The end is here!

Welcome to the last-ever posting of the Blue Donkey Lounge. I believe that I've achieved what I wanted to achieve with this blog - helping myself get a good grade in Digital Media 101 and giving myself a forum to express what I believe. Although I debated continuing the blog, I've decided to give it a rest and maybe start another one at some point, on an entirely different topic besides politics. Politics, especially on the wussy blue side of the aisle, can be incredibly frustrating, and I can' t see myself writing about it week in, week out for the rest of my life, especially when I don't have the world's greatest understanding of it. But I would like to thank my classmates, friends and family, and especially my teacher, Mr. Phil Vandiver, for making this class and the whole blogging experience so great. (Kirk, if you're reading this, I'm sorry, but I'm just getting bored. Maybe I'll pick it up again someday.) Good luck, and vote Obama in '08!

Far-left rock group Rage Against the Machine.

The Politics of Music.

Did anyone else see Anderson Cooper's 60 Minutes report on the "Stop Snitchin'" movement among urban youth, particularly those who listen to rap music? I was watching it with my Grandparents on Sunday, and my Grandpa's disgust was palpable as we watched the rap artist Cam'ron say that even if there was a serial killer living next door to him, he wouldn't call the police. Cam'ron never said so, but the implication was that he and his boys would handle that sort of thing on their own. While my Grandpa got angry, I basically kept my mouth shut and considered: Doesn't my side of the political aisle promote freedom of speech, even when that speech involves telling kids to distrust the police and allow drug dealers freedom to operate? Isn't the ACLU, which defends the rights of pedophiles and other dangers to society, a liberal organization? After all, the word "Liberties" is right there in the title. I enjoy the freedoms that America allows me, and I will always appreciate the sacrifices that our fighting men and women have fought to give us. There are some times, however, when I wonder if we as Americans are cynically squandering that freedom on things such as gangsta rap, a sex-crazed culture, and prodigal spending of our natural resources on things we don't really need. (400 horsepower engines? 300 satellite TV channels? Come on.) I saw something on Youtube the other day that really angered me. The rock group Rage Against the Machine and rap group Cypress Hill were performing a song together onstage called "How I Could Just Kill a Man." RATM is known for their far-left political views, and Cypress Hill is known for smoking huge amounts of pot. Both do songs about killing. None of these things really concerned me at first. Then I noticed the big upside-down American flag hanging off the drum riser. I couldn't help but think, "This country allows these far-left wackos to do songs about armed revolution, pot-smoking, and gangbanging, to support Mumia Abu-Jamal, a convicted cop-killer, and they have the absolute gall to hang an upside-down American flag on their stage?" For a few minutes, it made me ashamed to call myself a liberal. But in America, especially these days, you have to take the good with the bad. The Democrats will always have far-left hippie types who hate the military, the police, and institutions in general, but they will also protect a woman's right to choose an abortion. They will promote diversity. They will stand against bigotry and racism. They will allow Americans more freedoms than Republicans ever will, and their support of the lower income earners in America will always earn them my vote. If they are willing to cut funding for the war in Iraq and finally bring it to an end, that will only solidify my feelings. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally summoned the nerve to say out loud that the war was lost, but that's not enough. The war needs to end ASAP, and after that, the President and his people need to be held accountable. (More on that next week.) See related article.

Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech killer.

Whose side are you on?

