Global POV: At the Intersection of Technology and Culture

Bush's Post-presidency Plans

by David Holtzman

President Bush this week, in a rare candid interview with NPR discussed some of his post-presidential plans. Mr. Bush appeared weary as he talked about world travel that he wanted to do that he'd never had time for: "I want to go all over, you know, El Paso, Amarillo, maybe even Galveston."

The greying President showed interest at the suggestion that he could be an owner of another Baseball team. "This time, maybe Manager. Who knows, you know...what about shortstop?"

He laughed. "Actually I was planning on enrolling in the London School of Economics and get my doctorate in a subject that's long interested me, the economic significance of demand-centric markets in newly created democracies." He laughed and asked me to pull his finger.

When asked about the topic that usually consumes most presidents, history, Mr. Bush showed that he was no exception. "I want to be remembered most for my sweet, sweet Iraqi War. And the economy. Oh yeah, how about the new spirit of bipartisan cooperation that I introduced?" We paused while the President laughed hard enough that he began to choke.

The current-but-soon-mercifully-gone President expressed happiness at his greatest accomplishment. "You all never got the dirt on me. My little thingie with the interns. My love child with Condie. Hell, you guys don't even know about my drinkin'" [The President popped open his third beer during the course of the interview]. Hey, you want to snort a coupla lines?"

Vice President Cheney, who had been listening quietly in the room during the interview, declined to answer similar questions as he expressed growing disgust at Bush's answers. When asked directly about his plans after next January, the Veep simply growled, "I thought that I'd f**k your mother, so the next time you kiss her, you get syphilis."

April 1st, right?

Here's a really good one:

Posted on April 01, 2008

Three monkeys for president

by David Holtzman

What is experience when it comes to political leadership? This question is shaping up to be a key one for the 2008 Presidential election. Senator Clinton claims that she is far more experienced than Senator Obama, because she served as First Lady for eight years. Her White House schedule was just made public this week and it's not clear that her background is as straightforward as she claims. Much of what she did was social, other than her botched attempt to reform the Health Care system.

Obama doesn't have that much experience. But he's not really claiming that he has.

McCain has a lot of experience. If that was truly the qualifying criteria, then he'd be the man. He might be genuinely crazy, however and that's a little scary.

So how important is experience in a Presidential campaign? George Bush Jr was woefully unqualified to be President. Other than a stint as governor of Texas (which is like being the head inmate in the asylum that gets control of the tv remote during recreation time), his leadership background was primarily running a baseball team.

Perhaps we'd be better off with a young president who reinvents the office. That's points for Obama. The Clinton people will argue that you need an experienced hand at the helm who knows who to get bills passed and can better control their agenda with Congress. Clinton didn't do that well at that endeavor before, but perhaps she'd be better now with her Senatorial experience under her belt.

Of course, Clinton detractors will say that Hillary has essentially been running on Bill's coattails her entire political career.

So what kind of experience do we want in our next leader? IMHO, things haven't been working so far. I go for someone new and for that reason I like Obama. I really wish one of the three of them had some credibility towards strengthening the economy and I'm afraid that none of them do.

Posted on March 21, 2008

New sex--New York, New Jersey

by David Holtzman

In the last few weeks, we've had to deal with the not-so-shocking revelations that Eliot Spitzer, the crusading governor of New York, spent more last year on prostitutes than I did on college tuition for my kids. Then after Spitzer resigns, the new governor Paterson admits to multiple affairs (after he was sworn in, of course). Plus we have former New Jersey Governor McGreevey's divorce trial in which his chauffeur has now testified that he had a menage-a-trois with the governor and his wife for years.

The big question is has this always been going on and the media just didn't report it or is this a recent trend? Or I guess it could be that computers and electronics being what they are these days, maybe it's just easier to catch someone? Politicians are getting savvy on the idea that anything can be ferreted out, which is maybe why Paterson just admitted it.

Posted on March 19, 2008

Client 9 from Outer Space

by David Holtzman

The news this week is heavily slanted towards the resignation of New York governor Eliot Spitzer, who was caught in a hookergate. Spitzer is an easy target, since his years of billing himself as a self-righteous prosecuting crusader virtually guarantee that when he crashes, he does so in the big, explosive way of the caught-out hypocrite.

Mr. Spitzer was caught dallying with a 22 year old hooker whom he imported from New York to DC to canoodle with him in the Mayfair Hotel, scene of much political canoodling. He was caught because his bank, HSBC, filed a suspicious activity report to the Treasury Department related to wire transfers that the former governor made to shell companies acting as bookers for the hookers. Once the government became interested in the unusual transactions, the FBI used wiretaps and surveillance of "Client 9" (as he was known) including monitoring his electronic transmissions such as text messaging to figure out what Spitzer was "up" to. They quickly discovered the he had been paying the escort service thousands of dollars through wire transfers to fund his ho-habit.

Wouldn't you think that of all people, Eliot Spitzer would have known better about the kind of trail that electronic fund transfers can leave? After a decade of electronically-fueled political scandals, not least of which being the infamous Clinton-Lewinsky embarrassment, he should known not to leave the record.

For future reference, if anyone famous out there is reading this and planning on screwing around:

1. Use a pay-as-you-go cellphone from 7-11
   
2. Transfer money via credit card through reputable companies (or use cash or better yet Paypal)
   
3. Stay at an Embassy Suites or something. The Mayflower is so used to wiretapping , they probably have a special suite devoted to the FBI
   

I wonder if anyone, any more, will be able to get away with anything; given a sufficient level of scrutiny.

Posted on March 14, 2008

Obama

by David Holtzman

After a brief flurry of primary activity, our voting choices are now limited to John McCain as the Republican candidate and Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton as the Democrat. As a Virginian, I am anxiously waiting for tomorrow's primary, especially since Obama and Clinton are neck-and-neck at the moment.

Either Clinton or Obama seem like reasonable choices and hey, at least John McCain is not Bush.

Clinton is now generally viewed as the candidate of experience; Obama is seen as the candidate of change.

I sense that America is on the cusp of change and whoever wins this election might be the catalyst. Do we want a wheeler-dealer like Senator Clinton or an ideologue like Senator Obama? Who can beat McCain and for that matter, do we care?

After a lot of soul searching, I will vote for change. I will vote for Obama.

I would like to see what Obama could do and if he's a bad choice, it's only four years. I am less interested in Senator Obama because of his race, then I am in his enthusiasm and attitude. He could make a difference.

Posted on February 11, 2008

Internet failed to vote in New Hampshire

by David Holtzman

Cnet makes the interesting observation about the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries that they were won by handshakes, not by the Internet.

The absence of something is rarely news the way that anticipated events hit the front page, but it made me stop and think when I read this. I would argue that the Internet has played less of a role so far, then, say 2004.

Many people (including myself) thought that this would be the first election that was completely dominated by the Internet. I was wrong. So far, it's been old-fashioned politicking. Sure, the web was used, but was it significant? Has anyone cared what the bloggers have said this time? Even the high priest of internet politicking, Joe Trippi, seems to have failed in accomplishing what he was supposed to do for the Edwards campaign.

It will interesting to see if tech plays a bigger role in the general election.

Posted on January 10, 2008

"White" house no, "Christian" house maybe?

by David Holtzman

In the day before the New Hampshire primary, Obama and McCain (or Romney) are positioned to win. Only days after the Iowa caucuses, it's still too early to digest the meaning of the Clinton/Huckabee upset. Like everyone else, I've been getting into lots of political discussions about what this all means. Sooner or later the conversation gets around to an independent run by Bloomberg.

Surprisingly enough, the conversation quickly focuses on religion. I've had several people tell me that they think that Americans will vote for a woman, a black man or a Mormon, but not a Jew. I hope that this isn't true, but there has been a lot of cross-climbing by the candidates. Romney hastily reassures evangelicals that Mormons are Christians and Obama seems to make the point that he's a Christian about once per speech.

Several months after the House passed Resolution 847 which recognized the importance of Christianity and Christmas, the 'C' word still seems to come up a lot. Is the country ready for a Jew?

Posted on January 08, 2008

Hillarys got game

by David Holtzman

Hillary Clinton is still upset about mature themes in video games and has renewed her pledge to clamp down on the video game industry if she is elected.

Her initial reaction came about because of the infamous "Hot Coffee" easter egg sequence in Grand Theft Auto III.

She's tried to push a bill through before making it a crime to sell kids adult games. Her Family Entertainment Protection Act which failed two years ago would probably be the template.

Doesn't she have enough to worry about? Voluntary guidelines for labeling content is one thing, making any but the most abhorrent content a crime is another. I mean, has anyone actually watched a movie like Hostel or Saw? Or how about the violent content in TV shows. Hayden what's-her-name was autopsied alive in one episode of Heroes last year, for chrissakes.

Personally, I think that war is obscene.

Posted on December 24, 2007

Crossing the American public

by David Holtzman

The Bush administration was unusual for its anti-intellectualism and its deep seated hypocrisy and arrogance, wrapped up neatly in an evangelical package. Whenever things got tough, President Bush would invoke God in some way or if not the deity himself, his opinions ("These people are evil"). He's not the only politician to drape a religious toga around his shoulders and have a self-righteousness party, but he is the first President to openly identify himself with evangelicals and to invoke religion in any but the most cynically abbreviated way. I am not talking about privately held religious belief, which is to Bushism like the difference between marital sex and an orgy.

I had thought that like the baby in the bathwater, this religious crassness would drain away when the plug was finally pulled on the Bush administration, but alas it is not to be.

Religion has figured way too prominently already in the presidential campaigning where many of the candidates (at least the Republicans), instead of repudiating Bushism, are running around the Midwest, reassuring the lay deacons that they embrace it.

Huckabee is trying to persuade everyone that he speaks for all Baptists and s a ghostly cross appears in some of his television ads. McCain has been ducking the issue personally, but identifies with the values of evangelical voters. Mitt Romney is trying to convince everyone that Mormonism is just as hard-core evangelical as the loudest of the Baptists while downplaying the weirdness that lingers around the fringe of the Mormon Church. Giuliani is trying to fast talk his way out of his support for abortion rights and Fred Thompson is trying to calmly backdoor bullshit his way into the White House by hoping voters will confuse his southern accent with his religious beliefs. Ron Paul has some crazy opinions about giant ordained badgers baptizing the IRS or something equally odd.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards, who Lord knows has more of a reason to pray than his colleagues (his wife has cancer), is a Methodist but refuses to discuss much beyond that. Hillary Clinton is also has a Methodist but has been vocal about bringing religion out in the open in American public life. Obama is trying to convince everyone that he is not a closet Muslim.

Where is the candidate who will say "Religious beliefs are every American's right to hold. We are here to elect the leaders of a secular government, which no matter what their personal beliefs, will not now or ever factor into my or anyone who works for me's decision making."

The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Thomas Jefferson described it as " building a wall of separation between church and state". I am willing to donate a brick if anyone knows a good builder.

Posted on December 20, 2007

The Bizarro President learns how to Reid

by David Holtzman

The New York Times has a story today talking about the deep animosity, almost hatred between Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader and President Bush.

Mr. Reid seems to feel that the President is less than competent, not so bright and fundamentally dishonest. Mr. Bush has not publicly expressed negative feelings about Mr. Reid, "He so not so bad person", said the President, "I him like we be buddies, like Georgie and Condie. Go skinny-dipping in White House pool."

Mr. Reid has apparently harbored ill feelings about the President's decision five years ago to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain 100 miles north of Las Vegas, in Mr. Reid's home state of Nevada. In defense, the President said "Glowey bomb stuff fun, but Dick say is bad for George, bad to play with, slap Georgies hands and send green poo-poo away to bad men Democrat gambling town, before it hurt Georgie, me get oldtimers disease like Uncle Ronnie, make Georgie's meat stick fall off."

Mr. Reid has continually dueled with the President in the media, most recently over the President's expanded use of his veto powers. Mr. Bush explained away the conflict as politics as usual. "Me no have Harry Ass for Senate Menagerie Leader Reid. "

Posted on December 19, 2007

Lying, liars and damn liars

by David Holtzman

In a not-so-surprising revelation yesterday, a declassified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran was released that concluded that Iran is not, in fact, building a nuclear weapon, and had probably stopped any such program four years ago.

Even more interesting is the fact that President Bush knew about this two months before he made a speech a couple of months ago warning that a nuclear armed Iran was a menace to the world and could start another World War.

He lied.

If he lied about this, doesn't that lend some credence to the idea that he lied about invading Iraq?

By "lied", I mean that he announced something as a fact when he had good reason to believe otherwise. Many people suggest that George Bush does this, not because he's a liar, but because he's stupid. I respectfully submit that he could be both.

There are times when a trusted leader needs to hold things back when talking to the public...for national security reasons, for instance, or to preserve the lives of military, intelligence professionals or others that are doing their jobs. But holding things back is a very different proposition than deliberately changing the facts to get the public to support what you want them to support. I realize that other Presidents have done this too (the Gulf of Tonkin, for example), but this administration must have trademarked the technique.

What America needs most of all in our next President is a sense of decency and honesty. I want someone in power that at least feels guilty when he/she lies.

