Does Becky "Buckwild" Johnston have a place on Merge98FM?

I hope Dr. DeWitt isn't looking at this post and still grading me, because I'm taking this blog in a new direction now that the class is pretty much over.

On March 2, 2008 Merge98FM debut a show that featured a B/C-list celebrity from the second season of VH!'s hit series "Flavor of Love." It was exciting to finally get someone famous on a tiny little internet station in suburban Atlanta, but her music selections clearly violate the "No Nonsense Promise." It's her show and I was just simulcasting it from blogtalkradio.com, but new episodes of Buckwild Sunday have lately become so few and far between we've had to dig up old reruns from 2007 when Jerry Falwell died to get something on Sunday afternoons at 2.

Now comes your part. Should I keep Buckwild Sunday or drop it and continue to play Atlanta's Killer Variety? Any help would be appreciated. All day Wednesday November 26, we're running a Buckwild Marathon, and there's a poll to the side of the blog. Good luck, and thanks for the feedback.

1979, how soon we forget

Folks, we've been down this road before. A gas shortage sent the prices skyrocketing and people were freaking out and getting into these gas lines. Now that prices are down to $1.83 (as of writing), don't let this fact get you so cocky that we forget ALTERNATIVE FUELS.

In late 2006, prices were down to the $2.20s until January rolled around.

I'm urging y'all, please continue to conserve. Conserve! Conserve!

OIL WILL RUN OUT!

IT'S NOT RENEWABLE!

IT WILL RUN OUT!

The good times were rolling so hard in the 1980s that we forgot to take it easy, especially on our planet. As the 2010s approach, WE CAN'T REPEAT HISTORY!

Gas is low now, but it will not last! As demand goes up, so do the prices.

DON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN!

Don't Eight, Appreciate...

It's still a controversy to this day thanks to California. Whether homosexuals should have the right to marry or not. I used to be against it on the grounds that there's already enough brokenness in heterosexuality and why add to the brokenness with homosexuality. I have since lightened up, because it ought to be YOUR choice whether to go against the natural order of the Lord or not. The government should ot be the judge and jury in that respect. That's I join Tila Tequila in the fight to kill Prop 8.

However, this ain't the bigger issue.

It wasn't just conservative Republicans who voted yes on 8, 70/30 the black vote helped pass the bill (granted there are black GOP'ers, but how many came out, really). My fellow Latinos also helped to push this thing through with their vote. Some of our minorities are still socially more conservative than the party most of them voted into office.

This could mean TROUBLE for the Democratic party.

I'm seeing a potential rift in the party between the Minority Caucus and the Stonewall Caucus. If these two wings of the party don't start finding some common ground soon on the gay rights issue, then it could be the issue that sends us right on back to 1968. I think civil unions is a nice middle ground. You get all the rights of a marriage without the actual title, at least until America is ready to lighten up some.

Either way, I'm urging both the Stonewall and Minority wings of the Democratic party. Come together on this, so we can continue the progress we worked so hard for these past few years. We've got a love thang, Democrats, don't let it start slipping...away...

The Roads to Blue Power

So I just picked up the special election edition of the New York Times titled "After The Vote," and it was interesting to see the shift that took place in American politics county by county. While McCain may have won in Georgia, South Carolina, Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota, there is a pattern that I noticed in the way this country has voted.

Winning VA, NC, and FL were important for the Democrats, but holding McCain's victory in GA and SC showed a significant trend. The Democrats are making inroads in the coastal South, and I'm thinking maybe that "East Coast elitist" line didn't really sit well with them anymore. I-95 may be our first gateway to a South Lyndon B Johnson claimed to have lost for an entire generation after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Even Though Obama lost North Dakota and Montana, McCain's lead was less than 10 percentage points in both states. George W. Bush had blowouts in both states in 2004, and this is a testament to one more gateway to the Mountain West via the I-90 corridor for the Democrats. A bridge is being made between the typically blue states of Washington and Minnesota. Libertarianism tends to run rampant in that region, and should the Democrats start leaning in that direction, the Canadian border could be painted blue for some time.