It's not often that I begin postings of the Blue Donkey Lounge with such a confrontational question. But in the wake of the massacre at Virginia Tech University, it seems not only rational and relevant but essential to ask it. I want those who read this blog, even if they are only my college professors, friends, and family members to ask themselves what and who they stand for in this dark chapter of American history. Make no mistake about it, this is a time of ugliness, fear and decline, in which the have-nots resent the haves, the rich fear the poor, and the gap between grows bigger every day. America is awash in guns and the people who should never be allowed to own them can get them as easily as ordering from McDonald's. We were lied to by our president and his cronies in the most cynical fashion in order to take us to war, and a fearful America was ready and willing to let them do it. Time is running out for us Americans to put our house in order and usher in a new era. Democratic politics alone won't do it - to rely solely on government to resolve social issues is a fool's game, and I refuse to play it. It starts with us. We must all look to ourselves and ask, "What do I believe? Is it right or is it wrong? Do I back it up through action and in the way I treat my fellow man?" There is no room for hypocrisy and cynicism in today's world. If that's what you stand for - the cynical manipulation of facts and figures in order to twist people's minds and opinions - then quit reading this blog and go watch Fox News. That network will never cease defending the President and his failed ideas. If you stand for bigotry, homophobia, racism, class warfare, or any other form of discrimination, then this is not a blog for you. If you use your religion as an excuse to justify your hate and fear of your fellow man, then go vote for the party that caters to you - the one that forces a hero like John McCain to kiss up to Jerry Falwell for primary votes. I apologize for the somewhat angry tone of this article, but massacres only happen in countries where people find it easy to lose hope, where weapons are easy to find, and where anger and fear are inflamed by the national news media. This is also a country where our justice system has failed us, and people who are dangers to themselves and others are allowed to walk the streets with impunity. This is not the America of my parents and grandparents, and it is time we started holding ourselves to the same standards that they held themselves to. Before long, it may be too late. Ask yourself, before you go to bed tonight, "Whose side am I on - wrong or right? Black or white?" Sometimes, it really is that simple.

The Trouble With the Democrats (and one endorsement)

While it's still early in the 2008 Presidential primary race, the general consensus is that the top two Democrats are Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois. Hillary is at about 36% in the polls, while Obama is holding steady at 25%. Hillary has raised about 26 million dollars up to this point, while Obama is just below her at 25 million. (John Edwards of South Carolina is a distant third in both the polls and fund-raising.) So if it is to be either Hillary or Obama, who should we pull for? (Or, if we are card-carrying members of the Democratic party, who should we vote for in the primaries?) When looking at the pros of both candidates, we see that Hillary has a major advantage in her husband. People remember the Clinton years as "the good old days," back when no one knew the name Osama Bin Laden and the biggest news on TV was the President's sexual misadventures. (Sure, that's also a disadvantage, but compared to the nightly blood-and-guts reporting from Iraq, it seems almost like a Jay Leno routine - funny, but safe enough.) Obama is a breath of fresh air, someone who is new, untainted by scandal or Iraq, and someone who has pledged to end the war. He is also a far better, more inspirational speaker than Hillary. The main disadvantage for Mrs. Clinton is that people see her as cold-blooded and ambitious, someone who stays in a loveless marraige for political reasons. They see her as lacking femininity and human kindness. Obama, on the other hand, is seen by some as genuinely compassionate and feeling, but not cutthroat enough to survive a presidential race. So who do we Democrats support? The tougher candidate that people don't like and see as a retread, or the softer-looking candidate who has yet to prove his mettle? It's official - the Blue Donkey Lounge supports the candidacy of Barack Hussein Obama. What I would like to see happen is for Obama to start using his 25 milllion dollars to put TV commercials on the air questioning whether such a polarizing figure as Hillary Clinton has a real chance in a general election against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain. I would also like to see him take more chances on the internet, where he is extremely popular. He should make good use of bloggers (hi Barack!) and viral video to spread the word that he is a winner. Most of all, he should engage Hillary directly and make his positions known. If necessary, he should get nasty, because both Hillary and the Republicans know how to do that and will not hesitate. The last thing we need is another Generic Democrat, because Generic Democrat always loses. (Look under Kerry, John for a definition of Generic Democrat. If Obama lets himself get Swift-boated, he deserves to lose.) If Obama can prove that he is not only eloquent and smart but also strong, he will be a formidable opponent in the primary and in a general election. Vote Obama in 2008! See related article.

President George W. Bush.

