Mike Huckabee: A Simple Government: Book Review. Preface Statement; Introduction

February 27, 2011 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Uncategorized 


Huckabee has written a book criticizing the Obama Administration’s policies on financial matters and health care. In the prefatory remarks he states he won’t sink to personal attacks or “snarky” comments.
He begins by noting that Obama ran for office on the philosophy of hope and change which has now become tax and spend.
Obama according to Huckabee has shown himself to be the most partisan president in his lifetime by assuming his election was a mandate to establish socialized medicine and financial reform that will saddle future generations with a “mountain of debt.” (Huckabee seems to equate the Affordable Health Care Act with socialized medicine and forgets that 48.6 million Americans lacked heath care costing the tax payer 125 billion a year before Obama took office. Socialized medicine is when the government owns the medical facitities and employs the personnel. The cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP is increasing and was among the highest in the industrialized nations. Further when Obama took office the economy was in deep recession from the “free market” policies of the Bush Administration and headed towards a depression.)
He alleges Obama has loaded the government with “policy wonks and Ivy League professors because he speaks their language. Virtually no one on his team has experience running anything; they probably couldn’t even run a lemonade stand. Their abstract theories, abstract promises, airy platitudes, and unrealistic promises may sound nice on paper or in a Congressional debate but in reality these politicians are just trying to cover up their own ignorance. ” (This sounds snarky. Are Secretaries of Defense and State Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton policy wonks or Ivy League professors for instance? Look at the bios of the others in the Obama Cabinet and you will see just how unjustified and wrong is this comment )
He then points to his experience as Governor of Arkansas where he had to balance the budget. (All states are not allowed to run a deficit except to issue bonds for long term projects to finance bridges, schools, ports etc. So he couldn’t borrow if he wanted too and he was Governor during a peoriod of prosperity.) He doesn’t mention his own shallow educational background or beginning as a Baptist preacher in backwater towns and cities.
Huckabee doesn’t seem to realize he is now trying to play to a larger, better educated audience by saying things like he would “simplify government” and balance the U.S. budget by virtue of his down home personality and his past experience as a minister and Governor of one of our smaller states population wise and in the size of its economy.
One of the Bush Administration’s policies was to simplify government by advocating free markets and by downsizing regulation which led to the bond market bubble and near collapse of the financial system. So Huckabee from the beginning of this book is either a deceitful politician talking down to the reader or is another naïve but telegenic man.


Julian Assange: Saint, Devil or Toxic Ego Maniac? Maybe Firmly Held Idealistic Principles Which He Is Willing To Act On Scare The Living Daylights Out Of The Media Elite .

February 3, 2011 by · 2 Comments
Filed under: Uncategorized 


The N Y. Times, Vanity Faire, New Yorker and numerous other journalistic mediums have done profiles on Mr. Assange and Wiki leaks lately. They all seem to be written in the same theme; Assange was a young genius hacker named Mendax convicted on 24 counts of hacking, with a $2500.00 (Aus) fine and suspended sentence at the age of 21. Now he is a former hacker run amuck.

Appararently Mendax gained entry to many systems but did no damage. Indeed  it was his admonition to fellow hackers, who respected him, to do no damage to systems or data. Thus we have the N.Y. Times calling him a “notorious hacker” for something he was convicted of in 1992 at age 21 for crimes committed when he was a teenager.  Since then he has been a programmer, inventor and a consultant. There is no mention of his honorable existence for 15 years or so years before Wiki Leaks. The media knows all  this because Assange wrote a book about it and freely admits his misguided youth.

Then there is the leak of Afghan War documents allegedly naming 300 low level people who worked with the NATO Forces and who allegedly were put at risk.  However no names of persons harmed or killed by this disclosure are identified or discussed. Just a nice round number tossed out and then the articles move on to his domineering personality and reckless behavior. Which is described as evidence of a loose cannon especially when he disagrees with the likes of the Guardian, N.Y. Times, Der Speigel and other establishment outlets,  establishment media outlets which now have a vested interest in preserving the status quo.

When one monitors him on You Tube speaking in Sweden or on 40 minutes (and 20 minutes of commercials) and elsewhere Mr. Assange appears to anything but a notorious hacker or a loose cannon. He appears to be exceptionally intelligent, well spoken, sure of his positions and able to defend them against the best prepared journalists and interrogators.

It is granted that he supports transparency in World affairs.  Transparency might have avoided World War I and all the secret treaties that caused one country after another to be dragged into the conflict.   A belief that transparency might make the World better is a valid belief and the social networks and You Tube are proof of that in N. Africa and elsewhere.  It does not equate with anarchy as some news media would like us to believe.  Many notable diplomats, journalists, educators and intellectuals pose a belief in transparency but do nothing about it.

Then along comes Mr. Assange, apparently self educated except for a few years of  middling college work, well spoken with a keen intellect and he does something in furtherance of transparency that those who formally extolled the concept are now attacking him, first because of his youthful indiscretions and  particularly for release of the unredacted Afghan papers. The old saying goes if you can’t beat him on the facts then attack the man.

Assange says he decided to release the papers on a cost benefit analysis. Since the governments involved had always understated the number of civilian deaths he decided to let the truth out as to the actual number of deaths. (NATO deaths are around 2300 and increasing as are civilian deaths and Afghan Army deaths.) The cost benefit analysis is the same one the government made when it decided to extend the war. Thus his motivation was that the truth might end or shorten the war was on rational grounds and does not make him a madman.

Now in the eyes of his former correspondents he is personna non grata. ( The N.Y. Times, Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, La Paz and the like) he is seen as a bull in a china shop no matter how noble his motives are. The media is now disparaging him as a mentally unstable person. (N.Y.Times reporters John Burns and Ravi Somaiya, call him an ego maniac,  anarchist hacker; Bill Keller Times Exec. Editor sees him as a Steig Larson character; a counter culture hero or villain; the Guardian, whom he first contacted now, calls him an imperious fool and a hypocrite, etc.) If that was the case why did they become facilitators of his leaks? One has to ask, just who are the villains and hypocrites in this matter.

Perhaps he is so gleefully attacked by the establishment  media  because as a man  born  of the internet he has usurped the media’s raison d’ etre , that is to get the truth out.