Welcome to Open Source Politics

Last night saw a fantastic shift in the direction of politics with the introduction of a debate involving questions posted on YouTube which meant that for the first time, at least in outward appearance, the country's true questions were answered. The magnitude of this debate is great in that it was the first political debate on a large, nationally televised stage that encouraged the active involvement of common people in the shaping of political policy and the priorities of issues in the coming election.

The irony of course is the fact that it has been quite some time since we've seen such a public display of, well...democracy.

So with the facilitation of such a debate generating a buzz among my peers and I about the concept that the candidates in the coming elections are taking relatively unedited, difficult, and relevant questions on the issues that the public truly cares about, what's next? Obviously, if we entertained every single whim of every joe blow with a microphone and a webcam, the government would become a confusing and disjointed place.

Like Linux?

For those who have never heard about it, Linux is an open-source operating system, which means that as the operating system develops, it does so by the work of anyone who wants to pick up the program and edit it. The concept is that by the collective work on applications and the core code of the Linux operating system, we will end up with a desktop environment that tailors to the true needs of the people who use it: anyone who touches a computer. This means that everyone can take part in shaping their computing future.

Yes, I'm a geek.

As a user of Ubuntu, which is a "flavor" or specific version of Linux, I enjoyed my short trip down an exciting new path in computers. My only complaints with Linux were these:

1. The programs seemed unvarnished. Not as "pretty" as other programs that I had used and so I had a harder time accepting them as quality.
   
2. The support for different filetypes was limited and there was no "one size fits all" program to take care of the problem. This meant searching far and wide for a myriad of software that perhaps clashed with one another.
3. Sometimes the programs I used were singular in that they only worked as long as no other manipulation had occured with the core of the operating system. The programmers sometimes seemed to disregard the universality of the open-source system.

My overall impression was that, though the concept was great that people could have open access to programs and edit them as they pleased, there was no universal standard to govern the programs and make sure that they all worked.

The idea that a universal body needs to exist for individual projects to work cohesively exists in the government of course. Bureaucracies have been formed to iron out the problems, but because of the paperwork and gap-bridging that has to occur for policies to work together, the government can often be slow and cumbersome.

Like Windows?

Windows uses a number of programs that help do just that. Should a program conflict with some component of the operating system, Windows uses several programs that take resources to operate and smooth out the inconsistencies, therefore slowing down the computer.

So where's the balance?

The people that want to create policy in this country have to go through the appropriate channels, and by the time that this all gets funneled into a legislative body, the originally proposed concept may be a far cry from its manifestation on the senate floor. Unfortunately, the people who wish to make change often feel that they have to know the right people (acquire the right licenses), know the code (somehow scrape together enough knowledge of the system to even write a policy), and then try to sell it with pretty packaging.

Let's face it, the system is imperfect and it is absurd to think that it could ever be perfect. But last night, at least for a couple of hours, the tools were given to people to start shaping policy:

1. Questions were asked, unedited, through open submission in a public forum
2. Ideas were presented to candidates so that they can begin writing the "code"
3. The candidates were able to take the suggested idea and translate it into the language of public policy with the eloquence that can help sell the idea
4. The translation took place on a very public stage an in broad viewing of public scrutiny to ensure that the questions were answered
   
5. The whole process was done with the concept that democracy embodies: that the collective thoughts of the public can help create the best America possible

The new age of politics is an exciting one and it seems historically ironic that it should begin now with the open-source movement and the advent of massive social networks like digg.com, YouTube, and Facebook. Ultimately, the beauty of a project like Linux is that through the mass involvement of users, the programs will be released that help deal with these problems. Hopefully, as candidates open their minds to wide acceptance of public interest, instead of licensing conflicts, the idea conceptualized by the constitution will become a reality. The government should never compromise a degree of bureaucracy that streamlines the process, but the true realization of government will only occur when the tools to create policy are made open to the public as they were during last night's CNN debate.

We can hope that this is only the beginning.