Bush in Twilight

Last year, Rolling Stone magazine published an artist's rendition of the President on its cover. This is not so unusual by itself, except for the harshness of the picture and the accompanying headline. It depicted George W. Bush sitting on a stool with a hangdog expression on his face, wearing a dunce cap on his head. The headline read, "The Worst President in History?" Even accounting for Rolling Stone's known left-wing bias, the cover and accompanying story reflects a general sense of anger and bitterness that many feel toward George W. Bush and his administration. One can argue all day about the accuracy of polls and polling techniques, but I have yet to see one that puts the President's approval numbers much above thirty percent in the past year. Even the mainstream press, which refused to argue with Bush's war policies while they were being crafted, have turned on Bush like the attack dogs they can be. MSNBC's reporting has turned sharply critical, with Fox News still in Republican propaganda mode. (Yes, this blog is Democrat-leaning, but at least I don't falsely claim to be "fair and balanced.") CNN has been skeptical of the war almost from the moment Saddam's statue fell, and for a while, their ratings suffered because of it. No longer. When I go out with friends to local taverns, and the talk turns to Bush and the war, practically no one is expressing anger at terrorists anymore, except for Bin Laden. The anger is reserved for Bush and his handling of our war strategy. People, at least in Illinois, want to know why we neck-popped the wrong guy and why we aren't winning in Iraq. So do I. The President continues to insist that victory is still attainable, that to pull out before Nouri Al-Maliki's "government" has a real chance to succeed, would have dire consequences for America and Iraq. But I just want to know what his plan is beyond holding Iraq until things magically get better. The terrorists are never, ever going to give up. The Taliban held off the Soviet Union for twenty years in Afghanistan, and Iraqi fighters have adopted their fighting styles and religious fundamentalism. Have you ever heard the expression "You know karate, but I know crazy?" The United States has excellent "karate" in that we have a strong, disciplined fighting force and high-tech weaponry and the means to deliver it. But the terrorists we fight are crazy. They are far, far more committed than we ever will or could be. When someone is determined to die and is convinced that heaven is waiting for him, how do you stop that person? You can't threaten to kill them. They want to die. When was the last time you heard of an American who was willing to strap a bomb to his chest and blow up an Iranian embassy? The answer is never, because we are not crazy and desperate the way Islamofascists are. And as far as the "winning hearts and minds" strategy is concerned, you don't win them by kicking people's doors down, pointing rifles in their faces, and demanding to know where their father/uncle/brother is. I don 't claim to have the answers, and I am not a soldier, strategist, or politician. But there has to be a better way of stopping terrorism than blowing other countries to pieces and not being able to put them back together again. See related article.

President John F. Kennedy.

Where did it all go wrong?

For as long as most Americans can remember, we have viewed our government through a cynical and jaundiced eye. We always seem ready to believe the worst about our elected officials and rarely prepared to give them proper credit for the things they stand for or against. It seems that this attitude has persisted for several reasons, not the least of which is the "culture war" that began in the 1960s and persists on a lower-profile basis today. I have been reading history, and it seems to me that the decline in American stature and national pride began with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. For evidence, go to the website Youtube.com and view Kennedy's inaugural address. Witness the ambition and boldness of Kennedy's ideas, and the challenge he lays out for "a new generation of Americans." He believed that poverty could and should be eradicated, that racial harmony was not only possible but essential, that a man should be landed on the moon within ten years. These days, we consider ourselves lucky if an elected official or sports hero or celebrity doesn't wind up in prison, and this man was laying out an agenda that was not only ambitious, but truly courageous in its scope. And it wasn't just his speeches - after all, many politicians are blessed with the gift of eloquence. Once he was elected, Kennedy began doing the exact things he had promised. He stood down Nikita Kruschev during the Cuban missile crisis, a profile in courage. He forced Governor George Wallace of Alabama to admit black students to the state university, making desegregation a fact as well as a Supreme Court decision. He refused to commit more than the absolute minimum of American advisors to Vietnam. Kennedy was a liberal in the best sense of the word, believing in a helping hand but not a handout, a step up while not stepping on others. Who has there been for us since Kennedy was brutally murdered by a coward named Oswald? Lyndon Johnson, his successor, buried us up to the neck in Vietnam and then bailed out. Richard Nixon got us in deeper yet, committed burglary, and then quit. Gerald Ford let Nixon off in return for his Presidency, further embittering America. Jimmy Carter allowed Iran to humiliate us and imprison our people. Reagan practiced the kind of conservatism that runs up massive budget defecits and impoverishes the inner cities. Bush Senior was Reagan lite, though he did show courage and forethought in driving out Saddam Hussein and refusing to go all the way to Baghdad. Bill Clinton possessed Kennedy's rhetorical gifts, but refused to control his sexual appetites, and Bush the Younger used 9/11 as an excuse to force democracy on a country that wasn't ready for it and didn't want it. Since the killings of John and Robert Kennedy, America's presidents have never approached the same level of courage and fortitude. They have either been seriously flawed or outright incompetent, and some of them (Nixon) have been crooks. While Kennedy's behavior was not always perfect, the way he inspired people and encouraged them to stand for what they believed in was the gold standard for an American president. Barack Obama has been trying to sell himself as a new Kennedy, pledging to bring back something called "hope." Lets hope he can succeed. Click here to visit the Kennedy Presidential Library's official website.