Posted on December 04, 2007

Board of Congress

by David Holtzman

Waterboarding sounds like an innocent sport that you might take up in Cancun one vacation week. It is not. It is the practice of strapping a subject to a board, covering their head with a hood and slowly pouring water onto their head, into their mouth, up their nose and soon into their lungs. People who have experienced waterboarding compare it to drowning.

Malcolm Nance, a Navy terrorism specialist told Congress yesterday that it was clearly and unequivocally torture. Mr. Nance had experienced it himself as part of SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape) training.

He also felt that it was an ineffective interrogation technique because the questionee will say anything to make it stop. Several Republican members of Congress took exception to this and claimed that it had elicited good information from terrorist suspects already.

I am ashamed that the United States of America has gotten to the place where this kind of hairsplitting goes on. It makes a mockery of those who attacked Bill Clinton for his "it wasn't really sex" position. As a Democratic country we should be edging well away from the precipice of torture rather than lightly walking along the very brink.

I propose (and I mean this) that any Congressperson wishing to support the continued use of waterboarding volunteer to undergo 60 seconds of it under controlled conditions, such as the aviators' SERE school.

Posted on November 13, 2007

Banged in Iowa

by David Holtzman

I have long predicted that this presidential election would be typified by internet dirty tricks. It has already started, albeit with a whimper so far; the bang presumably coming in Iowa.

Wired has a couple of interesting articles this week. One analyzes the recent curious spate of emails coming from the Ron Paul campaign that apparently initiate from Korean spambots. This junk mail, replete with random string headers to circumvent spam filters, have actually accomplished their job, increasing media awareness of Paul, who did not have a ghost of a chance a few months ago.

There have also been several fake political websites springing up, purporting to be for a candidate, but actually lambasting him/her.

The interesting thing about these deceptive sites and to some extent, the email, is who is affected by this. The theory is that the dumb ol' electorate is getting swayed by these deceptions.

I'm afraid that the truth is that it is the media are the ones mostly affected by this trickery. In their ever-increasing attempt to scoop the other channels, conventional news outlets have taken to scouring the Internet for real-time stuff and they sadly do not do a lot of fact-checking. We, the electorate, do not have the time or the inclination to scour the Internet looking for a new political website and maybe we don't care so much anyway. It's the media's reporting that becomes newsworthy--they are the targets for this manipulation.

Wait until we get close to the primaries. I predict a three-ring circus with crazy websites, some satirical, some nasty, some pornographic. It's so easy to copy the pictures and other stuff from the official website and therefore easy and quick to create a fake one.

Posted on November 06, 2007

Dumb and Dumberer--FEMA strikes again

by David Holtzman

FEMA has proven that its previously disastrous track record repairing New Orleans after Katrina was no accident. They have now added Wag-the-Dog deceptiveness to their grab bag of multiple shades of incompetence. To "aid in getting information out" about the Southern California wildfires FEMA scheduled a short notice (15 minutes) emergency press conference in which Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson, FEMA's Deputy Director was interviewed by reporters. Sounds responsive?

Unfortunately the press conference was staged. All of the questions (which were softball anyway) came from FEMA staff pretending to be reporters. The genuine reporters were given an 800 number to call in and listen.

It reminds me of Orson Wells's infamous War of the Worlds broadcast.

It's nice to know that FEMA employees know enough about technology to fake a conference call, but the whole process appears to be lacking any sense of ethical grounding, reaching a new low of perfidy, even for the Bush administration, hitherto noted for taking 1st prize in the morality limbo Olympics.

The White House chastised the FEMA employees and the chief of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, also verbally scolded them.

I probably would have sent them to jail or at least lined up the ringleaders including the Admiral of all Vices Johnson who clearly should have known better and had them conduct a real press conference in which the idiots could publicly take the blame and apologize to the public.

Responsible confession is more soothing to the soul than faceless accusations followed by minimal or no meaningful punitive action.

Posted on October 28, 2007

Slimy patriotism

by David Holtzman

Good for Obama. Coming on the heels of some obviously disheartening polling results that he is getting the crap kicked out of him by Hillary, Barack has said one of the most honest things that I've ever seen a politician quoted as saying--he has not worn an American flag pin since 9/11 because:

"Somebody noticed I wasn't wearing a flag lapel pin and I told folks, well you know what? I haven't probably worn that pin in a very long time. I wore it right after 9/11/ But after a while, you start noticing people wearing a lapel pin, but not acting very patriotic. Not voting to provide veterans with resources that they need. Not voting to make sure that disability payments were coming out on time."

I am a big, big fan of this sentiment. Since 9/11, the leechtoads have crawled out of the woodwork in this country, croaking patriotic sentiments as they initiate and defend unpatriotic actions such as torture and espionage against our own citizens. An enameled bit of worn metal does not remove these sins any more than a deathbed confession and last rites will send a murderer or lawyer to heaven.

Posted on October 05, 2007

Bill Clinton prepares for his new role

by David Holtzman

A new Washington Post/ABC poll shows that in a hypothetical match-up, Senator Clinton would beat Giuliani in a general election by an 8 point margin. The same poll also showed that Americans view President Clinton as an asset to his wife's campaign. That's not too surprising--people like Bill Clinton. Especially now in comparison to who's been running the country for the last 7 years.

It's too early for these numbers to mean much. Lots of things haven't happened yet. There haven't be any major debates, no primaries, no real scandals or campaign flame-outs. Plus the mighty media machine hasn't really ground down any candidates for kicks yet.

But it is interesting to see Obama's campaign die off a bit and watch Senator Edwards, who has worked so hard to become President, slip back into the legal ooze that he reached out from.

For the first time today, I have seriously thought about what it means to have Hillary Rodham Clinton as President and to have Slick Willie as First Spouse. It's not a bad future, but it would certainly be different than Georgie is today.

I think that it would mean:

1. We'd stay in Iraq. Any president is stuck with that legacy now.
   
2. There'd probably be another attempt to fix the national health care system
   
3. The gossip tabloids would absolutely go nuts. The blessed silence that was the roar of Bill Clinton's sex life would manifest again. As well as the old speculations about Hillary's.
   

Posted on October 04, 2007

Craig's Senate career is not flushed yet

by David Holtzman

Senator Larry Craig will be going to the Senate this session after all. The disgraced Utahan has recanted from his previous commitment to resign by the end of September and now says that he will attend Congress until his name is cleared.

For those with retrograde amnesia, Senator Craig was caught by an undercover police officer last month soliciting sex from under a bathroom stall in a Minnesota airport. The good Senator pleaded guilty, but is now claiming that he didn't understand that "guilty" mean he did it.

He is an embarrassment for the party of embarrassments.

Posted on September 28, 2007

License to character assassinate

by David Holtzman

I have often wrote about how easy it would be to attack a political candidate more or less anonymously over the Internet. I predicted that it would be an issue in 2004 and I was wrong. I feel more comfortable about renewing that thought for 2008. Perhaps I'm just an early adopter.

It's already happening. Former Senator and character actor extraordinaire Fred Thompson has been contending with a vicious web site called PhonyFred.com that attacks Thompson for many things including calling him: Fancy Fred, Five o’Clock Fred, Flip-Flop Fred, McCain Fred, Moron Fred and Playboy Fred. "Playboy" Fred?

The site is being attributed to Romney because the creator of the site is a Vice President at the strategic firm advising Romney's run.

So these guys are pretty dumb, right? It's pretty easy to hide the trail--certainly easier than that. Obfuscate the domain name contact info, choose a generic corporate name when opening up the ISP account and better yet, host it outside the US. It works just as quickly if the server is in the Caymans as if it's in New York.

If we don't soon see lots of these trash n' flash sites, I'll be surprised. It's so easy to do, only what might still pass as integrity should stop any candidate from trying it. Hell, call me. I'll consult.

Posted on September 12, 2007

Larry Craig, not that there's anything wrong with that

by David Holtzman

Larry Craig. Most of us didn't even know who he was last month. For the record, he's a Republican Senator from Idaho who votes fairly conservatively on most issues, supporting the Patriot Act and is against gay marriages. Most recently he has been in the news because he was caught "cruising" (also called "cottaging") a men's room at the Minneapolis, St. Paul airport. According to the police officer's report:

At 1216 hours, Craig tapped his right foot. I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct. Craig tapped his toes several times and moves his foot closer to my foot.... The presence of others did not seem to deter Craig as he moved his right foot so that it touched the side of my left foot which was within my stall area. Craig then proceeded to swipe his hand under the stall divider several times

Craig pled guilty. After the story broke, the Republican leadership broke with him, most calling for his resignation. The Senator announced his intention to resign by the end of the month, but is apparently now equivocating a bit.

I don't like hypocrites and the list of holier-than-thou Congressmen who say one thing in front of the camera and do another in private marches on. Not just sex of course, but as Michael Moore so famously pointed out in Fahrenheit, almost none of the biggest war mongers on the Hill have sent their own kids to Iraq.

So I bet I wouldn't like Craig for his hypocrisy, but hey, that's not what he's getting beat up about. He's being beat up for being GAY. Yeah, cruising stalls in a public place is illegal (I think it is?), but that's not why Craig is being abandoned...it's because it looks like he plays for the other ball team. Craig is being lumped into the same gravy as wannabe pedophile Mark Foley (another Republican Congressman, this one from the state of lunacy--Florida.) Craig did not betray the trust of young people, he was looking for some action. So why is what he did (being gay) occupying the same niche as child stalkers like Foley? Could it be...American homophobia?

Nah.

Posted on September 05, 2007

Speedy no more

by David Holtzman

Attorney General "Speedy" Gonzalez has resigned. Following the departure of Karl Rove, that means sayonara to two of President Bush's death commandos. Of course, that still leaves the Prince of Darkness himself, "Dick" Cheney.

Bush is beleaguered, besieged and as always bewildered. He is truly the lamest of the ducks. Without Gonzalez, Congressional scrutiny must of necessity, be transferred to the Dickmeister. It will be interesting to see who Congress goes after next. Scooter Libby took the first spear and the other Lieutenants have resigned. I expect to see the laser-like light of Congressional glares aiming at the Veep.

Posted on August 28, 2007

Cowards queue for candidacy

by David Holtzman

I was disturbed by reading a Washington Post article this morning about the military background of the major presidential candidates--there is none. Except for John McCain, not a single leading candidate for President has served in the military. The Post charitably gives George Bush credit for his frat boy flying days in the National Guard--I do not.

As a veteran, I am appalled. I don't think that military service is an absolute litmus test for political office, but come on, none of them? War mongerers like Fred Thompson and Romney have not served and as the Post also points out, none of Romney's 5 sons have deigned to be in the military either. Although Romney disengeniously suggests that their helping him run for office is equivalent.

Really.

I'll give Hillary Clinton a pass on this because there weren't many women in the military when she could have gotten involved, but the hell with the rest of them.

As the Iraqi war rages on, it becomes clearer that war is something that you send someone else's kids to. The problem here is gradual rise of the professional politician class in America where public service means being the head piglet sucking at society's teat. What happened to giving back to society?

Posted on August 24, 2007

Pimps 'n chimps

by David Holtzman

It's official--Bush's brain has resigned; allowing it to float above the quicksand into which the rest of the body politic is rapidly sinking. Karl Rove, George Bush's longterm friend, Svengali, political confidante and Rasputin has decided to throw in the extra-large K-Mart beach towel and beat a hasty retreat out of office after being told that if he did not leave by Labor Day, he would be expected to stay until the end of the President's term.

It's unfortunate that Bush will not be impeached; misery loves company and I would pay good coin of the realm to see Rove up there with the rest of the good ol' white boys who run this country clutching each other in the dock, tears drizzling down their blubbery cheeks as they testify in their best Sergeant Schultz voice, "I saw nothing, I did nothing!"

But alas it is not to be. Karl Rove will slip off quietly into that good night. The man who successfully derailed John McCain's 2000 presidential bid by spreading surreptitious slander about McCain's adopted children ("Pssst! John McCain has BLACK babies") has gotten away with it. The crafter of the hand-me-down Executive Privilege strategy keeping the soft moist little Bushies away from the dessication of a Congressional grilling will not, I'm sorry to say, ever have those self-same fires turned on him.

The mad monk of the GOP, Rove has always enjoyed a special status in the Bush White House, being as that he has had an unfair advantage because of his opposing thumbs. Rove is Bush's friend. He is Dubya's advisor. Although Condie Rice tells Georgie when to pee, it is Rove that tells George where.

For his brains and ingenuity, his scheming and strategy, Karl Rove, this Bud's for you. I hope that the next monkey in the white house has a dumber master turning the crank while he grins and grinds his organ.

Posted on August 13, 2007

A hell of her own--Pelosi has a nemesis

by David Holtzman

It seems like a long shot...Nancy Pelosi's short reign as She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed is being challenged by peace activist Cindy Sheehan. Ms. Sheehan gave Ms. Pelosi until the end of July to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush or Sheehan would challenge her for her seat. Ms. Pelosi has not done so.

The odds against Ms. Sheehan winning (as an independent no less) are roughly the same as of me winning the Kentucky Derby this year--as a horse. But, part of me wants to see her win. Not because I know enough about Sheehan to want her in office, but because I am sick and tired of the Democratic Congressional leaders, including most especially Nancy Pelosi.

