For those who were wondering about what traffic to my site is like, I present the following stats courtesy of StatCounter for the past two week period (stats do not include RSS users unless they click through to the page from the RSS aggregator):

To give you an idea of the very odd searches that bring people here, some popular search terms for just today have been:

Can you guess who our top visitor this month has been?  Psst, I'll give you a hint - his "name" starts with a K- and ends with an -ent.

So there you have it - not a crazy number of visitors, but certainly more than I would have expected, especially considering the number of 233 unique repeat readers.

On Friday, our friend Kent posted the following:

Just remember one thing Jason....the people who think like you, not the least of which is Bill Clinton, cost 3000 innocent people their lives on 9/11/2001. If you're too much of a simpleton to understand that, I truly pity you. You obviously don't understand anything about the history of this country or the history of the middle east either. We can't take the Bill Clinton approach and pop off a few cruise missles when we need points in the polls becauase we were banging an intern instead of doing our job running the country. Clinton's legacy is an embarrasment to this country.

So I did a little research afterwards.  Was Kent right?  Was it all Clinton's sole fault?!  I found the following:

One month before Clinton left office, Robert Oakley, ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Department told the Washington Post, "Overall, I give them very high marks."  Ironically, he went on to say "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger."  Of course Paul Bremer, Oakley's successor and the civilian administrator in Iraq said he believed that the Clinton administration "correctly focused on bin Laden."

Speaking of Reagan - let's look at his anti-terrorism record:  Radical Islamic terrorists killed more Americans during his administration than during the Bush Sr and Clinton years combined.  Between the 1983 embassy and Marine barracks bombings in Beirut and the destruction of Pam Am flight 103, nearly 500 American lives were lost.  Reagan's only direct response was a single bombing run against Libya in 1986.

He then supplied arms to violent Muslim extremists Afghani Mujahadeen as well as to American "allies" in Iraq and Iran.

Then we have George Bush Sr who as president continued to supply arms to Muslim extremists in Afghanistan (to fight the Russians!) and then once the Russians withdrew proceeded to promptly ignore Afghanistan, which allowed the Taliban and their anti-american training camps to take over.  But hey, wouldn't want to blame a Republican president.  After all, they didn't get caught having sex!

Then you have Clinton who tripled the counterterrorism budget for the FBI and more than doubled counterrorism funding overall.  And created our country's first top-level national security post to coordinate all federal counterterrorism activity.  The cad!  Hell, after Clinton struck targets in Sugan and Afghanistan with Tomahawk missles after our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked, even Gingrich said "The President did exactly the right thing.  By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."  Even Gingrich agreed with how Clinton handled it!  And Clinton issued a presidential directive authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden at that time as well.  Ironically, many Congressional Republicans seized on this to actually attack Clinton, citing it as a violation of Executive Order 12333 which was issued by Reagan prohibiting the assassination of foreign heads of state.  Of course, Osama was not actually a foreign head of state.

So Kent says terrorism is all Clinton's fault (oh yeah, and people like me according to Kent)?  After the USS Cole was attacked, Clinton put Richard Clarke in charge of coming up with a comprehensive plan to take out al Qaeda as one of the final projects of his administration (this was in October 2000).  This plan was submitted to Sand Berger and other national security principals on December 20, 2000.  Its plans included:  breaking up al Qaeda cells and arresting their personnel; attacking financial supports for its terrorist activities; freezing its assets; stopping its funding through fake charities; giving aid to governments having trouble with al Qaeda (such as Uzbekistan, the Phillipines and Yemen); and increasing covert activity in Afghanistan to take out al Qaeda training camps and reach bin Laden himself.  Does all this sound familiar?  It should, since a senior Bush administration official told Time Magazine in the August 12, 2002, issue - Clarke's plan amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11."

As this plan was completed within weeks of Bush taking office, it was handed over to the following administration to carry out - essentially handing them a war on terror. 

So Bush gets into office and has been given a plan to fight terror.  So what does his administration do with it?  Well, despite several warnings from Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke, they felt those wacky Clintonites had become a little obsessed with terrorism.  They were more interested in things like missle defense, for example.  And pulling out of the Kyoto treaty.  And limiting stem cell research.  On February 15, 2001, a commission led by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued its final report on national security warning that "mass casualty terrorism directed against the US homeland was of serious and growing concern."  This report also urged the creation of "a National Homeland Security Agency".  These suggestions caused some movement in Congress but were ignored at the time by the White House.  In fact, the Bush Administration's response was to announce a new task force on May 8, 2001, to develop a plan to counter domestic terrorist attacks.  This task force never met once. 