Comprehensive Guide to this Week's Conservative Media

Another week and some more stories. See anything you like? Want to submit something? Let me know!

Did WH Politicize Capture of top Al-Qaeda Leader?
Questions raised if the White House is molding the public image of Iraq

Matthews: I 'Sympathize with Scooter Libby'
Chris Matthews makes comments empathizing with Scooter Libby on Hardball

Washington Times Propagates False Headline: Senate Rejects Iraq Pullout
Misleading headline from the Washington Times about Iraq pullout vote

Tony Snow: 'The Al-Qaeda of 2001 No Longer Exists'
Tony Snow feeds false remarks about the state of Iraq at a press conference

Right Wing 'Path to 9/11' Receives 7 Emmy Nominations
Misleading documentary about 9/11 receives acclamation despite factual disparities

Obama knocked Edwards for 'Ma[king] Millions as a Trial Lawyer'
MSNBC's Tucker Carlson sets democratic candidates against each other with false statements

Savage Distorts, Attacks MediaMatters.org
Michael Savage makes false, disparaging remarks against MediaMatters.org

Thanks to MediaMatters.org and Think Progress for these stories.

You KNOW Why We are in Iraq

The other day I found myself in a political debate with a friend of mine.

It was an ordinary debate, with "facts". Basically, we threw "what we've heard" back and forth at each other to the entertainment of the people in the room. I "cited" some evidence and he did the same in return. Two college kids with ideology in hand, trying to work each other over in a mental arm-wrestling match the equivalent of the Arm-Wrestling National Qualifiers in BFE, Utah. Because let's face it, without a computer in front of us, we really just tend to go with what we think we read in passing on a political editorial website.

The debate was about the political spin of CNN. He argued that they were a liberal news syndicate while I argued that, though that is sometimes true, they tend to give a conservative perspective on issues like Michael Moore's SiCKO, and Global Warming, bringing on Dr. Gupta to give a loaded editorial on the topic. I mused "so if you haven't seen 'An Inconvenient Truth', then how can you know whether Gupta is right or not?" He said, "I don't have to know about Global Warming. It's CNN; Dr. Gupta's doing the research for me."

My friend is a rising leader in the state of Iowa with a penchant for conservative thought and as I listened to him reply with utter certainty on the media, public opinions from self-purported experts, and gobble up the social "givens" about news organizations and policy, I wondered, how many other people suffer from this disease of "utter certainty"?

Iraq still isn't stable. This is not the only report that proves so. And everybody knows it. And even as the GOP begins to jump ship on the war in Iraq, the president and conservative legislators continue to talk about escalation, long-term occupation, and our "success" in liberating the Iraqi people.

We're facing an organization of people who's complete and all-encompassing religious convictions drive them to destroy anything and everyone who believes differently. Their utter religious certainty tells them that they will be martyred if they kill themselves trying to stop us. But we know in our religions that this just isn't so. We're utterly certain of it.

Even now that public opinion is souring and projections for the war are bleak as ever, the president and administration show no remorse for their actions because they are utterly certain that we will...well...do a number of things I guess. A small constituency of people (the percentage keeping the president's approval ratings afloat) has followed the White House through every phase of the invasion despite the ever changing mission statement of Iraq. They've never questioned the logic of the war or the idea that our invasion and decimation of an entire country is going to provide them some kind of rise-from-the-ashes rebirth into freedom.

The best way to fight a war is to demonize your enemy. But in the case of the Iraq war, are we really all that different from the people we fight? We both possess strong religious convictions, we are both fighting for what we believe is right, and we both believe in altruistic ideals of freedom, we just see the issue from two different perspectives.

Ultimately, the issue is that we are "utterly certain" that the decision to invade Iraq was right. We are "utterly certain" that what the news tells us is true. We are "utterly certain" that the president of the United States would never lie or deceive about something as big as a war. We are "utterly certain" that what isn't in our backyard can't directly affect us.