These "career politicians" whined for years about how Bush was getting away with this or that. War in Iraq, blah, blah, Anthrax, blah, surveillance of Americans, blah, blah. Yet now that they've had a chance to do something about it, the well-dressed narcissistic little mommies' boys and girls are demurring. Too fastidious to fight and too self-serving to care, they have had their opportunity to reach up out of the fiery pit that's their personal hell and grab for the firmament of ethics that could save them, but no matter how loud that salvation knocks, they are deaf. The Democratic Congress are cowards. Their rubber stamp approval of Bush's warrantless wiretapping authorization this week damns them for what they are.

I do not demand or even expect an impeachment, but I am tired of politically motivated complaisance after six years of power tactics by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and Rove so naked and on display that Gypsy Rose Lee would have blushed.

Perhaps they need a wakeup call. If Cindy Sheehan were to be elected, that might be an elbow in the sleeper's ribs. I'm afraid that what they really need is to be gone, gone, gone. We need to elect real leaders and show these puffing egomaniacs the door, or at least trap them in a room full of mirrors, where they would be unable to leave, constantly preening and posturing to their own graying reflection.

Posted on August 10, 2007

Gonzalez is passed the torch of dishonesty

by David Holtzman

Alberto Gonzalez is a liar. Or so says FBI Director, Robert S. Mueller. In sworn testimony before Congress, Mueller contradicted Gonzalez's sworn avowal last week that his bizarre hospital visit to former Attorney General John Ashcroft was not about approving the probably illegal NSA warrantless wiretap program called TSP (Terrorist Surveillance Program) secretly authorized by President Bush four years ago. The Justice Department had concluded that the program was not legal and Ashcroft's acting deputy, James Comey, had supported that view. Gonzalez had apparently visited Ashcroft to get him to reverse his Deputy. Ashcroft was under sedation, but to his credit, refused to do so. Comey had threatened to resign as a protest for the continuation of the illegal surveillance program.

In addition to that lie, Gonzalez has repeatedly muddied the waters on the politics behind the firing of several US Attorneys last year.

Gonzo journalism can be compelling and thrilling. Gonzo politics is embarrassing to this country.

Attorney General Alberto "Judge" Gonzalez, has lied under oath and if he continues to resist resigning the post that he currently holds, will be doing this country a grave disservice. "Judge" Gonzalez may hold the technical qualifications for this job but he lacks the moral credentials. Like much of Bush's senior staff, Gonzalez is morally adrift, clinging to the shady notion that the President's desires trump Congress, the courts and most importantly, the American people. Several prominent newspapers and op-ed columnists have lambasted Gonzalez for his lack of integrity.

He is a disgrace to the United States.

Posted on July 27, 2007

What's slimier than a politican?

by David Holtzman

In the reptilian pecking order of less-than-ethical professions, none is so slimy as a politician. I always knew this, of course, but I get constant reaffirmation of that daily. Consider, for instance, a new bipartisan bill that passed Congress yesterday banning payment for spouses for campaign work. My first thought at reading this, was "My God, they do this?" Yes they do. A study by the watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, shows that over one hundred Chairmen and ranking minority members of House Committees inappropriately used their positions to benefit their families, including direct payment for campaign work.

Come on, they pay their wives for this? Why don't constituents boot them out when they find out about it? Jaded as I thought I was, this surprised me.

When will the USA dump our professional politician class and replace them with people that have lives outside politics and who do not see an elected position the same way that little boys see magic beans or cows in fairy tales?

Posted on July 24, 2007

Video thrilled the political star

by David Holtzman

It's started. Not just the 2008 Presidential race, but the inevitable Internet involvement. And by "involvement", I don't just mean a couple of blogs, I'm talking about full-scale mass media. Take for example, the summer rave song, "Obama Girl". It features a very attractive young lady named Amber Lee Ettinger gyrating and "singing" (actually sung by Leah Kauffman) about her crush on Barack Obama while wearing tight shorty-shorts. This bit has become so popular, it's been feature on CNN and mentioned in the Economist. The website is so full of itself from the song's popularity that they sell "Obama Girl" merchandise and even have 'deleted scenes' from the YouTube video, if you can believe that.

There's a followup that was just posted today called Obama v. Giuliani,
in which Ms. Kaufman and equally attractive backup singers get into a singing match with some Rudy supporters. The video features delightful lines like: "stop your fussin, at least Obama didn't marry his cousin" and "I still want Rudy Giuli-on-me".

I highly recommend watching it.

Of course it started last election with the Jib-Jab people who had some hilarious bush-kerry stuff.

I think that you have to view the role of the Internet in this election as analogous, maybe even parallel to that of big media. Even though there is a plethora of dreck on the Internet, there is good stuff and it does rise to the top rather quickly. And the survival formula for material on the Internet is the same as that on broadcast television--being entertaining. I think that we're in for an interesting, if slightly bumpy ride in 2008 and what's left of 2007.

I wonder if web sites should be forced to give equal time to the other candidates....

Posted on July 16, 2007

Bush screws Miers

by David Holtzman

President Bush is moving closer towards a legal confrontation with Congress this week over his directive to two former aides (including former Counsel Harriet Miers) to refuse to testify on the Hill regarding internal White House deliberations over the apparently politically-motivated firings of several US attorneys. His instructions to his aides put them in a difficult position because they risk being cited for contempt and their legal shielding by citing Executive Privilege is thin and lacks adequate case law. Harriet Mier's Supreme Court nomination last year was the only abortion that President Bush has ever publicly supported. She is also ugly.

I would like to see this showdown occur, because I believe that the Bush/Cheney White House invisibility cloak is a bad one for this country. We need a check and balance on each of the branches, The White House should be monitored by Congress, just as Congress's best-laid plans and politicos are often tied up by DC escort services.

Posted on July 10, 2007

Cheney suppresses justice

by David Holtzman

by Suzanne

The White House, the Vice President and the Justice Department have until July 18th to comply with the Senate Judiciary Committee's request for information about warrantless surveillance. This is the tenth time the Committee has requested information about the National Security Agency's (NSA) illegal wiretapping from the Bush Administration. The first nine times the Committee did not use it's subpoena power. The tenth time might be the charm and in honor of it the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) created Subpoena Watch. It features a subpoena check list with the suspects, their actions (or lack thereof), and status of subpoena issuances and document delivery. They spearheaded the case against the NSA (ACLU v. NSA). Meanwhile, they have asked public utility companies in 24 states to investigate the phone companies and protect the privacy of millions of Americans.

Posted on July 02, 2007

Spooks, mooks and crooks--Nixon's CIA

by David Holtzman

This is absolutely incredible. The long-rumored allegations about CIA skul-duggery during the turbulent '60s and '70s have more or less been confirmed yesterday by the release of the hithero classified collection of Agency paperwork known as "The Family Jewels."

Most of this stuff had been revealed to Congress and generally known, if not confirmed by the public, but still...Some of the highlights include:

1. The CIA did try and get the Mafia to kill Castro, offering two underworld Dons $150,000 to feed the Cuban leader a poison pill
   
2. The CIA did test LSD and other hallucinogens on innocent and unsuspecting civilians, including at least one government scientist who subsequently killed himself.
   
3. Richard Helms, the head of CIA during the Nixon era received a letter from one of the Watergate conspirators, James McCord, an ex-CIA employee, describing the break-in. Helms suppressed the document, even though Congress was in the middle of an investigation
   

That these documents existed surprised no one. Seeing them is nothing short of confirmation for the paranoid. All of these allegations were considered to reside exclusively in the province of nuttyville and were believed by tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists who perpetually walked funny because of too many alien probes.

So I wonder, which of the many conspiracy stories that live today in Crazytown will turn out to be true 30 years from now? My bet is on Cheney and his slippery oil industry pals lubing up Iraq for some American lovin'.

Posted on June 27, 2007

Bloomberg country

by David Holtzman

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has switched political parties again. Seven years ago he switched from being a Democrat to a Republican to successfully run for Mayor of New York. Now, he has become an Independent, presumably to run for President in 2008 as a 3rd party candidate.

Can he win?

Probably not. No 3rd party candidate in modern times has gained any political traction. In 1992, similarly rich, although much kookier businessman-candidate Ross Perot spent $65million of his own money and did not get a single electoral vote (for those who do not understand what an electoral vote is--don't ask.)

On the other hand the country is ready for a big, big change. George Bush is an abomination on the political scene--an anti-intellectual, evangelical, narrow-minded, cronyist imperialist. This election will have voters fleeing his shadow like rabbits hiding from a hawk, but where do they hide? John Kerry was one of the worst Democrat candidates in my lifetime and Al Gore ran a stupid campaign 6 years ago, regardless of his current image cleanup. So who then? Hillary Clinton is a known quantity and that may save her, but known doesn't always mean loved. Obama is an exciting candidate but if something turns up tarnishing his image, he's done for. Presumably there are numerous political operatives out there trying to do exactly that.

So why not Bloomberg? He's a pro-choice, pro gay marriage fiscal conservative who's wealthy enough to tell special interest lobbyists to go jump into the Hudson. I'd consider voting for him myself.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/19/oj-did-it-leaked-online/

Posted on June 20, 2007

What does a candidate think?

by David Holtzman

I have had a remarkably low level of interest in the upcoming Presidential election. I've realized that I was more against the Bushies than for anyone else. It's not because I'm apathetic, but because the candidates are blurring. After all, they're all politicians, aren't they? That term carries a lot of baggage these days. It means "amoral", "cynical", "opportunistic" and sometimes "corrupt". Ever since the '60s, we've been inundated with one demoralizing story after another about politicians invading our privacy, taking bag money from lobbyists and invading sovereign countries for personal reasons.

I used to like to watch debates, figuring that's a great way to take the measure of a candidate, but the last two presidential debates were consummately boring. They ducked all of the tough answers and responded with gobble-gobble poli-speak instead of plain english. And I think that I know why. Each candidate is surrounded by so many hangers-on and staff that their output is no longer the result of an individual, but that of a group and committees rarely take strong positions. What would Hillary or Rudy say if they were completely and utterly by them self?

So I had an idea for something that might work. Put each candidate into a room with a computer for a few hours and have them answer random questions. No filtering up front, no nonverbals from handlers in the room--just the candidate and the Internet. That would be a more interesting test of what they really think, because after a while, they'd probably just open up a bit and say what they really think.

Isn't is sad that we can have a two year election road show and not really know what the candidates are like as people and what they really think?

Posted on June 15, 2007

Booshy!

by David Holtzman

President Bush is finally getting the star treatment that he thinks that he deserves. In pro-American Albania, the President was royally feted yesterday with thousands of people coming to see him in downtown TIrana, getting to mob him after a stirring introduction by Prime Minister Sali Berisha.

Albanians also support the Iraq war. NY Times quotes a local Albanian, Ilir Lamce, "U.S.A. have the right and responsibility for all the world to protect the freedom."

The Times says that Bush was also mobbed in the town of Fusche Kruje where the crowd chanted "BOOSH-Y! BOOSH-Y!".

Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up. And people thought that Borat was fiction. It's too bad that President Bush is real.

Posted on June 11, 2007

Why politicians ignore tech

by David Holtzman

CNET makes a good point today--The candidates for US President are being surprisingly quiet on tech issues like Net Neutrality and privacy.

I was CTO for Senator Bayh's AllAmericaPac and fledgling campaign last year and ran into similar lack of political concern. Legislatively, the staffers are all over issues like Net Neutrality, but the political flacks were surprisingly disinterested (the campaign manager aside).

I was not really sure why then and I'm not really sure now. I can offer some possibilities, however.

1. Tech issues don't resonate with the masses
   
2. Supporting things like privacy piss off big companies, hurting contributions
   
3. Politicos and their staffers don't understand tech issues
   

Posted on April 27, 2007

Karl Rove--Fantasy man

by David Holtzman

I am a hopeless romantic. I believe in true love, the purity of little children and the sancity of the family...oh yeah, and that government workers should be ethical.

Call me crazy, but I think that like Caeser's wife, those who want power in the public sector should be straighter than the rest of us. Just like I think that cops should drive the speed limit (are you laughing at me yet?) So, you can imagine that it comes as a shock to me to find out that the Bush White House has been using private 3rd party email addresses to transact official government business in complete violation of the 1978 Presidential Records Act.

The White House has begrudgingly admitted (when forced to by Rep Waxman who asked for official records), that they used email accounts routed through the Republican National Committee (RNC) to do things like, say, talk to convicted felon Jack Abramoff or more recently, to have discussions about firing the 8 disloyal US attorneys.

If a corporate executive from a company under investigation, an Enron say, did something like that, they'd go to jail. Not so the White House.

Oh and the kicker is that they've lost much of the email.

I may be the first person in history to say this but I have lost my virginity to Karl Rove (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Posted on April 12, 2007

The Internet is political evil

by David Holtzman

It's alive!

The evil on the Internet has arisen and walks the Earth. Political skulduggery has embraced the Internet. Finally.

This is the election in which the Internet-for-politics will come into its own. But not by creating informational websites and not even by raising money online. What I am really waiting for is the dirty tricks squads to come out in force.

First shot goes to Barack Obama whos online strategy firm BlueWaterDigital took a mean shot at Hillary with a 1984-invoking YouTube video showing a scary Senator Clinton. Well, the company didn't do it...one of its employees did it without the knowledge or approval of management or by Senator Obama's campaign. Wait, what's that? Sorry, the easter bunny wants to tell me something.

