewis and Clark College.

Anyone who goes after Enron executives is great in my book. I'd love to see what he'll do as the state's Attorney General. He wants to go after the meth problem, which should be an issue of major concern. He has the vast experience (military, great universities as student and professor, presidential administration, courtroom) necessary to handle the demands of being Oregon's top law officer.

Back in late January and early February, he was looking for campaign staff and I had thought of applying. The reason I didn't was because I had already committed to volunteering on the Sam Adams campaign and didn't want a job as a staff member on another campaign to limit my ability to volunteer on the Adams campaign. But, had I known more about Kroger's background back then, I most likely would've applied anyway (since my morale at work has consistently gone downhill each month so far this year). Like I said in yesterday's post...I've never lived in a place where I had so many choices on good candidates to work for. I hit the motherlode in Oregon!

For Oregon Secretary of State

Kate Brown

I haven't really paid much attention to this race. There are four candidates running, three of whom are State Senators looking for a promotion. Based on the write-up in the voter guidebooks, they all sound similar. It's hard to decide, so I went with Kate Brown because in her ads, she reminds us of the disasterous vote count in 2000 and advocates for clean and fair elections, which is an important issue for me. She won't be Oregon's Katharine Harris.

For Mayor of Portland

Sam Adams

You all saw this one coming, right? Out of all the campaigns out there, he's the one I'm most excited about winning because I think he's an all around great guy with the kind of visionary leadership and energy Portland needs right now. He has his share of critics who don't like his personal style. He can be a bit combative and not as diplomatic as people would like, but I think this is just part of his personality trait of being brutally honest. That's what I like about him. He knows what he wants and intends to get it, to make Portland an even better city. Leadership is not for the timid and visionary leadership often ruffles the feathers of those happy with the way things are. However, that's not to say that he gets his way all the time or that he's incapable of changing his mind. He's shown recently his ability to shelve personal projects like the bike bridge in the Pearl that many were critical of, or his plan for street maintenance fees to be put up for a vote at another time.

For me, the key issues for Portland are livable wage jobs, affordable housing, public transit, and environmental sustainability. When I first heard about him and learned about his political philosophy, I knew he was a candidate I would not only wholeheartedly endorse, but also that I wanted to volunteer on his campaign. I've never been interested in local races before in my life. But his passion for the issues that I care about reaffirms for me why I moved to Portland in the first place. This city needs to become the world leader in being environmentally friendly and sustainable, where green jobs are part of the economy, and even having businesses flock to our city to be a part of an innovative future.

Sam Adams is a policy wonk. That type of person is generally the best kind to have in government because they are passionate about governing and obsessed with the details. The last thing we need is another bland mayor without bold ideas to move Portland forward. I'm fully confident that Sam Adams will be a mayor that will get the important things done and leave us a better city when his term(s) end.

For Portland City Commissioner -- Position 1

Charles Lewis

I already wrote my endorsement of him last week. Now, I get to vote for him. I really like his background with having a bachelor's in Political Science and a Master's in Public Policy. This is something that the local press never mention when he has made the news. It's always his side business, the Portland Duck Tours, which was a weekend operation catering to the tourist crowds and became quite popular for the nearly two years it existed. His experience as a founder and executive of a non-profit organization devoted to making music education affordable for over 2,200 low income children in Portland is far more impressive. It shows his ability to put his personal finances on the line for a workable dream that improves the quality of children's lives and because he took that kind of risk, his organization currently employs 78 people and fills a necessary niche in Portland for those low income children who love music and want to learn how to play instruments.

When it comes to money, he seems to have a strong sense of ethics...even willing to use part of the public money he received for his campaign to fill in potholes on some city streets. He wants to see City Council use its tax dollars for what it was intended for, rather than pet projects of wealthy developers (often those who have no shame in getting government contracts and funds but not willing to pay back their fair share in taxes). Though I'm a streetcar guy and love it (I use it several times a week), I also agree that if it comes out of funds meant to repair streets and bridges or other basic services, the basic services are far more important.

Out of all the candidates running for Sam Adams' vacated seat, Charles Lewis will bring the right kind of priorities to City Council. I also hope that he will use his experience in business to help solve the perception problem Portland has with the business world. Our city needs more livable wage jobs. Desperately. None of the other candidates have the kind of experiences necessary to make this happen.

There are other races that I voted for, such as County Commissioner, but the above represents most of the people I voted for on my ballot.

My apologies for those who do not live in Portland and couldn't care less about our local politics.

Happier Than a Wonk in Washington

Can you see me in the crowd? I'm the one wearing a khaki hat and an olive green shirt.

This photo was lifted from the Oregonian's webpage and shows the multitudes who attended the Barack Obama rally in downtown Portland this afternoon. We even made ABC's World News Tonight, which claimed that 75,000 people were present, making this a record-breaking crowd for any political candidate. As one of the multitudes, I can attest that I have NEVER seen anything like this in my life. There is defintely something electric going on in our country. I can't see McCain getting this large of a crowd anywhere. This is history in the making. I even overheard frat boys telling people that they were "Obamacans" (Republicans who support Obama). A lot of people seem to view him as a kind of "Barack star" and in the age of YouTube, Facebook, Myspace, and "American Idol", I really believe that the young people are going to vote in mass for Obama. I even saw children as young as four all excited about seeing Obama. This truly is a phenomenon that surpasses probably even the numbers who swarmed Robert F. Kennedy forty years ago. It gives me great hope that our country has moved beyond race and will vote for Obama and his new style of politics. It's the end of Rove-ism and his brand of cynicism and dirty tricks.

I'm glad to have been a part of the multitudes. I remarked to Christine that I could almost imagine what it was like to witness the Sermon on the Mount. Obama spoke from a platform at the top of the hill and we were packed in tight over every inch of ground. People even watched on their boats on the Willamette River and some walkers on the Hawthorne Bridge stopped to watch Obama give a passionate speech about the end of the Bush era and the cynical politics of division. The weather was unseasonably hot (in the upper 80s with no cloud to block the rays of the sun) and I was dying of thirst by the end of it (we had to pass through TSA security to get into the fenced off area). But it was the perfect way to end what has been an incredibly political weekend. It can't get much better than this for me!

On Friday, I was supposed to volunteer for the Jeff Merkley for U.S. Senate campaign but after a stressful week at work, I had to go out with a couple co-workers for a Happy Hour social involving alcoholic drinks to unwind. I had a horrible tasting Virginia Mint Julip (the traditional drink of the Kentucky Derby) and wished I had ordered a Mojito instead. But one drink was enough to get a little buzz before I headed off to Powell's Bookstore.

Bill and Chelsea Clinton were in Portland this weekend and had an event at a park in Milwaukie on Saturday. I couldn't go, because I already had plans with the Sam Adams campaign.

On Saturday, I attended the group phonebank for Sam Adams and made 104 calls to voters. I'm not a big phone talker (I take after my dad in that regard) so this was a bit uncomfortable for me at first. But I really want Sam Adams to become the next Mayor of Portland and was happy to make a pitch to people on why he needs to be elected. It was also fun to be with other committed volunteers who were making calls as well. And Sam even showed up to thank us for our work on his behalf.

The interesting thing I find about people is how many are so secretive about their vote. They really take that whole voting privacy thing seriously, as though it's a requirement about voting. While that's everyone's prerogative, the whole secrecy thing was to help people feel secure about voting that their choices wouldn't be known by the government. We see this in African elections where people who vote for the opposition candidates are harassed or even killed. In America, we have a tradition of political freedom and there's nothing wrong with being honest about who you voted for. When people are secretive about it (especially friends and co-workers), it's kind of odd to me. I'm very open about who I voted for (and tomorrow's post, I will reveal not only WHO I voted for in the Oregon primary but WHY). I have no shame in who I voted for or who I support.

It was good to experience a three hour session of phonebanking and leave messages for people. You never know if that one message is enough to convince someone who is still indecisive to go ahead and vote for your candidate. We'll see on Tuesday.

Today, as Christine and I waited in line (it was already several blocks long at 10 a.m.), we talked a bit to the people in line around us and we also received flyers from various volunteers on the many campaigns in our city. I didn't see anyone from the Sho Dozono campaign (Sam Adams' main rival) or any of the City Commissioner races. When I grabbed lunch at a nearby Quiznos, candidate John Kroger for Attorney General (I had missed his booksigning at Powells last week, to my disappointment) popped in to buy a drink. After leaving the Obama rally, it was like leaving a concert. There were many people selling Obama t-shirts, buttons and hats as well as candidates for the U.S. Senate and their volunteers. I saw Steve Novick but didn't get to talk with him. I was pleasantly surprised to see Jeff Merkley and waited to talk with him. I'm voting for him to face Senator Gordon Smith in the fall.

I asked him about the possibility of having a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" in our country after Bush leaves office. What he said in response was amazing to me because I thought about it myself. He had a problem with the "reconciliation" part, but he's willing to see the establishment of a "Truth and Prosecution Commission" so that those members of the Bush Administration who committed illegal or unconstitutional actions get some sort of punishment. That's what I want, but will it happen? I would love to serve on such a commission because I want to help research and compile evidence of the criminality of the current administration. I want the world and future Americans to know that Bush is the most criminal president we ever had and that his presidency will be forever known as the worst in our nation's history, a big black stain. Merkley also mentioned hearing about Bush supposedly buying property in Paraguay because he's seriously afraid of extradiction when he leaves office. I had heard that as well and I hope its true (that Bush is afraid...very afraid). I really want Bush to be the first president to end up in prison, and Chain-gang Cheney as well.

As Christine and I walked in search of a place to buy water, a guy tapped me on the shoulder and it was none other than Charles Lewis! It was good to see him out giving flyers to people and asking for their votes. He's the only City Commissioner candidate I saw out there and with the supposedly 75,000 people who attended the event, that's a lot of potential votes (of those that live in the city limits of Portland, anyway). I really hope he wins (if not a majority, then at least enough to put him in a run-off with a rival). His campaign is one that I hope to be a part of if Sam Adams clears the 50% +1 to avoid a run-off. I also hope to volunteer for the Merkley campaign this fall.

Like I said, I'm living in a dream! I never had this kind of experience when I lived in Georgia. It was hard to find a candidate I liked in which to volunteer for. The Democrats all tried to sound Republican in order to win. Oregon is the opposite. Even Senator Gordon Smith (with an over 90% pro-Bush policy voting record) tries to sound like a Democrat in his ads (his current ad claims that he's the true "change candidate" in the race...never mind that he's been in office for two terms). With so many good candidates to volunteer for and the kind of issues that are important to me (sustainability, affordable housing, living wages), I'm like a kid in a candy store. But since I hate cliches, let's just create a new one: I'm happier than a wonk in Washington!

Even "Saturday Night Live" was great in that it featured a skit starring none other than Senator John McCain. He was also the special commentator on the "Weekend Update" segment, where he joked about having great-great-great-great grandkids that were now reaching retirement age. He was funny in his statement to Democrats: "Please don't be in a rush to select your nominee!" He advised Democrats that he's perfectly okay if we don't choose our nominee at the Convention in August. He was willing to allow both Democrats to be on the November ballot! It was funny. McCain is no Bush, so I don't think he'll be a divisive president...but when we have a historic chance to break the mold of 43 white male presidents, I hope Americans will vote for history's sake rather than more of the same (what Barack calls "Bush's third term").

This all-political weekend was great. Even better is that Christine was willing to endure the heat and crowds to participate in what feels like a witness to political destiny. I'm more and more confident that Barack Obama has the gifts to take him all the way to the White House and make history for the Democrats once again. We were there, among the multitudes.

And to think that earlier this year, those of us in Oregon didn't believe that our primary votes would matter. Now, Oregon has the chance to put Obama over the top. He plans to declare victory when the results come in on Tuesday night. It's come down to this moment and I'm thrilled to be part of it. All pundit eyes are on us now.