Paul Bremer, former head of Iraq's Coalition Provisional Authority. Bremer gave American contractors the right to take home all their profits tax free, with minimal oversight, thereby encouraging corruption.

Death of a Contractor: Playing Fast and Loose in Iraq

The March 8 issue of Rolling Stone magazine has an investigative article I urge you to seek out at your local newsstand or library called "Death of a Contractor." It relates the story of Ryan Manelick, who went to Iraq looking for purpose and direction in life as a contractor for Ultra Services, which provided food and supplies for American servicemen and women. He signed on to work for a man named John Dawkins, an agressive and charismatic entrepreneur who had gone broke trying to make it in America. Neither Manelick nor Dawkins were tremendous successes in life, and both had a chip on their shoulder. Before long, Manelick was sending e-mails complaining about not being paid, claiming that Dawkins was treating him badly and was an incompetent manager. Then he began dreaming up plans of leaving the company and starting his own. There was nothing in Manelick's background suggesting he was competent to do so, but it seriously annoyed Dawkins, who believed that Manelick was immature and childish. He knew that Manelick could cause problems for him by taking his contacts and dragging his name through the dirt. At the time, Dawkins had enough problems with contracts he couldn't fulfill and his bosses suspecting him of playing fast and loose with their money. Then, Charles Phillips and Kirk Von Ackermann, Dawkins' business partners, proposed splitting the company and setting up shop in opposition to Dawkins. Surprisingly, Dawkins seemed to have no objection to this. Shortly afterward, however, Von Ackermann disappeared. It seemed at first that he had been kidnapped, but no ransom demand was forthcoming. There was an investigation, but Von Ackermann was never found. Not long afterward, the Army's Criminal Investigative Division began investigating Ultra Services for fraud. It was believed at the time that John Dawkins had bribed an American officer in return for government contracts. Ryan Manelick began to be afraid at this point, believing that Dawkins had Von Ackermann killed to pay him back for blowing the whistle on Dawkins' corruption. Phillips still wanted Dawkins out of Ultra Services, but he needed someone to take over for him in the day-to-day management of the company. Ryan Manelick was tabbed for the job, and he was initially triumphant, writing gloating e-mails back home to his father about how he had stolen the company out from under Dawkins. Manelick and Phillips went to CID headquarters in Tikrit to tell investigators that they believed Dawkins had Von Ackermann killed. Dawkins arrived as they were leaving the base, and Charles Phillips spoke contemptuously to Dawkins while Ryan Manelick looked on, grinning. On Sunday, December 4th, 2003, Ryan Manelick pulled out of Camp Anaconda, a U.S. Army base forty-five miles to the north of Baghdad, after checking on some trailers that Ultra Services provided. On the way, his Hyundai was ambushed by unknown attackers. Ryan Manelick was dead on the scene. The case of Ryan Manelick's murder is still open to this day, and a cloud of suspicion hangs over John Dawkins for the killings of both Manelick and Von Ackermann. One thing that doesn't fit: Von Ackermann's Ultra Services ID badge was found in Dawkins' possession, and a scan of the badge was on Dawkins' laptop computer, dated one day after Von Ackermann had disappeared. You can draw your own conclusions about John Dawkins' guilt or innocence, but having read this article in Rolling Stone, all I can think to myself is: Aren't we supposed to be the good guys? See related article.

What's changed in 30 years? Not much.

