I'm Sick

T

he Vice-Presidential debates were eye-opening. All the pundits said that Vice President Dick Cheney more or less steam rollered Democratci nominee John Edwards. And I have to admit, it sure looked that way. Cheney, as usual, looked serious. He was--as he often is--articulate. And there is no doubt that he is a bright, if not brilliant man. But I already knew this before the debate. What struck me was how inexperienced in debates, John Edwards seemed to be. I had heard he was an experienced trial lawyer and he would give Cheney a run for his money. But he didn't. Cheney probably asked for a refund later.

So in tone, and style, Dick Cheney won the debate. Not even close, I think. However, there were two things that stuck out to me rather clearly.

But I will talk about this later. I am sick. I have a rather nasty cough. I had to cut one of my classes short yesterday when my cough became uncontrollable... Well, I cut it short by only 5 minutes... Anyway, I will go to school today, since I only have one class--maybe wear my mask!--and have the students discuss among themselves and report their impressions of Kagero nikki, the Gossamer Journal.

Flip-flop-flip

T

he current election compels me to comment because it will directly affect me and you. We have an incumbent president who believes that it is sad but inevitable for American soldiers to die in Iraq, a nation that did not pose a direct threat to us. Now, I spoke of what seemed to be Bush flip-flopping last week, but I am compelled to take it up again because of comments that were made over the weekend. Please bear with me.

Intitially, President Bush and his administration suggested that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons, then was down graded to any weapon of mass destruction. Every intelligence agency--including the CIA--has concluded that Iraq does not have WMDs. His next argument was that Hussein had the capability to create WMDs and so it was right to prevent him from doing it. This was based in large part to the aluminum tubes they found, claiming that they were procured to create nuclear weapons. If this is truly his stance--and we all know that he is resolute, we all know where he stands and that he would never flip-flop on important issues in defense of our country--then what about countries such as Iran and North Korea, countries that we know to have nuclear capability, capabilities far greater than Iraq's. When do we invade to Iran? When do we attack North Korea? But wait. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has stated that this was not necessarily the case. They could be "suitable" for nuclear weapons. Then our own State AND Energy Departments stated:

In INR's (State's Bureau of Intellignece and Reseach) view Iraq's efforts to acquire aluminum tubes is central to the argument that Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, but INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors. INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose.

So let's recap: Bush says we must invade Iraq because there are WMDs, but there are no WMDs found. Then he says we invaded Iraq because Saddam had the capability and materials to create nuclear weapons, but our own State and Energy departments dismisses the very evidence used by the administration.

This forced the administration to whistle a completely different tune. They have flipped their position and talked about Iraq's relationship to terrorism. According to this administration--Cheney, Rumsfled, Rice, you name it--terrorists were tied with Saddam Hussein. This has since been disproved by the 9/11 Commission. And lest any of you forget, the BUSH ADMINISTRATION INITIALLY OPPOSED the creation of an independent committee to analyze the government's response to 9/11. Why would they oppose it? Did the Bush administration fear that they would be proved wrong? And now, Donald Rumsfeld, Bush's very own Minister of Defense, iced it. He stated in a Monday news conference: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two (Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda)." Did he come to this conclusion before or after the invasion?

Does it look like they're talking out of both sides of their collective mouths? Or is it just me?

But Bush--perhaps in anticipation of this admission by Rummy--has flopped toward a new reason: the removal of a bad man--Saddam Hussein--in the name of freeing the Iraqi people and establishing democracy in the Middle East. This is truly an honorable goal. But if this was his goal, why didn't he state this in the beginning? And if this is his "doctrine" shouldn't we be removing president Kim Jong Il from North Korea and freeing the North Koreans? How about those ugly warlords in Africa? If so, wouldn't we need more troops?

Speaking of which, Howard Dean said something interesting this weekend on the Tim Russert Show. He "guaranteed" that if Bush is re-elected, he will reinstate the draft. According to Dean, the current situation in Iraq demands more troops. In response, the administration is already implementing a non-draft draft. That is, he is lengthening rotations for our soldiers, and requiring inadequately trained National Guard to serve in Iraq. Should the conflict remain at current levels, more troops will be needed. But where will he get the manpower that will allow him to "keep his word" and "stay the course"? The draft.

Do you want to be drafted? Vote Bush. Or so Howard Dean seems to suggest.