Here's the video:

I expect so many more of these...in my book, Privacy Lost, I have a section describing what I call a Digital Watergate and this is a good example. It's just too easy to slur and slander on the Internet. I don't know how they caught this guy, Philip de Vellis, but I suspect that he wanted the credit badly enough to out himself. Don't expect the real professionals to go down this easily.

I will follow this kind of stuff closely. Expect fake websites, fake mailings and slur campaigns on the 'Net starting, say, a day or two before a major primary.

Let the games begin!

Posted on March 22, 2007

Some thoughts on Republicans...

by David Holtzman

I've said this before, but it would seem to be a good tactical move for Vice President Cheney to resign in the next six months, clearing the way for a non-Giuliani heir apparent. A unified Republican party might have a chance that a fragmented one would not.

It would be a shame if all of John McCain's sacrifices, his reworking of his sense of right and wrong, did not reward him with the presidency. But it may not...Rudy seems like the guy to beat. The hero of 9/11. Watch for weirdness coming from Rudy. Rumors abound about his personal life and strange opinions--plus his sort of liberalish tendenceis--it's hard to believe that a pro-choice Republican could get elected, for instance.

A Brownback win would be truly shocking. Romney maybe. If the religous issue gets quelled early enough and Rudy and McCain take each other out. Maybe.

Posted on March 20, 2007

Machilary

by David Holtzman

I believe that Senator Obama may very well become the next President of the United States. I believe that because I also believe that Americans are tired of being in Iraq and as the New York Times rightly points out today, Obama has been against the war from the beginning and is the only candidate who could actually win, who can make that claim.

We Americans are tired of hearing the word Iraq, even more than we were tired of hearing about Vietnam 35 years ago. There are very few supporters of Bush's policies because there are no good reasons to be in this war. The presence of WMDs in Iraq were a lie (and I suspect a viciously premeditated one), there is no "domino theory" strategy that's workable in the midEast, we have not brought the Iraqi people peace, we have destabilized the region, we have had over 3,000 American soldiers killed, God knows how many wounded and I would imagine, 50 times that number of Iraqis. Killing Sadam Hussein did nothing for world or Iraqi peace.

Senator Obama has clean hands. Senator Clinton does not. And that makes all of the difference. Hilary Clinton has been asked repeatedly at rallies to apologize for her war vote and she refuses to do so. Senator Edwards and Senator Dodd cleverly do express regrets, but Hilary does not--she is unrepentant and unlike Lady Macbeth, she is not air-cleaning her bloodstained hands in public. Every American politician who supported the war is tainted with that decision and their political prospects must live or die as a consequence.

And we Americans do not like this war. We feel that it's pointless; and other than those Americans who knee-jerkingly support every action done by the President, we believe that it is wasteful of lives and resources and that our presence in that situation does not further the goals of our country.

Senator Obama is aligned with that position and as much as she pirouttes around the pivot point of truth, Senator Clinton is not.

She cannot win.

Posted on February 26, 2007

I'm so bored with the election

by David Holtzman

The First primary is a little under a year away and I'm snoozing already.

Why am I bored? So far, the jockeying and media focus seems to be on character or at least people's perception of same. I want to scream about issues...the war in Iraq...the troop presence in Afghanistan...the possible nuclear arming of Iran...the strange deal made with Korea last week...Fixing things for the victims of Katrina...Building better levies on the Gulf Coast...normalizing relations with Canada and the European Union...inventing a dollar coin that people will use...stopping Nintendo from killing anyone else with their deadly WII controllers...finding out why astronauts are turning into psycho killers(could it be cosmic rays?)...helping Gandalf drag a flaming Ann Coulter off a bridge...dropping a bomb on the grammies so we can take a musical mulligan and start over...rolling Paris Hilton into a ball so that she disappears into her own genitals...feeding Nicole Ritchie some beer nuts with her margaritas so she at least gains some weight...DNA testing everyone in America to see who fathered Ana Nicole Smith's child...

Inquiring minds and troubled souls. How about debating some real issues to occupy us this year?

Posted on February 21, 2007

What I want from 2008

by David Holtzman

As the election gunshot sounds, the candidates are out of the starting gate even before the smell of smoke dissipated, no wait, that's Joe Biden getting burned. We hear a lot of talk about money and a lot of smuggery about Iraq, but as could have been predicted, no serious issues yet.

One issue that I'd like to see someone take up is privacy. Medical privacy, DNA privacy, rollback of the Patriot Act. Senator Clinton addressed this in a presentation once, but hasn't mentioned it much since.

My biggest fear going into this election is that it's going to be the same old thing warmed over. I'm actually looking to hearing from nuts like Brownback, because at least he's entertaining and different.

Viva la difference.

I've been predicting that this election would be the pivotal one, most memorable for it's use of the Internet. I also have a section in my book, Privacy Lost, where I talk about a "Digital Watergate", where the Net is used to confuse, scare, intimidate and disgust the voters. I will be watching for things that fit that category.

Posted on February 12, 2007

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to

by David Holtzman

What does it mean to be a Democrat or a Republican? I'm not sure that I understand anymore and now that the 2008 election is beginning in earnest, I'm a little confused.

I am and was anti-Bush because I see him as some sort of atavistic throwback who sees American statemanship as being a global panty raid where you get to wear flight suits. Call it neocon or whatever, but the evangelically fueled grim old white boy approach to diplomacy has always left me cold.

I also hated what's happened to personal privacy and basic Constitutional rights because of Ashcroft, Bush and (ugh) Cheney--the three stooges of the Apocalypse.

But in the course of promoting my new book Privacy Lost, I have discovered an amazing thing--privacy is not a right or left wing issue. It's both and neither at the same time. I used to think that it was left wing, but all too often privacy runs into the First Amendment. Then I thought that it was right wing, but it runs into neocon security problems.

Thinking about this has brought me to the realization that our party system is out of alignment with the voters. The old days where Democrats supported Unions and civil rights and Republicans supported big business and later evangelicals is over. Several of the Republican candidates are pro-choice, for instance.

The war in Iraq is a blip. Sure, it's a disastrous one, but still Iraq itself is not the issue, it's really about what will America's new foreign policy be in the new millenia? What's the new Monroe Doctrine?

The misalignment of the parties magnifies the ambiguous and distorted external image that's currently hurting the U.S. It's like having your Id (Republicans) and Ego (Democrats) perpetually fighting with one another. Where do you go from there?

Issues like privacy, national security, mid-east foreign policy, international intellectual property issues, space exploration and internet governance are all much more important than distasteful noise like the Terry Schiavo case.

These are not Democrat issues. These are not Republican issues. Perhaps it is time to realign our parties with our priorities.

Posted on February 07, 2007

DNC Winter Meeting (guest post)

by David Holtzman

(this was from Jim Carr, who attended the DNC meeting. I thought his observations were interesting enough to post here).

DNC WINTER MEETING
Jim Carr
2 February 2007

My wife and I took a day off work to attend the DNC Winter Meeting at the Washington Hilton. We arrived just after 8:00AM to get into the "guests" line. Just like the party, anyone can get in. We had to put up with a long line to get in and a general neglect for punctuality. The GOP would have had web pre-registration, reserved seating, valet parking, and free coffee. I couldn't get my first cup until after lunch and I had a headache all day.

Still feeling fatigued from the 2004 elections cycle, the 2006 midterms were a tonic - especially Jim Webb's victory in VA. I will always remember cutting and pasting the VA State Board of Elections county-by-county results into my spreadsheet to project ahead the vote when 100% of the precincts would be reporting. I projected a Webb victory long before the media caught on to this possibility. Although all I did was donate money, I feel personally responsible for Jim Webb's election. So, you can thank me for the Democratic takeover of the Congress too. The nice thing about a close election:
everyone who helped, even in the least significant way, can take credit. Watch Webb, he hit a homerun with his rebuttal to the State of the Union address. Now it's time to focus on Campaign '08, which begins for me with the DNC Winter Meeting. This is the same forum where Howard Dean kicked off his campaign by famously telling us that he is from "the democratic wing of the Democratic Party." I give you my impressions of the DNC Winter Meeting below.

After much milling about and general disorderliness, Governor Dean calls the meeting to order (late!). We begin with the presentation of the colors by a D.C. high school ROTC color guard. We Democrats aren't quite sure what the proper etiquette is for such a martial ritual. Most of us figure out that standing is necessary and no talking, but do we cover our hearts or just stand respectfully? The pledge of allegiance follows. Thankfully, I know the words from robotically repeating it daily up until high school
when the kids more or less just started ignoring this daily homeroom ritual. We might not do the rituals of patriotism better than the other party, but we sure do the rituals of inclusiveness better than anybody. Our invocation is given by a female rabbi sporting a yarmulke (Reform, one supposes) and our benediction is given by an imam. Each prays for divine intercession on a number of policy fronts. Apparently, contrary to what we have been told, G-d is a progressive.

We are not quite ready for our first speaker Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is still in transit, so Dean has to stall. He is not a bad M.C. Senator Reid arrives and begins his speech. We learn that America is a great place, because only in America could a kid such as Harry Reid, whose mother had to take in the laundry of the prostitutes of Searchlight, Nevada, go to college, become a lawyer, and get elected to the U.S. Senate. We also learn that it is a great thing that the Nevada caucuses will been held earlier in the
nominating calendar because Nevada is such a diverse place - just like the rest of America. To be fair, I have never been to Nevada, but my mental picture of the state is that it is really not at all like the rest of America. Fortunately, Reid is not running for president.

Dodd

Our first speaker is Senator Dodd. Because he is the first candidate to address us, I have not yet caught on to the fact that all of the candidates are going to completely and totally ignore the announced rules: 30 seconds of introductory music, seven minutes speaking, and no more than 100 hand signs to he held aloft by the candidate's rapturous supporters. As Dodd drones on - he is still getting warmed up after ten minutes - I begin to get annoyed. Who does this guy think he is? Doesn't he have any respect for the rules? Why does he think that he has the right to speak for 20 minutes? But, once he gets
started, the speech is really pretty good. He hits hard on the theme that America's moral authority has been diminished by extraordinary renditions, Guantanamo, and Abu Ghraib. It's personal for him; he tells us that his father was a prosecutor at the Nuremburg war crimes trials.

Let's give this guy some respect. At least, he's got a stride on Joe Biden coming out of the starting gate.
Memorable line: "We won't take fear for an answer anymore."

Obama

This is the guy that I really came to see and most of the audience seems to feel the same way. What is this buzz all about? Kennedyesque is the word to describe Senator Obama. He speaks to us with a measured
cadence, tells us that America is in a sober mood, asks us to stop settling for the world as it is and start imagining the world as it could be. A man in the audience yells: "Barak, we love you." Obama responds "I love you back."

Is America ready to elect its first African-American president? Maybe. Race doesn't seem to factor in the general perception of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, but they never stood for election and occupy positions where they do not have to speak to "black" issues. Up to now, African-American Democratic contenders - Jackson and Sharpton - have crafted their speech to energize their base - African-Americans - just as Bush crafts his speech to energize evangelicals. You can't win an election with only your base; you need to have some appeal in other groups. What Joe Biden probably wished he had said is that Obama has cross-over appeal.

Obama might be just what America needs. Race is still a central fact, if not the central fact, of American life. Obama can speak to matters of race in a way that no white politician can. However, Obama is African and American, not African-American. His father was a willing immigrant from Kenya. His patrimony does not include slavery, lynching, or Jim Crow.
Memorable metaphor: "politcs as a blood sport."
If not 2008, maybe 2012?

Clark

Wes was my man in the last cycle, no regrets there. He is back again with his "National Security" brand testing the waters for 2008. Unfortunately, there was an interlude between Obama's speech and Clark's during which the co-chairs of the Rules Committee read their dreary report. People naturally made their way to the lobby to debate whether or not Obama is JFK in milk chocolate.

General Clark had a moment to seize in the last election cycle. He, alone among the Democratic hopefuls, could lay claim to the national-security brand during a dark period of our history when almost everyone was simply frightened. Instead of contrasting himself with the other hopefuls, General Clark spent a lot time explaining that he really was a Democrat, just like the others. Time will tell if the national-security brand has appeal in 2008. The danger is that the serious contenders have heard this and are talking
like him now.

Edwards

John Edwards had the hall well packed with his "One Corps". They were young, enthusiastic, and well scrubbed, just like the candidate. Most of them looked like students from UNC.

Edwards picks up where he left off, in his best plaintiff's attorney manner, he tells us one hard-luck story after another and then asks if we will "standup" to this or that evil Republican sort of thing.

There is a strain of populism in John Edwards that makes me uncomfortable.

Kucinich

Whoa, what year is it? Is it 1967 or 2007?

The stories he told of traveling through war-torn Lebanon were heart wrenching, except after awhile the telling starting sounding a bit theatrical.

Key question: Who will be the first Secretary of Peace and Nonviolence in the Kucinich Administration?

Fun moment: Audience member's response to what's wrong with America: "capitalism."

Hillary

I am totally prepared not to like Hillary Clinton. For one thing, I do not care for dynastic succession. It's given us George III and George W. But, she is really good. In fact, I think I like her.

Like Obama, Senator Clinton would be another first if elected. Temperamentally, the two are at opposite poles. Obama is about vision and hope; Clinton is about policy and practicality. We are hemorrhaging cash and real blood thanks to the borrow-and-spend Republicans, so at the moment, I am in more of a policy and practicality mood.

