Travellinguist's Musings

Addendum... to my Nov. 11, 2008 Post.

2010-03-03T18:31:00.000-08:00

So I wrote this blog post about things Obama would not do because I did not expect him to do much honestly, but figured that at least by NOT doing many things he'd be better than his predecessor.

I am sad to say that I was wrong, since the Patriot Act was recently renewed and he has covered up and hidden all kinds of stuff which he promised to reveal. I hate that even when I am cynical people fall BELOW my low expectations.

Who said that raising expectations lead to better results?... oh wait that was Rod Paige, George W. Bush, Margaret Spellings, and now Arne Duncan. Look how that crap has worked out for America's schools... So I guess lowering them has the opposite effect in politics, since politicians will always fall below one's expectations.

Why Palin and Dick Cheney Need to Go Away, OR why Liberals need to accept them.

2009-11-20T08:01:00.001-08:00

So I remember after the Bush-Gore election, Al Gore disappeared for about a year amidst Democratic, well liberal, calls to stay active and keep speaking. He said that he did not want to be some sort of "shadow president" as exists in a form in parliamentary democracies. When he finally re-emerged and began to talk, he was a fearsome critic of the Bush administration and advocate for environmental causes. Conservatives complained that he should just shut up, that he lost the election and it was time for him to just disappear. Even Howie Long, on NFL Sunday football (on Fox of course) made a dig at Gore, saying something like, you know this guy is just a sore loser; he was trying to make a football and political analogy, and like too many outspoken conservatives he was stupidly unable to do so. Even South Park mocked Gore in an episode saying that he just wanted friends and to be important and that that was why he hunted for the mythical "ManBearPig."

Well here is the relevance today. Barack Obama is the president now, Sarah Palin lost the election (but in spectacular, decisive fashion, not some protracted legal battle about counting ballots, hanging chads, and brand new Supreme Court precedents), and Dick Cheney is now the FORMER VP, and yet the two of them don't shut up. Gore was both of them in 2001, the losing candidate and the former VP, but conservatives told him to shut up, that his opinion did not matter or was evidence that he was a sore loser, or a loser simply. This was a convenient way to sidestep the very controversial nature of the election.

Here is what it means. Liberals have to accept the Cheney and Palin jawing because frankly they wanted Gore to do the same after the disputed 2000 election. Democrats might be hypocrites at times, but liberals are not. However, conservatives, if they are to be consistent and not hypocritical (though we know that most conservatives are NEITHER- at least the outspoken kind), they need to tell Dick Cheney that he had his 8 years and it cost us two cities, 5000 American soldiers, 4000 innocent American civilians, about a million innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, millions of American jobs, about a $1 trillion in wasteful war spending, and a $770 billion bailout and that now that he is done with his VP duty (like conservatives said Gore was done in 2001) it is time for him to retire gracefully, and shut the hell up. As for Palin, conservatives, to be consistent must, rise up and say "Palin, you lost, don't be a sore loser, the American people rejected you so it is time for you to go back to Alaska and shut up." (They might have argued that she needed to go back to running Alaska, the job for which she actually was elected and actually did win, but she removed that criticism by resigning from that job, clearly a sign of responsibility to her electorate and her state.)

However, conservatives will not do so, because the one constant with the conservative movement in America is that there is no statement, broad generalization, or political attack, they won't contradict, forget, or disavow, if the context suddenly applies to one of their own. Clinton cheated on his wife and lied about it, so he should resign, said the chattering conservative classes. Sen. John Ensign, not only cheated on his wife, but attempted to pay her and her husband off, and nary a word emerged from the same chattering conservative classes.

Conservatives attempt to explain away their hypocrisy by saying that it is because Clinton lied to Congress under oath, and he did, but of course being dragged before Congress to talk about your philandering was a somewhat unprecedented event, since the personal life of an individual is not a public matter unless there is evidence of a crime, which there was none. Then again, not a single Bush Administration official EVER EVER, when testifying before Congress about faulty intelligence, missing emails, WMDs, etc, EVER went under oath. In fact when Congress issued subpoenas, the "compromise" that spineless Democrats accepted was that Bush people would appear only on the condition that they would not testify under oath. In other words, they would only appear before Congress so long as they could get away with lying and face no legal repercussions if their lies were exposed later. So Republicans learned that they should never be under oath when attempting to lie about matters of treason, state security and matters of justice, whereas Bill Clinton learned the hard way that one should not testify under oath when trying to cover up your wandering eye.

The stink of hypocrisy from Republicans is foul and repugnant, and each week there is a new and egregious example of how those "rules" and "principles" which they, without fail, apply to liberals and Democrats do not at all apply to them in any situation and our Republic is all the worse for it. As for the Democrats, they do not escape blame in all this. At times they, themselves, have tried to apply the same "rules" which they complained about in the past when Republicans were grandstanding, but since they don't have the ability to silence the internal voice that calls out their hypocrisy they always come across as wimpy and uncommitted. Republicans might be hypocrites, but they are fiercely committed hypocrites.

This of course is the second part of the problem and why it is not uncommon to smell the stink of cowardice urine wafting out of the halls of Congress, Democrats are wimpy! Congress has subpoena power. Once Congress issues a subpoena, they can drag that person before them, swear them in and grill them. Congress doesn't have to "Compromise" with the Executive. The Constitution gives them not Compromise authority, but Check and Balance POWER. They have special powers above the President, to check his authority, and it is not about compromise but about that power to check overweening Executive pride. If the presidency is too powerful it is because Republicans for the first 6 years and Democrats for the last 2, of the Bush presidency did not use their Congressional powers to CHECK his rampant abuse of power.

Free Press and one more.

2009-08-20T16:54:00.000-07:00

Besides this I would like to point out that Obama is living down to the low expectations I set for him months ago, and yet sadly had we been stuck with McCain and Palin it is doubtless that our nightmare would be even worse than it is now. I don't know what's worse, hoping for change and being disappointed, as I am with Obama, or expecting incompetence and selfish evil which is what another Republican administration would have been. At least I would have known everything would have sucked. Then again, Republican supporters, or I shouldn't even call them that because it is a disservice to the true spirit of the Republican party which suffered a slow death since Reagan and was exterminated under Bush. Bush-Cheney-type supporters who have shown themselves to be deranged, racist lunatics over and over recently would have been fiddling as our country continued to burn, but now they can scapegoat Obama when of course the problem is not that he is bringing change but that he is playing from the Bush-Cheney playbook mostly, a fact that these ignorant twits cannot even bring themselves to see.
Health care is the obvious exception but he is doing what multiple politicians have done, bore us with details which we can nitpick to death rather than handling the details themselves and inspiring us with their goals.