Of course, Bush probably didn't have time to put it into action - after all he spent 42 percent of his first seven months in office either at Camp David, the Bush compound in Kennebunkport, or at his ranch in Crawford Texas.  Fighting terrorists on the golf course, no doubt. 

On July 10, 2001, Kenneth Williams, a Phoenix FBI agent, sent a memo urging FBI Headquarters to contact other intelligence agencies to see if al Qaeda operatives might be trying to infiltrate the US civil aviation system after discovering a group of Middle Eastern students attempting admission at an Arizona flight school.  This report made it to Tenet briefed Condoleeza Rice soon after "that there was going to be a major attack."  So on July 16 - seven months after receiving it - Clarke's anti-al Qaeda plan was finally approved...to move on to the Principals Committee composed of Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Powell and Rumsfeld.  They were going to meet on it in August 2001, but too many members were planning time off for August so they moved the date back to September 7, 2001.  At this meeting the committee finally met  and decided to advise Bush to accept the plan - the plan created and completed under orders from President Clinton, where it then sat on his desk.  The events four days later would FINALLY get the plan activated.

On September 6, 2001, Congress proposed a boost of $600 million for antiterror programs, but because money was to come out of the missle defense program, Rumsfeld threatened a presidential veto.

On September 7, 2001, Ashcroft sent his Justice Department request to President Bush.  Despite including spending increases in sixty-eight different programs, NONE of them dealt with terrorism.  In a memo of his seven top priorities, again terrorism wasn't on the list.

So - we had the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations who actually armed would-be terrorists.  Then we had the Clinton administration that actually attacked terrorists and made long-range plans to stop terrorism.  And then we had the Bush Jr administration who, up until that awful day in September, repeatedly ignored terrorism as a priority. 

But Kent says its all Clinton's fault.

Whatever.  Try actually looking at a fact sometime, buddy.

From The Onion:

Bush to Cut Deficit from Federal Budget

WASHINGTON, DC - President Bush proposed a $2.4 trillion election-year budget Monday that would boost defense spending, redistribute funds among government programs, and cross out the $477 billion deficit entirely.

"Nobody likes making cuts, but the nation's current rate of spending and the decreased tax revenues we've seen since implementing my tax cuts have created a deficit that we can't afford to carry," Bush said in a nationally televised address. "Someone had to have the vision, leadership, and courage to go in and erase that line altogether, no matter how unpopular and impossible that may be."

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the $477 billion deficit is the country's largest ever, easily topping the previous record of $290 billion in 1992. If the budget is approved, however, the deficit will roll down to $0.0 billion.

In the past, critics have accused the Bush Administration of responding to a mounting deficit and the ongoing recession with unsound fiscal policies like cutting taxes for the wealthy. Bush supporters say the deficit cut proves the wisdom of the president's economic plan.

"Bush has taken a brave step, one that was long overdue," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said. "He has taken charge of the budget problem once and for all, simply by saying 'The deficit stops here.'"

Faced with the difficult choice of either cutting government programs or raising taxes, Bush reportedly arrived at the radical new "deficit-cutting" solution late Sunday night, only hours before he was to announce his budget.

"I was staring at the figure for the deficit, and I decided that it simply could not stand," Bush said. "It was too high. Something had to be done. But Americans have been taxed and taxed. I say 'Enough taxes.' By my estimation, this historical crossing-out of the deficit will save American taxpayers millions, billions, and perhaps even bajillions of dollars."

The president then turned to Section 14-D of the official budget document, where the federal government's total expenditures, the GNP, and the difference between the two were listed. Using a black Sharpie, the president crossed out the third figure, eliminating it entirely.

Bush then held up the newly marked-up page and said, "My fellow Americans, I have solved the federal budget crisis."

The budget is expected to pass through the GOP-controlled Congress with little or no opposition.

"I don't know why I didn't have this idea before," Bush said. "For years, we have tried to control the deficit by eliminating federal programs, lowering taxes for the rich, sending out checks to everybody, and God knows what else. None of us once thought to just draw a line through it."

The Bush plan is not without critics.

"President Bush drew a line through the deficit, yes, and we commend him for that," Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) said. "But that doesn't solve the country's budgetary problems. While he was at it, why didn't he add several zeroes to the end of our GNP?"