But hey, Dean can be maniacal, right? And Bush, at least, is striving for a noble cause: To free the people, to establish democracy. And the reasoning behind this is because democracy in Iraq will be a defeat of the terrorists and Al Qaeda who never had any connection with Iraq before the war--as Rummy admitted--but does now because we invaded it. Whew, are you getting all this? The Bush administration's position on Iraq is pretty complicated. And perhaps it is not so much a flip-flop as it is a shift in perspective. Fortunately, they are no longer trying to convince everyone that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program in place...NOT.

On Sunday (10/3/04), Condaleeza Rice on This Week indicated that the administration still believed that the evidence points to a nuclear program, despite the fact that virtually every other agency in our government has conlcuded otherwise. Man, I thought we were over this. But if the National Security Adviser is still saying this, then the administration obviously still harbors these beliefs regardless of what now seems to be mere lip service in the face of John Kerry's challenge.

Free Iraqis. Establish democracy. Yeah, right...

So we have a flip, a flop, and another flip. No wonder they are harping on Kerry's flip-flops. It's to take attention away from their own. This gets better every day, and today is the Vice-Presidential debate. You can be sure that Cheney will be asked to comment on both Rumsfeld's and Rice's comments. His response will be interesting.

Standing up

M

y UCLA Bruins win. And while the win was satisfying and decisive, it was against a battered SD State team, so cries of "We're back!" are premature. We will see what happens in two weeks when we play Cal. For those who haven't figured it out yet, I am a passionate Bruin fan, and have been since I was 10 years old, back in 1965-66. Why? Well, I always enjoyed rooting for a team that represented the city I lived in: LA Dodgers, LA Rams, UCLA. I have more pride in LA than I do with some generic notion of a regional Southern California or an overly specific South Central.

I have rooted for these Bruins way before I was a student. I used to love the way they would stand up to the Trojans across the city. True, the Trojans were alway a better football team, they were always ranked higher. But the "Guttly Little Bruins" always fought hard, and I am always rooting for the underdog, win or lose--and admittedly we have been doing a lot of losing lately. Anyone can root for a winner. When USC was losing through most of the 90s, NO ONE admitted to being a Trojan fan. Just compare their attendance record between winning and losing seasons. The numbers don't lie, and it is pathetic. And now when they start winning, they come crawling out of the woodwork. Well, they may win on the field, but those are the athletes. They are winners. But the fans? Well you can come up with your own adjective.

But I am stating the obvious. My true problem with students from the school located in South Central LA is personal and the story would be long and tedious, so I will refrain from boring you. Suffice it to say that there seems to be too many who attend this university that convey an attitude that is at best sophomoric--high school sophomoric. It is self-centered and manifests little regard for others. Some of the evidence is right here on Xanga. There is on USC blogring that introduces its self as:

USC University of Southern California students and for people who fucking hate f/ucla. fuck ucla!!! USC FOOTBALL KICKS ASS!! USC FOOTBALL NATIONAL CHAMPS BABY!! OUR QUEST FOR THE 9TH COLLEGE FOOTBALL NATIONAL TITLES BEGINS NOW

Now, how's that for class? What does it say for a school whose identity is based NOT on their academics, or Nobel prize winners, or cutting edge research--for which, by the way, UCLA is renowned--but on football? Worse, much of this school identity is grounded in insulting another school. What does this say about those who are members of this blogring? Or about the owner of the Xanga site called fuclasucks? If you go to USC and see shit like this, are you proud of those who represent you and your school in such a way? But talking about it is futile. In my experience, every Trojan I have met has claimed to be different, but has simply ignored those who cry "fucla" and never shown the courage to stand up to these people who represent them in such a base manner. Could this define most Trojans? Brave in a mob setting but timid as individuals? Well, I would like to think not, but until proven otherwise...

Speaking of standing up...

Has everyone already made up their mind for whom they will vote? Is everyone watching the debates as if it were a sport and simply rooting for their team? Hmm... more tomorrow. And comments to be used as fodder are welcome...

