I can’t believe he said it. I can’t believe I didn’t record it the 3 times I saw the clip yesterday…

When asked by NBC’s Matt Lauer about the war on terrorism “Can we win it?”
Bush replies:

I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the – those who use terror as a tool are – less acceptable in parts of the world.

Sounds like a flip-flop to me. I wish I could find a clip from one of his speeches where he says something along the lines of “we are going to win this war on terrorism.”

Ironically there are two French reporters being held hostage in Iraq due to the French government’s ban on headscarves in state schools. (I am personally against the ban because it interferes with freedom of religion) Right now terrorism (in the form of taking hostages to make a political statement) is being used as a tool in a place where Bush supposedly liberated. I wonder if the French government rescinds this ban, will the terrorists have won? or will it simply be the French government realizing the errors of its ways? I predict that the journalists will probably end up dying becuase the French government will try to make a stand and refuse to overturn their whack-ass law. Regardless, this one small battle in the “war on terrorism” is exactly what Bush is trying to prevent, and it poignantly shows how unwinnable this ill named war really is. See “drug war” for more info on unwinnable wars :-)

One of my personal heroes, Michael Moore, is doing a daily column for USA Today during the Republican National Convention. After reading his first installment and watching former Mayor Giuliani give his speech, I found it interesting watching the two sides define each other. In his speech Giuliani attempts to define Kerry as a flip-flopper…

GIULIANI: He even, at one point, declared himself as an anti-war candidate. And now he says he’s pro-war candidate. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position four or five more times.

Which is pretty damned true, and I see this as being the number one character issue that will face Kerry. I see the Republicans painting him as indecisive, which is a quality a true leader should not possess. Yet you gotta wonder about Bush’s 7 minutes of indecision on 9/11… Moore addresses this in a different way:

You’re [Republicans] in charge because you never back down. Your people are up before dawn figuring out which minority group shouldn’t be allowed to marry today. Our side is full of wimps who’d rather compromise than fight. Not you guys.

I wonder is “flip-flopping” a form of compromise? I mean, the current adminstration has not backed down many times, nor have they made many compromises. In the spirit of bipartisan politics, Kerry’s record of flip-flops could easily be construed as making compromises, right? I was always told that compromises are what makes democracy work, and in that context it doesn’t seem like the Republicans are providing a real representative democracy. What this video for a little more inside on the difference between a democracy and a despotism.

Regardless, I get a kick out of Moore’s column, because he decides to define Republicans in his own populist way:

I’ve often found that if I go down the list of “liberal” issues with people who say they’re Republican, they are quite liberal and not in sync with the Republicans who run the country. Most don’t want America to be the world’s police officer and prefer peace to war. They applaud civil rights, believe all Americans should have health insurance and think assault weapons should be banned. Though they may personally oppose abortion, they usually don’t think the government has the right to tell a women what to do with her body. There’s a name for these Republicans: RINOs or Republican In Name Only. They possess a liberal, open mind and don’t believe in creating a worse life for anyone else.

I think this a good meme, probably better the “cheap labor conservative” meme of last year. So I now wonder, how do we collectively redefine Elephants to RINOs to people who will actively seek out a party that defines them best? Instant runoff voting is the answer I feel would be the best. It would allow people to vote for who they feel closest to politically without fear of wasting their vote on a third party. I would be nice if Mr. Moore would begin to advocate this. It seems like he has plenty of ideas, but none that he is really going after- save getting rid of Bush. I look forward tomorrow’s column :-)

For a third party perspective on Moore’s attendance at the RNC read this article about the media following him around.

The next rendering is taking its sweet time, it should be ready in the next 6 hours. It’s oval shaped, and I’ve only made a few like that. I am also making them with black backgrounds now. I’m not sure about how I feel about them yet- they look nice against the black background of this page, but when printed, I am not sure if the black will look good. I can always Photoshop them to the specific color, but that is just more work…

I finally got around to compiling all the images I’ve rendered this summer and put them on one page so that I can easily update the entire page when I create new images. What was happening was that my design page not getting updated when I made new images. By creating this page all I have to do is add the newest image each time one is created. Lets just say its a massive time saver! (FYI- to view this page, you need to turn off any pop-up blockers you have on) Anyways, now “The Daily Render” has a special page for the Lenz Project. I have been pondering what the next series will end up being, I am thinking something with a cube….

I just downloaded a graphic of the Himalayas that was actually featured in this months’s issue of Adbusters magazine. I am going to make 4 panelled reflection of it to make it look slightly more interesting. So yeah- like I said in my last post, look for something in 8-10 hours :-)