Republican Boehner Will Dick America

After three special elections to fill seats vacated by Republicans in Congressional districts that overwhelmingly voted for Bush in 2004 (in former Speaker Hastert's Illinois district; in a Louisiana district held by a Republican for 30 years; and in Mississippi in which the Democrat was demonized for his personal ties to Obama and Wright), the writing is on the wall: 2008 is shaping up to be a TIDAL WAVE of a landslide for Democrats that we haven't seen since 1932 when Republicans were blamed for the misery of do-nothing President Hoover in reaction to the stock market crash of 1929 and the ensuing Great Depression. Republicans have lost three special elections in recent months.

This comes on top of a large mass of retirements by Republican politicians after their terms expire in January. Some pundits have said that the mass of retirements was a reflection of the 2006 mid-term election in which the Republicans finally lost power after 12 abusive years of scandals (exposing them for the hypocrites they truly are). No one wants to be in the minority party in Congress. When the Democrats took control of Congress, Boehner had the gall to suggest that Democrats be gracious in leadership roles...whereas Republicans in the Bush era showed no such grace during their years in power. Karmic retribution truly is a bitch, so seeing the Repugs cry crocodile tears was just icing on the cake of political victory.

What will also contribute to the huge losses of Republicans in Congress is that more Republican Senators are up for reelection this year than Democratic ones, due in large part to the nasty little election known as 2002, when Bush made it a referendum on patriotism and his desire to bring war to Iraq. It was one of the most demoralizing elections I've personally witnessed...especially as I lived in Georgia at the time and saw disgusting ads portraying the only handicapped Senator (Max Cleland had lost three of his limbs in Vietnam as a young man) as an ally of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad was run by challenger Saxby Chambliss who failed to serve in Vietnam himself. It's just one of many reasons why I absolutely hate the Republican party. People might accuse me of bias but I'm proud of that fact because when you're faced with a ruthless party completely lacking in common decency and morality, there's no choice. Democrats are no where near perfect or as courageous as I'd like, but overall, Democrats do run clean campaigns that focus on issues instead of character assassinations with no basis in facts.

So, this year is like sweet vindication for that dark year of 2002. It truly is karmic retribution that Republicans are running scared in fear of their Bush-loving voting record (such as Oregon's congenial Senator Gordon Smith who has voted consistently for what Bush wanted yet now wants to pretend that he's a moderate and independent). I love that so many Republicans have already seen the writing on the wall and decided that they really don't want to be in Congress anymore. They're more than willing to crawl back to their huge salaries and pensions on Wall Street and leave governing to those who are actually quite competent and passionate about it: Democrats!

However, I did read an article online about Congressman Boehner's (feel free to pronounce his name the way its spelled rather than his claim of "BAY-ner") Karl Rovian idea that what the Republicans need to do is "re-branding." This is their ticket to victory in November! That he actually believes his own bullshit is shocking. Actually, I keep forgetting that this is a Republican we're talking about. They make it too easy to make fun of them! Their complete lack of understanding about what's going on in America is proof of their ideological blindness and elitist attitudes. I have it on good authority that re-branding doesn't often work. Remember "New Coke"? Didn't think so. When I lived in Atlanta, I was shocked and furious that Atlanta paid millions upon millions to an ad agency (in New York, if I remember correctly) to come up with a new brand for Atlanta in which to use in tourist ads. What did Atlanta get for the several million dollar waste of taxpayer money? A hurricane-like red dot with the letters ATL in white and a blandly boring slogan ("Every day is an opening day"). It bombed. Children in elementary school could've come up with something better if they had put out a contest. And they could've allocated the millions to reward the school with the winning design.

Re-branding is a trend that many cities have followed but I had the feeling that it was little more than some ad agency's scheme to rake in millions of dollars from city and state coffers. Therefore it's not surprising that Republicans now see that as their salvation from a political tsunami that's due to hit them hard in November. Republicans haven't met a corporate scheme they didn't like. Anything to fleece people out of their tax allocations for more important things, right? Forget schools and roads and bridges. Let's Re-Brand!

As if that weren't galling enough, you have to appreciate the complete lack of self awareness to hear Boehner's idea for the Republicans to run on. How he can look at himself in the mirror is a mystery. He's so vacant between his ears that you have to wonder if he's actually a machine without a soul. Here's his idea for what Republicans need to run on to win this fall: Republicans will change Washington!!!

Isn't that crazy? Aren't you just rolling on the floor, dying of laughter right now? They actually believe that Americans will blame Democrats for everything that has gone wrong over the past seven years. They think Americans are that moronic, that stupid, to fall for it one more time. I just don't see that happening. Historically, right wing economic policies no matter what country you look at is disasterous for the nation's well-being. There's a reason for that. When you have a kleptocratic government that robs the public treasury to fatten the bank accounts of their corporate and oligarchal backers, who have off-shore accounts in which to avoid paying taxes...the middle class ends up paying higher and higher costs to fund government until it gets to the painful point where they don't take it anymore. Character assassination attempts didn't work against Clinton in 1992 and he ran against a president who once had over 90% approval ratings during the Gulf War in 1991. When economy is the prime issue, character attacks don't work. When Americans are hurting financially, they'll vote for the candidate who offers workable solutions rather than character attacks.

The only way Republicans can hope to win means that something bad will have to happen (a terrorist attack). But even that is risky because it might only remind voters how bad Republicans managed the aftermath of tragedy on 9/11 and when Katrina hit. A terrorist attack might even be a desperate Republican "deus-ex-machina" to save them from humiliating defeat. I have faith that whatever happens (which I hope nothing like that will), Americans have wised up to the lies of Republicans. They can run from their records, but they can't hide. No amount of "re-branding" can ever cover up the stench of their shit. It's merely putting perfume on a pig.

If Americans want a re-branded image of Republicans, how about the blue pill? Yeah, that pill. Think of it this way...if you vote Republican in November, Boehner and his buddies are on the blue pill and prepared to dick us for another four years even though we're beyond exhausted and wanting to call the doctor because the blue pill is lasting longer than the four years it's supposed to work.

In other absurd Republican news, Bush recently revealed that he supposedly gave up golf in 2003 out of respect to the mothers who lost their children in the Iraq War. He claims that he was concerned for their feelings and how it looked to have a president out playing golf while servicemembers were dying in Iraq.

You know what I think is the real reason? I think it's a combination of how the image showed up...such as the infamous scene in "Fahrenheit 9/11" where he's talking about a foreign policy crisis, and then in the next breath without skipping a beat, he tells reporters: "now watch this drive!" That made him look pretty shallow. But even more damning are all the footage of him doing horribly on the golf course. His incompetence was too visible and maybe he could no longer find golfing buddies who are expected to "let him win" (Barbara Bush has mentioned that her son had a tendency as a child to keep playing the game until he won, even when his friends grew bored or unwilling to play anymore).

It's just one more lie out of this president's mouth. Remember: Every lie you tell brings you closer to hell!

The more outrageous controversy of late is that Bush had the bad sense to condemn the Democratic nominee for president in the Israeli Knesset as an appeaser to Hitler because he thinks he can negotiate with our "enemies." This breaks with political tradition in our country that the president doesn't speak against the opposition party when out of the country (just as is the case that Congress doesn't criticize the president when he's out of the country, though Republicans often did this during Clinton's administration). I agree with one editorial I read in which Bush's words were (and should be considered) treasonous.

More than that, however, is that I wish someone would point out to that Yale history major: Oh, we don't appease our enemies? You mean like your dad, who made agreements with Iran to continue to keep the American hostages until President Carter was defeated in 1980? Or maybe like Reagan, who arranged a weapons for hostages program with Iran in the 1980s? Talking with enemy leaders is "appeasement" but it's perfectly okay to sell our enemies weapons that can be used against us...or to have them continue to hold American citizens hostage to affect a presidential election?

Does anyone still wonder why I'm not, nor ever will be, a Republican? You just can't make this shit up! They are so hypocritical and morally blind that I truly do worry about their salvation, especially when they pretend to be religious while betraying Christ in their every action.

The only thing I want to see Boehner dick is Bush. They deserve one another.

For Fans of Stephen Colbert

For my Fun Friday post this week, I lifted from Charles Lewis' website a news report about his "feud" with Stephen Colbert, who called Portland residents hippies and commies. This video shows Charles' sense of humour, creative thinking, and that he's even able to get Colbert's attention. Not bad. Another reason why he needs to be elected as City Commissioner on Tuesday. Enjoy!

Talkin' 'Bout My Generation (1971 Rocks!)

After meeting Charles Lewis on Tuesday, I can't get over the fact that he was born the same year as me. It's kind of weird to meet someone born the same year as you in adulthood. Or maybe it is with me, because I meet people born in so many different years that when I meet someone who would've been in the same graduating class as me, it just feels weird. Plus, it makes me wonder if he was voted Most Likely to Succeed in his graduating class. I lost touch with most people I knew in high school, but after our ten year reunion, I realized that I wasn't missing much by not maintaining friendships with them. Very few have traveled as far and wide as I have and it's interesting to reflect that the common denominator in all my friendships is a love of travel. When I meet people who don't travel or don't love to travel, it's almost kind of hard to relate. There's a whole world out there!

Maybe it's not a big deal to meet someone in adulthood who was born the same year as you, but this year I happen to meet TWO guys who began life on earth in 1971. The other guy is Jeffrey Selin who recently opened up the Writer's Dojo in the St. Johns neighborhood of Portland. He's similar to Charles in a couple other ways...he gave up a career in advertising in exciting New York to move to Portland with his wife and has spent a lot of his own money to bring his dream of a writer's room to reality. He has a nearly year old daughter (Charles will have his first child--a girl--in June). Just meeting people like Jeff and Charles in the past couple months has been an incredible boost in my arm to get off my ass and fulfill my dreams. Fortunately for me, there are only three things I want to be in life: Novelist; loyal political aide to a politician I admire; and a human rights activist. Anything that involves writing, traveling, and politics is enough for me to live on. But every morning, noon, and night, I keep asking God how I ended up where I ended up. Something needs to change...and soon! Meeting two guys also born in 1971 who have accomplished their dreams, are married, with first kids already only shows how far I've fallen behind!

A co-worker reminds me that I shouldn't compare myself to other people and I agree. It's just that I feel very intensely that I'm far behind in where I should be in life. Granted, I made a mistake in gambling my post-college career on working in the Gore Administration with my fall back Plan B being a novelist. Two things that completely depend on other people. Maybe it's time for me to set down a workable goal and just do it. Time's a-wastin'!

I'm really glad that I got to meet Jeff and Charles this year. It's nice to see two people born in 1971 who live in Portland make something of their lives, with interests that intersect with mine (writing, music and politics). I'm very much a "Generationalist" since high school when I was intrigued by the Lost Generation, and post-college when the Beat Generation captured my fancy. It's my dream to write THE GENERATION X NOVEL (forget "the Great American Novel"--too much work!). One that captures our generation's feelings, experiences, and sense of the world messed up by the Boomers.

In case you're still wondering about the Starbucks logo at the top...that company first opened its doors at Seattle's Pike Market Place in...you guessed it! 1971!

Powell's Bookstore (a Portland institution) opened its doors in...you guessed it! 1971!

I stole this photo off of Jeff's blog (his wedding announcement). He wrote a humourous account of his "birth punishment" (he was caught by God trying to hook up with Marilyn Monroe on Cloud Nine) in 1971. It's short but hilarious.

Charles Lewis shows his sense of humour in feeding the latest book by Stephen Colbert to a hungry, fresh out of hibernation bear! Apparently, Charles and Stephen have some sort of feud going on about Colbert's unflattering comments about Portland. I think you can access a video blog of Charles regarding the Colbert Affair for details.

Anyhow...1971 was a great year. The five examples I presented you with is proof of that.

Oh...and speaking of my being behind the curve on accomplishing my dream life, I almost missed being born in 1971 by two days. I was supposedly due on Christmas, but I guess I wasn't in a rush to see the world. I'm glad that I didn't wait until the new year, though. 1971 is so much cooler than 1972 (sorry Nicholas Smith!). I gave you five reasons why. We're gonna take over the world! Or at least Portland. The Starbucks/Powell's Revolution won't be televised. Except on YouTube.