While trying to think of an original way of approaching this weeks blog entry, I found an old book at my local library. It was in the bargain bin for sixty cents, and it was called "Sez Who? Sez Me." It is a collection of the legendary Chicago newspaper columnist Mike Royko's Chicago Sun-Times articles dating back to the Vietnam era. Royko was a fierce intellect, and I envy anyone who can talk so boldly about the way things ought to be and keep from losing his common touch. Anyway, an article that caught my eye was called "A Faceless Man's Plea," and it related the sad tale of Leroy Bailey, a young man who had just turned 21 years old when a Vietnamese rocket tore through the roof of his tent and mangled his face to the point where it simply didn't exist anymore. When Royko wrote about him in 1973, he was living in his brother's basement in La Grange, knitting wool hats and listening to a tape player. He wanted to be able to eat solid food again, which he had been unable to do even after three years of operations under the auspices of the Veteran's Administration. A plastic surgeon by the name of Dr. Janda believed that he could fix Leroy's face to the point that he could eat solid food, but it would take six separate operations, all of which the VA would have to pay for. According to the VA, however, they would not pay because "the treatment was for a condition other than your service-related disability." A North Vietnamese rocket exploded in his face, and now he has no face, and they claimed it was not "service related?" In the end, Leroy Bailey was able to get payment from the VA, but it's doubtful that anything would have been different without Royko's help. Royko wrote a follow-up column detailing the various levels of VA bureaucracy and buck-passing and behind-covering that anyone familiar with government agencies knows about. (When I said we needed big government, I didn't mean wasteful, slow government - just one that stretches far enough and wide enough to protect most Americans.) Now that a new Vietnam is upon us, and more American troops are being maimed than ever before, and post-traumatic stress is becoming a real problem again, what has changed? Nothing. The surgeon general of the Army has been forced to resign, and Bob Dole has been appointed to investigate the VA, but nothing has really changed since the inception of the Veteran's Administration. Fifty years of Presidents and Congresses have had a chance to do real work to overhaul the system and do right by our troops, and none of them have even taken a shot at it. And this is not just their fault. Those Presidents and Congresses were doing work that was important, just not the work of fixing the Veterans Administration. At the end of the Vietnam War, we as Americans were sick of thinking about it, sick of talking about it. We just wanted to forget the whole thing, and we refused to hold our government accountable for what happened to the kids in uniform who didn't walk away unscathed. And if we're not careful, the New Vietnam will cause us to do the same thing. We will be so relieved that it's all over with that we will forget about those who need us, and we will not demand proper treatment of our wounded Veterans. If we are truly Americans, and if we really love our troops the way we say we do, we will demand that this President and all future Presidents make overhauling the Veteran's Administration a priority, now and until the job is completed. There are too many Leroy Baileys as it is. See related article.

L to R: Presidents Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

A Different Approach to Iran

With the positioning of an American aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, and President Bush ratcheting up his accusations of Iranian complicity in the war in Iraq, the world has turned its attention to Iraq's eastern neighbor. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly refused demands from the world community, led by the United States, to shut down his nuclear program, which he claims is for peaceful purposes. It is difficult to square this claim with his recent disgraceful hosting of a Holocaust denial conference, featuring such losers as the American neo-nazi David Duke. It is an even worse sign that Ahmadinejad has claimed that Israel should be "wiped off the map." But what if these signs are not as serious as they seem? Even the most hawkish doomsayers admit that Iran is still years away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon, and if it does, how many of us really believe that President Ahmadinejad would use it on Israel or America? Suppose that Tel Aviv, or God forbid, New York went up in a mushroom cloud tomorrow, and Iran was identified as the responsible party. Wouldn't Israel and America strike back with Minuteman nuclear-tipped missles at the heart of Iran, and wipe that country off the map? Could Iran's president possibly not know this? Is it possible that he is utterly mad, and just doesn't care? I don't think so. I think he is crazy like the proverbial fox, and is using anti-Jewish prejudice and his nuclear ambitions to provoke other world leaders while rallying his people behind him. He is not Hitler - just a tinpot little Caesar like his friend Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez, another worldwide provocateur who bashes America to pump up his own image. In my opinion, what needs to be done to send a message to Iran is simply this: Tell Ahmadinejad that he can have all the nuclear weapons he wants, since we probably won't be able to invade his country to stop him, and airstrikes will likely not work either. But if he gives even the slightest hint of using them, well.....in that case we will have no choice but to preemptively strike. I think it will end up like this anyway, once all the diplomatic huffing and puffing die down (if it ever does.) Iran will make the big announcement of their nuclear capabilities, and we will draw the line in the sand: use the weapon at your own peril. I'm willing to bet that in the end, President Ahmadinejad, or one of his successors, will blink first.
See related article.

