As you no doubt know if you've come here before, this is where I post my political rants. If you want to see a blog about my personal life talking about friends, my lovelife, school, etc. check out the following link:

www.myspace.com/postponedlife

So I've been absent as of late. I shall confess that I have been preoccupied with other things, such as finishing school, dating again and socializing... basically trying to get as much out of my last semester of college as I can. But with an easy schedule, I'm finding myself with more free time, so I can write once more!

Thg big news out of Washington today is there will be no testimony from either Scooter Libby or Vice President Cheney in the trial of the former. Libby has made it clear he does not want to testify in his own defense and Libby's lawyer stated that Cheney would not be needed.

Is it a smart move? Having Libby or Cheney testify would have been a double-edged sword. On the plus side, Libby and Cheney could have proven that Libby was, as he claimed, busy with more pressing matters at the White House to get wrapped up in prewar intelligence and the identity of Valerie Plame. But having either men on the stand would have meant that they would have had to have answered truthfully (one would assume) about whether there was a plan to discredit Joe Wilson and silence the early critics of the Iraq invasion. While I can't speak for the jury that will ultimately decide what happens to Libby, I find it hard to believe that someone so closely connected to Cheney and thus the Powers That Be in the White House would simply forget about a smear campaign that was so blatantly illegal. Exposing the identity of a CIA agent just to safeguard your credibility would be the sort of thing to concern me, you know?

In other news, Comrade Obama recently had to apologize for a comment he made in Iowa over the weekend: "We now have spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." Apparently Obama offended some people by implying that those 3,000+ Americans had wasted their lives by enlisting in the military.

I really getting sick and tired of people being so sensitive about this. No SANE person is going to criticize the troops when they criticize the war; the only person who ever came close to doing that was Donald Rumsfeld when he said "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had." I think pretty much everyone realizes that serving in the military means a great deal of sacrifice, in terms of time, effort and sometimes life. But what most people would hope for -- I think -- is that if those sacrifices are going to made, they're going to be made with a noble purpose in mind. There has been and never will be anything noble about Iraq. It was predicated on a lie and our occupation continues on a false hope that a fractured, divided country will somehow discover democracy and become a stable bastion of freedom in the Middle East. When a man or woman dies defeating a threat to the peace, protecting his homeland and his loved ones -- that is a tragic but noble sacrifice. But when it comes to Iraq, those lives HAVE been wasted.

O HAPPY DAY! Yes, the Democrats have taken control of the House and I am pretty confident that Webb will triumph in Virginia, giving the Democrats power in the Senate as well. And the cherry on the proverbial Sunday is that Donald Rumsfeld is stepping down as Secretary of Defense, the sacrifice to appease all the critics that have spoken out against the war in Iraq. Even the election itself can be considered a criticism of this administration's failings, and as I accurately predicted, no amount of soundbites and spin could undo the massive problems of Bush and the Republican Party.

I suppose I should not be gloating too much. After all, Bush is still in the Oval Office and the executive branch today holds more power than ever. And if his track record is any indication, Bush does not have a reputation for working well with the opposition. But I was pretty optimistic after his press conference this morning. It sound like, at least, that Bush is being somewhat gracious in defeat. There was no more talk of giving our enemies comfort by supporting Democrats or that he was going to stick to his guns despite public opinion. Instead he said he was prepared now to work with Congress and get things done. And to be honest, I think he has to. The midterms were unusually important for what they are, because they made it perfectly clear what Bush had been ignoring for so long: the people are unhappy and will not put up with it anymore.

If you are a Republican and the results of the elections have got you down, though, then I have something to comfort you. CHEER UP, SLEEPY JEAN... O WHAT CAN IT MEAN... TWO-TERM PRESIDENT AND A CORRUPT POLITICAL TEAM?