Why Charles Lewis Will Be Surprisingly Good for Portland

Symbolism upon symbolism: Charles Lewis made the announcement of his run for City Council on 6 June 2007 (anniversary of RFK's death) in front of the statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. (which he helped complete the fundraising for). RFK and MLK in 1968 were known for their crusade against poverty and you can't help but wonder how different America might be had they lived and continued to work for equality. I hope Charles Lewis will carry the banner of those two political and spiritual heroes.

Ever since the revelation of John Branam's exorbitant payment to his buddy and campaign manager Phil Busse ($25,000 for three months campaign work), I have been looking for a new candidate to support for City Commissioner Position #1 (the seat Sam Adams is vacating to run for Mayor). I kind of considered voting for Jeff Bissonnette, mostly because of his work on the Utilities board and his ability to see Enron for the scheme it was when they tried to manipulate the energy in Oregon. Plus he's older and the complete opposite of John Branam's slick and shallow image.

Last week, I received a flyer in my mailbox from Charles Lewis, who is also running for the position. It was one of the coolest political flyers I've ever come across. Eight pages in scrapbook style, offering a sufficient biography and background info on why he'd make a great City Commissioner. As I read through it, I was shocked that I didn't even consider him at first. There are six people running and I hadn't heard about his campaign until earlier this year (even though he announced his candidacy on 6 June 2007--months BEFORE Sam Adams decided to run for mayor). The reason why I didn't look into his campaign earlier this year is because the media always referred to him as "The Portland Duck Tour owner." They made him sound like a novelty candidate without any kind of political background! However, the shame is completely on me for falling for media characterizations when I know better. Honestly, though, between volunteering on Sam Adams campaign, looking for a new job, and planning the Memorial Day retreat, I just didn't make time to read every candidate's website and contact their campaigns to meet them in person.

My early support of John Branam was based mostly on his being the first candidate that I heard about running for Sam's seat; plus he has the whole bi-racial Obama thing going on (local alternative press have dubbed him Obranam); he served in the Peace Corps in South Africa and met Nelson Mandela; and he has on his campaign staff Jake Oken-Berg (lead singer of the great Portland band the Retrofits--the one I saw in concert earlier this year) and Paul Van Orden (whom I've met a few times when he talked about how to get a job in city government). I was content with that being enough reasons to vote for him until the papers reported the way Branam has spent his campaign funds that are part of Portland's experiment in what is called VOTER-OWNED ELECTIONS. I've heard many people wonder if Branam's actions is going to kill this system because there are those who oppose this innovation and might point to Branam as an example of candidates abusing the system. But that's just an excuse to throw the system out with the unethical candidate, which would unfairly punish candidates who use the money properly. The system is a great idea so candidates don't have to dial for dollars (and the whole "quid pro quo" that comes attached when people donate money).

I'm actually glad it happened though, because it caused me to look deeper into Branam's candidacy and I found some info online that makes him look even shadier. So, when you scratch the surface and realize there's not much depth, it's time to look for a new candidate.

Charles Lewis more than meets the standard I'm looking for in a great city commissioner. I met with him yesterday for about thirty minutes at his campaign headquarters. He took time out of his busy schedule to meet with me, which is impressive enough. After talking with him, I feel that he is very genuine and a likeable person. A complete lack of pretension is what came to mind after I met with him. His personal biography is one that could make snobs of anyone, but he remains down to earth and dedicated to the music center he founded and executive directs (Ethos Music Center).

Here's a little background info about him:

He received his degree in Political Science from the University of Portland, served in Congo (not the one formerly known as Zaire) in the Peace Corps, got a full ride scholarship to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, was elected the Student Body President and received the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Excellence in Public Service (like me, Lewis also admires RFK a great deal). And he's married to the pastor of the Piedmont Presbyterian Church, who is due to deliver their first child in June.

With an education and experience trajectory like that, you'd expect him to land a great job anywhere in government or the private sector. What does he do after Harvard?

That's what has impressed me the most to take notice of his candidacy.

After the prestige of Harvard, he returned to Portland and lived on a friend's couch for a year while he ran up his credit card to start an after-school music program for low-income children in Portland when budget cuts forced schools to drop their music education programs. Now the organization he founded employs 78 people and has an upper six-figure annual operating budget. He was also instrumental in completing the fundraising for Oregon's Martin Luther King Jr. Statue at the Oregon Convention Center (which I've seen many times from the MAX train and admired from the window). And if that weren't enough, he and his wife started a Portland Duck Tour company with an amphibious bus that drives around the city before ending with a float down the Willamette River.

That's not all! He also used part of his campaign finance money to fix potholes in city streets. Gee...here we have one candidate who wants to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on basic services and helping communities while another candidate uses part of his taxpayer money to pay a buddy a nice salary for three months. It's a dramatic choice between two Returned Peace Corps Volunteers.

After meeting him, I'm ready to cast my ballot. To me, there's no contest. Of course, I must also confess that I'm partially biased to any candidate born the same year as me (1971) and a high school class of 1990 alumni. But beyond that "superficial criteria", he has the life experience, work experience, and educational background to make a great city commissioner for Portland.

If you don't agree, think about this...

What would possess a guy with a Harvard graduate degree to run up his credit card to solve the problem of schools cutting music education for children? He put his financial future on the line for something he believed in. He could've left grad school with a six figure salary job offer in New York or Washington, but instead he returned to Portland to help low income children learn how to play instruments. It's no wonder why the Portland Tribune compared him to Barack Obama (though John Branam would love that comparison for himself). Dismissing Lewis as merely a Duck Tour businessman doesn't do his experience justice. Those who do should take note. He decided to sell his Duck Tour business and hoped for a local buyer to keep it going in Portland. What he told me is something I've heard quite a few candidates mention about Portland's business reputation. The group that bought his company and those that considered buying it, none of them see Portland as very business friendly. That's why wages are suppressed in Portland and the job market is the worst I've seen in any city I've lived in.

But if there's anyone who could help bring businesses to Portland and turn around that image, Charles Lewis is that person. If you live in Portland and haven't voted yet, please vote for him. Let's see what his Ethos-style leadership will bring to the city. I have a feeling that Charles will be surprisingly good for Portland as City Commissioner for the next four year term...but there's only one way to find out.

VOTE!

Extinguishing the Fire (Before I Could Pass It On)

It is with sad regret that I decided to cancel the retreat I had been planning for months with Vanessa to have in Spokane Valley WA / Coeur d'Alene ID over Memorial Day weekend. I only received two registration forms with money from people and heard nary a word otherwise from anyone else even thinking about coming to it. Quite a few had other commitments and I realize now that Memorial Day weekend is more of a family holiday than I thought it was. When I set the date, I thought it was a good date because there aren't many three day weekends in the year and with the travel distances involved, only a three day weekend made such a journey worthwhile without asking people to take time off from work.

But there it is...after the planning, the excitement of different ideas to use in connection with the theme ("Ignite the Fire!"), the song choices for the opening and closing services, and to be in that beautiful part of the country again (without snow this time!)...I decided that it was better to cancel it now than to hold it and be disappointed if less than ten people arrived over the weekend. I'm a little disappointed because it was my baby, something I was really excited about, but that's the way things go sometimes in our church where young adults have busy lives outside of church activities / commitments.

Rather than stay at home moping all holiday weekend, I decided that I might be going to California instead to visit one of my best friends (Nathan) in San Diego and meet his 20-month old son that I haven't seen in person yet. Hopefully little Ean will agree to serve as my ringbearer some day (whenever that happens). I'm in a toss-up between visiting San Francisco and San Diego...but I last saw San Francisco in 2004 and I haven't been to San Diego since 1981, so that weighs more in my interest. We'll see if Uncle Sam has sent my government stimulus check this week so I can give a chunk of it to Southwest Airlines and Amtrak (I plan to fly one way and take the train back to Portland). It all works out in the end (I never stay disappointed for long!).

Scenes of Lake Coeur d'Alene

In my faith community is a song that I love which most (if not all) members know by heart: "Pass it On" (words and music by Kurt Kaiser). It's a great song to sing around a campfire. Sometimes, I even sing it in my head when I need a spiritual boost during a tough moment. Here are the lyrics:

"It only takes a spark to get a fire going

and soon all those around warm up to its glowing

That's how it is with God's love

Once you've experienced it

You spread the love to everyone

You want to pass it on.

What Wondrous time is spring

When all the trees are budding

The birds begin to sing, the flowers start their blooming

That's how it is with God's love

Once you've experienced it

You want to sing, it's fresh like spring

You want to pass it on.

I wish for you my friend

This happiness that I have found

You can depend on Him

It matters not where you are bound

I'll shout it from the mountain top (Praise God!)

I want the world to know

The Lord of love has come to me

I want to pass it on."

The Problem With Liberals

Every day, I usually read the articles and essays posted on the Common Dreams website and sometimes the Counterpunch one. It's interesting that the Common Dreams website allows people to post comments, which can be an educational read. One thing that I've noticed a lot is that some liberals are obsessed with "political purity" that they won't even vote for a "Corporate candidate" like Senator Obama. No, they much prefer Cynthia McKinney who is running for president as a Green Party candidate. Cynthia?!? Really? These sanctimonious liberals think Cynthia is pure and noble and just? These are the same group of people who wanted Dennis Kucinich to win the Democratic nomination. These are the same group of people who voted for Nader in 2000 and again in 2004. These are the same group of people who would prefer America be run by a far right-wing, neo-conservative-controlled president than have a Democratic one who is closer to their views, all because they believe we are in the business of electing saints for president.

That's why Democrats lose election after election. That's why our country has been in a rightward march...because conservatives prefer to win than to rule by principles. They've shown time and again that when the choice comes down to their values versus winning, they choose winning (by theft if necessary). I'm not saying that liberals and Democrats should do the same thing...but let's be honest here. Nader was dead wrong when he said that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Gore and Bush in 2000. I think Bush has proven without a doubt that he is nothing like Gore. And what does our country have to show for these past seven years?

Now, these liberal purists think there won't be a difference between a President Obama and a President McCain, thus why they want to see Cynthia McKinney become president (perhaps they think she's the perfect merger between the competing factions in the Democratic contest to elect the first woman or the first African American president). Let's get real here: there's no chance in hell that Cynthia McKinney will ever become president. The Republicans have a better chance getting Condoleezza Rice elected president than the Greens or the Democrats would with the divisive firebrand McKinney. Hear me out, as a guy who lived in her Congressional district in the late 1990s and the early part of this century.

In 1996, the courts threw out her racially gerrymandered district that looked like a snake that stretched from the east Atlanta suburbs down to Savannah several hundred miles away. This district was meant to give African Americans a majority in which to vote for their own candidate to represent them in Congress. When it was thrown out and the district lines were realigned, she found herself in the newly figured 4th Congressional District (which included most of DeKalb County, where I lived). This district once had Congressman Ben "Cooter" Jones as our representative in Congress for four years (1989-1993). Yes, that Cooter (of "Dukes of Hazzard" fame). In the spring of 1996, I worked on the congressional campaign of Emory University School of Law professor and lawyer Comer Yates, who had run in 1994 and was accused by the Republican opponent Congressman John Linder of being a liberal (like it's a bad thing). Since the district lines were redrawn, this meant it was an open contest for the seat on both sides of the political aisle. Cynthia McKinney decided to run in this race as the incumbent, even though her district was the 11th and no longer included where she lived. There were three white men running in the Democratic primary.

She played the race card, as she tends to do. When she was a state legislator, she accused black opponents of being "Uncle Toms" and white opponents of being "racists." She sees anyone who stands in her way of whatever political office she feels "entitled to" as a threat with ulterior racial motives, even when it's clearly not the case (as no one has a right to any political office--it's a privilege). That's her divisive strategy for winning elective office. She's definitely a firebrand. Things got ugly when she accused my candidate Comer Yates (a decent family man who is a moderate liberal) of being a "racist holdover of the old South." When the primary came, McKinney managed to clear the 50% +1 hurdle to avoid a run-off, thus guaranteeing her election in the fall against whatever Republican candidate opposed her. It was one of the rare times that I voted for the Republican candidate because she burned a bridge with me over the level of nastiness she displayed against Comer Yates. Each year that she was on the ballot (1996 through 2000), I always voted for her Republican opponent. I only vote Republican when the Democratic candidate is intolerable, which McKinney has always been.