But it has. The mentalities that the United States developed by making the decision to invade a foreign country for its own good have now infected everyone. We are a people that are more self-important than ever. We are even less concerned with the international consequences of our actions. We are even more bombastic in our political convictions and even less partisan in our discussions. We are now more than ever convinced that there is a "right" way to handle policy, religion, and problems.

From Iraq to the media and beyond, our personal convictions are stronger than ever. We as a country stay in a course of action until the only obvious answer is staring us in the face, regardless of all tangible indicators of failure along the way. We have suffered the consequences of an era of "utter certainty" and it's time to begin doubting ourselves.

Agree? Disagree? Different opinion altogether? Let's discuss.

Comprehensive Guide to this Week's Conservative Media

Welcome to the second installment of my weekly guide to examples of conservative media coverage. It's a bit late in the week because of work, but I hope you enjoy it.

ABC Hit Piece Embraced by Right Wing
Right wing loaded piece on the Iraq War aired on major news syndicate ABC

Novak's Disparate Treatment
Washington Post columnist Robert Novak gives unequal treatment to two senators in a similar situation

Kristol: 'We're not in a civil war in Iraq'
Bill Kristol denouncing the state of things in Iraq on the Charlie Rose Show

Russert said Murtha Proposal was "Described as 'Slow Bleed'"
On NBC's Meet the Press, Tim Russert attacks Jim Webb on his Iraq opinions with loaded language

NPR's Liasson Inflates John McCain's Character
NPR correspondant Mara Liasson makes large claim about John McCain's already sullied character

Savage to Immigrants: "Go Back to Where You Came From"
A hateful message from Michael Savage

'Condoms Get You Pregnant' from Conservative Writers'
Scientific facts about contraceptives from conservative writers

Hannity Bashes Carbon Offsets while Rupert Murdoch Uses Them
Claims by Sean Hannity fly in the face of Fox News president

Al Gore is "Closest" to Mussolini
Michael Savage lashes out with more hateful diction at Al Gore

Thanks to MediaMatters.org and ThinkProgress for these stories.

Despite reality of Global Warming, the right can only focus on the Politics

Every day we are directly affected by issues that are improved by partisan debate. When you surf the Internet, the content you receive is mostly neutral due to Net Neutrality. When you shop at the grocery store, the prices of the foods you eat are determined by legislation that keeps those prices consistent. When a farmer sells his crops, legislation gives him the subsidies to afford his supplies and further legislation controls the prices at which he sells those crops.

Some issues, however, are non-debatable. Murder, rape, burglary, perjury, etc. They are all issues whose moral magnitude due to their potential for destruction of lives and society render them non-issues. Bottom line: the idea that these activities would be allowed unchecked in our society is unthinkable, and the consequences completely eclipse the positives. Any person with a concept of morals and ethics would never consider fighting for legislation that would allow these things.

Then why is it that Global Warming, which has the potential, if unchecked, to destroy millions of lives and completely, irreversibly change our eco-system, changing society as we know it and forcing us to spend generations adapting to the environmental damage, is not considered a non-issue? Because of who's connected to it.

Continuously since Al Gore made "An Inconvenient Truth" and the issue of Global Warming made a splash with citizens and policy makers, the rght has done everything in their power to descry the concept. Despite overwhelming evidence that Global Warming is a reality, conservative pundits have done everything from attack the issue on major news affiliates out in the open repeatedly to hiring "experts"to give faux validity to their statements of untruth.

When the Live Earth 2007 concerts amassed one of the largest TV, Internet, and public audiences in history and provided a positive and proactive message towards dealing with the warming crisis, Fox News launched misinformed attacks on the concerts in an effort to undermine their credibility.

Continuously, large media affiliates have provided anti-Global Warming activists with forums on which to speak at Fox News and CNN. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity continuously bring on conservative "scientists" who pump two of the largest radio audiences in the country full of misinformation and distorted, bigoted opinions about the issue which people accept due to their claims as credible news sources.