The polluted Los Angeles skyline.

Why we need big government

If you turn on the Fox News Channel at any given hour, you will likely find a pundit or news commentator who has abandoned all pretense of objectivity and chosen to flog the old Republican idea of small government as a solution to America's problems. If America's poor are forced to stand on their own - especially its minorities, they say - they will learn the value of hard work and start making a contribution to society. There's just one problem with that. It doesn't work. I'll admit, there are plenty of people who abuse the government's social welfare system and refuse to get a job no matter how many children they have, or the state of poverty they live in. But the way the Fox News people talk, you would think that they believe that the solution is to cut these people off drastically and completely, and I think there's a great deal of hatred in that approach. A person who has lived on welfare for years and has not prepared themselves in any way for a job is not going to be ready for one just because Congress suddenly cuts off their food stamps. There are people with legitimate disabilities out there who are not going to be helped by the private sector for the simple reason that there is no profit motive for that sector to do so. In an America where able-bodied factory workers with years of experience are being laid off by the thousands to give their jobs to foreigners who work dirt cheap, why would these same companies extend a helping hand to those who for various reasons - lack of training, addiction, criminal records, mental or physical illness - have trouble getting and keeping a job? This is where the government has to step in and help take care of its own. Pell grants and federal student loans to educate the poor, Medicaid and Medicare to take care of the sick, drug and alcohol rehab programs to help keep America sober, a fully funded education mandate for the kids - all these things can help the poor and disadvantaged learn to take care of themselves and make a contribution. Without big government and social welfare programs to help those who need a leg up, America's poor, which is comprised mostly of minorities, will remain a permanent underclass. It is also necessary for the government to assume responsibility for environmentally policing America's industries. The Bush administration has gutted regulations governing the coal and timber industries, and refused to get serious about finding an alternative to fossil fuels. It seems to believe that without punitive measures to keep big business honest, our industries will police themselves. I don't believe it, and I think that a safe workplace, clean air, clean water, and plentiful natural resources are also the responsiblity of our government. Conservatives sneer at these ideas, and refer to the liberal ideal as a "nanny state." All I can say to that is, without the nanny state, maybe your kids don't get to go to college. Maybe one of them gets cancer due to the lack of a Superfund to clean up toxic waste. Maybe if you lose your job, you don't get unemployment to keep you and your family fed until you can find another. Conservatives hate big government, but let's get serious here. We are a big country with different people who have different abilities. We need it. See related article.

Senator Joe Biden, D-DE.

Democrats and "Foot-in-Mouth Disease"

By now, those of us who follow Democratic Presidential politics have heard Senator and candidate Joe Biden, D-DE, put his foot in it with his remarks about fellow Senator and candidate Barack Obama, D-IL. For those who haven't heard yet, Biden's exact comments were, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man," as told to the New York Observer. Ugh. Where to begin? Not only does he imply that previous African-American Presidential hopefuls were unclean, dumb, and not articulate, he also, by extension, paints the African-American race with that brush. On top of that, he makes Democrats in general look like fools. Didn't anyone clue him in that just one racially charged word, spoken at the wrong time, can end a candidacy? If he wants to know, all he has to do is ask former Senator George Allen, R-VA, who lost a close Senate race to Democrat Jim Webb at least partially on the basis of the word "macaca," spoken in reference to a campaign worker of Asian descent. What makes Biden's gaffe worse than Allen's is the size of the stage (Presidential vs. Senatorial) and the fact that Allen, for a little while at least, had plausible deniability. After all, few people knew what "macaca" meant until the national media looked it up for them, and for a while, Allen could maintain that he'd just made the term up. Biden has no such place to hide. While this may be for the best - I believe the Democratic Party's best hopes for 2008 lie with front runners Obama and Hillary Clinton, D-NY - it is always unfortunate to see a prominent Democrat make a fool of him or herself. The problem is, Democrats seem to make a habit of doing so. John Kerry's (D-MA) mangled joke about uneducated people getting "stuck in Iraq," Dick Durbin (D-IL) and his ill-advised comparison of American servicemen and their interrogation techniques to Nazis, the aforementioned Jim Webb and his wanting to punch the President for sending his son to Iraq - all of this speaks to a lack of focus and discipline among the most prominent of Democrats. I, for one, would like to see it stopped. While no politician can always speak or behave perfectly, Democrats, especially those seeking the Oval Office, have a higher responsibility. They cannot afford to lose this one, not while there is a war that needs to be stopped. And while I am on the subject, Democrats in both houses of Congress need to toughen up, bite the bullet, and cut off funding for the war. Since the slim majority in the Senate couldn't round up 60 votes for a non-binding (as in useless) resolution condemning the troop surge, a vote to defund seems unlikely anytime soon. This is unfortunate. Those who have seen the military drama "A Few Good Men" likely remember when Jack Nicholson's character remarks that a Marine is "in the business of saving lives." Right now, our legislative branch of government needs to be in the business of saving our troops, and they cannot allow verbal missteps or political expediency to stop them. Time to toughen up, Democrats, and do the right thing. This war needs to be over. See related article.