Senator Clinton spoke mostly of the middle class. I think she gets it.

There were a few awkward moments during her speech when a group of people dressed head-to-toe in red stood up in the back and started to heckle her over her support of the nonbinding war resolution in the senate. She dealt with it well, raising her voice, and firmly continuing her speech. Her message was that in a body requiring 60 votes to shut down debate, one must sometimes settle for what can pass, not necessarily what one wants. Her closing line of the war issue was that if the war couldn't be ended while she is in the Senate, it would be ended when she is president.

Two things I hate about her campaign: "I'm in to win" bumper sticker. What? Aren't you the front runner? And her telling us that she wants to have a "conversation" with America. Sounds like Oprah.

Memorable factoid: There were more bankruptcies declared last year than people graduating college. This brought gasps of disbelief from the audience. But it's true, I fact checked it.

There was some Exxon-Mobil bashing in more than one of the speeches, as they had announced billions and billions of dollars in quarterly profits the day before. It seems that the words "Exxon-Mobil" conjured up images of oil slicks, greenhouse gases, and greed in most of the minds in the room. But every time I heard "Exxon-Mobil," I thought of my retirement account.

Tomorrow, the remaining hopefuls will address the DNC Winter Meeting. I won't be there. I would have liked to have seen Governor Richardson. Governor Vilsack will speak too. I won't hear him, but I did have some of the popcorn (Iowa, corn, get it?) that his people were passing out in the lobby.

The DNC Winter Meeting sure was fun. I don't know who to support yet. Obama is interesting, Hillary's numbers went way up in my poll, and Wes Clark is still a fine man. I did like that movie about global warming, so drafting Al Gore sounds good too.

Posted on February 05, 2007

Does Hallmark make a Father's Day card for this?

by David Holtzman

Vice President "Dick" Cheney was on with Wolf Blitzer the other night, selling the same old brand of snake oil. In a sharp contrast to President Bush's new Rodney King "Can't we all just get along" tone, Cheney was unrepentant, arrogant and being as obstinate as ever. It's hard to describe him as anything but as an "angry old white guy."

I find it interesting that Cheney gets angry whenever someone mentions his daughter Mary. Mary Cheney is a lesbian and is currently pregnant, presumably through the means of artificial insemination. The Veep refuses to discuss the issue, in this case telling Wolf that he was "out of line." Why is that out of line? The administration's political base is made up off conservatives who are probably offended at Ms. Cheney's lifestyle. For any other politician I would find this subject out of bounds, also. But not for these guys who have crossed the Potomac river, walking on the backs of evangelicals. I think that bad boy Cheney needs to 'fess up with his religous minions. I hope that if he ever does so, he will truly defend his daughter and her lifestyle choices instead of ducking the issue.

Posted on January 25, 2007

No more beating around the Bush

by David Holtzman

President Bush gave his first beleagured State of the Union message last night to a reasonably hostile, Democratic majority Congress. He was unrepentant and aggressive. He is heading for conflict with the Dems who are only too well aware that this last election was a wakeup call from the voters to the politicos to get serious about winding down the war in Iraq.

Expect Bush to deal with the following things over the next six months:
- House resolutions blunting his 22,000 troop increase
- Investigations into what his administration knew prior to the invasion
- Revelations of high-level Cheney Chicanery from the Scooter Libby trial

I can't wait.

Posted on January 24, 2007

Pelosi Speaks

by David Holtzman

Nancy Pelosi is planning a 4 day celebration honoring herself for becoming Speaker of the House. In addition to church-going and old neighborhood walking, she's even having a benefit concert featuring jimmy Buffett.

No one elected Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. The electorate voted for a change to the Republican policies and most especially George Bush. I don't think most people thought about what they were getting in return.

After the high profile fighting with Jane Harman and Stenny Hoyer, Pelosi is off to a bad start with this self-serving behavior. I understand the justification--using the occasion as a very public image twister and establishment of her own leadership, but still---there's got to be a better image that the Dems want than this narcissism.

Posted on December 22, 2006

Politics 'n privacy

by David Holtzman

The '08 race presidential race has officially started and the Democrats are off and running. Governor Vilsack has announced that he's a candidate, Senator Bayh is forming an exploratory committee, Senator Clinton is scaring the bejeezus out of everyone, Senator Edwards never really stopped running, Senator Kerry is twice as ineffectively campaigning as he did last time, former Vice-President Gore is looking down through the ozone lawyer from his lofty throne and Senator Obama has joined OJ Simpon as being the second powerful African-American to say "maybe" this month.

This is shaping up to be the most confusing election in US history as the juxtaposition of advancements in electronic media are converging with a wide-open White House and a general public distaste of a Republican running it.

Issues will be flying fast and furious over the next year. While we're at it, I plan on tracking the progress of the privacy issue. So far, Obama has good street cred with the bill he introduced protecting taxpayers from being privacy snogged by their preparers. Senator Clinton has put out a position paper on privacy listing a "bill of rights" which is a good step. Senator Bayh was kind enough to author the Forward to my book, Privacy Lost (available on Amazon and a great stocking stuffer).

Let's keep an eye on them, shall we, as the race begins.

Posted on December 05, 2006

The lapdog of luxury

by David Holtzman

At last we know what luxury truly is. As a way of getting Kim Jong, the North Korean strongman, to behave better, the US and allied countries are denying him his creature comforts by banning export of luxurious items to the nutcase country. Each ally is reserving the right to define such for itself.

So here's a partial list of verbotten bootie:

1. Segways
   
2. Televisions bigger than 29"
   
3. iPods
   
4. cognac (The Post claims that Kim Jong Il spends $800,000 a year on the stuff)
   
5. caviar
   

Perhaps we should go the other way around and only export antiluxury things that will wear him down, like we drove Noriega out of his headquarters by playing Guns and Roses "Welcome to the Jungle."

I suggest:

1. Celine Dion records
   
2. Easy Mac
   
3. A beta copy of Microsoft's new operating system Vista
   

Posted on November 30, 2006

One man, one vote

by David Holtzman

Whew, the United States is waking up from a long, national nightmare. The Democrats have the House, the majority of the governors' seats and a very good chance at getting the Senate. I hope that they have the wisdom to steer the country onto a reasonable course, holding tight until we can get a President in 2008 who has the vision to lead the country into the future.

As we wait for the bitter recount in Virginia, I am grateful that I changed my travel plans this week. I needed to be out of state and didn't have enough time to arrange for an absentee ballot, putting me in a position where I would have been unable to vote yesterday. At first it didn't bother me. I had not voted before. But as I thought more about what had been happening to the country since Bush had gotten in and remembered the close loss of Al Gore in Florida, I changed my mind. I disappointed an old friend that I hadn't seen in a while and stayed in town one one more day, leaving at 6:30 in the morning, just so I could cast my ballot for Jim Webb.

We're now in a position where control of the Senate could come down to a single seat--Virginia, where Webb is winning by a scant few thousand votes. My vote could make a significant difference.

Posted on November 08, 2006

Robomania

by David Holtzman

The election is today. A good harbinger of technological things to come in the political world is the use of so-called robo-calling. Both parties are wildly dialing households in contested areas over and over in an attempt to influence today's election. The Republicans appear to be worse, often making it seem like it's a Democrat annoying the citizen by witholding the identification of the candidate until the end of the call.

Why can they do this in violation of the do-not-call registry? Because they exempted themselves (political fundraisers) from the restrictions.

Bastards.

Posted on November 07, 2006

Leadership from '06 to '08

by David Holtzman

Tomorrow is the big day for the Democrats. It's hard to believe that they won't get at least the House of Representatives with an outside chance of getting the Senate. The issue is not who runs the country, but what's the direction? The Republicans have legitimately criticized the Dems for running against Bush rather than having their own plan and there's something to be said for that argument.

The economy is in pretty good shape, but no one seems to have noticed. The Patriot Act is the law of the land and is the tip of an iceberg of troublesome legislation floating out there. We're still in Iraq and more US soldiers are dying and being maimed there every day. There doesn't seem to be a reasonable exit strategy. Iran is a problem as now is Korea.

If the Dems win, what will they do? I fear that they will be given enough rope to hang themselves. The two years between the elections is not enough to effect change (especially without a good vision), but long enough to be blamed for doing no better than their Republican forebears. We could end up with a Bush heir to the throne in '08, because of a Dem sweep tomorrow, followed by ineffective poltical management.

Posted on November 06, 2006

Rush on a Fox Hunt

by David Holtzman

Yesterday Rush Limbaugh accused Michael J. Fox of faking Parkinson's symptoms during political endorsement television ads in order to drum up sympathy for his pro-stem cell research candidates.

Fox has an advanced case of Parkinsons and has been actively supporting stem cell research. When confronted with evidence that Fox was not faking, Limbaugh said:

"Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act.

Aren't we done with attack politics yet? No matter who wins the election next month, I hope that a new day of civility will dawn in America where we don't make fun of ill people. When the leaders of our government lie about a reason to go to war, shelter a possible pedophile in the name of politics and spy on our reading material, our moral compass is spinning out of control.

Posted on October 25, 2006

Kill Hill, then Bill?

by David Holtzman

It's interesting to speculate who might be the next President of the United States. It's even more interesting when you think about who might be Vice-President. The Washington Post has a neat blurb musing about a Hllary-Bill ticket with Bill as Veep. There's a lot of back-and-forth about whether that's even Constitutional. The problem lies in language that says that the Veep needs to be as eligible to be President as the President himself. Since the 22nd Amendment bars anyone from being elected to the Presidency more than twice, that would seem to prohibit a Hll-Bill ticket. Ah, but the key word is elected. Since he wouldn't be elected as President, perhaps he could be elected as VP and then inherit the office.

Bill Clinton and Al Gore's stars have risen substantially during the dark years of the Bushies. Gore, who was essentially disgraced within the party because he lost to George W. Gump and Clinton because of his predilection for women who smoke cigars.

How about Al Gore?

(btw, the picture at the top is Bill & Hillary at Yale in the 70s)

Posted on October 20, 2006

Viagra for El Jefe

by David Holtzman

Five years ago, in a saner, safer United States, President Bush introduced the concept of the "Axis of Evil." The Axis was the club for evil countries, sort of a bizarro Justice League. Their members were: North Korea, Iran and Iraq. Now the President is embroiled in a situation with all three Axis countries. Iran is quickly building a nuclear program, N. Korea has detonated an atomic weapon and Iraq is poised on the brink of civil war.

Mr. Bush has failed to deal with his own fantasy problem--the Axis stands. Rather than removing any of these threats, he has incited them, threatening two of the countries and invading the third, but not being able to finish the job; the job being a peaceful situation with the likelihood of conflict reduced. No, he has not done that.

Additionally, Mr. Bush has succeeded in infuriating an entire religion and one of the largest ones, at that. His own NIE last month was quite clear on the point that the War on Iraq has created a new generation of terrorists, who will grow up hating the US for the Iraqi occupation.

So, where goes the Axis of Evil now? Will we invade Korea or bomb them to get them to stop, assuming that economic sanctions fail? After all, we've used that tactic on Cuba for, let's see...43 years? What about Iran? How do we stop them from continuing their enrichment program? Will Iraq calm down and become the 51st American state and a red one at that, now that the "Mission" is "Accomplished"

A logistical point--America couldn't fight another war right now unless it was critical. We have bled our Reservists and National Guardsmen for several years, recruitment into the active military is at an all-time low and we're mostly out of ammunition and missiles. Additionally, we as a people, do not have the will to flght. We no longer believe Mr. Bush, Mr. Rumsfield, Mr. Cheney and the other old white men who have lied to us since 9/11.

The Axis of Evil is looming as one of the biggest problems facing the new President in 2008. North Korea's bomb test has changed the political debate.

But the real truth here is that Mr. Bush has spectacularly failed as President . After a lifetime of being the 2nd string son in a political dynasty, approaching life by getting by; he has finally excelled at something. He is the worst President in my lifetime, worse than RIchard Nixon.

He is the most politically impotent man in history.

Posted on October 10, 2006

Hastert the pimp

by David Holtzman

An interesting lesson about the efficacy of intelligence collection can be found in the sordid, soap-opera drama of Rep Mark Foley, a Republican Representative from of all places, the nation's political freak zoo--Florida. Foley as you may remember, is the apparent stalker, possibly would-be pedophile who sent mashing and explicit notes to a Congressional Page, asking for, among other things, a picture of the young man. Foley resigned when some of the emails became public. The lesson here is that knowing something is not as important as doing something about it.

The FBI has now decided to examine Foley's emails.

In the case of Foley, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was notified of Foley's contacts with pages as early as a year ago and did nothing but warn Foley to "leave the pages alone." Hastert's defense is that they hadn't seen the raunchier emails yet.

The hypocrisy of these guys never ceases to amaze me. When you look at some of their bizarre "principle" stands like trying to upend the Constitution to keep poor, brain-dead Terry Schiavo alive and yet leaving a Humbert Humbert wannabe in Congress and get this, also serving as co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus; it's mind-boggling.

So the lesson here is that increasing intelligence collection is not sufficient in of itself. Protection of our shores and apparently our children is not guaranteed by having prior knowledge of attacks or scouring email looking for intent--it requires the will to act and the absence of overarching political concerns. Information is useless unless it is actionable.