Final: SD State 10 UCLA 33

plays the San Diego State Aztecs today. SD State seems to be improving and will perhaps be a force in the Mountain West. They actually played Michigan pretty tough a few weeks back, although I think it is obvious by now that Michigan was overrated. Still, Michigan is Michigan, and the Aztecs played them tough in their house, which is not an easy thing to do. They have an imaginative coach and their QB Dlugolecki is no slouch. To further exacerbate the situation, The Bruins' defensive front line has suffered some injuries--against the run, it was already like a sieve to begin with--and the linebackers are not 100% either. The saving grace is that SD States offensive line and its star running back is injured so maybe its a wash.

Ultimately, it will be strength against strength. SD State defensive showed it could hold its own against Michigan, and Coach Dorrell's West Coast Offense seems to be functioning this year--although Craig Bragg is out with a separated shoulder. But more importantly is the running game. Mo Drew ran for 322 yards in his last game against Washington. In his first four carries he had over 100 yards and three touchdowns. And he's like an inch taller than me! This guy is incredible. I have a feeling that he'll do more of the same against the Aztecs.

Ichiro Suzuki

In another sports related matter--sorry you guys who don't follow sports--Ichiro Suzuki broke the single season mark for total hits. The old record held by George Sisler then of the St. Louis Browns (later to become the Orioles) stood for over 80 years. I first heard of him when I lived in Japan. He was the only player to have his first name sewn on his uniform. I am a bit of a traditionalist and baseball is a game of tradition, so I found this arrogant. When he came to the States, I was hoping the team over here would compel him to follow suit. But he still has his first name on his back. what would you think of a Red Sox player with "Pedro" on his back. A Cub with "Sammy", a Jint with "Barry", a former Yanker cum Astro with "Rocket"? Would most Americans would find this arrogant? I would. So how does Suzuki rate?

Well, regardless of my thoughts, I must acknowledge his ability. He has proven me wrong everytime. When he came to the US, I thought he was too small and would never succeed here except as a utility player. But he was rookie of the year and MVP in his first year. Subsequently, he has accumulated hit after hit each year but always seems to run out of gas in September--Japan plays a 130 game season, America 162 games. That's over one month's worth of baseball. So when he needed 40 some odd hits in September to break Sisler's record this year, I figured he wouldn't, he couldn't. Wrong again...

But I hope he appreciates his place in baseball history, for history is not just one man but the accumulation of many men. The record was Sisler's, but the breaking of records is a history unto itself. As such, I think he owes a debt of gratitude to his predecessors, such as Roger Maris. When Maris broke Babe Ruth's home run mark of 60 in 1961, baseball put an asterik next to his name because Ruth hit 60 in 154 games. Maris hit 61 in a 162 game season. The same situation holds true for Ichiro. Sisler did in 154; Suzuki in his 160th game. But because the asterik was finally taken off of Maris's record--after years of controversy--Suzuki's record will probably not have an asterik as well.

Suzuki also owes some gratitude to Hank Aaron as well. Back in 1974 when Aaron--an African American--was chasing Ruth's lifetime record of 714 home runs, he received a lot of hate mail, including a number of death threats because he was black. I have not heard anything this time, so I presume that Suzuki has not received anything significant for being a record breaking "Jap". This is attributable to an evolving society, one made better by men like Aaron whose situation brought to light the bigotry and hatred still simmering in the 70s, ultimately resulting in measures to address this ugly environment.

Of course, this has nothing to do with Suzuki. He is only the recipient of their legacy. But it would be nice if he showed his understanding of this and acknowledged it.

Flip-flops

Y

esterday, I thought I would witness a train wreck of a debate. I was wrong. I saw a president who was single-minded in his message: I am resolute, Kerry sends mixed messages. He seemed so focus on this that he sometimes did not answer questions. He simply made sure that he could use his two minutes to convey what he wanted to. This was obvious early on.

For the second question of the debate, Jim Lehrer--obviously with Vice-President Cheney's ridiculous statement in mind--asked if Kerry were elected, would ther be another 9/11 like attack in the US, Bush side-stepped the issue.

No, I don't believe it's going to happen. I believe I'm going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I've shown the American people I know how to lead.

That is, the US will not be attacked because he would continue to be president. He didn't field the question, prefering to avoid an answer that might either give credence to Kerry and contradict Cheney or sound as idiotic as Cheney did when he said that if Kerry were elected we would be attacked by terrorists. Some might say this was deft. Others might call it was gutless.

But he did manage to convey that he thinks he know "how to lead."

Later, Bush avoided another point by going in a completely different direction to get his other message across.