We also held McCain to a less than 10% win in South Dakota. Between there and Colorado is where the Democrats also hve an opportunity. Support for ethanol and moderating on the cultural issues could eventually put Nebraska in play, giving them some breathing room in the upper Great Plains.

Then there's also the I-20 corridors. In states that all went for John McCain, there were many counties that trended towards the Democrats, and even some they won. This could be indicative that we're making inroads in the Deep South.

There is a sliver of hope for the Republicans though...the I-40 corridor. From I-81 in the Great Smoky Mountains to the oil fields of Texas, there's a swarm of voters who voted against the wind and are running scared. Sure you had your blue-trending (some still red) bastions of Nashville, Memphis, Little rock, and Oklahoma City, but along the way, the Mid-South and oil country went against the wind. If the Democrats want to really bridge some divides and get this 50-state strategy off to a healthy start for 2012, their next convention should be held in Memphis, TN. I've got a feeling there's a lot of pissed off PUMA/Clintonites along that I-40 corridor that would appreciate the attention.

The roads to blue power are plenty, and of course there are some parts of the country we don't really need to succeed in a national election, but rebuilding the Democratic party along that I-40 corridor could spell Democratic domination for years to come as well as an end to the Karl Rove 50-plus-one strategy and the rise of the 50-state strategy. The Dems should get serious about this 50-state strategy, because the GOP already has something to build on...the Highlands.

This song's for that I-40 corridor. Dems, you have another opportunity.

Back off, America!

Any of y'all remember the Project For The New American Century? Didn't think so. Well here's some shocking news for you, or at least for me, on Iraq. It turns out that we were looking for a regime change in Iraq as early as 1998! 1998! Three years before any of this 9/11 and anthrax crap ever surfaced, we were already looking to liberate Iraq...under Bill Clinton. Now whether he was also in on this whole Middle Eastern takeover or he was just being a centrist pushover remains to be seen, but we're in Iraq for a reason that PRECEDES the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01.

Bill Kristol cited that weapons inspectors were chased out, but they never tell you how long those inspectors were snooping around, whether those inspectors were really measuring the drapes for some heavy commerce in the future, or whether those weapons of mass destruction could really compare in strength to what we were cooking. Even rogue regimes have a right to defend themselves, and who's arrogant enough to be calling every nation they don't like for some reason rogue to begin with? Israel maybe? America? I'm tired of our troops being used to kill in the name of the Lord.

Look, y'all. The PNAC stated it themselves. This is their plan, and most Republicans, Democrats, and misguided Independents are falling for their crap. Here's just a few of their intentions:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Which OUR are we talking about ladies and gentlemen? Is this country's policy so arrogant to think we can just do whatever we want around the world and NOT expect any blowback? Is it going to take another 9/11 because we backed some other third-world country into a corner and laid another uppercut in order to us to HUMBLE OURSELVES IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD?

This reminds me of when the Europeans divided and conquered Africa because it wasn't seen as "civilized enough" in their eyes. That Biden/Brownback bill last year to divide Iraq into three parts is another prime example. We're being driven by this "relativism is arrogace disguised as humility," "fair is foul, and foul is fair" mentality.

...and look out for the code words "spreading democracy" because that's the same code language used in Vietnam and Korea when we wanted to open up more shop. Our troops are being misused and anyone who would hide behind the yellow ribbon to justify a haneous foreign policy is supporting an interest mutually exclusive from our troops. Our troops were supposed to defend OUR freedom, NOT everyone else's around the world, well-intentioned as that may be. Who's morals are we trying to "clarify" here?

"Talk and trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none." -Thomas Jefferson

The bible says something about turning your back on Israel and being doomed for it, bu it also says if something causes you to sin, get it out of you (metaphorically speaking of course, don't gouge your eyes out or anything).

Talk and trade is not turning your back on Israel. It can defend itself, but we must not allow it to use Europe or our country as a clutch for killing in the name of the Lord and exploiting the Jewish vote with a little group called AIPAC.