William G. Brownlow

2009-05-30T11:47:00.000-07:00

I have recently learned about William G. Brownlow, a man who knew how to deal with the traitors that tried to destroy this country. If only he'd dealt more harshly with those who only understood violence the South might be a better place today. Instead though we let those traitors act up and clothe themselves in the garbs of righteousness. However, traitors who fight to destroy America and defend slavery have no righteousness. So many of the problems we have today in this country stem from the coddling of Confederate traitors after the war.
No one serving in the Federal government today should proudly bear the name of traitors and yet many do, like Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, named after the traitorous president of the CSA and the traitorous general Beauregard who plotted to murder US troops and attempted to do so by bombarding Ft. Sumter and leading an army of insurgents in Virginia.
Today, people who plot to kill US troops get locked up on flimsy evidence. Back then men who proudly shot at and killed US troops got to retire to their plantations and build statues of themselves.
They complained about Northerners who migrated South and made money by working hard, but of course this was a lazy class of Southerners who didn't know how to work because they immorally forced others to do so, so we should not feel sympathy. Their descendants still benefit from the ill-gotten immoral gains and coincidentally many of those same descendants fiddled in Congress the last 20 years as our economy burned.

Viva la libertad -- A Friend.

2009-03-10T14:57:00.000-07:00

Viva la libertad -- A Friend.

Those who know what it means, know what it means.

Why my Catholicism has lapsed...

2009-01-31T10:53:00.000-08:00

So yet another delightful action taken by our Hitler Youth Pope Benedict. So it was bad enough that the College of Cardinals picked a former Nazi-collaborating Hitler Youth to replace a member of the Polish anti-Nazi resistance (John Paul II), but now this wacko is promoting wackos. The most recent news is that he is promoting an Austrian priest named Gerhard Wagner to Bishop. This priest (like several evangelical whackos in the US) declared the New Orleans flood to be God's punishment on the "sinful city." This would be just another small fry thing... but it comes on the heals of this travesty:
After Vatican II reformed the Catholic church to make it more accessible and friendly to all people a group of hard-core nuts decided that though they fully supported and believed in the "holy mother church"- assumingly including the doctrine of Papal Infallibility- they didn't believe in doing this, and thus, though they are fundamentalist believers who should thus follow the Pope's lead this was not something for them to believe or follow. They believed more in the rituals and practices than in the Pope and so they rejected them and protested. Well, they were excommunicated, which would seem a harsh circumstance for a different of opinion but not surprising given the history of the church, a history these ex-communicants cherished so greatly. Well, part of their rejection was the reconcilliation with Jews including John Paul II's apology for centuries of violence and anti-Semitism on behalf of the church. One leading member, a Bishop, of this splinter group is a vocal Holocaust denier. Another member is of course Mel Gibson, a drunken "Jewish Conspiracy" activist son of a Holocaust denier (though people loved his Jesus snuff film a good deal). Well Pope Benedict, former Hitler Youth, and promoter of Austrian hate-mongers has now removed the ex-communication order from these Holocaust-denying freaks in the spirit of "forgiveness" without addressing their hateful, anti-Semitic ways. So as a result the Catholic Church continues to be compromised, more concerned with reconciling with Catholic hate-mongers, than non-Catholic victims of those hate-mongers. Lucky for me I am not one of those "Old Believers" so I KNOW the Pope is NOT infallible and his current actions prove to me that he is most likely off his nut, or has thoroughly taken in the Dick Cheney metaphor that "we make history," so thus he didn't have to worry about anything or about anyone who is warped and rejected by the hateful ways of those whom he promotes...

Myths that lead to problems.

2009-01-10T07:55:00.000-08:00

Without naming names let me just say that States are the creations of man and thus have no inherent rights, to existence or otherwise. The behavior of some people intimated on the notion that their country has some magical right to exist is no doubt an important reason for the exacerbation of many conflicts. States do not have rights. States do not live. People have rights and people have responsibilities. Any State's existence is predicated upon the choices of its citizens and the behavior those citizens choose to make the State exhibit.
I am sick of BS slogans.

Obama lives down and up to my hopes. Car bailout.