Posted on October 02, 2006

New detainee legislation passes

by David Holtzman

Congress yesterday passed the new bill on Detaining Terrorists. It's often hard to read through all the revisions and descriptions of compromises, so I thought that it would be useful to synopsize the major points:

Beating around the Bush

by David Holtzman

I don't know what the President is smoking, but I want some. Yesterday he released part of the latest NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) on the spread of terrorism since we invaded Iraq. He did this because he was angry that some people drew the wrong conclusions from 2nd hand reports of the document's contents and he thought that by providing the source material he could prove his point. Well, the document titled "Declassified Key Judgments of the National
Intelligence Estimate "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States" dated April 2006, is pretty clear.

You can read the document here.

The intelligence analysts who prepared the report predicted a spreading "global, jihadist movement" and concluded that it would be uncontainable by the West. Oh, yeah, and it apparently has nothing to do with Al Quaddeh, but was quite clear that it has spread because of our invasion of Iraq, which has become the cause celebre of a whole new generation of terrorists who hate the U.S.

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush gave a speech in Europe where he said that America was going on a "Crusade." Well, he has his crusade now. God help all the people who will die from terrorism attacks and the innocent Muslims who will have their homes destroyed and lives forfeited as we futilely try to stop the spread of miitant Islam. All because of the arrogance of a group of old white men and a befuddled child of privilege whose only claim to fame prior to starting this war was running a half-assed baseball team.

Posted on September 27, 2006

Et tu, Iran?

by David Holtzman

They're back. The Bush administration is again at odds with reputable agencies over whether another country is engaged in a buildup for mass warfare. Officials of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency hotly contested parts of a recently released White House report on Iran's nuclear capabilities.

The international agency did the same thing in 2002, saying that Bush's claims of a WMD buildup in Iraq were false. Hmm.

US intelligence agencies published material also disagrees with the White House report, in principle agreeing with the IAEA.

No matter, in the world of perception, he who stands on the biggest soapbox yells the loudest and if all fails, can spit on the crowd. There is no soapbox bigger than the one at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Posted on September 14, 2006

5th anniversary of 9/11

by David Holtzman

On the 5th anniversary of 9/11, I stopped to reflect on changes to what it means to live in the United States since the attacks. It's easiest to see all of the travel changes, especially after having just gotten off an airplane, but the the twin dogs of war and terrorism don't affect most of us on a daily basis. I live in the Washington, D.C. area, which, outside of New York, was most affected by the terrorist attacks 5 years ago and sure, we see the differences, mostly as you get close to the White House. Camouflaged missile launchers near the Pentagon, snipers on roofs, closed streets and that sort of thing. The fashion statement of the decade for DC buildings is the ubiquitious bollard, the solid concrete flower pot strategically positioned to stop suicide car bombers.

One clear difference that's rarely touted is our casual use of the Internet. Remember that in 2001, there was no Myspace, YouTube or Facebook and most people didn't use IM, certainly not many adults. There were effectively no blogs. 9/11 was the first day many people actually used the SMS capabilities of their cell phone, since the normal phone system was suspect.

Still five years ago, we were all glued to the television set. If and when there is a future terrorist attack, it will be very different. Television news is not the only place to go for up-to-the-minute news anymore--the Internet has come into its own and will be the primary source of communication from now until the foreseeable future. If there were another attack, there would be dozens of blogs posting realtime pictures and frantically updating the text. We saw some of that with Katrina.

We are now responsible for our own news. We're no longer just the readers, but the cameramen, the reporters, the editors. In the future, we will all be the media and will have no one to blame for biases and lousy reporting but ourselves.

Posted on September 12, 2006

Monkey politics

by David Holtzman

Slashdot points to a blurb advertising an evolution story in this month's issue of Science. The text of the teaser is as follows:

SCIENCE COMMUNICATION: Public Acceptance of Evolution Jon D. Miller,1* Eugenie C. Scott,2 Shinji Okamoto3

The acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Japan or Europe, largely because of widespread fundamentalism and the politicization of science in the United States.

Unfortunately I believe this. One of the particularly evil things foisted upon America by the ill-fated Newt Gingrich orchestrated takeover of the government was the influence of religous fundamentalists in American laws, policy and worse---conceptual ideas.

I'm all for everyone having a vote, even though who are mentally unstable (schizophrenics only get one, though), but having the power to turn fact into conjecture is scary, maybe even Orwellian scary.

Evolution is a fact. There are lots of places to dig out the scientific and logical arguments supporting Darwinism. For an excellent overview, look at the Wikipedia entry. Only in America is this now a national debate. In fact, the argument is about something even more fundamental--those who believe in Creationism have--if you dig deep enough--flawed views of science itself. I have never met someone who believes in logic and the scientific process who also believes in "creationism."

Like other symptoms of the Bush/Rove/Newt/Frist taint, they rename undigestable things in an effort to make them more palatable. "Ism" at the end of "creat" implies some scientific basis for the belief (notice that I didn't say "theory").

How will America adjust to new global business practices and stay competitive in a modern world if we reject science or at least the foundational structure behind it?

Posted on August 16, 2006

Joementum--joemama

by David Holtzman

Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary yesterday. As a third-term incumbent Senatorial candidate and the 2000 vice-presidential choice of the Democratic party, his downfall this week was big and loud. Lieberman is running as an independent in the general elections and polls show that he might win, but even so, the message is clear--the voters, at least the Democrats and at least in Connecticut, may have finally had enough with weak and pandering politicians that have supported George Bush publicly in a war that most of them privately deride.

That last comment may not have been fair to Lieberman. He has been consistent in his wrongheadedness for several years. He has supported Bush in his militant endeavors from a sense of personal conviction. Joe Lieberman is a man of principles, even though I for one, happen to believe that he is wrong.

This is in sharp contrast to the other Democrats in Congress who have simpered and wimped their way through the Iraqi political minefield for the last four years. Their inability to do their job is frustrating and worse, detrimental to our country. Let's tip our hat to Joe Lieberman, who at least has a backbone.

Note: I hope that everyone noticed that Lieberman's website was trashed the night before the primary. Openhanded wideeyed hackers everywhere deny involvement. Stay tuned because there will be many more instances of this. 2008 will be the beginning of cyberpolitics.

Posted on August 09, 2006

Congress with Congress

by David Holtzman

The Washington Post offers an analysis today of yesterday's Supreme Court ruling dealing the Bush Administration a severe setback in their (now) illegal use of special tribunals to try the Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

The Post feels that Bush's philosophy has been stabbed in the heart (et tu, Justice Breyer?) by the ruling which cuts to the core of the White House's contention that the President's extraordinary wartime powers allow him to brush aside the Geneva Convention and essentially do whatever he wants.

I'm not a legal scholar and have no opinion on that part, but I'm glad of this ruling, because it shoves the responsiblity on this mess where it belonged in the first place--Congress. The Court ruling hinted that Bush might want to go to Congress for another bite at the apple, either that or try the suspects in either a normal civilian court or a military court martial. The White House is loathe to do either, because then the suspects will have some rights of due process, which right now they do not, presumably because Bush, like Santa Claus, can make a list, knowing who's naughty or nice, without any external proof.

Congress has been cowardly since the beginning of the "war". Elected officials and staffers both, are plenty smart enough to see through some of the post-WMD chaff that the media has been eating up. Yet, they haven't called the President on it. Why? Because legislators do not, as a rule, like to take sides on issues without clear charters on what will be most acceptable to their constituents, or rather what is least likely to annoy them.

If Bush brings this to Congress, and I hope that he does, let it be on their heads. Put Congress on the record, so blame can fall where it belongs, on Bush and his lesser demons, on Senators and Representatives and if someone can figure out how to hold the media accountable for being ineffective, even better.

Posted on June 30, 2006

Putting the ace in disgraceful

by David Holtzman

President Bush denounced the newspaper leaks of his covert financial surveillance program as "disgraceful." I can't really beat the Post's characterization of his comments:

"What we did was fully authorized under the law," Bush said in an angry tone as he leaned forward in his chair and wagged his finger. "And the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America, and for people to leak that program, and for a newspaper to publish it, does great harm to the United States of America."

He wagged his finger. Imagine. He's scolding the entire United States of America for being...disgraceful. He is sitting in moral judgement on us (or maybe just on newspapermen). Is that we elected him for? (well, I didn't elect him)

To recap the situation, two rich white men, both of whom used power and influence to duck military service have sent our country to war based on false pretenses, which so far has resulted in the deaths of 2500 American youth, crippled many times that and killed untold tens of thousands of Iraqis. These two have damaged a century of hard fought privacy laws in the United States. They have elevated cronyism to an Olympic event. They have been caught lying...repeatedly.

So why are newspapers so disgraceful for doing their job? They're supposed to be a check and balance on the government, there's even an amendment about that.

I said this in another blog post, I think that the tracking of bank records is a reasonable thing for the U.S. to do. However, I don't buy this moral high ground from a couple of draft-dodging yahoos. If we trusted the White House, this wouldn't be an issue. I do not trust these creepy old oil millionaire; everything that they say and do should be checked by the media and questioned by the Press. I would not trust them with my tax dollars, I would not trust them with the future of my country, I would not leave them alone in a room with my penny jar.

Posted on June 27, 2006

Kids n' Klergy

by David Holtzman

The furor over Myspace is the window dressing around a very real problem, "how do you protect the kids in cyberspace?" As a father of five, I'm naturally concerned, although my kids are grown. Something must be pretty bad for kids out there on the 'Net, right? Not a week goes by without some politician trying to save the kiddies from something.

The implication, I guess, is that there's something inherently dangerous about the Internet. Look at today's whipping horse, Myspace, for instance. They've just changed their policies making it harder for adults to talk to teenagers according to the New York Times. They've done this under threat of Congressional action targeting them because they make it easier for kids to talk to creepy adults.

There are certainly cases where children "hook up" with adults on the Internet and something bad happens to them in the real world. But this happens at shopping malls, schools and most certainly at churches, so what's the difference?

Speaking of the church, here's a question: have more kids been molested by priests or by internet stalkers? For an interesting discussion of just how many children have been hurt by the clergy, see here.

I can't prove this at the moment, but just for a second, if I'm right if I guess that the answer to the preceding question is "clergy", then shouldn't we apply the same sort of internet regulatory craziness to contact with the priesthood? Clearly a kid has a higher statistical chance of being attacked by a man (or woman) of the cloth than they do by any one person out of the half billion Internet users.

Unless of course, the Internet user happened to be a priest:)

Write your congressman. Protect the kids by restricting their time in church.

Posted on June 22, 2006

The 'Y' in America

by David Holtzman

Why should America do as well in the coming Information Age as it did in the Industrial Age?

In the Industrial Era, the countries who rose to the top were the ones who were the most, well...industrial. Winning countries had either a deep supply of natural resources, a transportation system and the innovation to create new businesses (America) or innovation, a navy and imperialism (England and Japan). The resource requirements were big--lots of rivers, coal, iron ore. The transportation needs were met either by exhaustive inland waterways or by a well-protected blue-water navy. Innovation was more or less a byproduct of capitalism.

How about the Information Age? Don't need resources. Don't need rivers (fiber optic cable is plentiful and a lot cheaper than digging canals). Innovation is where it's going to be at.

Any country can become a superpower in the Information Age, regardless of what their terrain looks like, what they import and export or even whether or not they have an effective military. It requires knowledge and most importantly cleverness in marketing and innovation in applied technology.

A handful of tech people and some Thai food is equivalent to an Industrial Age factory.
A software pirate can do as much damage to commerce as the 19th century nautical ones.
It's virtually impossible to use the military to create a trading monopoly a la England.

Innovation is the discriminator. Any country can encourage innovation.

But I wonder, can America be the best? We have several trends that is making us a less than favorite place to innovate. An insanely one-sided intellectual property system biased against the entrepreneur. An ever more intrusive government. An institutionalized lack of privacy. A propensity towards regulating the darndest things ranging from broadcast television to video games. And now comes whatever the reverse of Net Neutrality is. It's like allowing 18th century barons to put toll bridges up on every US river.

If we want to be an Information Age superpower, we have to value the single resource that will keep us at the international power pinnacle--information. Treat information with respect, cherish those who by training or skill can nourish it and above all, stop the bastards who want to monopolize it.

Posted on June 14, 2006

Staying abreast of television

by David Holtzman

The House passed a bill today called BDEA (Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act) which increases the maximum fine that the FCC can levy against a broadcast network tenfold to $325,000. The Senate passed it last month and President Bush will no doubt promptly sign it.

The issue has been raised because of a couple of high-profile issues, most notably Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction at last year's Super Bowl.

I can empathize with the issue--kids watching TV shouldn't be exposed to others being exposed, especially during family programming. I worry though about the segmentation that this will cause between Broadcast, and Cable/Satellite programming. If you extrapolate this, it would seem to lead to a strange bipartite world with candy-coated tv on the major networks and anything goes elsewhere. I can't argue that there's a social evil here, but it does seem odd and vaguely unstable.

For what it's worth, even adults don't always like adult programming. IMHO, Howard Stern was much funnier when he had to talk around subjects. Hearing him on Sirius was a let-down. The endless barrage of explicit dirty words was depressing. Is it possible, just a wild thought here, but could it be that the oft-forgotten Free Market might kick in and self-regulate without governmental interference?