In 2002, she finally faced defeat when her controversial comments regarding the Bush family connections to 9/11 and Saudi money got national play. She was targeted for defeat, perhaps by Karl Rove himself. She lost in the Democratic primary to a newcomer Denise Majette, who eventually won the seat against a Republican opponent in November. However, McKinney came back into power in 2004 when Denise Majette inexplicably decided to run for the Senate seat that everyone knew she had no chance of winning. Some speculate that Majette didn't have the passion for congressional politics in the first place and sought a "safe out" in running a losing Senate campaign so she didn't have to face McKinney again and her rabid band of loyal followers.

In 2006, news reported that McKinney had slapped a Capitol Hill policeman when he asked to see ID. She had changed her hairstyle and perhaps got angry that he didn't recognize her, and apparently he had grabbed her when she refused to stop...which you don't do! He was a white guy, and I believe from what I've seen of her, she has serious issues with white people. That a white man touched her probably freaked her out, so there went the slap. This incident angered a lot of people in Georgia and she was once again defeated in the Democratic primary.

My question to liberals who don't like Obama because he's "too corporate"...what makes you think Cynthia McKinney is politically pure? She's not. She's an angry black woman who doesn't know how to play nice with people. If anyone opposes her, she unleashes her fierce temper on them, accusing them of selling out or being racist. She represents all that is wrong with politics. In fact, she's has a lot in common with the Karl Roves of the world. Winning a seat in power is the only reason she runs for political office. For her, it sure beats being a professor at some city college in Atlanta. The last thing we need is more divisiveness, from demagogues on both the right and the left.

Senator Obama represents a new force in politics. I think Americans are tired of divisive bickering between the two parties. With our ship of state sinking like the Titanic, why do we want political leaders to argue over arrangement of the deck chairs? We're all Americans, red and blue, left and right, white collar and blue collar. Liberals need to understand that a vote for McKinney is a vote for McCain. Maybe they're okay with that. But they need to know that McKinney is not the saint they think she is. They may like her political views, but it's her personality and presentation that leaves a lot to be desired. From what I learned about her in 1996 and the years since, there's no chance I'd ever vote for her for any political office. She needs to go back into the hole she crawled out of and liberals need to get over their arrogant insistence over a "purity" that doesn't exist. There's only two choices this fall: President Obama or President McCain. If you're not voting for Obama, you're helping McCain. Nuff said!

Pledge of Obedience

I read an article online that a junior high school in Dilworth, Minnesota suspended three students for refusing to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. Suspended! I'm shocked. This is something I'd expect in the South, not in a Midwestern state. When I attended high school in Georgia, after receiving assurances from my favourite teacher (an atheist who always had his planning period assigned during the part of the day when the pledge was broadcasted on the P.A. system) that I wouldn't get into trouble for refusing to stand and recite the pledge, I committed myself to my principled "stand" (er, since I didn't stand up, does that mean, my principled "sit"?). I was criticized by other students, who called me unpatriotic, communist, and other names. But still I sat and never did the teacher of my second period class make me stand in conformity with others.

Never was I questioned by the teacher for my refusal to stand. When a student asked the teacher why I wasn't standing, she actually told her that I was a Jehovah's Witness! I don't know where she got that idea, for I never spoke about my religious beliefs, but I suppose that she only assumed that I was because that is what Jehovah's Witnesses are known for (along with their not observing birthdays, Christmas, or Easter). It's the only thing I actually agree with Jehovah's Witness on.

In 2002, if I remember correctly, the pastor of the Atlanta North congregation that I attended had everyone stand up to recite the pledge during the actual church service on that Fourth of July Sunday. Since I didn't want to "offend" my fellow church members, I stood but didn't put my hand over my heart or recite the pledge. I even complained afterwards to the appropriate people because in all my years as a member of this church community, having been to many different congregations, World Conference, reunions, retreats, and Peace Colloquys...never have I seen this done. That people go along with it like the sheeple they are is disturbing to me, yet I'm made out to be the disobedient, unpatriotic bad guy. And I'm meant to feel bad about my lack of conformity.

In my current job, I've taken to come late to the monthly staff meetings so I can avoid the pledge part. I was even shocked that they do this ritual at the Democratic meetings I've attended this year (though I found it hilarious that the volume dropped during the "under God" part). In fact, in high school, my favourite teacher was an atheist who refused to say the pledge of allegiance because of the "under God" part. When I asked if he would've recited the pledge if they didn't have that clause in there, he said, "of course!" I was actually disappointed when he said that. I thought his stance was more noble than it really was. His refusal was based on his not believing in a deity. My stance is based on a more principled stand. Thus I'm thrilled that those three junior high students in Minnesota refused to stand.

Here's why I believe that my view regarding the pledge is right and everyone who conforms to it is wrong:

My stand against the pledge started when I realized people around me were unenthusiastic about standing up for it each morning. And when they recited it, there was a lack of passion or conviction in their voices. I also saw hands limply rest over the heart. It was a ritual without meaning. Rituals without meaning should cause us to question the necessity of it. What is the point of forcing people to recite a pledge that they lack conviction to say? When it becomes a pointless ritual, why bother with it at all?

After that realization, I read the pledge for myself to see if I agree with it, and when I thought about what I was required to say, I was surprised by how much I disagreed with it. Why? Because we are being asked to pledge our allegiance to a FLAG! A material object. A piece of cloth. One that is more and more often made in some sweatshop in China by exploited and under educated village women. Pledging allegiance to a material object is a form of idolatry, which many spiritual/religious belief systems make clear that it's wrong. It's even one of the ten commandments that some people want displayed in schools all over the country. What does it mean to pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth? It means nothing. I know, I know...a lot of people like to claim that "people died for that flag." Um...wrong! People die in war because they are pawns of cowardly politicians who avoided war themselves and believe that force is more powerful than diplomacy. War is a battle of wills between ideologues (both neo-cons with their fundamentalist supporters in the U.S. and the fundamentalist Muslims with their cowardly and exploitative backers).

My second objection in the wording is that we are not a nation "under God" but a nation divided by God as various religious groups want the government to favour their religion over another. We've seen recently the evangelical's fear and strong dislike of Mormons. Other evangelicals have said equally bad things about atheists, Catholics, Jews, New Age spiritualists, and other minority religions. Another point...if we truly are "one nation under God", then why does our government prop up dictators in other countries that have brutally oppressed their peoples? Why have we waged unnecessary war on innocent people just because a priceless commodity exists under their feet, which we need to sustain our lavish and materialistic lives? Honestly, are we comfortable facing God one day with the knowledge that we truly believed in our hearts that we are a nation that is truly "under God"? To me, thinking like that is blasphemy.

Another objection is the closing line "with liberty and justice for all." We've seen time and again that justice and liberty are a joke in this country that is becoming more and more an oligarchy rather than a republic. We've seen injustice happen when the cops who beat up Rodney King were aquitted in 1992. We've seen injustice happen when O.J. Simpson was found not guilty for murdering two people in 1994. We've seen injustice when African American votes were denied in Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. We've seen injustice when one president is impeached for lying about a sexual affair while his successor continues to lie without punishment or accountability, as more and more people die overseas because of one of his major lies. Where is the justice? I cannot in good conscience pledge allegiance to the flag or country when that line continues to be nothing but a lie.

Furthermore, in all honesty, I only pledge allegiance to two things: my conscience and God. I don't pledge allegiance to people or country or a material object. To do so is idolatry. God is the only one we need to pledge allegiance to, because God is eternal and perfect. But even then, the pledge doesn't have to be a public display, for Jesus advised people to pray to God in secret. He wanted people to know that often, the most public displays of religiosity are often hypocritical and false. A faith that is deep doesn't need other's blessing, approval, or knowledge. We've had countless examples of people who make a public show of religion or of American values, before being exposed as a sham. We should be wise about that.

Most of all, though, my biggest objection to the enforced conformity of the pledge of allegiance to the American flag is due to the fact that we claim to be a country that values freedom. What does freedom mean? It means that people should be free to not show superficial displays of religiosity or patriotism. It means that a politician like Obama shouldn't be pestered for not conforming to the shallow practice of wearing a flag lapel pin or saying the pledge. If it takes that gesture to signal to people that they are "patriotic" enough to be president, then that's what got our country into trouble in the first place. A famous quote we should all tattoo on our arm is: "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Too many Americans have fallen for the empty gesture of displays while ignoring the deeper truth of action. Bush's presidency has shown nothing but contempt for American values (he famously said of the U.S. Constitution: "it's just a goddamn piece of paper!") and yet he wears an American flag lapel pin. He avoided serving in war as a young man, yet smeared the war records of three veterans who ran against him. He saw no problem sending the nation's military into two quagmire wars while cutting veteran's services when they returned home with massive injuries.

What I wish most Americans would learn about the ridiculous nature of the pledge of allegiance is that we see these conformist acts in nations we don't admire: Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and other communist countries. We claim to be better than those places, yet we have a lot in common with them when we force a superficial nationalism on people and make issues of the pledge of allegiance if you refuse on principle to stand and recite it. Freedom means that we don't have to participate in these shallow acts. It doesn't make us any less patriotic (I often wonder when people accuse me of lack of patriotism, how many states have they been to? How many national historic sites have they visited? Chances are, I've done more than they have so does that make me more authentically patriotic?).

Below are photos I found online in a Google image search of other nation's display of nationalism. And I ask you...how is America different from the countries we once claimed as our bitter enemies? All of them enforced a sort of flag worship on their conforming citizens. We should be proud that there are individuals in our country who refuse to conform to the masses that follow direction like the sheeple they are. It gives me great hope in our country when I see people act from their own consciences to refuse to go along with the crowd just because we're expected to. It's what makes our country great.

No nation worshipped symbols and flags more than Nazi Germany

A stamp honouring the Young Pioneers and their patriotism to the Soviet Union

A mural showing Young Pioneers saluting Soviet symbols like Lenin and the Red Star

I can't tell if these are Chinese or North Korean kids, but the principle is just the same...worship of nationalistic symbols by indoctrinated children

Young Pioneers saluting a bust of Josef Stalin

American kids doing a Hitler salute to the American flag. Not sure when this photo was taken, but I assume before the 1930s

Hitler Youth saluting their beloved leader Adolf Hitler

Our beloved leader giving his own Nazi salute in front of American flags (who says the Nazis are more obsessed with symbol and flag worship?)

Conservatives riled that Obama refuses to put his hand over his heart during the pledge don't seem to have a problem with their beloved leader putting his hand over his gut during the pledge. Why is one unacceptable and the other okay? Oh...because when it comes to a consistent standard, they don't have one. Bush can do no wrong, Democrats can do nothing right. That's why Bush has been a disaster as president, because he was held to the lowest standard of all presidents.

When I was in the Navy, many criticized Clinton for the way he saluted military members because they saw it as a lack of respect. Well, why doesn't this photo anger them? The salute is so pathetic Bush shouldn't have bothered. After all, he had Barney in his arms...but again, it's the double standard. Bush's lack of respect to render the proper military salute gets a pass, while Clinton was held to a higher standard.

I saw this in an online store where you can show your patriotism in all kinds of ways by wearing the American flag as a shirt, a pair of pants, a hat, or even this...BOXERS with the Pledge of Allegiance printed on it!!! If nothing spells out the whole lunacy of the pledge, it is this pair of boxer shorts. It's funny when people talk about having reverence for the flag and the people who "died for it", yet they don't object to American flag underwear or that the flag is often used to sell cars (go by any used car lot in America) and other shoddy products.

Let's get real, folks. Worship God if you must, not the American flag. And don't be surprised if less and less Americans stand up for the pledge next to you. I have a feeling that nationalism is on the outs in the new Millennial Generation of Americans. It's about time too. Americans need to join with the European Union in the idea of trans-nationalism to a new globalism where trivial issues are less important than sustainability issues that concern the entire planet.

Bush Lovin': Why We're Never Gonna Get It!