Political pundits have been largely impressed by the visionary slash.

"Opinions vary as to what the long-term effects of the deficit cut will be," New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said. "One thing, however, is certain: The growing federal deficit, a Gordian knot that for three years no amount of cutting taxes and spending money could unravel, has been sliced in two by the president's bold, radical new take on the problem."

A CNN/Gallup poll taken immediately after the president's announcement showed that 67 percent of Americans support his decision to draw a black line through the deficit, and thereby eliminate it.

"I'm tired of the tax-and-spend Democrats always talking about adding zeroes to the GNP," said Henry Strom, 40, of Bakersfield, CA. "How about we cross out our debts and get our affairs in order before we start adding zeroes? We need to cut this deficit and stand firm against printing deficits in future budgets, as well."

According to Bush's political advisors, later this week, the president will declare that the U.S. has universal health care.

Now just to clarify for the reader who can't tell satire (you know who you are), this is not a real news story.  It's satirical humor.  Chill.

Wow!  Who knew Nutri-Grain bars were so effective?!  ;)

Click to View the "Commercial"

Thanks to Benn

Yesterday I got a Postini warning with the following:

I thought this was kind of funny.  Excerpted From the Feb 22nd 60 Minutes:

It doesn't seem right, but religion has been in the news a lot recently.

Pat Robertson says that God has spoken to him and told him that George W. Bush will be re-elected because he deserves to be.

Here's Pat Robertson's exact quote: "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I'm hearing from the Lord that it's going to be a blowout."

I hadn't wanted to say anything about this, because it seemed like a personal matter, but Pat Robertson isn't the only one who has heard from God.

I heard from God just the other night. God always seems to call at night.

"Andrew," God said to me. He always calls me "Andrew." I like that.

"Andrew, you have the eyes and ears of a lot of people. I wish you'd tell your viewers that both Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson strike me as wackos. I believe that's one of your current words. They're crazy as bedbugs, another earthly expression. I created bedbugs. I'll tell you, they're no crazier than people," said God.

"Let me just say that I think I'd remember if I'd ever talked to Pat Robertson, and I'd remember if I said Bush would get re-elected in a blowout."

That is what God said to me. That's about all he did say to me because I'm sure God has a lot more important things to do than talk to someone on television.

My own question to Pat Robertson is this: The election looks as though it could be close, certainly not a blowout. If George W. Bush loses the election to a Democrat, will you become an atheist?

It IS an awfully big limb for Robertson to step out on, though I imagine come November should Bush lose he will just forget he ever said anything.  Or make up some excuse about God deciding Bush should lose because of not doing enough to forward the agenda of the reactionary Christian right.

I've taken to reading the website Working for Change lately, originally because it held the This Modern World archive, but have found some other pretty good articles on the site.  Arianna Huffington made a good point about Bush, for instance, which I found surprising as she's been known for some time as a solid moderate Republican advocate.  On the site I also discovered the hilarious editorial comics of Scott Bateman, whose work you can find on his site at http://www.batemania.com/cartoons/.  A couple recent examples that I found funny:

Click to Read the Whole Comic

It all seems so...oddly familiar...

"Today my candidacy may come to an end--but our campaign for change is not over.

I want to thank each and every person who has supported this campaign. Over the last year, you have reached out to neighbors, friends, family and colleagues--building one American at a time the greatest grassroots campaign presidential politics has ever seen. I will never forget the work and the heart that you put into our campaign.

In the coming weeks, we will be launching a new initiative to continue the campaign you helped begin. Please continue to come to www.deanforamerica.com for updates and news as our new initiative develops. There is much work still to be done, and today is not an end--it is just the beginning.

This Party and this country needs change, and you have already begun that process. I want you to think about how far we have come. The truth is: change is tough. There is enormous institutional pressure in our country against change. There is enormous institutional pressure in Washington against change, in the Democratic Party against change. Yet, you have already started to change the Party and together we have transformed this race. Along the way, we’ve engaged hundreds of thousands of new Americans in the political process, as witnessed by this year’s record participation in the primaries and caucuses.

The fight that we began can and must continue. Although my candidacy for president may end today, the most important goal remains defeating George W. Bush in November, and I hope that you will join me in doing everything we can to support the Democrats this fall. From the earliest days of our campaign, I have said that the power to change Washington rests not in my hands, but in yours. Always remember, you have the power to take our country back.

