i know that just about every post i write lately seems to center around politics. i guess it's inevitable, since we're in an election year and currently under the rule of the most authoritarian regime this country's ever seen. for someone who said he was going to be a uniter and a champion of the people, he sure seems to have rustled up a massive hornets nest of independents and political apathists (myself included) all now dead-set against him and his party.

see, before "Dubya" charged into power–with the assist from his brother's administration in Florida, and the slam dunk by the Supreme Court–i was largely a non-partisan liberal socialist whose only agenda was that the big people should help the little people, and the large corporations should not be allowed to hurt the little people or wield any type of power over the government or its citizens. for the most part i didn't care about politics, and i was of the firm opinion that my one voice didn't count for much of anything. i didn't bother to vote, or even to learn about the candidates or delve into the issues of the day. i knew from a philosophical standpoint what type of society i wanted, and i knew that the pursuit of *my goals* in the context of this society full of idiots and greedy bastards would be a futile endeavor. so i contented myself with the idea that i could do things better, but without the responsibility (in the face of certain defeat) to attempt to actually attempt to do so.

all this changed when bush was running for president. for the first time, i felt compelled to do a little research and go to the polls to exercise my civic duty. see my post from Nov. 2000 and the two emails linked to from that post it is interesting going back to the stuff written nearly four years ago, especially the passionate political stuff and seeing what and how i was talking about the issues when i was really *just* seriously delving into them. it's also gratifying to note that i still hold the same opinions to this day, pretty much point for point, issue for issue.

i certainly railed against the Democratic party as being too centrist and in the pockets of the large corps. and lobbyists. that's one thing i've been rather pleased to have seen change with the candidates for this year's Democratic nomination–they are more liberal (except Lieberman) and there are at least a couple candidates who are non-career politicians and beholden to no industry or special interest groups (Clark & Sharpton, though Edwards & Dean may meet the latter qualification). and they are all passionately talking about the issues that matter, in no uncertain terms, and making plans that can make a difference.

now, i'm pleased to say that i'd be proud to count my voice among the supporters of most of the potential Democratic nominees, all of whom (except Lieberman, Sharpton, and Kucinich) i think would make great presidents. having studied the issues, the candidates, and their positions and qualifications, i proudly say that i whole-heartedly throw my lot in with Gen. Wesley Clark. He's got all the qualifications one could hope for in a Presidential candidate, his positions on the issues coincide with mine on many levels, and usually moreso than the positions of the other candidates. but don't just take my words at face value, see how he stacks up (in my mind), and take an opportunity to get yourself an education while you're at it.

as a side note, of all the people who said they'd enjoy filling out one of the blank score sheets, not a one has actually done so. there's still time, if you want to put yourself through the paces and weigh in. '04 ScoreSheet

now, i was originally going to write this post in response to President Bush's first stump speech of the 2004 election campaign (A.K.A. the State of the Union address). in lieu of that, i'll just mention that i thought it was a huge pile of crap, pandering to his conservative constituents while taking direct adolescent stabs at those who disagree with his opinions and policies (a "uniter" indeed). but rather than attempting to debunk the speech myself and recreate the wheel, i figured i'd let those more qualified point out the more obvious flaws, misleading statements, and outright lies in the State of the Union Speech.
i'll also refrain from doing anything other than mentioning the inappropriate and inapplicable moral and religious grandstanding.

finally, i've been pleased to see Wes Clark (though i strongly support separation of church & state, and am loathe to see anyone in or seeking public office touting their religion, especially touting it over someone else's) answering the long-standing and wholly inaccurate Republican idea that liberals are amoral atheistic people (this is me greatly summarizing the point). it really is time that we liberals stand up and point out that the religions we grew up with preached tolerance, brotherly-love, self-sacrifice, and the obligation of the strong to protect and/or help the weak. It was Jesus who said "Love your neighbor as yourself"(Matt 5:43-8; Lev 19:17-18; Matt. 19:18-19; Matt 22:37-40), "as you do unto the least of these my brethren, so also you do unto me" (Matt 25:40), who healed the leprous though they were outcasts, and who instructed the Apostles to go out and preach his word to the Gentiles though they were considered unclean and less than human. In favoring the rich and powerful over those not so fortunate, and in castigating and denigrating those whose race, gender, or sexual orientation differ, the Republican party takes this country in a direction entirely opposite that which was set forth by the very figure from whom they claim to draw all their inspiration and guidance.

