Just FYI for people who are being redirected here while searching for the other site. It’s an issue I am only starting to deal with now.

As everyone knows, there are conservatives out there at current who are adamant Bill Clinton was soft on terrorism and has been trying to paint that picture since earlier this month through every disinformation channel available to them.

Yet, to those who actually believe Clinton was soft on terrorism or just plain didn’t do enough to fight terror — look at what Orrin Hatch, Trent Lott and others of the GOP were up to stopping President Clinton from having some of the very same issues that Congress now rubber-stamps for President Bush today.  That link and the following quote from CNN in July of 1996:

“We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue,” Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives “a phony issue.”

I wonder if old Orrin stood up and argued how the entire gels-and-liquids scare that has helped slow down the queue in airports for the last few weeks was phony… Or did he “wise up on the issue” where politicians who change stances today are known as flip-floppers?

But wait, it gets better.

Back in April of 1996 — the US House approved an anti-terror legislation that was severely watered down from what President Clinton had been proposing and the Senate had passed.  This was near the one-year anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing and several months prior to TWA Flight 800’s crash (along with the Centennial Park bombing at the Olympics in Atlanta):

Republicans were divided on whether the legislation would be effective.

“We have a measure that will give us a strong upper hand in the battle to prevent and punish domestic and international terrorism,” Senate Majority Leader and presumptive GOP presidential nominee Bob Dole said Wednesday.

But Sen. Don Nickles, R-Oklahoma, while praising the bill, said the country remains “very open” to terrorism. “Will it stop any acts of terrorism, domestic and international? No,” he said, adding, “We don’t want a police state.”

Some lawmakers took a more prudent view of the bill. “The balance between public safety and order and individual rights is always a difficult dilemma in a free society,” said Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-New York.

(emphasis added by me)

Now what’s my point in this and what constructive items can we take from it?

Ten years ago, there was a sensible conservatism out there that said individuals had rights, and it’s a thin line between individual rights and safety. The Republicans once knew that and they put the country’s civil liberties before the terrorism fight.

Now? Well, you should know…

The world didn’t change on 9-11 as the neoconservatives in control of the Republican party have worked very hard to make the country believe. It was our national courage that did. If you’re giving into your fear for the sake of safety and blaming all of this on the other guy in order to feel more secure at this very moment, you’re a coward and a fool who has become blinded from right-and-wrong with thanks to your party-of-choice in power.

George W. Bush is now referring to the War on ‘Terror’ (which is a “war” against a tactic to begin with — not against a defined group, though the base of supporters labels Arabs as the terrorist boogeyman) as World War 3.

Yeah, that’s right folks. World War 3… Where the “Coalition of the Willing” are a bunch of weak willed countries that need to be paid off in order to support our efforts. Where our traditional allies have turned their backs because we’ve started military action in a country that did not call for action against it…

In all honesty, this is another Crusade. Maybe the last Crusade. George W. Bush — who is trying to project himself as an elite ruler — is King Richard, who marches into the Holy Lands in order to try to free them (or make it safe for US oil companies in this case). It’s all glory, it’s all bravado and all for his legacy and ego. Meanwhile, back at home, the nation is suffering in the King’s “abscence”. While Boy George focuses on winning his war everyone at home is being robbed … Not by Robin Hood either but the numerous Sheriff’s of Nottingham.

You know, I heard about Flock a few weeks ago when I was browsing around the Tampa Blab and came across Sarah In Tampa’s post about the browser. It was – in essence – a browser that was built for blogging from what I was reading… I wanted to see exactly what the hub-bub was about the minute there was a released version of the browser.

Well, the developer release version of Flock is out and I did go ahead and download it… And wasn’t really able to accomplish jack with the thing. I tried simply integrating one of my blogs onto Flock and followed the directions and was met with errors every time I tried to log in.

Not totally dismissing Flock just yet but I do think I better just forget about it for another couple of months…

It’s been a while since I decided to read any non-ficiton. Usually it’s biographical works on icons of the Entertainment industry (ie: Beatles or the Doors). Keeping with that trend, I decided to pick up Ray Manzarek’s Light My Fire, it’s a Doors autobiography I’ve been meanign to read for some time.

And yet, as I’m still in the early areas of the book, I’m trying to understand why I thought it was a must read? Probably because of all the positive reviews of the book when it originally was released. Can’t be bad at all then, can it?

From a writing standpoint, it can be all that bad. And worse. Though Manzarek has a unique perspective on his tail…. He’s not a writer.

The book comes off much like a personal journal would, I guess… Reporting the mundane as well as the gripping, life-altering events of Ray’s life… But Manzarek loses focus and direction on any given topic quite easily. At one moment he’s about to discuss finding a live performance of the Blues in the south side o fChicago, and the next moment he’s rambling about attire he wore to graduation from the 8th grade…. One moment he’s about to get into his first exposure to Beat poetry, the next he’s laying the smackdown on facism and intimidation of the California Highway Patrol. He goes off on the broadest tangents and does not focus on the event that inspires the tangent thought.

Another instance of Ray veering wildly is a recounting of Jim Morrison’s UCLA film school student film… While trying to detail Jim’s non-linear movie that Rya found “poetic”, he begins recounting Oliver Stone’s version of the student film that he made as part of his feature film on the Doors. Ray goes off on Oliver for makign an innocent film into something with anti-semitism and Nazi inneundo. He attacks Stone (as he has since the film came out in the early 1990’s) and lets the UCLA film school experience vanish from the story.