Seriously, though, the Democrats are not going to transform the United States into a happy, shiny place. Now that they have power, they will no doubt get involved in plenty of their own scandals and problems. It's the one thing Democrats are good at. And now the GOP can recover, licks its wounds and come out in 2008 with a clean slate (at least a cleaner one) and have plenty of ammo with which to target the Democrats. So by no means does this spell the end for the Republicans; in fact, it is just what the doctor ordered. A loss of power will allow the Republicans to re-assess themselves, get a better agenda and purge the dead weight from its ranks. So when Bush is finally gone, they won't have a big pile of hurt on their shoulders waiting for them when the next elections come. But the Democrats might!

In the meantime, I'm going to sit back and savor my party's victory! So, come, comrades, let us sip boxed wine and tasty cheese. Or get high and eat Cheetos with SoBe. The Democrats have won, and soon enough, we'll actually have to see what they do in power. And something tells me it might be downhill from here. So enjoy life when it gives you something to be happy about.

As a special gift, I present to you some of Rummy's greatest hits. You won't be missed, you cranky old man with the mean look and patronizing attitude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAmTvP0Nr2Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PA2Ph07ldns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tSe2YA4c1M

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=816446595741575322&q=rumsfeld&hl=en

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5558437512085446117&q=rumsfeld&hl=en

(Okay, maybe I will miss you a little.)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7290154803943888966&q=rumsfeld&hl=en

I wish I had something better to write about this week; I've been waiting for a more substantial development to happen as we draw closer and closer to the election this coming week. Unfortunately, the hot topic in politics this week is the joke told by Senator Kerry a few days ago.

If you've been living under a rock or don't care for news shows, Kerry said the following:

"Education... If you make the most of it and you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

If taken in context, the joke was a jibe aimed at President Bush, who clearly didn't do his homework about the war in Iraq and got us embroiled in a gigantic fiasco that continues to cost American lives. Essentially, Kerry was calling Bush stupid, which is hardly anything new... People have been calling Bush stupid since the first "Bushisms" arose during the 2000 election.

Bush and his fellow Republicans have jumped on the remark and twisted it so it sounds like Kerry was insulting the military, saying that if you don't do well in school you're going to end up in the Army and fighting in Iraq. Bush and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow have both called for Kerry to apologize for his comments and declared that everyone, regardless of their party affiliation, should show support for our troops.

The Democrats have responded by saying Bush and his friends are apparently too stupid to know they're being called stupid.

But really, comrades, can you really fake shock at the spin? Kerry, while more eloquent than Bush (and that isn't saying much), clearly botched what he meant to say, and this isn't the first time this has happened. "I voted for the war -- right before I voted against it!" Look, politics -- whether you like it or not -- is just this way. If you say the wrong thing, in context or out of it, your opponents are going to use it against you. Kerry clearly should have known better to phrase his "joke" better than the way he did.

Back in the Clinton era, a member of Clinton's cabinet said something along the lines of "The best and the brightest did not go to Vietnam." She meant that the "best and the brightest" who designed Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy did not actually have to fight in the war and realize the horrors their policy was shaping there. Of course, Republicans twisted it so it sounded like she was saying only stupid people were drafted and sent to fight in Vietnam. This whole word-twisting is nothing new, and I'm sure if I was willing to invest more time into this, I could find examples dating back all the way to Adams versus Jefferson.

If there is any irony in this, it's that Kerry's "spun" comment could also be taken as a serious observation. While there are plenty of intelligent people in the military, I'm sure, I think we all know that the bulk of the people who volunteer for the military are people who aren't provided a lot of options in life. Their families are too poor to afford a higher education and cannot get the scholarships or financial aid they need. Or they had troubles growing up, and the only organization that can give them the things they need -- a salary, shelter, discipline, hope for a better future -- is the military. These, by and large, are people from my neck of the woods.... The "white trash" looked down upon by the people on the West and East Coasts, the urban kids who never got a fair shake from anyone, the poor and the needy and the desperate. In other words, you aren't going to see the Bush daughters stationed in Baghdad anytime soon.