2008-12-10T20:19:00.000-08:00

So here is the thing. I knew Obama was not really all liberal and radical as everyone implied and as his Republican opponents and many white detractors tried to paint him. However in the last couple of days of his campaign I began to believe that he might be more, that he might be a significant change. Well he has appointed such DLC (Democratic Leadership Council- also known as the Democrat schmucks who helped speed the Reagan-Bush train to this crap destination) stalwarts as Hilary Clinton and Rahm Emmanuel, which is surprising but not so radical at all. Heck, the best thing from his appointment of Hilary Clinton is that the Gov. of New York might actually appoint a liberal to take over Hilary's seat. Here is hoping.
Obama has not been bold, but as I said a post a few weeks ago he will at least NOT do the things which Bush did, take the specific actions which destroyed so much, so that absence of destruction will be an improvement even if he is not bold enough to END the destruction that is currently taking place that he will inherit from his deservedly maligned predecessor. So I have to say he has disappointed the me on election day who began to believe, but has lived up to the expectations, low though they were, of him which I held for most of the election campaign. I am still going to hope that he is really actually redefining politics in a way that will be better than I can conceive right now. I am willing to think that my own progressive way might not work. (That is what makes me a Progressive as opposed to a my way or the highway conservative).
Speaking of which, it is reassuring to see Republicans remember conservatism recently in regard to the bailouts. They caved for the first bailout because it was all about Big Finance which BIG FINANCES their campaigns and libraries, but they are staying considerably tougher in regards to the car companies because well as I heard Sen. Jim DeMint say this evening on News and Notes on NPR because "this bailout is about saving Unions... and the Union model is outdated in the modern economy." So basically the Republicans won't be so easily bought off because the working man might get to keep his pension and the UAW might maintain its status as one of the few effective Unions in the USA. That is a shame, but they are definitely not wrong about the problem being a Union problem. Of course what they fail to regard is that the abyssmal failure of GM, Chrysler, Ford etc. leadership over the last 40 years has nothing to do with Unions. the UAW didn't foist SUVs on us with 10 MPG fuel efficiency and they surely didn't design those nasty tanks of cars everyon drove in the 70s before OPEC punished us with the first gas price shock. These motor companies are terrified to go under a judge's bankruptcy eye because this judge will be able to not only force concessions on the Unions which they would surely support and clearly Sen. DeMint supports (a man who no doubt has never worked a hard physical day in his entire life for minimum wage without benefits), but they are worried the judge will shred their posh executive compensation packages which reward their stupidity and insulate them from failure. It would probably force them restructure their corporate board system which likewise encourages corruption and waste at the top level and has doubtless helped stifle more useful innovation than anything else. So they go begging hat in hands to Congress, flying their personal jets on the way, and the Unions equally afraid of change find common ground with their bosses for the first time since......... since I don't know when. Two mutually opposed entities terrified of change and pooling their resources to maintain a crappy status quo. I might not like Demint's and others' motivations for wanting to block this bill (Sen. Richard Shelby has at least taken CEOs to task so seems more even-handed) but at least they seem as if they are on the right track. Radical change in necessary. Working men might suffer, but they are going to anyway. That is what happens in a Depression, but at least in bankruptcy the fat cats who create the problems can potentially suffer the failure of their visions and leadership as well. This alone is worth something.
Oh yeah, it begs remark. Gov. Blagojevich is a scumbag and the day after mentioning the sale of the Parking Meter concession to a privte comapany it turns out that Obama's Senate seat was for sale too. It is exciting that the Democrats are eagerly trying to insure that they cannot maintain their supremcy. On the other hand it is wonderful that the Republicans who wanted Patrick Fitzgerald dethroned when he was investigating Cheney and Libby are now suddenly supporters now that he is bringing down a Democrat. Fitzgerald at the moment looks like one of those genuinely great Americans who has helped to clean up politics. All success and credit to him. We need a whole lot of cleaning up. Let's hope he is not visiting hookers on the side or making propositions in Minnesota restrooms.
Back to Blagojevich. Notice how perfectly coiffed his hair is. It is amazing to me that the more slimey a politician the better his hair is. That is truly a warning sign. Look at slippery Mitt Romney, screws-around-on-his-sick-wife Edwards, etc. If the guy's hair is too good look out! Heck this actually applies to Sarah Palin but of course to say so would open one to charges of sexism, since of course all my other examples would be disregarded in favor of a chauvinistic focus on Palin's hair and clothes. Her perfect coiffing is not beacuse she is a woman but because she is a corrupt politician. Other guys with too perfect hair include John Ensign, always in his plaid flannel but who seems so far honest (if profoundly misguided), but keep your eyes open, Randy Cunningham (no more need be said), Rick Santorum (Mr. my kids are in private school in Virginia and the PA taxpayers pick up the 20K per year tab) and probably others but I haven't looked at the pics recently.

Intellectual Bankruptcy of too many conservatives.

2008-11-21T09:45:00.000-08:00

So I noticed on Facebook that the Philadelphia Daily New columnist Will Bunch had written an article about Henry Paulson taking a trip to the Reagan library to give a speech even though he'd turned down all other requests for speeches owing to the complete financial meltdown in our system. Well some guy wrote in to basically high-five Bunch but then this Canadian began evoking 1984, the Orwell novel not the Reagan landslide to attack the two men. As the conversation persisted the Canadian began insulting the commentator, not Bunch, the commentator on Bunch's article.
I began to think about how quickly conservatives turn to personal attacks (which isn't to say liberals don't but conservatives are definitely the quickdraws in this America). This guy said Reagan's legacy was easy to explain but he didn't have time, but he did have time to write up insults to the positive commentator. I assume when the financial world is collapsing around you, when your much cherished ideologies go up in smoke there is nothing left but insults. What is funny is that this Reagan-lover is Canadian but clearly not so much a Reagan-lover that he would live in the USA enduringly shaped by the Reagan administration. I guess he might love the idea of Reagan ideology where everyone is on their own and stepping on everyone else they can for their piece of the ever-shrinking pie but when push came to shove he prefers his Canadian government health insurance, his clean Vancouver air and his electorally-responsive Canadian parliamentary system. It's easy to want "economic freedom" when all your needs are satisfied by a responsible government I guess.
Sadly I live in the United States and our government has been terribly irresponsible and so I am busy worrying about making sure the basic needs of my fellow citizens are met before I begin criticizing the ideas of the people actually living in the country where the actual bad policies of the Reagan years are wreaking havoc.
I sometimes wish I could live in Canada knowing my basic needs are always accounted for so that I could rage against the machine that succors me and provides me health care, all the while luxuriously wishing for the system which Reagan wanted in which the machine would not succor me nor minister to my health.
Conservatives have become such petulant children. It is especially funny coming from a Canadian though. I mean conservatives in America have to live with their decisions at least, conservative Canadians get to scream and yell about America's liberalism (which had been a small movement recently) while living in a social democracy and not having to worry if they will have health insurance or unemployment insurance if their economy goes down the tank.
I have seen several McCain supporters mention how they would love to move to Canada now that Obama won. This is a clear indication that they don't understand the reasons for liberals speaking about doing so during the Bush years, nor do they understand what Canada is like (which shouldn't surprise us since many- though clearly not all- conservatives have little clue about what things are like outside our borders). American liberals wanted to go to Canada not because they wanted out of America but because they wanted to go to a country that looked like and represented what they believed. These conservative and McCain lovers should ALL go to Canada for a few year because when they came home they'd probably be much stronger supporter of Obama's policies, since Obama would be right-of-center in Canada, and since they'd get to appreciate the things that Canada does that work for Canadians, which we don't do in the United States for US citizens.

What Obama Won't Do....

2008-11-11T15:39:00.000-08:00

We have heard high hopes for President-Elect Obama along with the irrational fears of McCain and Bush supporters who were roused to a frenzy by a dishonest and dishonorably campaign. Obama is not a socialist, or if he is then socialism has surely become quite conservative over the years. However, between the hysterical fears of racists, Christianists, and those who haven't taken any courses on political economy and those optimistic people who believe Obama can remake the world anew I offer what I hope is a sobering yet nonetheless optimistic assessment of the Obama presidency.
So with that in mind I will share a list of things which Obama WON'T do, but in NOT doing them will be well on his way to a successful presidency.