Is this responsible reporting? Dumping stories full of purposely ignored holes and dismissed facts all for the support of a personal vendetta? That sounds a lot like the way that conservatives treat the issue of Global Warming. Ignoring overwhelming scientific evidence, proclaiming any and all solid counter-arguments as liberal media coverage, and all to take down Al Gore? It's irresponsible and it shouldn't be happening and that's why it's up to college students and up coming politicians to be custodians of the facts in a media climate that is misrepresented in terms of percentage of media coverage to percentage of Americans who share those views.

To quote a friend of mine, Jaybee who regularly posts on MediaMatters.com:

"There isn’t a lot that Progressives can do about talk radio. Contrary to what talk show hosts claim it isn’t really an open market as studies show media companies subsidizing the conservative talk radio industry to the tune of 100 million dollars per year. In that environment it’s no wonder Liberals have turned to blogs for a balancing effect and sharing information in general. Just remember, it’s going to take a lot of blogging to counterbalance almost six years of claiming Saddam Hussein bombed the World Trade Centers and 30 years of claiming that [the] poor [are so] because they deserve it."

Press on friends.

Comprehensive Guide to this Week's Conservative Media

Hey everyone, welcome to the first installment of what I hope is to become a weekly list of links documenting a week in the life of conservative media. I hope you enjoy.

MSNBC's Carlson on Obama: "[H]e sounds like a pothead to me"
Tucker Carlson refers to the citizens of Fairfield as croc wearing potheads and asks if Barack Obama "talks between bong hits."

Savage called Media Matters "the homosexual mafia"
Mediamatters.org exposes Michael Savage in yet another outlandish attack, now turning his attention to the progressive media critics at their website.

Washington Talk Radio Station Drops Bill O’Reilly
Political voices in Washington criticized for having a conservative slant and the community's response.

Snow Falsely Claims ‘There Was Not Much Investigation’ Of Clinton’s Pardons
White House correspondant Tony Snow tries to distort the facts and claim the "well Clinton did it too" card.

Right Wing Launches Dishonest, Misinformed Attacks Against Live Earth
Through Fox News, the right tries to launch an attack on the Live Earth environmental awareness concerts...and fails.

Fox News: Universal Health Care Breeds Terrorists
Because anything socialized is derived from the Nazis or the terrorists.

Savage on immigrant students' hunger strike: "[L]et them fast until they starve to death. ... Go make a bomb where you came from"
Another hateful rant from a man without compassion.

MSNBC, Fox News devoted far more time to Edwards' haircuts than to Domenici announcement
Mediamatters.org exposing another slant in "Fair and Balanced News."

Thanks to Mediamatters.org and Think Progress for these stories.

The Up-and-Coming Generation Needs Help Taking Down the Roadblocks

The most difficult part about paying attention to the political-sphere is the feeling of hopelessness that can sometimes accompany knowing just how inexorable the system can be. Goodness knows with the "big six" in charge of nearly all forms of popular and "credible" media, it seems like even the voices of people who wish to make a difference have little opportunity to make the mainstream unless the procurer of said voice is some kind of well-connected prodigy of thought.

I personally don't know how people like Michael Moore, Bill O'Reilly, Tom Vilsack, or John Edwards got into the positions they did where their voice is respected, listened to, and even welcomed, but as a product of the Millenial generation, I'd like to figure out their methods and publish them to my peers since our voices are the ones that need to be heard in this dialogue.

As we sit in the classrooms and read our textbooks, we know that we're their for one reason, to get a better job. Certainly our dreams are forever whispering in our ears, but they frequently pale in the shadow of larger realities like the concept that, though we aspire to it, we individually may not be the ones to revolutionize medicine, journalism, or even our local communities for that matter. While in high school, our fears were of things like social ostracism, I think that the prevailing fear of college students across the nation is the fear of obscurity.

You see, we get degrees, we hit the polls, and we attend protests because the feeling we get of making that personal contribution to a cause that's important to us gives us hope that we too may someday be heard on national television, published in a national newspaper, or elected to national office. In light of ranting, ego-centric pundits and personal Washington agendas on both sides of the political aisle, it becomes increasingly difficult for my generation to see the silver lining in the clouds.