It almost comes off like a conversation — one that varies wildly as those who partake in the conversation ramble on into the night. Yet, having to read this conversation is painful… Especially with gramatical errors of repeated run-on sentences, short sentences that woudl be better combined, repetition of adjectives, etc….

Ray’s book, while from the heart, has nothing on John Densemore’s Riders on the Storm autobiography.,

Due to spam problems and people not being directed to the Stonegauge’s active setup, I did something I really shouldn’t have and deleted every MT file I had in the Archives…

That being said, if you are looking for something on the web and got a error message on my site, type it in on the left-hand Search menu and look there. It might just come up.

Visit FanHome…

…and get a big, fat, juicy 404 error.

An era has officially passed.

You know, I could talk up and down about he Presidential Debate last night (“You forgot Poland!” ) but I digress. That’s what all the other political blogs are for…. Soemone came off like a politician and someone came off hapless… That’s all I am saying.

However with Los Buccaneeros de Tampa Bay falling assunder — looking at going 0-4 for the first time since 1996 — I couldn’t help but start thinkign about Gruden and Bush last night. I mean, the debate put El Presidente on my mind and of course any Tampa Bay resident is going to put the Bucs on their mind at one point or another.

• Bush came into power and was blessed with the state of the economy and state of the federal budget which the previous administration helped along. He was handed a world that wasn’t embroidered with peace but if he acted decisively and quickly – he could have dealt with a lingering foreign problem… September 11th happened (which was tragic) and people started to blindly follow him through the days that followed.

  Jon Gruden came into power with The Buccaneers blessed with the Buccaneer roster anda shrewdly managed salary cap that the previous head coach helped along greatly during his tenure. He was handed a team that was dominant but couldn’t win the whole she bang, but if he acted decisively and quickly – he could turn the team into not just a one time Super Bowl champion but a dynasty. The Bucs were coming off a first round loss to the Philadelphia Eagles (again) which featured an inept offense (which was tragic) and people started to blindly follow Gruden (after he was hired) because he seemed to be the answer to things.

• Bush went to War with terror. Patriotism went through the roof and the man could seemingly do no wrong.

  Gruden brought the Bucs to the Super Bowl and won. Team frevor went through the roof and Gruden could seemingly do no wrong.

• Bush went off on a tangent and wanted to attack Iraq, and verbally sparred with his allies when they wouldn’t agree with his plans.

  Gruden went off on a tangent and started to attack his free agency carelessly, and verbally sparred with his General Manager when he (Rich McKay) wouldn’t agree with hsi plans.

• Bush continued to do as he pleased and sold Iraq on false pretenses…

  Gruden continued to do as he pleased and cut John Lynch on porrous pretenses

• Bush surrounds himself with sychophants in his administration in order to continue with his carekess plans without opposition

  Gruden surrounded himself with a sychophant (Bruce Allen) in the organization to continue with his careless plans without opposition.

• Bush’s cronnies made bad tactical decisions (Fallujah, Hallburton, etc)

  Gruden’s cronny has made bad tactical decisions (signing Darrell Russell, Signing Charlie Garner, etc)

• Bush doesn’t think of the Future with the national debt, tax cuts and costly defict spending.

  Gruden diesn’t think of the Future with his shunning of rookies, trading draft picks and costly/careless signings.

• Bush will not fess up to his mistakes

  Gruden will not fess up to his mistakes

Maybe it’s just me, but this is how I see it. The similarities stop at the fact Bush can be kicked out of office in November and Gruden is contractually signed for a long time to come….

How can the President, knowing that Osama Bin Laden has worked with limited resources in the third world and orchestrated the most heinious attacks on the United States of America, tell the American People that Osama Bin Laden was “contained” as he did last night during the debates? Osama runs free along the Afghan and Pakistan border and his Al Qaeda network is alive and well around the world and yet the word “contained” is being used to describe this grease fire?

This is an insult to anyone who lost a loved one on September 11th, 2001. You cannot simply say Osama Bin Laden is “contained” and that American’s should sit back and accept a political description of the situation when, just 3 years ago, Bush was rallying the country with the slogan “Dead or Alive.”

To all those who say John Kerry flip-flops on issues — if you do not see the President flip-flopping on this issue, you have blinders on. If you can accept “containment” over closure, you’ve turned a blind eye to those who have suffered and lost because of Osama Bin laden.

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator and politically – he was “contained.” He had no allies to hide with, he was out in the open and the world had imposed strict sanctions against him. Osama Bin Laden is a rogue and he and his terrorist network are anything but contained.

So Al Qaeda has the idea to go and attack the American financial institutions to do damage to our way of life. Citicorp, Prudential, etc… Sure, major financial institutions such as these are indeed good targets but really, is Al Qaeda missing an opportunity here? Why go after these big banks when there is an even BIGGER target sitting in the country with absolutely no one paying attention to it?

Why not blow up Wal Mart’s main offices and do Americans a favor?

First off, I’m kidding when I suggest these bastards blow up anything, so if anyone takes this post seriously and thinks I am encouraging a terrorist attack, you got another thing coming.

Of course, even attacking a retailing giants main corporate center won’t destroy the organization. Wal Mart is too spread out… But the thing is — attacking Wal Mart hits every American in one way or another… Shopping, employment… Even competing wages for those employed in other retailing / supermarket institutions…

I won’t get into a rant with regards to Wal Mart and the rolling back of American pay rates… but lets just say I would have know qualms if the Wal Mart shopping institution was suddenly wiped from the map.