ok, so i meant to save that whole religion thing for another post. oh well. extra fuel for the fire, i guess.

i hate to admit it, but… i agree with george w. bush.

now, before you all go into a swoon or tizzy, bear in mind that, in 3 years of policy making, there so far is only 1 (ONE–more than "none", but less than "a couple", and way less than even "some") of his policies that i agree with–the new space policy. i should also admit that i haven't read the complete policy, or read or listened to all of the speech announcing the policy, however, what i have heard and read about the policy coincides almost exactly with what i–for the last 10 years–have considered to be our best path to continued space exploration. i personally think we could establish a permanent base on the moon much sooner than 2020, perhaps even by 2010 if we really pushed it. i also think a lunar base is an imperative next step in our space program, as it will provide a (relatively) near-earth proving ground for developing technologies to get us to mars.

i know that some (Paul, if i remember correctly, being one) think that we should turn that money towards earth, towards fixing all those things that georgie boy wants to break or give to the corporate interests (our environment being one example, our "lower class" being another, and our "economy" being the third, but not final). i can certainly see the point of this argument, the extended version of which would be that most technologies that would be developed for space with applications here at home could just as easily be developed either in the private sector, or with the right government in power. i have always been a proponent of a strong space program, frankly because i have the dream that someday i might get to visit the moon or another planet, or maybe even meet an extraterrestrial being. but i also think that the space program, if handled correctly, and, as we've seen with the spirit rover, successfully, can be a great source of inspiration and motivation and promise to the populace and the entire world. successful space programs are proven morale boosters, and on top of that, they reinforce a whole-world perspective, perhaps lessening petty moral conflicts and territorial disagreements. in fact, in a recent speech Al Gore gave to moveon.org members about the environment and the bush administration's egregious environmental policies, he used, as major components of his presentation, several images that only exist because of a successful space program. he specifically called out and mentioned the power of these types of images to influence public perception and awareness of their place in the world, and in the rest of the universe. so, i see a vibrant and aggressive space program as a necessity in helping to shape the planet-wide consciousness, so that, with any luck, we'll realize how "we're all in this together," and we'll hopefully stop killing each other.

well, there's my little pro-NASA spiel. oh yeah, i suppose i should mention that i think NASA's grown fat and lazy (to put it in succinct, human terms) and that they're going to have to seriously get their asses in gear if any of this is going to come to fruition. they've been learning to be lean and mean, again as the mars rover attests, but they're going to have to maintain that zeal and versatility once they're flush with new funds… which leads me to my next point.

i'm going to make a little prediction here, if anyone remembers around Feb. or Mar. of next year, remind us about this, ok? here goes: if, by some freak chance all the people with a real conscience in this nation get the croup and die before election day this year, and georgie boy gets re-elected; and bearing in mind the administration's record on pronouncing policies, passing legislation, and then pulling funding, i think i can safely predict that, when the budget proposal is put on the table next year, NASA will not get the promised funding increase, and will, in fact, see a major funding decrease. there's my prediction. dubya will underfund NASA and his proposed space program just like he's underfunded Homeland Insecurity and the No School Left Unpunished act.

now, to my next major point, and the little bit of news that made me write this post at 6 freakin o'clock in the morning, instead of waiting 'til tomorrow: yet another controversial bush political move is made and announced on a Friday. You see, the NASA thing was announced on Wednesday, and was rumored for several weeks beforehand, so he waited 'til Friday to announce this whammy.

judge charles w. pickering gets his seat on the appeals court handed to him by King George II, who sidesteps (admittedly, legally) the regular process which has kept pickering from getting confirmed for the last two damn years. pickering is an obvious racist, who deserves more to be shit-canned than promoted. If anyone can look at this and still not understand why i fucking hate georgie porgie, then… well, i don't know what. it's completely incomprehensible to me that this president can make these kinds of moves with no repercussions. well, hopefully, the repercussion will be that he gets his ass handed to him in November.

other news: massive behind the scenes changes to the gallery scripts which will effect no-one but me & brian 'cause i just made it easier for us to add images without having to go through some huge ordeal. if anyone notices breakage, let me know. by the way, for those of you who don't pay attention, or who forget easily, remember that that dropdown list up at the top there (assuming you're on the main theme–hey, remember those?) will take you not only to other blogs or sites we like, but other bipolar-related items or sub-projects like, gasp, the galleries! yay, obtuse navigational schemes!

finally, everybody wish the puffin a happy three-oh, which'll happen Real Soon Now™