Barack Obama will NOT secretly order the kidnapping and torture of people who might maybe know something about people who might maybe think about maybe hurting American soldiers deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Barack Obama will NOT disregard the marchers in the street when they demand he NOT go to war.
Barack Obama will NOT start wars for the photo opportunities it will provide for his re-election campaign.
Barack Obama will NOT violate the contracts of US soldiers who thought they were defending America, but were actually just defending Union Carbide, ExxonMobil and other "energy" companies, by redeploying them indefinitely until their nerves, marriages, health and lives are destroyed.
Barack Obama will NOT disregard the rulings of the Supreme Court, and the legislation of Congress to violate the Constitutional rights of US citizens, by listening to their phone calls and reading their mail.
Barack Obama will NOT devote most of his executive efforts to crafting 'signing statements' by which he would announce his intention to disregard his Constitutional obligations by failing to enforce or abide by legislation passed by Congress and signed on his own desk.
Barack Obama will NOT fill his government with cronies picked more for their loyalty than their confidence.
Barack Obama will NOT commend someone for doing a "heckuva job" while bloated corpses float around the streets of New Orleans and New Orleaneans rot in the Superdome.
Barack Obama will NOT fund raise in Arizona while New Orleans drowns.
Barack Obama will NOT clear brush while California burns.
Barack Obama will NOT play golf after just announcing he'd given it up to "support the troops."
Barack Obama will NOT blame the CIA when he ignores the intelligence information they diligently provided to him.
Barack Obama will NOT act out his adolescent father resentments by subsuming all of his policy decisions under an umbrella goal of doing "more" than daddy did. (Iraq, Re-election, Tax Cuts no matter how disastrous to long term economic health, etc.)
Barack Obama will NOT disregard the needs of America's youth for a sound future (We won't let him)
Barack Obama will NOT ignore the opinions of our friends and allies througout the world who often see and understand things in more profound ways than we can or he can.
Barack Obama will NOT draw stupid lines in the sand between "new Europe" and "old Europe" based upon who toadies to us most effectively.
Barack Obama's VP will NOT shoot his friend while hunting.
Barack Obama's VP will NOT stay hidden in an undisclosed location- even though with the way Biden runs his mouth Obama might prefer him to stay there.
Barack Obama will NOT HIDE his press conferences from the public by scheduling them at 10AM on weekdays when no one is watching.
Barack Obama will NOT bury bad news and bad policy on Friday afternoon so it won't make the "news cycle."
Barack Obama will NOT spend 2-3 months of every year on 'vacation' at his 'ranch' while the nation's problems compound.

If Barack Obama fails to enact an ambitious agenda, many might consider it a failure or a wasted opportunity, but we must remember that by NOT doing many things which his predecessor did he will leave this country a better and stronger place. The failures of president Bush were not always the sins of neglect, but often the sins of appalling actions. Obama has to simply NOT do many things and we will have a better, stronger country. So please let us not expect Obama to achieve everything we want, though we can expect him to try. However we can demand that he NOT repeat the appallingly un-American actions of President Bush and his administration and by doing so get this country on a more humane and honest track.

Republicans and the Economy.

2008-11-05T12:08:00.000-08:00

I am tired of hearing how it was difficult for Republicans to win because of the difficult economic circumstances. This supposes that economics simply exists on its own. Republicans, and I just got an email from Mike Duncan, need to open their minds and their eyes and see what is in front of them. They didn't lose because the economy magically tanked. They lost because their policies and ideology helped to wreck our economy. Their desire for war and tax cuts bankrupted our government, while their desire for vengeance on 9 year old Afghani boys in the wrong place at the wrong time bankrupted our moral authority.
It was not a "difficult environment." Republicans lost because the American people finally opened up their eyes to what people like me have been saying since the Clinton Administration, which is that their ideas, ideologies and policies have directly contributed to the decline of this nation. It is time for the Republicans to look at what their ideas have reaped and begin to re-evaluate what those beliefs are. Our nation slid on their watch because of what they did. To be sure, they had a lot of help from the American people but that is because we followed their leadership; they led us into war, wasteful spending, corruption and a whole host of other ills. It is not a tough environment, it is just desserts.
The question of course now becomes whether the Republicans and Democrats who are now running our government can figure out new solutions and new ideas which can right the ship of state, restore our standing (both financial and moral) in the world and make Americans stop fearing and loathing each other. The Republicans should be chastened by the abysmal failure of their ideology, but as we know Democrats certainly did not fight against this ideology and Bill Clinton even embraced much of it, so thus what is good for the Republicans should also be good for the Democrats. We need to reconsider our fundamental understandings of economics, education and political relations.
And one last thing. All of you who think Obama is a socialist or that socialism never worked both know nothing about what socialism actually is and further equate socialism, which functionally exists in Denmark, Sweden, France and many other countries, with Communist tyranny which we saw consuming lives in the 20th century. First, learn about economics and political economic theory and then learn about the governments of countries in the world which actually exist. Otherwise you just look stupid spouting your fear-mongering about socialism.

McCain's Concession Speech.

2008-11-04T20:23:00.001-08:00

John McCain is currently giving his concession speech and I have to say it is actually a remarkable one- informed by history, gracious in defeat and respectful of his opponent. If only this McCain has been the McCain on the campaign trail he might have had a better chance. He seems to remember who he was in 2000, the guy who we thought would balance out John Kerry very effectively in 2004. Of course, as we all know, our political system encourages viciousness, innuendo, racism in the no-holds barred attempt to defeat the one other political party. I am not sure if there could ever be a fair and honorable campaign in the United States with so much at stake in our distorted system, but McCain's surely was not one of them and in fact the desperate viciousness of his surrogates set new lows.
However, watching this concession speech I can't help but begin to feel sympathy for him, the same sympathy I felt watching him in South Carolina in 2000. (As I hear his supporters boo and catcall him and such I remember the problems that still exist with these horrid people and the challenges which we will still face to enlighten and educate Americans beyond their racism and prejudices. Perhaps we can also teach them what socialism actually is and why Obama is quite distant from actual socialism.)
So I now remember who John McCain once was, but I also am reminded of who his followers are. It is a mixed bag, but now our hopes are for Obama to be what he has the potential to be, a transformational president.

Military Service.....