Posted on June 08, 2006

COPA and DOPA on the ROPA

by David Holtzman

Representative Mike Fitzpatrick, a Republican from Pennsylvania is introducing a bill called DOPA or Delete Online Predators Act. This legislation will make it illegal for children to access social websites like MySpace from public Internet terminals like schools and libraries.

FIrst off, I was born in Pennsylvania and would like to apologize to all fo the loony-toonyness that seems to orginate from that state. Secondly, note to Republicans--you are not losing ground because you're not crazy ENOUGH.

Remember COPA? The Clinton administration pushed a law called COPA (the Childs Online Protection Act) forcing librarans to put filters on library computers to block "objectionable" material. The Supreme Court struck it down. They said it was illegal.

What's the point of all of these heavyhanded attempts to stop people from doing what they want to do anyway? MySpace is hugely popular among kids, who put a lot of personal data up there. Okay, bad idea. It makes them a target. So why aren't the parents teaching their kids not to do this? Why do the nutcases always want the government to get involved and take over when their parenting skills fall short?

Most of all, what happened to the Republican party that believed in a balanced budget and a less intrusive government?

Posted on May 11, 2006

Bring me the head of Osama bin Laden

by David Holtzman

It seems appropriate to bring up the surprisingly seldom mentioned point that the Bush Administration has not yet captured the head of Al Quaddeh.

We have been in Iraq now for almost three years and there's rumblings around town that we might invade another four-letter region starting with 'I'. What's next? Presumably Iowa.

It's easy to list what's wrong with this White House. From the economy to the culture of opacity, the partisanship of legislation, even the collusion with energy executives. But let's not forget the one truly militant action that I and I suspect other Americans have been waiting for for FIVE years.

It is unconscionable that in a world that as John Kennedy prophetically said:

If anyone is crazy enough to want to kill a president of the United States, he can do it. All he must be prepared to do is give his life for the president's.

Shame on you Mr Bush. You've taken your eye off the ball and let go of the one thing that might have truly given you decent press throughout history--revenging our country.

Posted on May 08, 2006

Cooking with gas

by David Holtzman

P.T. Barnum once said that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." I'd like to think of a good counterexample of that (Al Gore maybe?), but it's difficult. What always gets me is which issues resonate with the American voting public.

Take the Bush administration (please). They've ping-ponged from one self-made crisis to the next. They made up a WMD story and invaded Iraq, still haven't found the man who caused 9/11, left tens of thousands of Americans exposed in New Orleans after Katrina, haven't provided our troops with body armor in Iraq, raised the U.S. deficit to an all-time high, destroyed any pretense of bipartisan legislation in Congress, annoyed Canada, annoyed the European Union, spied on Americans illegally and failed to control rising gas prices.

Guess which issue is going to screw the Republicans in November?

Yep. They annoyed Canada.

I was just kidding, eh? Rising gas prices are going to be Bush's Monica Lewinsky, bringing his administration to its knees. How stupid can these guys be? Letting the price of oil go up right before the summer guarantees trashing America's favorite pastime--driving all over the country in big, gaz-guzzling cars. Boy are we ever going to be torqued off come the Fall!

It's a shame that people don't get worked up over the NSA spying incident. It's tragic that our young men and women are dying in Iraq for no particularly good reason. It's a crime that Bin Laden is still free and alive.

We get the politicians that we pay for. As long as we as a people stay detached from our leaders' policies and the state of our national reputation, if we continue to be uninformed and treat the politically passionate as cranks then we'll have to be hit over the head to know that something is wrong. If it takes the prices at the pump to polarize the indignation and righteous anger of Americans, than so be it.

Posted on April 28, 2006

Contemptible you

by David Holtzman

Attorney General Alberto "Speedy" Gonzales testified on the Hill yesterday and "slipped" the idea that he (and by extension the rest of the Bush White House) felt that they had the inherent legal authority tap domestic phonecalls without a warrant.

The Daily Kos feels that this is tantamount to admitting that such a program actually exists.

I agree. Many representatives are annoyed that Gonzalez refuses to divulge information on what NSA is actually doing. I guess that I'm confused--don't witnesses have to testify before Congress? Does the Executive Branch have the right to refuse to discuss things as they've been doing for the last few years? Doesn't that constitute contempt?

I recently saw recordings of Mafia gangsters testifying before the Kefauver commission 50 years ago and we've all seen the unpleasant video aftertaste of the McCarthy hearings. Why doesn't Congress start using its powers to get some answers to critical questions? What exactly are these people afraid of, I wonder.

When I think of this, I flash back on Vice President Cheney, Richard to his friends, Dick to his enemies, telling Senator Leahy to "fuck himself" from the witness stand in the Senate.

I'm tired of their arrogance and I'm appalled that they're listening to domestic phone calls. When oh when will this horrible nightmare be over?

Oh yeah, 2008. I urge anyone reading this to remember this when they see Bush supporters on the ballot in November. But for God's sake, don't talk about it on the telelphone!

Posted on April 07, 2006

Bent over blogs

by David Holtzman

The FEC yesterday exempted almost all political activity on the Internet from regulation except paid ads. This decision makes blogs a significant political force in the 2008 general election.

It's cute that the FEC thought that they could regulate it anyway. They can certainly do what they want to candidates or even politicians in general, but what about pseudonyms in pseudoplaces out there in the Metaverse? Where are the servers? What's their real identity? What's the jurisdiction? As we found out with domain names, it's difficult to take legal action when you don't know the place or the person.

Given yesterday's ruling, bloggers are positioned to become the new voice of politics. They should be a very loud voice in the 2008 primaries, where grassroot efforts become especially critical. It's even more significant because the conventional media has taken to reporting blogs as news. I guess that they've exhausted the permutations of interviewing each other. This factor is the "blogger megaphone."

What's ironic, is that this means that geeks can influence politics. Why do I say this? Because all bloggers are geeks. They might be computer weenies or media groupies or political junkies, but they're still geeks. They learned to be literate while their classmates were giving wedgies and lighting their own emissions. It's great that geeks will have political influence. Their time has come. Just as long as it's not nerds. Nerrrds!

Posted on March 28, 2006

Thoughts on the election of 2008

by David Holtzman

It's hard to believe, but we're moving into a Presidential election cycle. Even though we're 2+ years away, the circling has begun and for the first time in many, many years, both parties are open.

The next president will take office and will be handed more half-ass problems than any other one that I can remember. Unless things change pretty dramatically before November 2008, he/she can expect to be forced to deal with:

- A worsening economy with measurable inflation and interest rates north of 7.5%
- An unextractable presence in Iraq. If we leave, it collapses and the resulting crater will suck in much of the Mid-East
- The likelihood of reinstituting the draft. The Reserves and National Guard have been overextended. Active Duty retention is poor.
- The necessity of shepharding a military buildup. We're almost out of bullets and bombs, armor and artillery. The stealth bomber is being retired this year with no replacement in site.
- A deeply cynical, divided populace. George Bush is the worst President in modern times. He will be remembered as the Great Divider. Rather than pulling us together after 9/11, he opportunistically took advantage of our fear and scared us into going along with every preset agenda item that he had. This raises the bar on the next president, who will have to be an uncommonly straight shooter or we will tune him out.
- A growing Hispanic population that is threatening to overwhelm our monolingual government service capabilities as well as trigger off waves of violent, immigration-phobic vigilanteism. I live in Herndon, Virginia, an affluent Washington, D.C. suburbs and this is our number one issue right now.

The problems listed above are excellent subjects for Internet debate. Even if they get short shrift from risk-adverse campaigns, they can and will be debated by the electorate on blogs.

We, as Americans, have two years to think about this election and we must choose wisely. The way that we vote for our national leaders sometimes makes it difficult for us to express our concerns and desires by voting. Many of us live in states that are so late in the primary cycle that we're essentially given one candidate to consider by the time that it comes to us.

This is the advantage of the Internet. Cutting through the Gordian Knot that is the American political process and making our voices heard, regardless of the electoral college, the conventions and coverage by big media.

In the 2008 election, the Internet will be the kingmaker.

Posted on March 24, 2006

Data, data everywhere...

by David Holtzman

Here's an ugly political secret...Republicans understand technology better than Democrats. Not just Xbox games, TiVos and Treos, but the stuff that really counts--databases. The GOP was first with really understanding direct mail (a la Richard Viguerie) and they appear poised to dominate the upcoming 2008 war of the Internet minds. It's no accident that the Republicans were so effective in voter mobilization in 2004, they know how to reach people and what they want to hear.

Now Harold Ickes, Dep Chief of Staff in the Clinton White House has started a new company called Data Warehouse. According to the Washington Post, they have raised $7.5 in venture money for their new company, whose purpose is to level the playing field with the Republicans by building a Dem-friendly database company.

So, good luck. A dem is a different creature than a republican. Republicans are all about forming into large flying wedges. They are the party of the scrum. Dems are about amplifying the differences, almost basking in the bickering. The resulting confusion is as natural to the blue party as the veldt to a gazelle.

A super great database system could fix this by narrowly segmenting dems into special interest areas. This narrowcasting approach is the future of politics. In the case of the Dems, they become a coalition party forming an alliance between multiple special interest groups. Right now, this ugly matchup happens post-convention after 6 months of ugly name-callling and interest-bashing in the primaries.

I hope this works. One piece of advice for the founders, though...opt-in, okay, guys? A privacy-friendly Democratic data base would be a beautiful thing.

Posted on March 08, 2006

Once and future Internet fundraising

by David Holtzman

The Washington Post reported today the results of a survey done by George Washington University about the state of online political fundraising.

The most significant conclusion was that online contributors were more representative of the middle class as well as a having a higher percentage of women and being more willing to contribute without being solicited.

The report said that the Internet "...is perhaps the single most important development in political fundraising..."

There's also a difference between Dems and Republicans. More than half of ALL Dems gave online, twice that of Republicans.

So, what's it mean?

Simple.

I will make a prediction: "The Internet will be in 2008 what television was to the election of 1960."

I am taking hamburger bets from all comers who would like to dispute this.

We have no idea, no idea at all, how significant this technology will be. Most important of all, in this election, it will no longer be technology, anymore than a flashlight is.

It will be used for laser-like issues targetting and for message broadcasting both and it will either overtake PACs or at least compete with them as major alternate funding sources.

This would seem to be good news for Democrats.

Any candidate who ignores this does so at his or her own peril.

Posted on March 06, 2006

Buy the way

by David Holtzman

Why is a Dubai company the major (and apparently the only) bidder for U.S. container ports?

Has anyone traveled overseas lately and bought a latte? The U.S. dollar has dropped in comparison to traditionally weak currencies like the Canadian dollar and the Euro and really sucks next to stronger ones like the yen. This is because of our weakened economy and growing trade deficit.

The biggest threat to American security isn't the transfer of a company that handles port cargo, it's our economy.

Our money has often bought our way out of international problems. Not this time.

I have gotten in touch with my conservative side over the last 6 years of King George's rule--Fix the economy, stupid! We won't have foreign companies buying anything if the deficit is reduced and the dollar gets some much-needed fiscal Viagra.

Posted on February 24, 2006

Too smart for me

by David Holtzman

Is America in the grips of an anti-intellectualism trend?

It's hard to categorize the Bush administration. They're not conservative. They're not traditional Republican. They don't have a big agenda, just some personal grudges that they're trying to settle ("They tried to kill my father!") They're not anti-women nor anti-Black, nor even anti-illegal immigrant.

I have figured it out--they hate smart people.

I've seen that leering smirk on Bush's face before, but it took me a while to place it. It was in high school. It was the look on the face of a kid in class when someone raised their hand and knew the answer. The smart kid ended up with a wedgie later on in the locker room.

Listen to Bushies argue about Iraq. It sounds like the old Monty Python routine about the professional arguer.

Cleese: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Chapman: Well! it CAN be!
Cleese: No it can't! An argument is a connected series of statement intended to establish a proposition.
Chapman: No it isn't!
Cleese: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.
Chapman: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
Cleese: Yes but it isn't just saying "no it isn't".
Chapman: Yes it is!
Cleese: No it isn't!
Chapman: Yes it is!
Cleese: No it isn't!
Chapman: Yes it is!
Cleese: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
Chapman: It is NOT!
Cleese: It is!
Chapman: Not at all!

Posted on February 15, 2006

Bye, bye Birdie

by David Holtzman

It's unbelievable that the Secret Service stood around and watched Vice President Cheney shoot that poor guy. Don't federal agents have a legal obligation to protect citizens? Notice how the White House is using words like "peppered" and terms like "shooting incident" to describe the fiasco. Look. He shot a guy. In the face.

Turn the hunting ranch into a 7-11 and turn Cheney black and he'd be looking at life. Sorry, I forgot that it's Texas. He'd get lethal injection.

I don't understant how a man like Dick Cheney, who's heart is a couple bits of stringy gristle and couldn't possibly have more than a year or two left, would still kill things for recreation. I have no problem with hunting, but I know several hunters that turn into birdwatchers as they get older, because they have a different outlook on life.

Not the Veep.

We should be able to take advantage of this somehow. If only we could get Osama Bin Laden out hunting...