In honour of Jenna Bush's wedding today, I wanted to post a few pictures on her dad's "unique relationships" with other men. For someone who pretends to be a macho cowboy/frat boy, he sure loves to hold hands and make strange faces with other men. I wonder what Laura and Condoleezza think of that?!?

Bush loves those Saudi oil princes. Then again, who wouldn't love a sugar daddy with billions in the bank?

Okay, so Bono is like, God, okay? Who doesn't like him? But come on, Bono! Surely you have better tastes than that!!!

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is supposedly a huge fan of America and is closer to the political right than his predecessors Jacques Chirac and Francois Mitterand. He even has his own sex scandals involving ex-wives and mistresses who tend to be models and singers. Maybe that's why Bush admires him so much. The French do have that "je ne sais quoi" quality that intrigues people.

The rest of the photos reveal Bush's odd effect on McCain. Maybe it's his confidence and macho posturing that simply turns McCain into a quivering schoolgirl. Man, if there's any reason to admire Bush for anything, it is his ability to turn a war hero Navy pilot into an emotional wreck whenever they happen to meet. What the heck is going on between these two men anyway? With the past few years of gay sex scandals emanating from the Republican party, it does make you wonder about these two. After all, usually it's the loudest homophobic people who are the ones probably hiding something.

Aren't they sweet together?

This is the oddest photo I've ever come across between the two men. I hope that it will be aired, reaired, and aired again ad nauseum in campaign ads round the clock between Labour Day and Election Day. If the Democrats want to win in the Fall, they need to MARRY the two Republican politicians in the public's mind. This is what Republican Civil Unions look like, folks! They're here, they're queer...get used to it!

The Empire Strikes Barack

For your amusement on a Friday. If you love "Star Wars" and a good satire, sit back and enjoy this highly creative take on our political process. Apologies to all the Hillary supporters out there.

Movie I'm Most Excited About

According to the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly magazine, Oliver Stone has begun shooting "W", which he hopes will be released in theaters this October (consider it Hollywood's October Surprise!). This is his third film about a president (though 1991's "JFK" dealt with the assassination conspiracies; and 1995's "Nixon" was pretty interesting) and the one I'm most excited to see. In fact, forget the new Indiana Jones or Batman movies. "W" IS the film I can't wait to see the most. Why? Because I love bio-pics. It's my favourite film subject. Movies about Gandhi, Jefferson, Mandela, Kennedy, Truman, Ray Charles, Johnny Cash, Jerry Lee Lewis, Queen Elizabeth II, William Wilberforce...I love them all. As Bush would say: "Bring 'em on!"

It'll be interesting if this film will find an audience in the fall...in the middle of what will undoubtedly be the dirtiest fight for the presidency our country has ever seen (because Republicans are like cornered animals--which is when they are the most dangerous. Losing means possible investigations and prison terms). With Bush's popularity level lower than Nixon's, it's hard to imagine liberals wanting to see a film about the worst president ever and you know conservative Bush loyalists won't see it. Their willingness to be blindly loyal to the saintly image they have of him is naively stupid. After all, I was a Clinton supporter and I still watched and loved "Wag the Dog" and "Primary Colors." That's the difference between people who can view others as the complex and contradictory people they are versus those who latch onto a myth about a person and don't want anything to shatter their illusions. It's why conservatives worship Reagan as their messiah, even though he was a hollow talking head who preferred to watch re-runs of "The Sound of Music" rather than reading the briefing books that Secretary of State George Schultz gave him to read at Camp David.

Here's what the controversial director has to say about his film and the president in Entertainment Weekly:

Stone has publicly promised W will be a ''fair, true portrait of the man,'' but already there are those accusing him of the politics of personal destruction — and, worse, of trying to influence the election by painting the current Republican administration as reckless doofuses (although presumptive Republican nominee John McCain makes no appearance in the script). Naturally, Stone vehemently denies all charges. ''Bush may turn out to be the worst president in history,'' he declares as he peeks into room after room. ''I think history is going to be very tough on him. But that doesn't mean he isn't a great story. It's almost Capra-esque, the story of a guy who had very limited talents in life, except for the ability to sell himself. The fact that he had to overcome the shadow of his father and the weight of his family name — you have to admire his tenacity. There's almost an Andy Griffith quality to him, from A Face in the Crowd. If Fitzgerald were alive today, he might be writing about him. He's sort of a reverse Gatsby.''

I'm hoping that this film will be a great one that makes my Top Five best of list. I'm willing to look at the complexity of the man. I know it wasn't easy for him to be born a dyslexic, ADD underachiever to an over-accomplished and distant father who expected him to follow in his footsteps and an emotionally cold mother with an acid tongue. His dysfunctional nature has a pattern that's never been broken: to destroy things and leave behind for other people to clean up after him. It's a shame that our media and country won't hold him accountable for his disasterous presidency. He will most likely go to his grave unremorseful, unrepentent, and unaware of the disaster his eight years have caused on our planet. The more I read about him, the more similarities I see that he shares with O.J. Simpson. I hope both of them will one day share the same cell in hell. They deserve each other. We're all Nicole Brown Simpsons in Bush's Amerika.

The End of the Road?

With the latest round of primary states, Senator Obama won big in North Carolina while Senator Clinton won by a few points in Indiana. Had she won by double digits, perhaps a case could still be made for why she should be the Democratic nominee for president. But in primary after primary, one case is quite clear: Democrats are divided between two equal candidates that will break the unbroken chain of 42 white male presidents. And these votes are close, both in the number of people who voted for them thus far as well as the number of delegates each have achieved. Hillary would be ahead if the primaries in Michigan and Florida weren't discounted for holding their primaries before the Super Tuesday.

I know it must be hard for Hillary to see that her life long hopes and dreams come down to this. That she was not able to convince more people to support and vote for her. That an upstart whom no one had heard of four years ago is now poised to become the Democratic nominee. It is painful. Not just to her, but to her legion of supporters. Many saw her as the best female politician to break that ultimate glass ceiling. We almost forget that in 2000, Elizabeth Dole had to drop out of the Republican primaries before the voting season began due to a lack of financial support (as most flocked to George W. Bush). In 2004, a black female former Senator was among the Democratic candidates (Carole Moseley Braun). If and when Hillary does drop out of the race, she won't be the last female candidate to run. We'll just have to wait a little while longer. There are other female politicians I like better: Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein (both of California). One female politician with a bright future is Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius because she obviously knows what it takes for a Democrat to win a "Red State."

When the inevitable day comes when Hillary accepts the results of the two year chase for the White House, I hope she will take some time off and reflect on why she couldn't "close the deal." My personal diagnosis on her campaign is that she lacked a certain authenticity (like her downing shots like a college frat boy). But the thing that really hurt her credibility the most was her vote for the Iraq War Resolution (which granted the president the power to unleash war), which she explained as merely giving the president power to make his case to the U.N. (with Senate backing) the seriousness of Iraq's refusal to allow weapons inspectors to view certain sites. Was that an honest explanation or backtracking spin? I am well aware that Hillary was in a bind over that vote, since I know politics and understand that there are people who are uncomfortable with the idea of a woman as president for fear that they would be "soft on defense." Hillary had to look hawkish. Women in politics, to be successful, can't afford to be seen as feminine. The role model for the western world is Margaret Thatcher, a lady who said that to deal with foreign dictators, she had to have an iron fist in a velvet glove. But in this competition, Obama is the far more honest candidate and after DLC-lobbyist controlled candidates like Gore, Kerry and now Clinton, inauthenticity no longer works after the disasterous administration of the biggest inauthentic president we've had to endure.

In the past few weeks, I have thought of voting for Hillary Clinton in the Oregon primary. I received my ballot on Friday but haven't voted yet due to my internal debate between Obama and Clinton (as well as my need to meet a couple of the City Commissioner candidates to determine who'll get my vote and support). While I've supported Obama since he announced in February 2007 and fully intended to vote for him, my concerns about his electability were raised in recent weeks over the Reverend Jeremiah Wright controversy. Seeing him distance himself from his former pastor bothered me, because I didn't think the Reverend Wright said anything that was dishonest. The beliefs of the black community might "shock" white America, but they need to get over themselves. After all, Bush and McCain are supported by white evangelical preachers like Pat Robertson, the late Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and now John Hagee...all of whom have also made their own theories on why 9/11 happened. Why the Reverend Wright gets criticized for saying that 9/11 was a case of "chickens coming home to roost" (presenting as evidence our foreign policy of undermining foreign governments and killing innocent people) while the media basically ignores Robertson and Falwell's view that 9/11 happened because Americans are tolerant of homosexuals, it's just baffling. One religious figure presents a logical case of cause and effect that even the CIA acknowledges as true. Another religious figure presents two things that have no connection at all, other than to further perpetuate the conservative political agenda that scapegoats minorities.

Is Obama ready to be president? His inexperience is a little scary to me. The presidency is no place for "on the job training" (as Bush clearly has shown). I believe that Hillary did have a case to make about being ready to lead on day one. However, her campaign has been rather pathetic for someone making that claim. She's had to reshuffle staff, change her message many times, and has been unable to raise the kind of money that Obama has easily been able to raise from his netroots supporters. Hillary's high donor supporters have already contributed the maximum amount allowed by law and her base of working class voters are struggling with bills and the increase cost of gas and food to give any to a campaign. Where does that leave her? Broke and broken. She's running her campaign on a credit card at this point. Exactly what got our country in financial trouble under Bush.

With the outcome of the primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, I'm comfortable with voting for Barack Obama as I originally intended. How can I not vote for him? To me, I've waited for years for a candidate of his honesty. As I read the article in "Vanity Fair" about Robert F. Kennedy's campaign in 1968, I'm struck by the sadness that he didn't get to live to see if his transforming campaign of hope and ideals would've put him in the White House. It seems like ever since then, anytime we have a candidate of his calibre, they're either undone by character assassinations in the media or ridiculous gaffes (such as Gary Hart's monkey business in 1987; Gore's tendency to over-exaggerate his accomplishments and reliance on K Street lobbyists; and Howard Dean's enthusiastic speech to supporters that the media mischaracterized as "crazy"). But this year, Obama has so far failed to be defeated by the media and the rightwing. He has given inspiring speeches (such as the one on race and religion that was delivered in Philadelphia--a speech that Romney had failed to do when he gave his own highly touted speech regarding religion) and isn't afraid to point out fluff issues that serve as a distraction from the real issues facing our country. I love how he'll call this "silly season" in regards to personal attacks.

Some Clinton supporters claim that Obama is not electable because America is a racist country. But should we base our vote on what bigots think? Besides, Hillary has her own baggage that makes that argument hollow. There are a lot of people who wouldn't vote for Hillary because they either hate women in power, or they hate her due to the rightwing slime machine's characterizations of her, or they hate the Clintons since the 1990s. She is a lightning rod, for better or for worse. Let's face it, if the Democrats truly wanted a candidate who has the best chance at winning, that candidate is Al Gore. You can sense in America a serious remorse over the Bush years. That's why the Republicans elected John McCain, who was Bush's rival in 2000. They want to correct the mistake made in 2000. But I believe the biggest reason Gore didn't run this time was because of Hillary. Everyone felt that she would run this year. But no one counted on the surprising candidacy of Barack Obama.

By voting for Barack Obama, I will be voting for my hopes, my aspirations, my inspiration. It's a vote for a new future. His election as president would signal to the world that the America they loved is back. He's not perfect and I don't view him as a saviour, but you have to admit, his campaign has been about as perfect as you can get in a campaign. That he didn't fold like Howard Dean in 2004 against a DLC-backed establishment candidate proves to me that Obama does have the strength, courage, and ideas to defeat all the cynical forces that Karl Rove can unleash. I don't expect Obama to easily be swift-boated the way the inauthentic Kerry was. Bigots who won't vote for him because they fear a black president, well...who cares about them? It's their views that got us in this current mess. They have no voice in a future America that is multi-cultural. Anyone who thinks Obama doesn't have a chance against McCain needs to understand the undercurrents in our country. It's practically a consensus that something is deeply wrong with our country. All Obama has to ask voters is "are you better off now than you were eight years ago?" I know my answer to that one. Our country can't afford another four years of disasterous Republican policy.