2008-11-02T12:06:00.000-08:00

We often hear about how heroic soldiers are those who fight in defense of the nation, and all that other pablum which suppresses free discussion and forces the trite statement of all politicians, "I support the troops." There is a certain truth to soldiers as those people who heroically defend their homes, but as we know well, the idea of a standing, professional army was hotly debated in the early years of the United States for good reasons. The civilian militiamen at Lexington and Concord had proven the effectiveness of common people soldiers fighting in defense of their homes, while through the professional British Army, quartered amidst the citizenry of Boston, we learned how soldiers' simple purpose is to kill and to maintain order through the threat to kill. Their job is one of destruction of life and property. Even those military engineers who build, often just build to better deliver the destruction. It is not just that the soldiers kill and destroy, though that is their primary purpose, but because while waiting, while being "on-guard" as it were, for the call to kill and destroy (yes even in defense) they contribute nothing to society. Throughout the history of humankind professional armies have plundered and taken from those civilians around them to maintain themselves. The purposes of quartering troops among the people, as the British did in Boston in the 1770s and as was forbidden by our Bill of Rights, were not just for maintaining order but to make it that the civilians would feed the soldiers and attend to their needs so that the government did not have to worry about it. This was a win-win for the British government since keeping an army in the field is a problem. As we know from the historical accounts and many contemporary accounts, quartered soldiers extract, money, food and virginity from those occupied civilians, terrorizing and living a parasitic existence through the threat of force.
I say this all because the network of amendments to the US Constitution dealing with firearms and quartering are intimately related to each other and the circumstances of the 18th century. We have moved away from this ideal of citizen-soldiers, though we have a National Guard which in many ways embodies this, however the $600 billion a year we spend to maintain our standing army suggests that the founders had more wisdom than they themselves knew. (Of course our active duty army consumes another $200 billion or more to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan, so a total of about $800 billion a year and likely more) We have moved away from their ideal and this has cost us treasure and blood in ridiculous amounts. Further it has encouraged vainglory in our leaders so much that they invade countries to "advance our interests" to thereby spread the loss of blood and life to others at no risk to themselves all the while declaring their patriotism and love of country.
It should not surprise us that Iraqis and Afghanis are unhappy with our presence. It is not just the invasion which obviously would upset them, but the reality that they have to live in a way which our Founding Fathers found intolerable, with soldiers quartered in their midst, and destruction in their cities and towns. What has made their lives easier is that the American citizens are picking up the bills to the tunes of billions per month, however, easy is relative when your family member is accidentally shot to death at a checkpoint, or when your door is kicked in in the middle of the night because your suspected of doing something you did't do.
So why this discourse? Well simply it is because war is the problem itself. Our soldiers (and often most soldiers) are often good people who behave honorably, but the condition of war leads them to do things which are anti-humanitarian, and worse, changes some into monsters. However, with a standing professional army and billions of dollars of annual expenditures which need justification, our leaders can too easily pull the trigger on foreign adventures and invasions which just create war and destruction and which do not actually benefit any person except a thin slice of war profiteers. Not only is this destruction an impediment to progress and humanity, but tying down soldiers in the act of destroying means they are not involved in production and peace, which means it is a double loss. They are away from their families and jobs; their sole purpose is to destroy and then rebuild what they have destroyed.
The United States will not abolish firearm ownership and perhaps they should not since the firearm issue was not one of crime but defense. The citizen-soldiers were intended to keep their muskets to serve in the militia, a militia which we don't have any longer. A drastic reduction in our standing army to a level like existed before the Civil War would be in our best interest as a nation and a society. Citizen-Soldiers would stand up in the unlikely event of an invasion and their skill with the freely available arms would make them as effective against an invading force as those rag-tag Iraqi militia rebels are defending their homes against us. The best soldier is the one defending his home. All else just exemplify the professional armies of Europe's past, ravenous beasts which consume the production and livelihoods of all those around them while building nothing of value. They are as much the drain on our economic progress by existing as unproductive soldiers as by the destruction they leave in their midst in executing their duties.

Stupidity and what happens when it runs the show.

2008-10-24T14:08:00.001-07:00

We know that this is an interesting election, but I can't even believe that this ridiculousness is what we call democracy. Some McCain volunteer in Pittsburgh (but from Texas) made up a racist story about being attacked by a Black man just to excite racial prejudices in a classic replay of the 1890s. Just like the 1890s our country is down a deep shithole with the poor being ground into dust to feed the greedy wealth of the few Americans. Joe the Plumber was a fraud as well and no doubt a plant as I suspected the very first day I heard the story. No one has suggested this even though they proved that everything he said was a lie, a convenient lie which someone conveniently reported and someone conveniently recorded. Why do they not see the fraud in front of their faces? The media trumpets the skill of Republican operatives but when faced with evidence of it they ignore it. Joe the Plumber is NOT a plumber and was put there by his local Republican Party, who came with videocameras in an attempt to manufacture a political ad. It worked, the media tore the story apart and no one wondered why so many lies and so much convenience. Fucking idiots.
The Republicans, or more specifically I guess, the McCain campaign are engaged in a political game that would be amusing if in some political thriller movie, but is a horrifying spectacle when it has to deal with our country on the verge of total economic collapse which might bring down the rest of the world with us, in a massive economic crash.
For years we were told that a rising tide lifted all boats that rich people getting richer meant all of us getting richer but it is a lie. It always was a lie and the economic evidence always contradicted it. Nonetheless I saw a Wall Street Journal schmuck on Bill Maher's show a couple of months ago recite the same tired line back when I knew, along with other people not heard on TV, that the economic crash was coming. Greenspan testified before Congress that he had made many mistakes. Amazingly many had said he was making mistakes while he was making them but he ignored them and carried on. Many voices in the Wilderness spoke out warning that things would get worse, that things were not functioning, that the US economy was headed for a crash because we no longer grew and fed ourselves a variety of food (instead depending upon imports), because we no longer manufactured the things we buy and for dozens of other sound economic reasons which I who am not an economist understood but politicians did not. These voices were mocked, greeted with hostility, shouted down, called "un-American", told to move to Canada, etc. I know because at times I was one of those people absorbing the invective.
What happened to the "it's alright" "everything is super" "Iraq is a threat" "the war will be a cakewalk" etc people? They are rich, powerful and sitting in influential jobs. This is the problem with the Market, not the ideal Market of economic theory, but the real one which we now have. This American market distorts the way the ideal market is supposed to work. People who are wrong and stupid get promoted to editorships, get honoraria to spout more of their stupid opinions, and continue to book TV gigs, and book contracts. We reward stupidity and failure and then wonder why our economy is in the shitter. We invest in making the Chinese do our building and manufacturing so that our money just flows to China- a nation which then lends that money back to us so we can keep buying, a perverse sort of Marshall Plan so the Chinese "Communists" can make themselves billions and keep their people busy working in horrid conditions rather than revolting against massive government corruption and human rights violations. All governments need some sort of legitimacy and the Chinese maintain it by force, and busy work for the masses.
Our government has lost all legitimacy, and particularly the Republican party which ran our government for 6 of the last 8 years and realistically whose ideology has run this country since the 1970s, which brings us back to lies and desperation. What is ironic is that the shrewder Republicans have to realize that they have more of a future if they lose now because they can still hold on to some legitimacy as an opposition party as the mess they made continues to unfold, but putting in John McCain, a guy they don't like and who doesn't really like them, but who now pretends to like all the things they do to win, will not save them. Firstly, he is not quite competent and his running mate makes us pine for the wisdom of Dan Quayle, so nothing he will do will help, but secondly as the global economy continues to collapses and Americans keep dying he will continue to get the blame as will his party which will doom them. Of course, I mentioned that the Republicans reward stupidity, so those Republicans who recognized this reality probably are not being heard anywhere, only those who think that they desperately need to hold on to power are apparently being heard and authoring the tactics. If the Republicans win and continue with the same bullshit they've been selling for about 30 years they will cease to be an effective national party because their ideas will just continue this slide and will destroy this country utterly. They might still be around like the Communists are still around in Russia and Fascists in Italy but they won't be worth much.
The question would then be whether we would continue to have a two party system and who would be the new major party to balance the Democrats? Greens have a chance, but it would more likely be a Libertarian Party which can fill the conservative hole in our political system. Of course in a magical world, the Democrats would become so cocky that we might have a situation akin to the 1830s where the Democrats one-party reign was challenged by the American Party and Whigs- representing two disparate attempts to challenge Andrew Jackson. There is an anti-immigrant fervor much like which motivated the American Party members, there is a dissipating confidence in the electorate much like motivated the Whigs so who knows what might arise....? Anyway I have said enough for now.