Plain and simple, America. When it comes to the Middle East...BACK OFF!!

It's in our best national security interest.

Here We Go Again...

In a 2001 interview on a a public radio station in Chicago, then state senator Barack Obama was being interviewed. snippets of his interview were leaked on the Drudge Report. Here's the transcript of this chopped up interview, minus the spooky music.

MODERATOR: Good morning and welcome to Odyssey on WBEZ Chicago 91.5 FM and we’re joined by Barack Obama who is Illinois State Senator from the 13th district and senior lecturer in the law school at the University of Chicago.

OBAMA: If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

MODERATOR: Let’s talk with Karen. Good morning, Karen, you’re on Chicago Public Radio.

KAREN: Hi. The gentleman made the point that the Warren court wasn’t terribly radical with economic changes. My question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work economically and is that that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to take place – the court – or would it be legislation at this point?

OBAMA: Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. You just look at very rare examples during the desegregation era the court was willing to for example order changes that cost money to a local school district. The court was very uncomfortable with it. It was very hard to manage, it was hard to figure out. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.

Here's what the blogosphere got out of it...

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth...

...the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...

... the Constitution...doesn’t say what the federal government...must do
One of the... tragedies of the civil rights movement was...to lose track of the... community organizing...activities...through which you bring about redistributed change...

...I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts...

The court’s just not very good at it...

You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues... in a process that essentially is administrative...

As soon as the word "redistribution" is uttered, people are already going crazy calling Obama a socialist, even mixing him up with Karl Marx (a Communist NOT a socialist, BTW. There is a difference). But let's dissect this speech little by little if we can.

But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth...

...the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution...

Obama never said that the Supreme Court SHOULD get into redistribution of wealth. He was answering the criticism that the court was going that far, and it wasn't. KEEP READING IT AGAIN. NO WHERE IN THOSE FIRST THREE SENTENCES WAS THERE ANY ADVOCATION OF REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH. He didn't say that THAT was the failure of the civil rights movement.

... the Constitution...doesn’t say what the federal government...must do
One of the... tragedies of the civil rights movement was...to lose track of the... community organizing...activities...through which you bring about redistributed change...

Let's read that again:

"It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that."

Barack Obama was saying the same thing Michael Baisden was saying. It's not up to the courts to bring about change. It starts within the community. The tragedy he was speaking about was that the Civil Rights movement relied too much on the courts and not enough on their own community. If anything he was speaking AGAINST government interference in civil rights cases. Now back to the blogosphere...

...I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts...

The court’s just not very good at it...

You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues... in a process that essentially is administrative...

Any advocation for socialism there...NO!!! All he's saying is that the courts can't force the change we need on every body. It would be undiplomatic. It starts in your own community, it can't be legislated and it shouldn't. If anything, Obama's kind of sounding like a LIBERTARIAN.

But no...the word "redistributive" came up and now everyone's calling him a SOCIALIST! This reminds me of that "lipstick on a pig" fake controversy last month when the other side was slamming him for dogging Sarah Palin. Then it was LIPSTICK, now it's REDISTRIBUTION.

One more interview taken out of context.

Again...nice try...

Missed Opportunities

Ok, so I'm commenting pretty late on the debate, but better late than never.

Remember all the times that "Joe the Plumber" was been used as a political tool by both Obama and McCain? Well there was one charge that Joe (Sam) Wurzelbacher would have to pay higher taxes under Obama's plan of getting rid of the Bush tax shelters for folks making above 200K for individuals 250K for businesses. This is what Obama FAILED TO SAY:

He has this plan for business who create jobs in America. $3000 per American job created. So if Joe the Plumber ends up buying up that business and being in that bracket, he ends up coughing up another 900 a year, but HERE'S THE CLINCHER. If 5 net jobs are created from his business, if this tax credit thing goes through, ole Joey can enjoy another $15,000 that year. 15,000 minus 900 is 14,100. I wish this plan went beyond 2010.

On that same note, this is going to cost 60 billion dollars. How do you pay for it?