Yet when you consider that the national docket has all but written us out due to low voter turnout, "prevailing apathy", and a supposed disregard by my peers and I toward the important things in life, perhaps the real issue is that the voices of the potentially obscure, are the ones that journalists, talking heads, and especially politicians should be digging for but aren't. This is because, despite a growing feeling of cynicism and reality among those my age, we still believe in the altruistic ideals preached from the highest pulpits of science and philosophy that our opinions can be frequently uplifting, inspiring, and needed in a country that so badly needs a pick-me-up these days. Our aims are often high and our dreams are often lofty, but to borrow a page from Man's Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl, the only way to achieve high goals is to aim idealistically and, by such means, achieve highly.

Fortunately, politicians like Barack Obama have begun to tap into the youth culture and conduct that survey of America's future movers and shakers that is so badly needed through My Barack Obama.com. Similarly, John Edwards has begun a similar system of social networking, clearly designed to connect with the nations 18-28 year olds on the networking portion of his website as well as John McCain, something that neither Rudy Giuliani nor Hillary Clinton have done.

So our opinions may be considered under-developed. Then inform us! Give us news through our channels that we can relate to and tap into. Otherwise, believe me, we'll make it ourselves, whether by blog or by social networking website, we're ready to make a difference if you'll just give us the chance.

Doublespeak

Growing up on the south side of Des Moines, Iowa, I've always been offended by pretentiousness. From the fact that Paris Hilton was arrested for drunk driving in a McLaren Mercedes SLR (a car that she couldn't appreciate, nor could she afford it if it wasn't for our culture's embrace of the wealthy elite) to the overwhelming support of the Republican higher-ups by the socially and economically elite. From big enough boats to well-timed smiles to maintaining proper appearances at White House sponsored events (page 6), the socially elite, and now politically elite, maintain an air of amiability and pleasantness through the art of well-groomed public appearance both physically and rhetorically.

Of course now that the patented doublespeak of 1984 is back in style (retro fashion I expect), the pleasantries enjoyed by the elite are being exposed for what they really are, because much like an Iowa river, the surface may be smooth, but beneath the mucky waters are dangerous currents and jagged rocks.

Let's take the War on Terror for example. What began as an all out, bombs-away attack on the terrorist strongholds of the middle east under the banner of extreme patriotism and the preservation of democracy quickly became suspect as motivation from oil, fulfilling campaign contributions from private contractors, and recompense for Bush Sr.'s mistakes. Besides throwing us shoulders deep into a war that we only supported largely enough for action for a few years, the White House continued to defend the position despite cries to reconsider our strategy. Furthermore, Bush Jr. continues to push us deeper into the quicksand despite obvious results from pollsters that the American people feel the cause is either lost or that we need comprehensive help from foreign allies to attain our lofty goal. Despite initial promises to protect the people, Bush and Co. continue to speak out of both sides of their mouth, promising to do the will of the people, yet pressing on with personal interests.

Even the right's up-and-comings are playing into the game. Who could forget the countless attacks on John Kerry as a flip-flopper? Now, leading by example, the President's views on justice seem to change with the wind, giving one stance on the treatment of criminals and then taking another when the chips are down. Following in his footsteps comes Rudy Giuliani, adamantly pointing the figure at Democratic former president Bill Clinton and then backpedaling along the party line.

Not is this prevailing trend of hypocrisy becoming pedestrian with the current administration, but all around the political landscape are outlandish claims with no true connection, such as the Fox News claims that socialized medicine is a breeding ground for terrorists. Fortunately for the powers that be is psychological research that as long as an opinion is repeated, especially from a credible (this time "credible") source, it has more effect than another opinion expressed by a true majority. This means that, as long as Fox News keeps crawling the evils of socialized medicine, Hillary Clinton, environmental protection, and any and all scientists that agree with global warming across the bottom of the screen, people will believe it.