Posted on February 14, 2006

State of the Union-Who's your buddy?

by David Holtzman

Technology is every politican's friend. Even though most of them can't tell the difference between a laptop and a lapdance, they hold the word up like a $5 bill at a strip club.

President Bush referred to technology 7 times in his State of the Union speech last night:

We will make wider use of electronic records and other health information technology to help control costs and reduce dangerous medical errors.

America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology.

I propose to make permanent the research and development tax credit, to encourage bolder private-sector initiatives in technology

This funding will support the work of America's most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology...

By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment

Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025.

we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants; revolutionary solar and wind technologies;

Technology is not a panacea, nor a wonder drug. I'm a technologist and I know better. I wonder if the President does?

Posted on February 01, 2006

Inhaling, sex and terrorism - the three big lies

by David Holtzman

President Bush is aggressively defending his recently uncovered, possibly illegal, domestic spying program by arguing that the program is limited, legal and necessary to protect Americans in a time of war. The ugly rhetoric of protectionism has been used as a body bag to zip up many ugly problems, shielding them from public view. But for this argument to be effective, there must be an ending.

When is a war not a war? How about defining some criteria for an end to the war on terrorism? I have a nasty suspicion that as long as a single human being on the planet hates the US badly enough to harm its people or things, that this war will continue.

There's only two ways to fix that situation: the first would be by making friends everywhere. I don't think that I need to spend any time talking about why that hasn't or will not happen. The second choice is uglier--genocide. I believe that the only way to satisfy the President's criteria will be the extermination or at least disenfrachisement of all dissidents, a situation that I for one, find unacceptable.

How about some public debate on what the exit conditions are for the war on terrorism? Hell, the war on Polio is still being fought by the March of Dimes even thought the disease was eliminated in America in 1979.

Posted on January 02, 2006

The White House's Christmas list

by David Holtzman

I have what is purported to be a secret Bush & Cheney wish list. Rather than commenting, I'll just include it here:

United States constitution toilet paper with extra fluffy Bill of Rights
Iraqi GI Joe with detachable Koran (flushable)
Abu Ghraib weeble legos, pyramid edition
Monopoly, Enron edition
Commemorative Katrina Hurricane glass
Tom Delay mug shot makeover kit
Religous Risk Game, colorcoded by Crusades
Wheel of Torture, home edition

and for dinner:
Michael Moore's liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti

Posted on December 27, 2005

The shame game

by David Holtzman

President Bush described the New York Times leaking of the administration's domestic espionage policy as "shameful." Yet he described the policy itself as "legal", based on the Constitution. I've noticed this dichotomy before, the accusationas against critics often use words such as "shameful", "cowardice" and the never said, but often implied--"traitorous". Yet the Administration defends its actions using pseudolegal words, even archaic, obsolete ones like "constitutional."

Why the contrast? Morality out, legality in.

How can an entire newspaper be "shameful" anyway? The American Heritage Dictionary defines shame as

A painful emotion caused by a strong sense of guilt, embarrassment, unworthiness, or disgrace.

Does the New York Times feel guilty? Embarassed? Disgraced? Well, not now that Judith Miller is gone. They must feel unworthy.

It's hard not to think of Wayne's World with Wayne and Garth on their knees chanting "We're not worthy!" Perhaps all of the Time's staff could, on their way walking to work today, genuflect and expiate themselves from their shame?

Then it's Bush's turn.

Posted on December 21, 2005

Democracy from a Distance

by David Holtzman

The ACLU is objecting to a new, little-discussed provision in the Patriot Act. The bill now contains a provision restricting people from willfully and knowingly entering a restricted area where the President or anyone else under Secret Service protection will be at.

The Secret Service clearly has a function to protect the President and other dignitaries from attacks and in one light, all this provision would do is put teeth into their existing mission. Senator Spector, one of the authors of the current Patriot Act compromise says that's all it's supposed to do.

Unfortunately a reasonable sounding provision like this can be twisted in the hands of those with malignant intent. The Bush administration has made good use out of every draconian law that they've been given by a well-meaning, but sometimes misguided Congress. There's no reason to believe that this one wouldn't be abused, too.

President Bush has been remarkably shy about being in the same room with detractors, or in fact anyone who isn't a complete rah-rah cheerleader for the administration and all of its policies. There's been several grumbling stories about Bushies keeping non-zealots out of private and even public meetings where the President will be speaking.

Might the Patriot Act be used to jail protesters at a Bush-Cheney event? Would they dare? Is the Pope Catholic? Is the President an Evangelical? Is Cheney the Prince of Darkness?

Posted on December 13, 2005

Turrorists

by David Holtzman

As a young boy growing up in Pennsylvania in the 60s, I was scared to death of Communists. They were everywhere. They were putting flouride in our water, stealing our rocket science and waiting to "bury" us as Nikita Krushchev infamously said.

I remember the Cuban Missile Crisis, dreaming about a nuclear holocaust caused by the missiles sitting just 70 miles off our coast. This point was reinforced on the many occasions that I would be hunched over at my school desk, staring at my own crotch waiting for the all-clear signal and hoping that this was another drill and not the real thing.

Communists.

Ugh. And just in case we didn't know what would happen after the bombs dropped, hollywood was happy to tell us. The aftermath of radiation was...GIANT INSECTS and LIZARDS with firebreath. They would emerge from their volcano and head for their natural food source--skyscrapers.

Communists were everywhere in the 60s.

Terrorists are everywhere now.

They're under every bed, riding on every plane, working at every 7-11. They are after our power plants, our water supplies and most importantly our oil.

9/11 was a tragedy of Olympian proportions and the perpetrators should be caught and hung. There seems to be a surprising lack of effort to do so, however.

The bogey man of the new millenia is the terrorist. Simply saying the words "National Security" is enough to justify almost anything, from rolling back a hundred years of civil liberties to torturing suspects because they might be "turrorists". The means justify the ends when the enemy looms sufficently large in one's own mind.

Perhaps some of us miss the good old days when we had a common enemy to rally the people around. It's not much of a stretch to replace one ethnic group with another. "Communist" and "Terrorist" even rhyme.

As a parent, I know that children mature when they can look and assure themselves that there's no bogeyman hiding under the bed. It's high time for America to wake up and shed some light on our fears. Daylit villains are never as bad as shadowy nightmares.

Posted on December 09, 2005

The End of the Americanization of Everything

by David Holtzman

The most significant fallout from the Iraqi war and the extremely unpopular Bush administration may be the halt of the cult of the U.S.. It's less popular today to be American, act American or buy American than it has ever been in my lifetime. For those of us who travel overseas frequently it's become difficult, at times embarassing to be a stranger in a strange land.

Canada, for instance, is waking up from it's little sister status and will, I suspect, continue to move in its own direction, regardless of how this war turns out. Their ant-Iraqi war stance may define them going forward just as much as Blair's pro-war position has Britain.

American products are moving lower down and further back on store shelves around the world. Competition is springing up everywhere to fill the niches. Clothing, electronics, furniture and other finished pieces of consumer goods are becoming truly global. Don't be fooled by brands like Coke, Ford or Mickey-Ds. These are not companies, these are countries. Hell, McDonalds even has their own flag, university and an army of clowns.

When this craziness is over, I hope that we Americans can get back to doing what we do well, marketing dreams, building archetypes like Marilyn and Elvis and cowboy-like innovation second-to-none.

Posted on December 06, 2005

Katrina's eye

by David Holtzman

In the wake of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, the storm stripped away more than the roof of the Superdome. It peeled away some of the nicer social layers that we Americans often use for shelter from the uglier realities of the classful society in this country.

We saw the best and worst behavior from the citizens of New Orleans, a city that I dearly love. We saw institutions stripped to their essence. The television screens were full of both kinds of policemen, the brave and noble ones risking their lives and ignoring their own problems to rescue survivors, as well as the arrogant baiting and beating kind that unfortunately leaves a more lasting impression.

The normal political bantering that's ear fluff most of the year appears exquisitetly strident as an audible backdrop to video of flooded neighborhoods; the mayor, governor and White House pointing fingers at each other. At least Brownie is doing a heck of a job.

Now Bell South reminds us why we don't want monopolies. Bill Oliver, a Bell South executive, angrily withdrew his offer to the city of a damaged building to be used as the new police station. Why? Because the city had announced plans to create a free, municipal wi-fi network to help revitalize the local business economy.

Bravo for Bell South. That's like giving a housekeeper cast off clothes and then demanding them back when she didn't do the dishes well enough.

This institutional nakedness left bare from the storm is unsettling. Let's go back to ignorance where all police officers are helpful, the phone company is a service organization and the President of the US has the job because he's smarter than you are.

Posted on December 05, 2005

Tasty/Tasteless?

by David Holtzman

The Washington Post reported today that on President Bush's just-completed Asian trip to Japan, South Korea and China, Mr. Bush "visited no museums, tried no restaurants, bought no souvenirs and made no effort to meet ordinary people." Several senior officials ate at Outback Steakhouse in Korea instead of a Korean restaurant.

What can be uglier than an American who would sit in Korea and eat a Bloomin' Onion?

Politics are politics, but my friend, food is food. Screw with interest rates, but keep screwtops off my wine bottles. Never trust a man who eats a Jack-in-the-Box in Jacarta, a Pop Tart in Pamplona or cheese-in-a-can anywhere.

I no longer trust the Bush Administration. A man who doesn't care what he eats is capable of anything.

Posted on November 22, 2005

Patriot Act Redux

by David Holtzman

It's a shameful day in Washington. The skies are gray and dreary, appropriately enough. A bi-partisan Congressional negotiating group has come to an agreement on renewal of the Patriot Act. The compromise measure is somewhat watered down, but the worst provisions are intact.

All 16 provisions of the Patriot Act are being extended. 14 permanently, 2 for seven years. The "temporary ones" deal with roving wiretaps against the individual, not a specific phone line and accountability for governmental demands for information.

The most heinious parts of the Act, allowing investigators to access bookstore records are now law.

The charge was led by Rep F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. , a Wisconsin Republican. I suggest that in the future the word "Sensenbrenner" be used as an adjective for privacy violation.

About the only thing that was taken out of the bill was an insane provision allowing prosecutors in terror cases a second chance to get the death penalty if a jury seemed disinclined to do so.

This is a sad day for America. The Patriot Act has not saved a single American life, and in point of fact, is primarily aimed at U.S. citizens, not foreign nationals. Let's catch the people who destroyed the World Trade Center, not Americans who read the wrong book.

For those of us old enough to remember the cold war, consider the Iron Curtain. It was touted as a defensive measure to protect the East from attack, but the broken glass, the razor wire and the landmines were aimed inward, to hem in those within.

The Patriot Act is our Iron Curtain.

For more info, see:

Washington Post
Ny Times
ACLU

Posted on November 17, 2005

Animal House invades Iraq

by David Holtzman

One of the many memorable scenes in the movie Animal House comes when Flounder cries after seeing that his brother's car has been demolished by his frat brothers who borrowed it for a road trip. Otter tries to put his loss in perspective by telling him, "Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f**ked up -- you trusted us!"

I wonder how many times George Bush has seen this film--the ultimate frat movie because his new spin on the war on Iraq sounds like it came right from Otter's mouth. As I understand the administration's current argument, they are saying that since Congress knew what they knew, if the White House is wrong, then so is everyone else. Think of President Bush's face leering intently into the camera, "You f**ked up -- you trusted us" while Vice President Cheney puffs out his cheeks with food and says, "See if you can guess what I am now. I'm a weapon of mass destruction. Get it?"

Animal House the movie : A-
Animal House the war: D

Posted on November 16, 2005

Would the Gestapo have outsourced?

by David Holtzman

The United States government is bound by law to handle private information of its citizens in certain ways. Since 9/11 and the Patriot Act, these strictures have loosened considerably, but they're still there. The Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, were strong steps towards a transparent government.

I realize that it's not exactly a news flash, but these protections have been cut down to size quicker than John Bobbit.

Any fool that believes in their government so much that they don't require a check and balance deserves what they get. Being a patriot is not being a lemming; good citizens ask good questions.

But these protections still exist, even though they've been diluted. However, the current administration has a stated policy of using commercial database companies like Acxiom and Experian, presumably to avoid exactly the kind of scrutiny that 30 years of privacy policy attempted to impose on the federal process.

By buying information on U.S. citizens from 3rd parties, government agencies skirt the law. They buy background reports and credit checks on Americans and then incorporate the commercial information into the governmetn data bases, making the unregulated, unchallengable documents part of a target citizen's permanent record. Data doesn't go away, either. Once it's in a database, it will always be there, somewhere.

There are many good articles talking about Bush Administration abuses of the Patriot Act like this one link:

By outsourcing domestic spying, our government has removed itself from checks and disturbed the delicate balance of a government's need to know and a citizen's right to privacy.

History is full of cautionary tales of nations that continually resort to the utlitarian argument of the means justifying the ends. They don't end well. These protections are important and working with the annoyances of compliance with civil liberties is the price that bureaucrats must pay, just as the occasional uncomfortable scrutiny is the price that WE must pay to be free.

Databases are lists. Outsourcing the creation of these lists to circumvent oversight does not legitimize the list makers. And these lists are dangerous.

I do not trust those who scribble in secret and shroud their motivation in jingoism.

All good ethnic cleansings start with lists.

Posted on November 09, 2005