So Hillary supporters who don't intend to vote for Obama if he is the nominee...do you not care about America? Can our country afford another four years of Bushit policies? And listen to a guy like me...because my dream was to serve as a political aide in a Gore Administration. I went through years of mourning the outcome of the 2000 election. I've had to overcome my own disappointment of a dream that failed to come true. In 2004 when my candidate (Howard Dean) lost out to the pathetic John Kerry, whom I couldn't stand one bit, I still bit the bullet and voted for Kerry because the thought of a second term for Bush was worse. The only reason I can see for why Hillary supporters might hope that McCain wins in the fall is because they see Hillary running again in 2012. Democrats have a tendency to give the nominee one chance to win the election before moving on to another candidate in the next election cycle. However, who's to say that there won't be a new and exciting candidate that is currently unheard of by the majority of Americans to once again wrest the nomination from Hillary?

When all is said and done about this primary election cycle, I think the autopsy on the Hillary campaign will reveal that what doomed her campaign was her husband playing the race card in the South Carolina primary. Had she taken the high road, she might have swept the Super Tuesday primaries and closed the deal. Now, the moment is clearly Obama's. Let's support him against McCain for the good of our country and our future. Let's give the world a reason to celebrate and be welcomed back into the community of nations once again, the way South Africa was when Nelson Mandela became their first African president.

Speak Bluntly, Carry No Big Sticks

Ninety years ago (7 May 1918), Theodore Roosevelt was quoted by the Kansas City Star:

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Um...question?

What the hell happened to the Republican Party?!? When did they become the party of blind loyalty to incompetent, draft-dodging boy-kings?

The Moral Blindness of a Stepford First Lady

Big Hubby is watching you!

There was something creepy about seeing the most invisible First Lady in years give a press conference on the plight of the Burmese people in the wake of the devastating cyclone and flooding. We haven't seen her in months and while it's admirable that she seems to care a great deal for the long-suffering people of Burma and admires Aung San Suu Kyi (who doesn't?), to listen to her press conference speech chastising the military junta that rules Burma with an iron fist is an exercise in pure amazement over the audacity of it all. Why, you ask? Because the very words she spoke could have perfectly described her husband's own response to the catastrophe that was Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. Does she not get that? Is she that willfully blind to her husband's incompetence? Does she not think the world will laugh at her statement?

That's the problem with hypocrites. They are blind to their own faults while quick to condemn others who exhibit the same moral failings that they have. A total disregard for human suffering could easily describe not just the military junta in Burma, but also George W. Bush. Each smirk of his betrays his lack of compassion.

Here are some of her most telling words:

"Although they were aware of the threat, Burma's state-run media failed to issue a timely warning to citizens in the storm's path. The response to the cyclone is just the most recent example of the junta's failure to meet its people's basic needs. The regime has dismantled systems of agriculture, education and health care. This once wealthy nation now has the lowest per capita GDP in Southeast Asia."

Is she talking about the Burmese military junta or her husband's administration? Her statement was delivered without irony. Often, I wonder about this most "Stepford Wife" among First Ladies. What does she truly think of her husband's decisions? I remember hearing about how she had chastised Bush for his early bravado post-9/11 about "gettin' 'em." She, along with Condoleezza Rice are the only two members of this administration that I like, but even this press conference seemed bizarre. She's rarely seen in public (a conservative fantasy: women are seen but not heard), but this tragedy prompts her to give an especially rare press conference. Then, after talking about the tragedy, the politics of Burma's upcoming referendum, and expressing her admiration for the dissident and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi, she mentions the fact that she had wanted to make a statement before going to Crawford, Texas for her daughter's wedding (with 14 bridesmaids!). Something weird is going on. Who asked her to make a statement on behalf of her husband's administration? After months of being invisible, why not continue in that vein until hubby leaves the White House in shame? Why not just focus purely on her daughter's wedding preparations and leave the political posturing to Condoleezza Rice?

The Laura I wish we saw these past seven years would be based on Lysistrata. In college, I had to read a Greek play ("Lysistrata") where the women of Athens are fed up with endless war that they conspire to put an end to it in the only way they know how. The women refuse to have sex with their husbands until they end the war. I'm not sure if this was considered the "birth of homosexuality" or it only encouraged the ancient Greek warriors to take care of each other like they supposedly do in prison these days. But, it was an interesting idea. I've thought of writing an update, called "Laurastrata" featuring the current cast who occupy the Executive Branch of government. However, it would be too easy. We have enough photographic evidence of Bush's hand holding with Saudi Princes, bear hugs with gay escorts, cocky swagger in a flight suit, and most damning of all...that bizarre photograph of John McCain hugging him like...nobody's business! If Laura did pull a "Lysistrata" on his ass, he'd probably make like a Greek warrior and find his needs met in the arms of Log Cabin Republicans like Karl Rove and Mark Foley.

So, that's not a story I care to write. The icky factor is too great. In all honestly, I feel sorry for Laura. An introverted, mousy librarian deserves a better husband. And if women do influence their husbands in positive ways, it looks like she has had little impact on her Georgie-porgey. Of course, he's been a lot worse, so maybe he's evolved as far as he could tolerate...while still maintaining his frat-boy smirk and tendency towards cruel pranks. Is that Laura's fault? She's part of a party that expects women to be Stepford wives, supporting their husbands unconditionally, with the sycophantic adoring worship of a Harriet "You're the best president ever, sir!" Miers. It's a shame that Laura Bush was little utilized by this administration in the past seven years. A press conference on the cyclone emergency in Burma is too little, too late. America no longer cares. Just go have your wedding in Crawford and do the world a favor. Stay there for the rest of hubby's term!

Scenes from Burma


And let's never forget the plight of the Burmese!

The Adams, Topeka (But No Santa Fe) Controversy

Sam Adams, hoping to become the next mayor of Portland (and not Topeka)

Ever since I added a statcounter to my blog, it's interesting to see how many people find this blog, where they're from, what posts are the most popular and how they found it. Before I added it, I thought I had a readership of eight people. Turns out, it has been between 70 and 122 hits per day from different computers. Talk about being pleasantly shocked. As for the top three blogposts, I'm disappointed that the one most people have looked at is my post on Madonna last August. Here I am writing mostly on spiritual and political topics, with some personal stories thrown in, but it's my post on Madonna that gets the most hits? I am pleased, however, that there is a sustained interest in Marine First Lieutenant Seth Moulton. The post I wrote about my hope to see him be the first Generation X president is the third most looked at post. I'm hoping that many people will read it and agree that he has all the qualities we need in a future president.

This weekend, however, I was surprised to see on my statcounter that someone did a google search on Sam Adams and Topeka. So, I looked at what the google search turned up and came across an article in the Topeka Capital-Journal in which the people of Kansas took issue with Sam Adams' comment about Topeka in his introductory campaign video. I wonder how they found out about it...though it shouldn't be surprising in the Age of YouTube. Journalist Mike Hall wrote the article ("Ordinary? Topeka? No way") and the first line is a question: "What do Oregonians have against Kansas?"

Um, nothing. It's a case of the brutally honest Sam Adams supposedly speaking off the cuff. In the video he said: "A lot of ink and energy get exhausted trying to define Portland. Why did it end up this way instead of like Topeka or some other place ordinary?"

I remember being uncomfortable when I first saw the video back in February and wondering why he had to pick Topeka of all places. There are three cities that are safe to speak about not wanting to be: Cleveland, Detroit, and Gary (IN). No city in their right minds want to be like those three. But Topeka? So, I had asked Sam in February why he picked Topeka. The way he said "Topeka" clued me into why without his saying so. I believe that he simply likes the sound of it. You have to admit, "Topeka" is a cool name for a city and state capital. Even a co-worker concurred with me, as she also said that it was cool to say. So, that's the reason why Topeka instead of Cleveland. In a way, it's absurd to compare the two. Portland's population is four times larger. If we're doing side by side comparisons, Topeka would be comparable to Oregon's capital city of Salem. Both have about the same population and similar reputations of not being exciting (though Portland isn't as exciting as Seattle or San Francisco).

The whole controversy indicates that Sam Adams needs a staff member like me when he's mayor. I wouldn't have "signed off" on the script where he named Topeka, no matter how much he liked saying the name. I loved the recent Willamette Weekly, which endorsed Sam Adams with a caveat to get rid of the "sycophants" on his staff and hire a devil's advocate. Man, that's a job I was born for. I see "outside the box" and would love the chance to play sounding board to whatever ideas he plans to unveil to the citizens of Portland. Mostly though, I'd love to be on the Streetcar committee to expand the line east of the Willamette River.

The post title plays on the famous "Atchison, Topeka, and the Santa Fe" rail line. My grandparents live in Atchison, Kansas (my dad's hometown). I've been to all three places and I love Santa Fe the best of the three. I thought of living there at some point in the late 1990s (before I discovered the Pacific Northwest).

This "controversy" hasn't made a ripple in Portland and I'm pleased to see that Adams' main opponent Sho Dozono continues to have scandals involving money. After the whole bruhaha over his accepting a $27,000 poll without disclosing it to city auditors and thus losing public financing, his latest scandal was not paying city taxes on a restaurant he owns (the appropriately named "Bush Gardens"--as Sho Dozono has a lot in common with our disasterous president). Here's hoping that Sam Adams will clear the 50% hurdle in two weeks and be elected as Portland's mayor.

Scenes from Topeka, Kansas

A popular joke from a greeting card:

Boxing Humanity

I finally received my copy of the "infamous" Vanity Fair issue that features the "scandalous" photograph of Miley "Hannah Montana" Cyrus that media pundits obsessed about. Out of 184 pages, many filled with far racier ads of scantily-clad models of both genders hawking perfume and clothing lines, it seems crazy that one photo got so much attention. Especially since this issue features Robert F. Kennedy on the cover with a story about his presidential campaign 40 years ago that still inspires idealists (like myself). I love the magazine because of its good political articles and hate that the media picked out the fluff from a great issue.

In my latest issue of Time magazine featuring "the 100 Most Influential People in the World," I was shocked that Miley Cyrus was included in the group, among more notable people as Aung San Suu Kyi, Steve Jobs, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair, Michael Bloomberg, Peter Gabriel, Lance Armstrong, Oprah Winfrey, Vladimir Putin, the Dalai Lama, the three presidential contenders, and even the Jolie-Pitts ("Brangelina"). The reason why I want to bring up Miley Cyrus again (!) is because of what Donny Osmond wrote about her (before the controversial photograph) that I found interesting:

"Your image becomes cryogenically frozen into a specific stereotype. Within three to five years, Miley will have to face adulthood. Fans grow up, and their youthful interests quickly dissolve. Her challenge will be overcoming the Hannah Montana stereotype. Miley's fans are not thinking about the fact that she will grow up too. As she does, she'll want to change her image, and that change will be met with adversity. It's next to impossible to fight, embrace, use or love your image. Trust me. I've seen this all play out before; it's the same ball game, just different players in a different time."

Keeping with this theme, I was also struck by what director George Lucas said about the rabid fans of "Star Wars" and of "Indiana Jones." Here's what he told Entertainment Weekly magazine about the highly anticipated "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull":

"We're only going to get aggravation. The fans think it's gonna be the Second Coming. And it's not the Second Coming. They've already written the story [in their heads], and lemme tell ya, it's not that story. So they're going to be very disappointed. I went through this with Phantom Menace. Believe me, I've been there, I've done it, I know exactly the way they react. And they're very vocal about these things. We're not gonna have adoring fans sending us e-mails saying how much they loved the movie. We're gonna have a bunch of angry people saying, 'You're a bunch of assholes, you should never have done this. You've ruined my life forever. I loved Indiana Jones so much and now it's ruined.' And all that kind of stuff."