In a dream situation Barack Obama would just outright say that we have too many foreign bases around the world that we don't need to maintain. It's an unnecessary expense, but if he came out and said that the military special interests would be on his ass till kingdom come, and he'd be painted as anti-military. However, that's one way to pay for this tax credit, another opportunity missed by Barack Obama.

Here's another idea that Obama should've been talking about in paying for this tax credit. Rather than putting more new money into all these alternative fuels like Obama wants to do, let's redirect those oil and natural gas subsidies and use that money instead of driving the budget further into the hole. Obama could've built some fiscal conservative cred with this idea, but here again, another missed opportunity.

Another thing, Barack. Why the hell did you even spit that "spread the wealth" nonsense? Now you've thrown McCain and company a huge "socialist" bone. From what I've heard New Hampshire is a "don't spend what you ain't got" state, and McCain's headed that way to plead his case. You've got some explaining to do out there, because if the "socialism" thing stick out there, you're gonna' need Nevada to stay alive if Virginia and Florida go belly up.

There's a lot of opportunities that Barack Obama has missed to put this election away once and for all. It was his problem in the primaries, and it's becoming a growing concern in the general election. I'm worried he might let it slide too far this time, and that's why I'm CAUTIOUSLY optimistic about where the polls stand now.

Democrats have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I'd hate for them to come this far only to sing this song again...

Is the economy making YOU sick?

A year or two ago, there was finally a push for more organic and natural foods. The word was getting out by the media and the powers that be that this is the way to go, and that we should think twice and read the labels before buying the product. The problem is, organic and natural food is more expensive than the food loaded with preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, rBST, and other additives that aren't good for us.

What the freakout of the moment this time around? THE ECONOMY. So now everyone is holding on for dear life to their wallets (and rightfully so), and the attitude right now is "to hell with my health if it's gonna' put me in the hole." So in turn, the people are more tempted to settle for food that is more harmful to them if it costs less. This is where a vicious cycle starts, because now you put your health at risk for as long as the economy is down, and in extreme cases this could lead to health problems down the road, leading to bigger hospital bills and higher costs in health care in the form of premiums.

What I suspect is that the food industry KNEW this economic crisis was going on, and decided to roll out their organic and natural foods anyway. The foods end up not selling as much because of the economy. Now the food industry has that much "justification" to say that organic and natural does not work. Then they go back to adding all those additives and putting our food at risk, even the foods that are SUPPOSED to be healthy. On a side note, I think that's what's going to happen to this new Red Bull Natural Cola that's coming out; talk about some bad timing.

I think a major reason why this is happening is because farms that pump all this crap in our foods are subsidized by our own government. Get rid of those subsidies and use half of it for ethanol and the other half to pay down that national debt. I understand that people have to cut back on some things because of this trying economy, but please remember this. YOUR BODY IS YOUR BEST INVESTMENT. It would save tons of money on health care costs and insurance premiums if we all learn to invest in our bodies in nothing else.

Now what does this have to do with media and politics? Take a look at the candidates you're voting for. Who's a better friend to the additive wing of the food industry or to the insurance companies depending on bad health to have an excuse to raise premiums? Whoever that is, stay the hell away from him or her!

Your body is your best investment.

NOW it's on.

First of all I would like to congratulate the 95 Democrats and 133 Republicans who had sense enough to vote down that ridiculous $700 billion dollar bailout for Wall Street. It was an unnecessary burden on our budget, but the war's not over, Main Street.

In light of the vote in Congress rejecting the bailout, the folks down on Wall Street decided, let's not trade anymore and let's play games with the American people. The stocks tumbled almost 800 and now everyone's freaking out because some fancy gamblers lost at their own game.

On top of that, since the Federal Reserve chairman didn't get his way in robbing the taxpayer of 700 billion dollar, he took it upon himself to pump 650 billion more dollars into the system. If you can't extort the taxpayer directly thens teal the value of the dollar.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of Wall Street continuing dominance over and adverse impact on Main Street. We need a new stock exchange that measures local economies rather than having only national and multinational corporations being invited to the ball and their success being the only measure of America's economy.