Wal-Mart Commercial vs Sen. Biden.

2008-10-02T19:45:00.000-07:00

So besides the fact that Palin got lots of names and details incorrect and on several occasions didn't even answer the questions posed to her, I really came away with this feeling that I was witnessing a Wal-Mart commercial attempting to debate Joe Biden. I mean all that fake folksy bullshit that is in Wal-Mart commercials... aww shucks.... everyday people.... blah blah. Just like Wal-Mart commercials, Sarah Palin is a folksy Mayberry front for what is ultimately a sinister and economically devastating enterprise. Her job is to make something that is ugly, nasty and ultimately destructive of the United States and our way of life seem cute and fun. The Wal-Mart comparison is appropos since Wal-Mart has done more to destroy the American retail and manufacturing economy than any one business on Earth and yet they have these commercials that talk about how fun and nice they are for caring about regular people, the sames one who used to own the small businesses which Wal-Mart ruthlessly drove out of business with predatory pricing and "loss leaders."
An extra comment. Palin kept talking about how McCain is going to cut taxes because that way we can have more jobs. It is amazing that conservatives still spout this utterly unverifiable and frequently wrong crap after all these years of Bush tax cuts which accompanied utter economic devastation and the destruction of the US financial sector. We are supposed to bail out Wall Street without money but we won't raise taxes which would actually provide the money for the bailout and I don't mean taxes for people like who make 40K a year, but taxes for all those people making 200K and up who pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than I do somehow and who are also going to be the primary beneficiaries of the Wall Street bailout.

Debts, Bailouts and profound stupidity.

2008-09-30T05:07:00.000-07:00

So, this morning the Today Show was speaking of the failure of the bailout plan as a failure of leadership as if somehow all of America was united around this plan and something weird just happened. They persisted in this fallacious argument by parading a series of their correspondents to advocate for the bill. I had never seen such an egregious violation of journalistic ethics on this station before. Fox News, sure, that is routine for them, but for NBC to do so was just shocking but I guess not unexpected since GE is their parent company and also a major bank with lots of loans out in the economy. So, they were advocating for their own corporate bailout at the expense of their viewers.
So here is part of the funny. The obvious one is that the "captains of finance" have spent the last 20 years complaining that government was the problem and now they are desperate for government to be the solution, so much so in fact that they are turning their NBC on-air talent into mouthpieces of a government bailout plan that violates the principles they spent so much money lobbying Congress for over the last two decades. Of course, this is not a unique or rare opinion so I will say nothing more.
Here is another ironic twist. The problem is that people can't pay their mortgages and are losing their homes. This leaves the banks stuck with homes and people not paying their debts, so what is the solution with the People's money? Give it to banks in exchange for that debt, thereby leaving the People indebted still further and without their homes which were the intial source of their initial debt. So the bailout plan is to leave the People doubly indebted. Wouldn't it make sense to give the People's money to the People who are having debt trouble so they can PAY their debt to the bank. It would amount to the same thing, the People's money going to the banks, BUT it would be mediated through the people and would have the accounting effect of allowing people to keep their homes. Heaven forbid we help regular people keep their homes as the WAY to keep banks from failing. I mean why would be bother to spend the People's money on the People?!
Here is yet another ironic twist. When Mexico went into debt crisis we gave them money. When Russia went into debt crisis we gave them money. Now we are in debt crisis and we are asking the American people to give the money. How about we ask the People's Republic- China- to cancel some of our debts or open up their cash reserves to keep our banks afloat? How about we ask Russia to buy some of our debt? That would give them a stake in our economy that would keep things more peaceful. China might be setting their sights on going to the moon and beating us in the Space Race but their significant dependence and investment in our economy has kept them much less belligerent than Russia towards us. If we can use this as a way to give Russia a big buy-in into our economy we can help forestall that looming Cold War. Another potential solution is to turn to our loyal oil friends in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates who are sitting upon millions of petro-dollars and ask them send some of that money this way to keep our economy afloat. I mean we've certainly earned their support through propping up their corrupt and anti-democratic regimes. Our country needs dollars and we don't have any, and they have an excess. The bailout would be financed by more borrowing those petro-dollars (among others) anyway, borrowing likely from foreign sources, but I have heard of no government attempting to offer us the financial help which we often offer to foreign nations in crisis. I am not even blaming those foreign nations, but an American government too prideful to ask for help from those who have all the dollars. Stupid. This is simply stupid, but this is Washington.
Our two-party system drives a system of asinine politics and banal stupidity. This is very much the reason for the collapse of our nation. There is definitely President Bush and the Republican Party to blame for their stupid political sense, which it turns out has done more harm to capitalism than sane regulation, but the Democrats are supposed to be the party of opposition and yet they've opposed NOTHING at all. If Bush gave away the store it is because the Democrats failed to lock the door and they failed to lock the door because they are a party of no principles. This is what our two-party system has come to, a party of stupid destructive principles and a party of no definite principles.
I am soooooo glad I will get to live to see a Chinese astronaut on the moon on TV while sitting my living room in a second class former world power. (yes I am being sarcastic, like any Patriot I want my nation to be first class, though perhaps a bit more humble about it)

Bailing out Wall Street with the People's Money....