Wow. Really? I'm actually shocked. Though I shouldn't be. I think I was one of the few people who grew up with the original "Star Wars" trilogy who LOVED LOVED LOVED the prequel trilogy. It was surprising to hear people of my generation and older trash talk the prequels, while hearing children get excited the way we once were when the originals first came to theaters. What is wrong with adulthood anyway, to turn people into cynical critics who can't appreciate movies in a childlike way? What is it about people that makes them take someone else's work of art and develop their own ideas about what happens? Kind of like "Spider-man" fans who were angry about the change in making Spidey's webfluid a function of his body instead of something he had to make (as it was in the comic book). Subtle changes like that can make fanboys go apeshit like Naomi Campbell on an airplane. Why? There's a reason why some people have Hollywood careers bringing THEIR visions to life on film while others are still living in their parents basements reading comic books and playing video games. Just relax, eh? Enjoy someone's vision without expectations.

In fact, the only time I've been disappointed in a film is when I went to see it after hearing RAVE reviews or thinking it was going to be about something based on previews, but the film turned out to be completely different from my EXPECTATIONS. And that's the key to disappointed. If you have pre-conceived notions going in, you are going to be disappointed. When I saw the "Star Wars" prequels, I went to see them as I did in my childhood. It was a "spiritual experience" for me and I let it all unfold, without my mind processing where it's going to lead. A friend of mine has the uncanny ability to predict the ending of nearly every movie he sees. In a way, it can be annoying. I see it as a competition he has with himself to prove himself smarter than the film. It's no way to enjoy a movie. I love to let things unfold.

But I think what both quotes I used above indicates is the human tendency to put things into boxes. We seem to have a need to put people into boxes so we can understand them, but when they rebel or break out of the box we put them in, we have the audacity to be outraged. Who are we to be outraged? Just let people be who they are. Maybe putting Miley Cyrus into this odd fictional character of Hannah Montana is restricting of her growth and the photograph was her way of breaking out of the judgmental attitudes of parents of preteen girls who idolize the Disney-created sitcom star.

There have been times where people have tried to put me in a box, but it never works. Most people have said of me throughout the years: "I've never met anyone like you before." This was especially true in the Navy. I don't easily fit into any category. How could I? I grew up a bi-racial kid in the post-Vietnam War years in the lily white Midwest as well as a predominantly white church. I never learned much about my mother's culture, other than her strong dislike of the Thai government and the material obsessions and hypocrisy of the Buddhist people. And as I grew up, I took an unusual liking to African music (as well as other world music). Six of my most impressionable years (ages 13-16 and 19-22) were spent in Europe, so a lot of my interests and personality reflect "European values" more than American ones. So, I'm hard to put in a box and I like it like that. Maybe that's why I'm so drawn to the campaign of Barack Obama, another one who is hard to "box."

I wish people would just let people be who they are, without having a need to categorize them into easily applied labels and stereotypes. The world would be much better off if we allowed people to be the individuals they are. And that includes celebrities like Miley Cyrus or Britney Spears.

Speaking of boxes, the above photo is of a new design in apartment living: boxes! I watched some news program in the past week in which they had talked about the waste of shipping containers. Since most of the shipping goes one way (China to the U.S. for example), we end up with a lot of the metal shipping containers and it doesn't make economic sense to send the empty ones back to China to reuse. Instead, they are created in China to contain all manner of items that are shipped to the U.S. and we're left with all these empty shipping containers. In London, they have built an apartment complex out of these containers and it looked pretty modern and you couldn't tell on the inside what they used to be. From the outside, it does look odd (as the photo above shows), but it's an example of innovation to reuse rather than waste. Hopefully it's a trend that will pick up, because apparently, its much cheaper than building from scratch.

So, if we're going to put people into boxes, why not these "boxy" apartments? I'd love to live in one. But that's the only way you'll ever "box me in!"

The Gospel According to Jefferson

In April, I finished reading a book I bought in 1995 (but never got around to reading): "The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson" by Charles Sanford. It's a mere 179 pages (246 with appendix and index included), but it took me longer to read than I had hoped (I didn't plan to spend a whole month on it!). A lot of it is repetitive and the writing pretty dry. A good editor could probably cut it down to a hundred readable pages easily. However a painful read it was, there was a lot of good information about Jefferson's religious beliefs that I hadn't come across before. As I read it, I was struck by how much my views on religion are similar to Jefferson. However, we differ on mysticism, as he was a natural skeptic about anything that couldn't be scientifically proven. I like to balance science with spirituality...thus I'm in a place where I can believe both evolution and reincarnation...going so far as to even accept the LDS view of "eternal progression" being part of the process of evolution/reincarnation.

Anyhow, I digress. Back to Jefferson. In 2001, when I was new in my job at the Georgia Bureau of Investigations, my cubicle-mate was a fundamentalist woman whom I simply did not get along with. Before I knew much about her, or she about me, one day I came to work with my reading material of Jefferson's collected writings in one volume. She saw it and saw her lead-in to find out my religious beliefs. Thus started the process where we learned how opposite our views were. She saw the book on Jefferson and started talking about what a great Christian he was and all that baloney. When I refuted her claims of his Christianity (as she recognized it), she didn't believe me...even when I brought in my copy of the Jefferson Bible! That she would believe her pastor over historical documents, books, and Jefferson's own writing was baffling and she lost all credibility with me.

I shouldn't have been surprised, though. On the wall of the Jefferson Memorial in D.C. is one of his most famous quotes: "I have sworn upon the altar of God against every form of tyranny known to man." That quote gives an unmistakeable impression to fundamentalists and evangelicals who love seeing any mention of God in public buildings and political speeches. However, that quote leaves out an important fact. It was taken from a letter written to a friend regarding the concerns of the Danbury Baptists, who believed that if Jefferson became president, he would ban the Bible and persecute Christians. In the letter, Jefferson stated that they have every just reason to fear him, because he had "sworn upon the altar of God..." in which he included religious tyranny among the other forms.

So, it's quite peculiar to me to hear evangelical/fundamentalist types claim Jefferson as their own, for it only shows their ignorance of history. And my view is...if you believe the wrong things about historical events just 200 years ago despite many documents proving otherwise...why should anyone believe what you claim to have happened 2,000 years ago (with sketchy documents and little evidence)? You can't. Making Jefferson out to be an evangelical president who sought to create a Christian nation is historical revisionism of the worst kind. It's pathologically dishonest.

Had Jefferson not been a politician, he would've made a great founder of a new American religion based on logic and reason. According to the book "The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson", he felt most comfortable with the Unitarians. Today, the Unitarian-Universalists are the most inclusive and liberal of all the Christian sects. After his presidency, a new spiritual revival swept our young nation and it's no surprise that a few churches and movements were born out of this: the Transcendentalists (Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman), the Latter Day Saints, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists, and I believe also the Shakers (not to be confused with the Quakers, which is much older). Had Jefferson founded a religion of his own, I would've liked to be a member because his views are similar to the conclusions I've come to believe about religion in my own study and thinking.

For instance, he thought the idea of the Trinity was unproveable, thus it was a silly requirement to make church members profess a belief in the "God in three persons and the three in one." In fact, Jefferson often wrote in many letters to people that man should be judged by works alone, rather than what he believed about the Trinity, the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, and other claims of unproveable miracles. Had Jefferson been born after Darwin, he most likely would've accepted Darwin's theories as compatable with his concept of a "watchmaker God" who left the world to operate on natural laws with minimal interference.

A lot of conservatives like to claim that God led our Founders to create our nation, that we are uniquely bestowed by divine will to be the guiding light of humankind. What they don't understand is that the Founders had to use God in their reasons for creating a new nation. Before our democracy/republic was formed, Kings the world over claimed a Divine Right to rule the miserable masses. Some even claimed to have been conceived or born of God, making them demi-gods. It was blasphemy to think of them as mere mortals or that they didn't have an otherworldly right to power. To counter the argument of the Divine Right of Kings, our Founders had to claim a special divine providence of their own. But it ends there. You don't see any mention of God or of Jesus or of the Bible in the U.S. Constitution. And God merely gets opening credit in the Declaration of Independence for endowing humans with "certain inalienable rights" that no despotic king can take away at will. That was powerfully treasonous words at the time. But that's where it ends. None of the Founders were advocating a theocracy, as some Christians seem to desire today.

The most interesting quote I read in the book reminds me of how I came to believe what I believe regarding the falsehood of viewing Jesus as "the atoning sacrifice" to make up for "the original sin" when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit that gave them wisdom to discern good and evil. I never put my feelings into words as well as Jefferson to show how ridiculously absurd that view is:

"God sent his only begotten son, who had not offended him, to be sacrificed by men, who had offended him, that he might expiate their sins, and satisfy his own anger. Surely our ideas of moral attributes will lead us to think that god would have been more satisfied by the repentance of the offenders, or with any other expiation rather than this."

Amen! That's been my view since adolescence when I realized that Christian propaganda does not make logical sense. I know some people consider it blasphemy to question Christian dogma, but when something doesn't make logical sense, why believe it? God is logic. God would never contradict God-self. All contradictions indicate human error in trying to understand eternal mysteries. When religion bases itself on the mythology of Adam and Eve and original sin, it's doomed when it tries to make the ultimate meaning of our lives fit into that antiquated fairy tale of innocents in a garden being tempted by a talking snake and thinking they can fool God with their childish lies. If more Christians thought deeply about what we're meant to swallow as truth, I think they'd see the whole illogical premise of Christendom's outrageous origins tale and abandon it in droves. Thus why Christianity needs to reexamine what Christ's life and death was truly about: creating a better and more just world with economic equality; loving each other as brothers and sisters; and living life without fear of death.

Someday, when I return to the heavenly realm, Jefferson is the first historical person I hope to meet. In fact, I even consider him more of a "prophet" than Joseph Smith was, because Jefferson was pretty consistent in his religious views until the end of his life on earth. Joseph Smith kept introducing more and more bizarre ideas until "he lost the cloak of God's protection" (as some people in my church put it). Sometimes, I wish it was Jefferson who founded our church because I'm more in line with his beliefs than I am with Joseph Smith's. But, I guess that's why I'm a practitioner of mosquito-theology (as opposed to "salad bar theology"). By that, I mean that I suck out the essentials of every religion to incorporate into my own spiritual belief system. I'm happily a member of the Community of Christ and embrace our early historical heritage, but I also consider Jefferson to be the spiritual philosopher who comes closest to what I believe. Long live Jefferson!

Meeting an Actual "Life Coach"

On Thursday, 24 April, I ventured out to suburbia to attend a booksigning by life coach Martha Beck, who is better known in LDS circles as the daughter of Hugh Nibley, and who wrote a book with some controversial allegations that other family members say never happened. Of course, my primary reason for going was to meet her and pass along a "hello" from her niece Anna, who is married to my former D.C. roommate Matt. And yes, I got Matt's blessing to attend, as I'm loyal to my friends and realize the pain Martha has caused her family with the allegations. Rather than state what they were here, I will just point out that you can read about it in her previous book, "Leaving the Saints."

I had read it when it first came out, not knowing that she was related to my friend Anna. I was only interested in reading about a Mormon's view on leaving the LDS Church. I can't help it...I've always been curious about dissenting opinion. When I met with LDS missionaries in Italy, I kept having the odd coincidence of coming across copies of the book "Secret Ceremonies", which I also read out of curiosity.

The booksigning had more people than I thought would show up, though it was heavily skewed towards middle aged ladies. The Powells Bookstore in a dying Beaverton shopping mall (the inside of the mall is pathetic...I've seen airport malls that were more impressive) sponsored the event. I much prefer the downtown Powells, but what can you do? She was speaking at the suburban one.

As she lectured, I was debating whether or not it was worth paying $24.95. I prefer paperback for most books, but that's at least a year's wait and I don't have a year to wait. I want the info NOW! Because she insists that if you follow her advice, you'll see positive changes in your life. It'll be small at first, but if you keep it up, a year from now, you won't recognize your life at all. I must say that I was impressed. She was funny and got everyone laughing. She shared some interesting stories as well as examples from her book. She even had everyone try an experiment that tested the strength of love (very interesting! I was naturally skeptical and didn't do it right the first time, but the second time it worked). Basically, it's the same info that Yoda taught Younglings in the "Star Wars" universe. Clear your mind and focus on what you love and it'll give you a kind of power that brute strength can't match.