...and for heaven sakes...86 THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!! Or at least tighten up its money supply.

The battle has begun between Wall Street and Main Street. Which side are you on?

...And He Won't Be Down On Wall Street Anymore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKv6RcXa2UI

Both Barack Obama and John McCain warned us of the dire consequences if we don't act soon on this Wall Street bailout, or "rescue" is the more media-friendly term. Now where have we heard this before. Maybe in 2002 during the build-up to Iraq, that same language was used and now look what happened.

We're on the verge on dishing out 700 billion dollars to "rescue" Wall Street, and some complain that there's no solution for Main Street. Here's the problem, y'all. That 700 million dollars is not going to be our money really. It's probably going to come from the same five powers that be we're loaning from (at least according to I.O.U.S.A): Canada, Mexico, Japan, China, and all those countries we've been getting oil from.

Some of these countries are the same ones we've been shipping our jobs to; others don't really give a damn about our interests. But yet we can still afford to use 700 billion dollars of their money to try and solve this thing. Also, there's this notion that we also have to tag on some plan to save Main Street not knowing how much that's going to cost. Remember, we got a chance we're going to use CHINA's money to pay for all this, NOT OURS.

Are we now going to start printing money out of thin air again? Causing more inflation and higher prices on goods, jobs lost to keep the goods cheap enough for Main Street to buy? This is fiscal irresponsibility at its worst.

But I'd like to ask y'all this? What solution would you propose that has the national debt in mind while even remotely saving this economy?

For love of country? Or Infatuation?

September 11, 2001 was a day that would live in infamy for all of us. On our TV screens we were reminded of some of the many faces of evil. For at least those moments in time after the smoke cleared we were all proud to be Americans. All of a sudden questions about what really happened to Building 7 of the WTC. There was doubt as to what really cause the terrorist attacks on 9/11. There were those even willing to exploit such a tragedy for political gain.

That patriotic juice is one powerful drug.

There's this attitude of "Love it, or leave it" that prevails in our country. What I'm suspecting is that the "Love it or leave it" crowd is wanting those that "don't love the country" to leave so that America can continue in its actions without being held accountable by its people. Sorry folks, but I DON'T RUN AWAY FROM THE PROBLEM.

If we're going to personify a piece of land, then we ought to give it its proper roast.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright had the courage to call America out on its B.S. The only thing mainstream America heard was "God damn America," but what you didn't hear was THE TWO MINUTES BEFORE. He called America out on its mistreatment of its minority citizens yesterday AND today, this bully foreign policy that says we can do whatever the hell we want around the world without blowback because "these colors don't run," a criminal justice system that only criminalizes rather than redeems, for trying to play God in many cases, etcetra, etcetra. It disgusts me that Barack Obama would denounce such an American hero for speaking truth to power just because the electorate can't handle the truth.

Maybe "God damn America" was a poor choice of words, but it's one thing to love your country, but another thing to be ignorant of its actions just to maintain innocence. Evil doesn't just exist in the middle East; it exists here too. These colors don't run the world.

It's called TOUGH LOVE of country, and there's a term for this notion that America can do no wrong no matter what...INFATUATION.

Another thing, for too long the media has done a great part in teaching us that there are certain rituals that you have to perform to show you love your country, and that failure to go lock and step with the program will render you unpatriotic. What a slap in the face to the individualism that has made this country as unique as it is. It's not enough to stand in reverence anymore when they fly Old Glory; you have to wear a flag pin now, pretty soon if you don't do the chicken dance you're not patriotic. It's getting silly.

Again, it's one thing to carry that love for country in your heart and another thing to just make a bunch of noise about it. Remember those pagans out in the street corners being talked about in the book of Matthew who pray as loud as they can but they're really just putting on a show. I'm not saying don't do the motions if that what you really feel in your heart, but don't go forcing other people against their will or ostracizing them for not being patriotic in YOUR fashion.