So why do 9 in 10 Americans believe that the founding fathers would be displeased with the country today? Pay attention and I'm sure we'll have an answer soon.

With priorities a little askew, maybe it's time for our society to re-examine itself

Because this and this are two of the top stories on the Washington Post and Blog rings.

Political jokes have fueled our society for the longest time. But for goodness sake, when Howard Dean can be literally forced out of the political spectrum because of some noise that he made in an excited rally after the Iowa Caucuses, perhaps it's time for us to look at our priorities.

At least, within 48 hours of the fact, the infamous Inconvenient Youth scandal hasn't saturated the webrings and video sites with parody sufficient to unseat Gore. But in retrospect, while we dodged a bullet with the Gore III fiasco, greater things are happening in our society including the alive-and-kicking spell of racism from a Louisiana school to the recent court decision to allow segregation in schools, our energies seem to be directed at correcting the wrong social inequities.

After reviewing several of the Democratic primary candidates, I took quick note of the fact that the only person expressly addressing the issue of minority inequalities in business was Barack Obama in his plan to fight poverty (near the bottom).

Not to mention the fact that we've grown so complacent on an international level that stories like the developing Russian missile controversy fly virtually under the radar. This kind of disregard for the social universality of our existence is also part of the reason that we've developed no kind of plan in our government to deal with the Genocide in Darfur, global poverty, the conflict in the Congo, or even the work of other madmen in the world like former Liberian President Charles Taylor who's rebel groups committed unthinkable atrocities in Sierra Leone.

Even further in that state of social isolation is a general neglect of domestic poverty and a lack of decent health coverage for the poor demonstrating that along with our society's disregard for fellow, non-American man is a disregard for fellow, American man.

Similarly, though, there is hope. Since the new scrutiny of conservative pundits like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage began just a few months ago as their hate mongering, fact bending dogma came under more intelligent analysis, progress is being made in removing these voices from the airwaves and their influence is being duly noted. Referring to women who wear burqas as "hateful Nazi[s]" that want to "kill your children" to a national audience is one thing, but the fact that for this long we as a society have simply accepted it is another. Similarly, Ann Coulter's attack on John Edwards is sometimes met with agreeable laughter from conservatives. Is this really the kind of language that we need flying around our politics and is it any wonder that we've become desensitized to the important issues?

It's about time that the change begins, and it begins with college students right now. According to Millenials go to College by William Strauss and Neil Howe, studies show that the incoming generation of High School and College students are displaying an increase in public service, and an overall decrease in long-term, detrimental behavior like teen pregnancy and smoking. This kind of service and overall outlook for the long-term is exactly what we need in this country. When we can't even spare a couple of dollars to pay for our fellow man's well-being because we don't want their problems in "our backyards" the outlook is good for the Millenial generation and what we're about to do to the political landscape.

On top of this, a very interesting article about...well...the universe.

About that time

As a young and impressionable college student, I find myself thinking, more often than not, that my opinions in politics may be underdeveloped and too ideological. I don't think I'm wrong on this one.

According to "How to Win at College" by Cal Newport, it's important for younger people to get involved politically since they 1. are ideological enough to stand on principle, and 2. not cynical enough to back down. I think that, despite his inexperience, Barack Obama's position on political corruption in Washington is an excellent example of what Cal Newport was talking about.

But beyond the problem, is anyone proposing a solution? After all, it wasn't too long ago when leading political pundits accused Republicans of being corrupt and Democrats of being gun-shy and unwilling to take a controversial stance for fear of rocking the already unstable boat. Then Scooter Libby came along.

Thank goodness he did too because now early criticisms that the rhetoric used at the beginning of the War on Terror was simply a method of appeasing the people on the surface while allowing vicious political undercurrents to flow is appearing like more than just political dogma. Everything from the nature of Mr. Libby's crime to the way that it's being defended are further exposing the overly-empowered right in Washington as a win-at-all-costs group of well-spoken crooks. Furthermore, the crimes and methods that the Bush administration has been employing are empowering the left and pushing us out of our easy chairs and forcing even controversy-laiden figureheads like Bill Clinton to speak out.