The biggest selling point for me was the explanation of the negative, critical thoughts you have and how it sabotages getting what you want. She said to actually name it and explains it as the "reptilian" part of the brain. Anytime you have a negative thought, to acknowledge the "inner lizard" and then focus on your "inner wizard." Cheesy, I know...but, hey. Doesn't hurt to try. As I skimmed through the book, I noticed where she disses "The Secret" for the same reasons that I had problems with it (the shallow focus on materialism). But she learned from a coincidence that happened when she read the book that her thoughts did attract a certain thing to come into her life, so she doesn't outright dismiss the idea of "law of attraction."

When I decided to buy the book and made my way to the front, I told her about knowing Matt and Anna, and to pass along their hello. She looked surprised then said that it was funny that she got two personal hits in two days. At the signing in Seattle, a family member had shown up. From what I hear, she's cut off from her family over her last book. In the lecture, she admitted to having some "pissed off Mormon ancestors" (which got a huge audience reaction). Now, she's pretty much a new agey spiritualist who found success as a life coach.

Overall it was a good lecture. I learned a few things and I'm reading the book now (and doing the exercises). However, there was something she said that seemed a bit "flaky" to me. She had said that one of the best things ever to have happened in the last century was Martha Stewart losing a decorating contest in prison. I hadn't heard that story before (probably because it's a fluff issue). But one of the best events of the last hundred years?!? Um...I can think of three off the top of my head: man landing and walking on the moon; the fall of the Berlin Wall; and the inauguration of Nelson Mandela. Martha Stewart wouldn't even make my Top Million Best Events of the last century. To each their own, I guess. At least this Martha comes across as funny with a lot of cool stories to tell. An hour was too short. Now, I can see why Anna once thought of her as "her favourite aunt."

Get CARRIER-ed Away!

Finally, a reality show that's actually reality instead of the fake "reality" portrayed on shows like "Survivor", "Big Brother", "The Amazing Race", MTV's "The Real World", and VH1's "The Surreal Life." This week, PBS has been airing episodes from its groundbreaking documentary, "Carrier" about life aboard an aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz. It was filmed in 2005, covering a whole "West Pac" deployment, including the infamous Shellback Initiation ceremony (which I had written about in my opening chapters of my unpublished novel and excerpted on my blog last year).

As I watch it, I can't help but be reminded of the year and two months I lived on board an aircraft carrier (the USS George Washington). The aircraft carrier was the #1 reason why I joined the Navy (if not for that, I might've enlisted in the Air Force). Besides hearing since I was young enough to remember my dad telling people that I was born in a U.S. Navy hospital in Taiwan and that the Navy doctor had tattooed on my rear end "Property of U.S. Navy -- Return when 18", it was a trip to the USS Yorktown in Charleston, South Carolina that made me want to experience life aboard a carrier. That World War II-era aircraft carrier is tiny by today's super carrier standards. But it was still a massive, floating museum that gives you a little idea of what life is like aboard the largest ships in the world.

When I was in Yeoman "A" School, I had second choice from a list of 22 duty stations. There were several aircraft carriers to choose from and I was tempted to pick one in San Diego as I've long wanted to move to California permanently. But, in my class, there were two billets I wanted more: Naples and La Maddalena, Sardinia. I was leaning towards Naples, but one guy who picked after me (our selection order was based on test score averages, of which I had the second highest) really wanted Naples and the appeal of being on a ship that was homeported in Sardinia meant that I would get to travel around the Mediterranean more than I would from Naples. So, that's how I found myself in the Submarine Navy, which views aircraft carriers with disdain. Submariners call it a "bird farm" or a "target." They even sent me on a three day submarine journey to see if I'd like it enough to request submarine school. I enjoyed the experience, but nothing could shake my love for the aircraft carrier. In the Navy world, a submarine is a small town (120-150 crewmembers on a Fast Attack submarine), whereas a carrier is an enormous city. With 6,000 personnel on a full crew (which includes all flight squadrons as well as ship's company), it is a city. Excitement could be found anytime. I've seen a group of guys play Dungeons and Dragons late at night. You could easily find a group of guys who shared your interests (I found a fellow peacenik on GW). Simply put, aircraft carriers are New York City on the ocean. Something is always going on around the clock and you never get bored.

Carriers are also a big draw for political VIPs. In the year I was on board, George H.W. Bush spoke to crewmembers and ate with select sailors of the "Sailor of the Quarter" variety. We also had staff members of various Senators and their bosses come on board, and we were fed steak and lobster for that occasion. And six months before I checked on board, President Clinton and his staff were on board for the D-Day 50th anniversary commemoration. They created controversy when several staff members took souvenirs from the ship (such as bathrobes with the ship's logo) that they weren't supposed to. It was just one more reason for military members to hate the Clinton administration, unfortunately.

The whole irony of my entire Navy enlistment is that I served on three ships in four years...AND I did not get to do a single six-month deployment. When fellow sailors hear that, they ask me how I managed to get so lucky, but I see it as one of my major disappointments about my Navy experience (the other was that my company didn't do the obstacle course in basic training, as you see in every single movie about basic training). I really wanted to experience a six month deployment. I had my chance in 1996, when the USS George Washington went on its second deployment. But I was set to get out in March 1996 and the ship departed in January 1996. The Admin Officer gave me an either/or proposition: either I extended my enlistment until the ship returned to Norfolk, Virginia, or I get a two month early out. If it wasn't for my fear of missing out on the Olympics in Atlanta, I would have extended so I could experience it. In retrospect, perhaps I should've, since the ship did return during the first week of the Olympics and I would've been able to catch the last two weeks of it. But who could resist an early out? So, that's how it came to be that I served on the USS George Washington IN BETWEEN its maiden deployment and it's second one. I checked on board the very day it returned to home port and was discharged from active duty a week before it deployed for its second Med run.

In this PBS series (600 minutes long!), we get to know a few of the crew members and experience life from their perspectives. I was interested to hear that there were quite a few non-religious sailors who have a problem with the nightly devotional over the 1MC (the public address system on board ship). I hated that when I was in the Navy, because you couldn't turn it off. Basically, before lights out is called for in the berthing areas, the Chaplain will give a short devotion, followed by a prayer. Most guys ignored it. I don't know anyone who stopped what they were doing to listen to it...but to vocally speak out against it...man, talk about defensive! You'd think that I was advocating mutiny.

One of the sailors I appreciated seeing was the preacher man, who spoke exactly like Arsenio Hall's hilarious preacher in "Coming to America." It's fun to listen to, but hard to take serious. It made me wonder if that sailor was merely copying what he learned watching that film.

Anyhow, if you've ever been remotely curious about life aboard an aircraft carrier, or Navy life in general, I highly recommend watching this documentary/reality series. Watching it is kind of bittersweet for me, because had I stayed Navy, I would be THREE years away from retirement! Of course, that means I wouldn't have gone to BYU, interned in the White House, met the friends I did during Washington Seminar and in the years since between my last job and in my current life in Portland. Tradeoffs...life is always a series of tradeoffs and while I might have been better off financially had I stayed Navy, it's hard to give up the friendships and the experiences at BYU and in Washington, D.C. I guess this documentary series is meant to remind me of what I experienced and to be grateful, for life will always give you other experiences. The secret is to live without regret for the choices not made.

Mission (Still) Unaccomplished

Here we are five years later, when Bush famously proclaimed a mere six weeks after launching his invasion of Iraq: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."

Oh really? Then the obvious question is..."What the HELL are we still doing there?!?"

Let's review, shall we? On May 1, 2003, Bush famously "flew" on board the USS Abraham Lincoln and walked on deck in his flight suit, which had many FOX News anchors gushing like gay men at a Chippendales show about his manly strut and the way his flight suit enhanced, ahem, his, uh, his...baby maker. Yeah, that's it. I always suspected that channel had some repressed homosexual tendencies, what with it's blatant worship of the "manly" Bush, Rumsfeld, and Schwarzenegger.

At that point in our war, all we did was topple a statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square. The government of Iraq had collapsed, but Saddam was no where to be found, nor some of his higher ups and his sons. I remember the lunacy of the cable news spending a lot of time on the pulling down of Saddam's statue and wondered what was so "newsworthy" about it. One soldier put an upside down American flag over Saddam statue's head. The whole thing was odd. It was little more than theatrics, but co-workers who saw it were just giddy as schoolgirls that their hero just proved his manhood by taking the world's mightiest military to knock off a third rate power. It's like a professional baseball team bragging about beating a Little League team. Duh. No one doubted the outcome. The doubts were about the necessity of it all.

What we later learned about this exercise in theatrics is that the USS Abraham Lincoln was deployed for TEN months!!! I served on another aircraft carrier (the USS George Washington). In fact, I reported on board in November 1994 after it returned from a six month deployment. Generally, ships deploy from homeport for six months. Sometimes it can go to seven months, depending on the needs of the Navy and country. But a TEN month deployment is practically unheard of. What made this even worse is that the ship was within view of San Diego, it's homeport. It was set to pull into homeport the day Bush decided to fulfill his "Top Gun" fantasy. He basically made many sailors anxious for some reunion lovin' of the Marvin Gaye/Barry White variety wait one more day. What kind of sadist would do that to the very people who helped him accomplish his pre-2000 election goal of toppling Saddam?

In fact, the ship even had to turn around in order to get the natural lighting right for the speech (and so film cameras couldn't capture land in the background). But the topping on this cake was the banner "Mission Accomplished." When it became somewhat of a joke as Iraq continued to prove that our mission was so NOT accomplished, the Bush Administration blamed the Navy, claiming that it was the ship that had made the banner to celebrate it's own "mission accomplished." That was such a laugh and a lie. I served in the Navy. The ship isn't going to do something like that without directives from the top. It's not like they have a sign like that laying around somewhere. The Navy can be blamed for a lot of things (and I probably did blame the Navy for a lot), but a lying banner to serve as a piece of propaganda for "the audiences at home" is not one of them.

So, what is up with this photo anyway? Was Bush trying to live out his Tom Cruise fantasy or was this supposed to signal the gay escort/fake White House reporter James Guckert/Jeff Gannon?

I found this photo online. Don't know where it's from or who took it. Perhaps this is James Guckert/Jeff Gannon's personal shrine to the only Bush he loves so much. Yes, like Elvis, now you can own your very own Velvet Bush painting!

Or if you prefer, your very own Bush action figure! Now you can be like Cheney and make Bush your puppet to manipulate into doing whatever you want him to do! I'd make him dump Laura and run off with a black Barbie (to represent Condoleezza Rice).

So, as we reflect on that day five years ago, I hope Americans remember that just because we believe we're free doesn't mean that we're free of propaganda. This administration has been brilliant in the way it has used propaganda to cow the American people into believing it's lies of dangerous mushroom clouds, of easy victory, of our ability to wage war on the cheap with fewer military personnel. But in the end, what good is propaganda if its nothing but lies? When reality continues to intrude on the delusions of our petulant boy king and his homoerotic fantasies of being the manly man who single-handedly brought Saddam to his knees and delivered him to his towering father figure, what do we end up with?

The pieces. Pieces of American lives and bodies shattered in a foreign war. A country destroyed. Another one in near financial crisis. A presidency many can't wait to see the end of. A true veteran of war and heroic pilot hoping to inherit his disaster and turn it around.

Years ago, the term "May Day" was the international distress call (taken from the French, "m'aider!"--"help me!"). The first day of May is "May Day" and known for propaganda parades in communist countries. Bush probably hoped to reclaim that day for patriotism, in which history books would portray him as a hero of Washington proportions. But he got one thing right...we are a nation in desperate need of "m'aider!" However, I have a feeling that our allies won't help us until we get a new president, and even then, it might be conditional on our willingness to allow the current administration to be investigated for war crimes.

I'm more than okay with that! In fact, to quote Bush himself, I hope the International Criminal Court will "bring it on!"

Happy May Day, fellow Americans! Each day brings us closer to the day when our most incompetent president will disappear into the obscurity he so richly deserves. We should always remember on this day how propaganda never works the way it's meant to. In fact, it often can be a damning reminder of how we've failed to accomplish our mission five years later with no end in sight.