Gov. Howard Dean M.D."

From "Kent" in a recent off-topic comment posting:  "This just in:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/18/elec04.prez.main/index.html
Now don't you feel foolish Jason. I tried and tried to get you to see the writing on the wall and you just kept those blinders on. "

No, I don't feel foolish.  Anyone can find the courage to fight for the easy win; the real test is when you're willing to put your beliefs out there to fight the battles that need fighting even if likely to lose or against popular opinion.

The conservative-controlled media has long-since anointed their chosen candidate, and I fear too many Democrats don't consider the fact that they have put forward the candidate most likely to have a hard time fighting Bush as he parallels Bush in many ways rather than showing a clear alternative.  Too many Dems fear the term liberal, wanting a candidate that is "more conservative" because they think to do otherwise would alienate the right.  Yet the right doesn't worry about alienating the left - they just push their agenda forward.  I've yet to hear a Republican say that Bush is "too conservative"... they don't fear the moniker, so why would that be a problem?  Yet too many liberals have bought into the Rush Limbaugh notion of liberal = bad and that it's something to be somewhat ashamed of.  That to be liberal is to have the public think you're a tree-hugging spend-crazy alternative welfare hippy, despite the fact that it's really more of a gray area than that.  I know Repubs who are environmentalists.  I know Dems who are pro-welfare-reform.  I know wealthy Dems who know how to manage money, and the only President to balance the budget in the past 34 years was President Clinton, a Democrat, while the past few Republican Presidents have put forward deficit after deficit.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

<sarcasm>Wow!  That's a pretty bad thing to be!</sarcasm>

It lists conservative as:

1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

Which also has its merits.  It's by the balance of the two, the fact that we have a two party system with people on both sides of the spectrum, that our country neither spins out of control with reckless abandon nor stagnates in a clutch to the past.

Would I do it again - would I have supported Dean knowing the outcome -  if I could go back in time?  Hell yes.  The only differences would be I would fight even harder and would start doing so earlier.  Hindsight being 20/20, I would not assume that the caucuses would be balanced to accomodate all candidate representative's points of view, but instead would be more vocal about making sure that anyone who wants to make a point can be heard.  I would go in using broader marketing tactics to get more listeners before making my points, and I would play a more active role in the campaign directly.

Some pictures of the Touareg now that it's been washed:

Click to View Larger Version

Click to View Larger Version

Click to View Larger Version

Several years ago I bought an aquarium for my CrossPaths office, and when Lighthouse bought CrossPaths, they had no interest in taking the tank so it has been with me ever since.  A couple years back I stopped buying new fish as I debated about switching from freshwater to saltwater, but opted post-move to keep it fresh.  So today, after completing some aquascaping, I have added some fish back to the tank.

Click to View Larger Photo

I might add a couple more larger rocks yet as I'm probably going to do African Cichlids this time around, but am not yet sure where I'd put them.  Hmm.

A listing for PFHT - Pet Foil Hat Technology on Ebay...

I'm not sure which is weirder...the fact that someone made this up, or the fact that it sold for $12.50!

Pet Foil Hat Technology (PFHT)
is the sorta-patented system that protects you and your pet from the government!

Technical Jargon:

This ultra modern aluminum foil hat will protect your pet from the brain scanning rays of the NSA, certain 'auction' websites, fbi.com, and CIA satellites that are monitoring their little subversive thoughts.  You may not have considered this before, but your lead lined hat is worthless if your pet can give away your secrets to the very people most dangerous to you - your government!

The PFHT contains space age materials, and is guaranteed to work for your pet. All government I/O is cut off.  It's like a firewall for your pet's brain.

Click here to see for yourself...

Click to Load

On Friday morning I picked up my new Volkswagen Touareg at Jordan Motors.  In this snow, going from the rear-wheel-drive BMW to the AWD 4XTraction Touareg is like night and day...or maybe more like sliding vs driving.

It certainly is a gadgetmobile - with the navigation system, moisture sensitive wipers, air quality sensor for recycling vs refreshing air, a sensor to automatically run the compressor when the windows fog up, synchronized powered heated side mirrors, electronic parking assist on the front and back, a second full-color LCD for the driver dashboard, 11 forms of autostability control, etc etc etc.  And with black leather, wood trim and chrome accents, it's even more luxurious than the BMW was.

Take that old man winter!

Picture is not my Touareg...mine is covered in snow-grime already.