The rich start the wars, but they don't fight in them. And when they can't get enough to fight, they lower the standards so pretty much anyone can get in... which is why you hear these cases of massacre and rape, because men who would otherwise not pass the psychological tests to get into the Army are suddenly fair game. Plenty of military men have commented on how the standards for training have fallen as of late and what that means for the integrity of our fighting forces.

But you're not going to see any of these serious issues discussed. Nothing about the state of the military or the state of the union. As we get closer and closer to election day, the media is just going to continue to focus in on the soundbites, the diatribes, the gaffes and blunders that may turn the minds of the undecideds who will decide this election. And frankly, that's no laughing matter.

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine about the movie "V for Vendetta," which I saw for the second time a couple nights ago. My friend took the position about the movie being pro-terrorism, which I argued it wasn't exactly. The movie does not endorse terrorism in broad terms; in no way does it defend the attacks on our country on September 11th, 2001 for example. But it does define striking back when our freedoms are taken away, when we are robbed of our most fundamental rights as human beings. The terrorist in "V for Vendetta" does not fight for some radical religious beliefs held by a small minority, but instead struggles against the overwhelming tyranny of a small minority upon the majority. And while many of us cannot sympathize with some crazed zealots who kill thousands of innocents, many of us can sympathize with someone who defends the very principles of a free and liberal society.

We do not live in the grim, fascist world depicted in "V for Vendetta." We as Americans still have the right to call our president an idiot, to lampoon the absurd behavior of our government and to make calls for change when things aren't going right. Fortunately we still live in a country where we have not yet surrendered our liberty for security so completely, where we blindly put our faith in politicians and religious figures to save us from evil. We are still able to take to the streets and protest if we want to, or to turn on the television and watch our favorite comedian or pundit verbally beat down our leadership (or our leaders' loyal opposition). We are, thankfully, not yet living in a country where absolute power rules, as it has not just in cinema but in the real world all too often.

But at this late hour I find myself wondering if we are completely free of this danger. You may call me foolish and paranoid and say that what happened in Germany and Russia and so many other countries could never happen here. Yet you cannot deny that the signs are there. The PATRIOT Act, the NSA wire-tapping, the unilateral saber-rattling, the repeal of habeas corpus, the secret prisons, the torture, the corruption, the labeling of critics as seditious traitors giving aid and comfort to the enemy. We can watch the TV shows that make fun of these things and write blogs about how they are wrong. But that does not change the fact that these things are still happening, and it's still quite possible that things might become much, much worse.

Next month the face of our capitol will probably change. The Republicans will take a heavy blow for their failures and incompetence in the last several years. The president will, as he did in the early years of his first term, find himself dealing with a divided Congress and a divided nation. And I'm not sure he or anyone close to him is prepared for that. What makes us think that he will unite us all of a sudden? How will he deal with vocal opposition now that he no longer has our full support? How will he respond when the power of public opinion he enjoys erodes from him? Will the Powers That Be allow the democratic process to take it's course? Will the neo-conservative philosophy of our government vanish with the haste and hurry it took over our policy?

Part of me wants to say that our democracy will survive all this crap as it has so many times in the past. Yet I am not convinced that November will be the end of the status quo. I do not think those in power will be so eager to share power once they must again do so. And, if my fears are realized, what will become of this country? When our calls for change are snuffed out, will we accept the fear-mongering that Bush and the Republicans have used? Will we be lulled back into sleep, to accept more and more years of our liberties being stripped away, bit by bit, until there is nothing left? I do not know if we will have the courage to stand up to authority if that happens. We may laugh at The Daily Show or say "Something should be done" when conversation turns political. But will we actually do anything? Will this be a generation that rises to the challenge of defending its freedoms -- or will it be the one who gives them away?

Perhaps this is just late night fantasy brought to the Internet. But it is something to consider, I suppose, and while the questions above may not have to be answered by me or anyone else, perhaps we should all reflect on how we would reply if those questions were indeed asked of us.