2008-09-25T07:34:00.000-07:00

Amazing that the "People," that word attached to the names of so many Communist states we held in contempt, are now being asked to buy up the bad debt of banks, not the banks themselves which have failed spectacularly (which would amount to nationalization of course), but simply their bad loans. This is a horrible irony. For years American bankers and talking heads told us that our "flexible" financial system was the envy of the world. We witnessed accounting firms like Anderson collapse under bad "flexible" practices and still nothing happened. Nothing was done.
Now, after being told for months that the problem would be "contained," as in only the 'People' would suffer... thrown out of their homes etc, now the bankers and their "flexible" banks are in trouble. Please. They are the same ones who said welfare for the "People" was a drag on their State, their Capitalism, and now they are begging for a welfare program for their businesses that would dwarf any welfare program ever enacted to help the "People." They want $700 billion (no doubt the conservative estimate as these things always cost more... see the Iraq was which was supposed to be "FREE" of charge) to buy their debt so that free of that debt and with the People's cash in hand they can begin making loans again. Who would spend the People's money and buy this debt, why Private Contractors, the same guys who've done so well in Iraq for us?
Let us look a little deeper into this program. All this money would only be used to purchase the debt of US companies, leaving all those foreign creditors, by far the majority of our creditors, stuck with nothing. Let them suffer for bailing out the US, and wasting their capital keeping us solvent these last few stupidly wasteful years. Frankly I am none too sympathetic to them, but what this plan amounts to is a paydown to US-bank-owned debt while leaving a virtual default on foreign debt. You know, a default, the thing President Bush condemned Argentina for doing a few years ago and which Russia did a few years before that. Sadly this might not be the worst part of the program. China owns a big chunk of our debt (Japan too) and they have been a bit too cocky of late. We can help crash their banks by defaulting, which would be fun. Also the strong growth of Russia and Argentina since their defaults suggests that a default isn't all that bad. This of course brings me to a second and related point. If Russia and Argentina have done so well after their defaults, why don't we just default on everyone's debt?! Sure we'll lose a few banks (and more than a few bankers one would hope) but in the end we'd end up with banks who loan wisely and are more guarded in their assets. This is the Natural Selection law of capitalism (thanks Wharton School), invisible hand stuff. Banks with bad practices fail while those which operate wisely grow and prosper. Our currency might collapse naysayers would say. It already is I would answer.
Frankly we are the greediest nation on Earth- the biggest consumers. We are constantly taught that defaulting leads to creditors not wanting to loan us money. Garbage. We are the United States. Everyone will continue to loan us money because they have no other choice. Does China want to punish us by not lending us money? Well then I guess we won't have money to buy all those Chinese goods.... ahhh.... so yes China will continue loaning us money no matter what. They have no choice. In other words we can actually use the greed and selfishness that got us into this mess to get us out of it. It is not an ethical solution, but then again we aren't an ethical nation and well, China and Russia are far worse than us so who cares if we screw them over?! Realpolitik. Kissinger would be proud except of course he sits on the Board of a lot of the banks that are going to tank. Oh well. Kissinger taught us we shouldn't be sentimentally attached anyway so I am more than willing to bankrupt Kissinger for the good of the nation. Maybe he'll write more interesting books like Diplomacy if he is bankrupt and has to start working again for a living.

Automakers want Gov't Loans

2008-09-07T07:36:00.000-07:00

An AP article by Ken Thomas filed today 9/7/08 is headlined thus:

Auto industry to press Congress for $50B in loans

So once again the corporate welfare which supposedly does not exist in the United States rears its ugly head. Car manufacturers are struggling now because Americans are no longer buying the stupid, impractical and selfish SUVs of yesterday. GM and Ford are both closing down factories and laying-0ff workers, and yet in 1998 on the strength of SUV sales, which any jackass would have known would not be a persistent trend, Ford made what was at that time the biggest profit in human history. (Did they invest this profit to insure future sustainable profits when the SUV bubble burst? No, of course not, they gave fat bonuses to their executives and built more SUV plants and lobbied for more tax cuts to deliver more profit) Of course at the moment it is Exxon that continues to hold and break that record and that likewise is not investing in future tech but instead lobbying to get a stranglehold on America's last untapped offshore reserves so they can hold us as energy hostages in the future when oil runs out.
So people like me knew in 2000 that this SUV trend would not last. Gas prices went up quickly after 9/11 and yet the auto industry did not begin re-tooling their factories or designing cheaper, more fuel-efficient cars. Instead they continued flooding our marketplace with stupid freaking SUVs as prices continued to rise for gasoline due to the fuel demands of those ridiculous behemoths. Of course, this is partially the fault of US citizens who kept buying them, but then again if there was nothing to buy then they would not buy them. So yeah, GM and Ford kept pushing out the SUVs without planning to make any changes to smaller vehicles even though the writing was on the walls for anyone with a brain and they were earning the profits to do so.
So why didn't they change? Well because they knew they could "maximize profit for their shareholders" as sociopathic corporations do, and when the bottom inevitably fell out as they knew it would, they would just fire thousands of hard-working Americans (not to mention Canadians, Mexicans and all those other places with US auto production facilities), to cut costs and then use the threat of increasing unemployment to convince the US government to give them money. This is exactly what is happening now. (Government policy either rewards stupid business planning or business leaders are more profoundly selfish, evil and manipulative than we dare think) If the automakers are turning to the US government for funding to make what citizens are now demanding, smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles, then that means either a) no bank would fund them because of their poor management and inability to anticipate trends- just like in the 1970s and/or b) they understand what most Americans do not which is that our US government always subsidizes and bails out major corporations for billions more than they ever bail out individual citizens in trouble. In the meantime the board of directors of these companies continue to receive 6 and 7 figure salaries on which they will pay a lesser percentage of taxes than the assembly workers in their plants.
This country is headed for financial collapse if trends continue this way, but the wealthy elites of this country don't care because their capital is mobile as they are as well. If they use up this country and suck it dry like the parasites they are then they can pull up stakes and move someplace else to begin the process again. I always thought those 1920s Communists who called business leaders (not small business owners who are basically just workers, but the corporate sociopaths and their "boards") blood-sucking parasites were just being dramatic and emotional, but as we observe today more and more, Communists were correct. These people are parasites. I am not saying Communism is even possible or correct, but to say the prescription is wrong is not to say that the diagnosis was wrong. The diagnosis in this case was truly accurate and as our big businesses go again with their hands open, begging government while bribing Congress we see again that our capitalist system is profoundly flawed and not even truly capitalist or "laissez faire." In a "laissez faire" system which might actually be better, the US government would just tell Ford and GM to kiss its ass and fail because being a good businessman is about reading trends and knowing that SUVs were unsustainable. However our government has always rewarded corruption and bad business practices at odds with the capitalist, "free market" principles which the same government always espouses.
So yeah funny enough in some ways I want more "free market." What we have in the United States is a charade. Whenever someone in the US says "free market" what they really mean is free to stomp workers' rights and disregard environmental concerns secure in the notion that when they completely screw up they will be able to screw their employees (while the government protects them from employee retaliation) and get a huge government bailout from the tax money paid by their now laid-off employees. It total bullsh&% and I can't take it anymore.