And besides the partisan chess match, the powers that be are even beginning to re-examine the practices of the "unitary executive".

It's a great time to be on the left and I hope that the practices of the "minority" of the conservative party don't damage the reputation of the United States so greatly that we're left out of the international stage as well.

Press on friends.

Additional links include a John Edwards blog post about the Nixon scandal that won't die, Gore's editorial and an interesting new insight on the Scooter Libby debacle, and of course, more laughable quotes from our unitary executive comparing Iraq to the Revolutionary War.

Nothing better than a little cold, hard, truth

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/in%20dex.asp

Fantastic. Just when every liberal in the mainstream these days is affronted with attacks of "well prove it" from conservatives that are out of ammo, a site like this comes along.

Follow the link and choose a sector or industry and you'll find hard statistics for monetary contributions to either party in a certain area. Which anti-global warming party is receiving the most money from big oil, health, and insurance companies? You guessed it!

So when Elizabeth Edwards called and personally requested that Ann Coulter stop spewing the personal attacking, hate mongering, irrelevant babble that's corrupting the political dialogue anyway and she asked that Mrs. Edwards stop asking conservatives to stop campaigning for the issues that they believe in, did she mean the ideas of receiving campaign contributions from the companies that would rather see our climate permanently changed, our lives further put at risk, and our "personal assistance" services become less and less personal for the sake of corporate profits and heavy payouts for the already saturated wealthy elite? Sounds like the man that every citizen would "like to have a beer with" would rather drink champagne.

Additional links: a little more evidence that the human impact is much broader than we all like to believe.

Issues

Do you ever have those days when you think nothing exciting is going to happen?

It was definitely one of those days today, the only thing special planned was to go see Michael Moore's new documentary SiCKO. It should've occurred to me however that that was all it was really going to take to make a dull day into an interesting one.

To begin with, I've really got to hand it to the Fleur Cinema, they've got their act together since, not only do they provide muffins and hot chocolate (which was a great alternative from popcorn and pop since I'm on a healthfood kick), but that's just a downright cozy little local place to see a good artistic movie. The crowd there was obviously ready to see a movie that was going to have an impact and the staff and set up were just welcoming. I am just over-f*ckin-whelmed.

So we sat down to see the movie and I've got to give it to Mr. Moore, because I don't know how you manage to make a difference with each and every film that you make. From stories of healthcare and insurance nightmares to point/counterpoint of any potential holes in his arguments filled with real world, unemotional, factual examples, he just never seems to stop despite overwhelming criticism and displeasure with his controversial viewpoints.

I think the world needs a person like Michael Moore, if I may, especially since no one in Washington besides my boys in blue (democrats) seems to want to step out from under Bush's power umbrella and get their clothes a little wet. From Edwards lengthy and extensive total-country-involving energy plan to Obama actually proposing a way to deal with the ever-evolving church and state debacle to Hillary's wheel's-already-spinning support of universal healthcare, from parties to governments to fraternity houses, I think that controversial viewpoints should be and need to be voiced.

The things that Mr. Moore does much better in SiCKO than in say Bowling for Columbine or Fahrenheit 9/11 are that his arguments are less emotionally based this time around. The scenes of crying patients are overshadowed by the interviews with socialized medicine doctors who, despite all of conservative pundit claims of lengthy waits for treatment, lack of equipment and funding in hospitals, and government controlled slave/doctors, are a living, breathing demonstration of not only the viability of universal healthcare, but its inescapable benefits. He keeps it impactful by juxtaposing humor with real-life, tearjerking stories, and never allows you to lull into an arms crossed, dogmatic denial of all claim that his arguments stake. Finally, to top it all off, he manages to hit all the major go-to "enemies" of the United States and shows how, despite their obvious evil, manage to make the system work AND preserve respect and admiration for the American people in the process.

So there you have it. Thanks again Michael Moore, your work here makes us liberals smile, especially this one.

Press on friends.