Why do people hate Hillary?

It's true - there has probably never been as polarizing a presidential candidate as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY. As a resident of the rural Midwest for all of my life, I have an up-close and personal view of Hillary-hatred, and it is widespread, coming from many different quarters and social strata. I remember at the height of the Monica Lewinsky affair, people wearing T-shirts that said, "I'd cheat on Hillary too." Fans of the comedian Chris Rock probably remember a routine of his in which he blamed the former first lady for that scandal, claiming that if she had satisfied his needs, it never would have happened. It's impossible to bring up Hillary in a blue-collar bar without a local person (usually male) shouting out, "She's a lesbian!" or some cruder variant of the term. An elderly friend of mine has more sensible reasons for disliking her, calling her a "carpetbagger," someone who had no business running for Congress in the state of New York, having come from Arkansas. But I break it down to two main problems that Hillary has, starting with one she can't help, and another she can. The first is her previous career as the First Lady. In many parts of society, Hillary is remembered as a First Lady who tried to redefine a position that no one wanted redefined. When the former President announced that Hillary would be his partner in setting the legislative agenda, traditionally-minded Americans blanched. Many of them thought that Hillary should "stay home and bake cookies," as she famously remarked. After seeing the grandmotherly visages of former First Ladies Nancy Reagan and Barbara Bush, and observing how they deferred publicly to their powerful husbands, America may not have been ready for a First Lady who didn't just pay lip service to the idea of gender equality. Or, perhaps it was simply a case of, "Who elected her, anyway?" It may be too simple to define people's reactions to the former First Lady as pure sexism, but certainly sexism played a part (not to mention the goofy homophobia described above.) As mentioned, her past career as the First Lady and people's reactions to it are nothing she can change. But her image, which is that of a charmless, heartless political operative, is. I took it as a hopeful sign when she recently joked about her ability to deal with "evil, bad men, " an obvious jibe at her famous husband. Hillary will never be the charmer that Bill Clinton was and is (few people ever could be,) but if she loosens up and shows the more human, compassionate side of herself, the side that wrote "It Takes a Village," she will have a much better chance at winning over those who may have the wrong impression of her. A more relaxed, energetic Hillary, combined with her foreign policy and legislative experience and the enthusiastic support of her husband, could be a great alternative to the charming yet inexperienced Barack Obama, D-IL, and the retread candidate John Edwards, D-SC. Combine that with her new antiwar stance, and it may even be enough to carry her past authentic national heroes Rudy Giuliani, R-NY, or John McCain, R-AZ. Those two, Iraq hawks both, will have trouble convincing a war-weary America that staying in Iraq is worth the cost in lives and treasure, and if Hillary Clinton stays on message against the war, she has an excellent chance. The only thing that could derail her is the prejudice of certain Americans against her and her husband. Click here for a related article.

Senators and noted Iraq hawks John McCain, R-AZ, and Joe Lieberman, I-CT.

Why I want to vote for John McCain.....but can't.