BUSH: My opponent just said something amazing. He said Osama bin Laden uses the invasion of Iraq as an excuse to spread hatred for America. Osama bin Laden isn't going to determine how we defend ourselves. Osama bin Laden doesn't get to decide. The American people decide. I decided the right action was in Iraq. My opponent calls it a mistake. It wasn't a mistake. He said I misled on Iraq. I don't think he was misleading when he called Iraq a grave threat in the fall of 2002. I don't think he was misleading when he said that it was right to disarm Iraq in the spring of 2003. I don't think he misled you when he said that, you know, anyone who doubted whether the world was better off without Saddam Hussein in power didn't have the judgment to be president. I don't think he was misleading. I think what is misleading is to say you can lead and succeed in Iraq if you keep changing your positions on this war. And he has.

Bush begins by stating that Kerry said Osama uses the Iraq invasion to spread hatred against America. But Bush doesn't address this directly. At least not that I can tell. Instead of providing proof to the contrary, he goes into a tirade about how Osama does not determine "how we defend ourselves." I must admit that I was watching the TV trying to figure out what he was tyring to say. What does "Osama spreading hatred" have to do with "how we defend ourselves"? I thought he was avoiding the issue because even people like George Will--a staunch conservative--believes that the Iraq situation is increasing the number of terrorists in the world. (Newsweek, 9/27/2004) But it soon became clear that Bush was actually trying to steer the conversation toward his message: Kerry sends mixed messages, Kerry flip-flops.

But he is wrong. Kerry may have changed his mind, but he gave what to me was a valid explanation:

KERRY: Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq.

Which is worse?

I believe that when you know something's going wrong, you make it right. That's what I learned in Vietnam. When I came back from that war I saw that it was wrong. Some people don't like the fact that I stood up to say no, but I did. And that's what I did with that vote. And I'm going to lead those troops to victory.

Finally, a coherent response. Yeah, he made a mistake. But he is owning up to it. He is trying to address it. He doesn't ignore it. Isn't that part of what a leader is? Certainly, being wrong too often could be a problem, but having a problem and not admitting it is worse. I was going through my formative years during the Vietnam War. I remember Presidents Johnson and Nixon strenuously insisting that we were right to go to Vietnam, they we had to be resolute and stay the course. We all know how the Vietnam War ended, now don't we. Do you think that being firm and resolute is the only quality a president should have?

Speaking of flip-flops: Bush seemed to mispeak at one point, but in reality it might have been a reflection of his true intentions.

LEHRER: Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another pre-emptive military action?

BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that. But the enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to protect the American people, to do everything I can to protect us.

What? Bush didn't want to commit troops to Iraq, but he couldn't help it because "the enemy attacked us"? Did Iraq attack us? Wasn't it Al Qaeda? Did he just mispeak? Or did he let out a Freudian slip. I've always suspected that he simply wanted to invade Iraq, to accomplish something greater than his father. This might explain the Bush administration's constantly shifting position on why we invaded Iraq.

On July 15, 2003, Vice President Cheney repeatedly cited an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that warned Saddam Hussein was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Those charged with the security of this nation could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring such information, or trying to wish it away, would be irresponsible in the extreme. And our President did not ignore that information--he faced it. He sought to eliminate the threat by peaceful, diplomatic means and, when all else failed, he acted forcefully to remove the danger. Listen to segment.

Okay, I was willing to believe Bush. Saddam did kill Kurds with WMD, so this intelligence is not so far fetched. But as it became increasingly clear that there are no WMDs in Iraq, the administrations position began to shift. It wasn't the presence of WMDs but the possibility of creating WMDs that justified our invasion of Iraq. Then in July 2004, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence produced a report that said "intelligence used to justify the conflict was wrong, flawed or exaggerated in the lead-up to the conflict." Bush defended the invasion by saying,

Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq," he said during a visit to Tennessee's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. "We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

Okay, first we went to war to get rid of WMDs, then we went to get rid of the possibility of WMDs, and finally went just to get rid of a "declared enemy of America." If Bush were criticizing himself, wouldnt he call this a flip-flop as well? Or is this shift--like Kerry's--an admission that he realized his mistake and is doing something about it? No, wait, he hasn't admitted that it was a mistake. He's resolute. He's staying the course. He's leading us right into another Vietnam.

Don't forget to vote on November 2.