In a nutshell, there's a difference between pride and arrogance. However you show your love for this country is up to you. Don't let society dictate what motions you need to go through in order to prove your love to America if it's not really in your heart. You don't have to prove your love for this country to anyone, but love for country also includes tough love where it, or she, may fall short.

Sarah Palin: Let's move from past to present.

This is a little message of caution to all my fellow liberals, Democrats, and libertarians out there. Sarah Palin has had a rough past, more rough than John McCain could possibly handle. There is a lot that we have learned about this less-than-two-year governor of Alaska, and there's been quite a bit of hypocrisy exposed by the media. However, Barack Obama has chosen to take the high road regarding this woman, and so maybe we should too.



Dragging one's family too much into the dirt could backfire on us, and Sarah Palin's reputation has already been damaged enough. I've been guilty of some of the attacks myself. As soon as John McCain announced she would be the running mate I'd could already hear that Fountains of Wayne hit from 2003 blaring in the background of a MoveOn.org ad. I even suggested to the Obama campaign that it hit harder on Sarah Palin

Obama/Biden, the next JFK/LBJ?

Well, I just got through watching a moving debate on C SPAN from Invesco Field in Denver. Barack Obama has just accepted the nomination as President of the United States. I'm glad that he was able to hit John McCain in some parts where it hurt, especially the "celebrity" comments, even when John McCain made a pathetic attempt to be graceful in one of his ads. It's equally pathetic however, that all we're left with is Barack Obama and John McCain, two gentlemen who are basically trying to out-LBJ one another.

First off, Joe Biden wants to send two brigades from Iraq to check up on Afghanistan and Pakistan; then he says he wants to get involved in the affairs of Georgia and Russia, possibly militarily. Big mistake!! We should have never started NATO to begin with, nor should we have gotten tangled up in this alliance with Isreal, a nation who I believe is exploiting the Jewish population and the word of God for an excuse to bomb whatever nation it wishes. Now Barack Obama has fallen into that same trap set by John McCain as Joe Biden has fallen into, in which safety somehow equals nation building and preemptive war.
Ron Paul knew this Russia/Georgia conflict was going to erupt sooner than later when in 2002 the U.S military sticked its nose into Georgia's affairs and spooked out Russia. In a way this is related to the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979. How so? Well, in 1953 we did not stand for democracy, because the democracy Iran had in mind did not fit the will of the United States, and what did we do? We overturned that democracy and installed the Shah; 26 years later, the CIA reports, blowback occurs conveniently under the Carter administartion. I believe a similar thing has happened in 2002 when we went into Georgia, under the radar, to train their troops for a reason unknown. Six years later we're about to be caught up in a stew with Russia again.

The way that our military gets used to get involved in all these conflicts and tangled in all these alliances reminds me of Jessica Fletcher, a character off of the hit TV series "Murder, She Wrote." There is strength in a non-interventionist foreign policy, and we don't have to police the world, or continue to bully the world like we've been doing all these years. I think the Bible had it right regarding our foreign policy when it said, "Humble thy self in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up."

The notion that in today's politics the more hawkish you are on defense, the safer you are as a pick for President is exactly why Ron Paul's Convention in St. Paul is so important. All the things we talk about accomplishing here at home we can accomplish if we just slow our roll towards the world. These colors were never meant to run the world, it's just that the American ego has gotten too large. Is it the media perhaps that has created this post-9/11 world because there are those who advertise on their stations that profit from fear? There are those in the business of war who use the media to take advantage of our patriotic feelings to get us into a situation where the demand for their products has increased. The costs are public and the profits are private, and folks, that's when an industrial complex has formed.

At least Barack Obama and Joe Biden are willing to talk about using diplomacy first rather than use a Beach Boys song to hype them up for another personal mission (but that's another blog). I just hope that if they do win the election that they evetually see the light, and follow the Thomas Jefferson doctrine of "talk and trade with all nations, entangling alliances with none." The Democrats have an opportunity to fill that niche, but will they fill it before the Republican party actually does get taken back by the "Old Right" and it's too late for that party?

How's that for a first blog?