If there's anyone in Congress who personifies the American hero and statesman for the 21st century, it's Senator John McCain, R-AZ. His military service during the Vietnam War is well-known to many Americans. On October 26, 1967, while we were just concluding the so-called "Summer of Love," McCain's fighter jet was shot down by anti-aircraft fire over Vietnam. He was first beaten and spit upon by villagers, then stabbed in the groin and foot with a bayonet. His shoulder was crushed by a rifle butt. To this day, McCain cannot lift his arms over his head. He was taken to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton, to be interrogated and beaten until he was unconscious. But this is the part that amazes me, to the point that I still have trouble believing it. John McCain's father, John II, was an Admiral in the U.S. Navy, and because of this, McCain was offered a chance to return home after a few months. He turned them down. He did so knowing full well that he would likely die in Vietnam. He did it because he refused to leave his comrades behind, and because he wanted no special treatment from the Vietnamese. Five more years. John McCain spent five more years taking crippling beatings from his captors because he refused to leave his buddies behind. Now that's a hero. I recently saw an MSNBC documentary containing footage of McCain shot in Vietnam by a French documentary crew. His pain and misery are palpable as he tries to communicate with his home country, and I urge you to seek it out if you want to see what torture can do to someone. (The President might do well to watch it too, if you catch my meaning.) There are many other things that this Democrat likes about McCain, some of which include his acknowledgment of the reality of global warming, voting against the Federal Marraige Amendment, aligning with Senator Ted Kennedy, D-MA, to create a guest worker program for illegal immigrants, and his participation in the "Gang of Fourteen" Senators that worked out a compromise on judicial nominees. He has also stood firm against the Bush Administration's use of torture on detainees in the War on Terror with the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill of 2005. All of this is excellent, and I agree wholeheartedly with his stands on these issues. But the problem I have is that he refuses to acknowledge that the war in Iraq may be already lost. He is on record as supporting the President's "surge" of 21,500 more troops to Iraq. He has been pushing for more troops almost since initial combat operations ended. He seems committed to a strategy of victory at all costs, and this worries me. He, like almost all Republicans from the President on down, refuses to ask the question, "What if we can't win?" The President, especially before the recent Congressional elections, made this question out to be unpatriotic, a question that emboldens the enemy. But I would suggest that we should have asked it years ago, before the war was even started. George Bush Senior asked it before deciding not to topple Saddam Hussein's government. Barack Obama asked it while serving in the Illinois Congress, and John Kerry asked it in the 2004 Presidential election. Since then, we have made little progress in tamping down the violence in Iraq, particularly in the capitol city of Baghdad. (That's if you believe the newspapers and TV news. I have been accused of being foolish to trust the traditional media outlets, but then again, I'm old-fashioned.) The elected officials who have doubted and questioned our strategy and justification in fighting this war have been mostly Democratic, and they have been proven right time and again, while hawks such as John McCain have had to offer the "not enough troops" excuse. Here's my question for Senator McCain, as well as the President's administration. What if it was just a bad idea to begin with? While I admire and respect the Senator, and may have voted for him in peacetime, I must instead vote for a Democrat who will bring this war to a merciful end. I'm tired of watching people die. For a related article, click below.

ttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15805215/

Welcome to the Blue Donkey Lounge!

L to R: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV chats with Bono of the rock band U2 and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-CA.

Good evening, everyone! It's almost five o'clock on Thursday, January 24th, 2007, and this is the first posting of The Blue Donkey Lounge. My name is Nathan Hack, and I've created this blog as part of an assignment for my Digital Media Class at Heartland Community College in Bloomington, Illinois. Why such a weird name for a weblog? I wanted to choose a name to reflect the political leanings of its creator (committed Democrat) and to call it a "lounge" to emphasize the relaxed nature of the kind of commentary that will appear here. I like healthy debate, but I will post no personal attacks!!!! I want this blog to pay particular attention to the upcoming presidential race, especially the Democratic side of things. I will also feature the occasional article or posting on Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's administrations for those who like things a little more local. Remember, you don't have to be a Democrat to enjoy reading about politics, and sometimes it can be fun to check out how the other side is doing! So, if you're a Republican, a Libertarian, a Green Party member, or even a Martian, read on and enjoy!!! My e-mail address is larrysboy2004@yahoo.com, but remember, if I post something you disagree with, no offense is intended. I'm just exercising my First Amendment rights, and trying to get an A at the same time! See CNN Article