Palin's Prego Daughter.

2008-09-03T08:22:00.000-07:00

So Obama says that we are not even supposed to discuss it, and if I were not an angry bitter person I'd probably agree. What is most amusing about this is that Palin is a vocal proponent of Creationism, and those other "Christian" views like Abstinence-Only which we are told magically solves problems like say "teen pregnancy."
Sadly, Republicans who spent years dragging poor Chelsea Clinton through the mud always seem to act indignant enough to get people to back off though they are the first to slime family members of any Democrat opponent.
This highlights another important issue. Republicans are always the first to raise the standard for "family values" and what not, and yet they have a ticket led by a man who dumped his wife during his mid-life crisis for a younger, richer woman, getting a divorce eventually to marry the new blond, rich thing.
As if McCain as the champion of family values is not laughable enough since of course the Family Values crowd didn't approve of him anyway, he picks someone whom they WORSHIP, Sarah Palin, whose family values are just as soiled. She is likewise divorced and remarried, though loyal to her blood-family, as evidenced by her illegal firing of the Alaska Public Safety Commissioner who wouldn't fire her sister's ex-husband- a state trooper who probably cheated on her since Cops are among the most likely professions to stray on their wives. So, Palin will illegally try to punish a man who dumped his wife, because that wife happens to be her sister, but she'd be thrilled to join up on the ticket with a man who dumped his wife, and now also to force her daughter into a marriage because this daughter's never learned about birth control from her "abstinence-only" mother. I bring this up because I have a feeling that a marriage between a 17 year old and an 18 year old probably won't last which means that Palin is helping to make it that her grandchild will eventually be growing up in a broken household. Those are fantastic family values as the Republican crowd defines it for us. As the Palin family history shows, Palin herself, her sister etc, these women are not very good at keeping marriages together. What a fantastic standard-bearer for the "Family Research Council."
On a related note. The Palin story is a great illustration of why the supposed "family values" crowd are just idiots. Abstinence-only didn't prevent her oldest daughter from getting pregnant. Forcing her daughter to marry the guy doesn't make a happy household either. Teenage pregnancies happen, and what all the research (please look it up if you don't believe me) suggests is that girls who something to look forward to in life are less likely to get pregnant. There are other issues, like say women who get medically inaccurate health information are likely to get pregnant as well, you like the information furnished by these terrible BS 'abstinence-only' programs.
Obama pointed out that his mother had him when she was just 18 years old and he grew up without his dad. Democrats understand that these things just happen sometimes and are tolerant and understanding that life happens sometimes and vicious, judgmentalism does not help. The "Family Values" crown believes that vicious, judgmentalism does help, when clearly it does not, even with the wealthy daughter of the Governor of Alaska. The difference is that vicious, judgementalism is well VICIOUS and JUDGMENTAL. It adds nastiness and cruelty to the world and does not achieve the goals it is supposed to achieve. I don't blame Palin for having a daughter get pregnant. I blame Palin for tying herself to horrible and vicious people who would likely be denouncing her and her daughter were she not a Governor and VP candidate. I also blame her for having to confront the realities of the problem of teen pregnancy and yet still arguing for the stupid ideas which are not helpful. The issue is not her daughter. The issue is Palin. Why does she believe in such stupidity? Problems in Alaska might be simpler from her perspective but welcome down to the real world in the lower 48 where problems are not simplistic and everyone will find out about your pregnant daughter in days.

Guyland

2008-08-27T07:48:00.000-07:00

So I am watching the Today Show and they have this book by Michael Kimmel from SUNY-Stony Brook (my local Uni growing up) and it turned into that weird thing where men are supposedly "disadvantaged." I am tired of hearing how hard it is to be a man in America. I am sure it is hard, but being a man doesn't provide some special disadvantage. It provides all the advantages. Luckily Hoda Kotb pointed out that she looks around society and sees men everywhere in charge of everything which is completely true and isn't changing very rapidly at all despite the whining from men and their apologists.
They had a woman man-apologist on the show for the second go round of this issue and I think she might be that woman who wrote the book about poor neglected boys in school, an idea which is a ridiculous oversimplification. She complains that we have been rooting for girls too much in society. (And Kathie Lee Gifford made the silly remark that it is a pendulum that has swung too far to girls.... funny enough a pendulum implies that it was a cycle, but I challenge her to find in history where is swung back and forth because honestly it was slanted towards men for pretty much all of human history. It's not a cycle at all. The metaphor is faulty.) Well the funny thing about this is that they discussed about remembering our 'strong, protective, providing' father which of course is one of those stereotypes that also didn't reflect reality for the majority of families despite the myth. Don't believe me? Well look up statistics on marital abuse, child abuse etc from the 1950s and you'll find these were all higher than they are today, if less reported. This is the subtle strike back at feminism to roll back the clock to when women stayed home perhaps even 'barefoot and pregnant.' The problem with this woman is that since she is a woman her anti-feminist proclivities seem more legit. Boys are being neglected in schools she contends. Boys are being held back. blah blah blah. Certainly there are special problems with minority boys, but white boys still seem to be doing quite well even if their grades and test scores are lower than white girls. Spoken or not, this simplistic analysis is blaming women for men's problems again. The woman even said, "women have to take reponsibility for their low expectations of men." This is a valid point for sure and one which I complain, but it again lets those men off the hook. Men don't behave badly entirely because women let them though it reinforces their bad behavior, but because other men encourage them to behave badly, or they saw their fathers behave badly.
How about defining the problem as one of setting low expectations of fathers rather than mothers. Mothers are often the providers as much as men, which the woman argued is part of the problem, but it isn't. Women have often been the provider. If in ancient times men hunted wel then women gathered which is still "providing." This is even if such a division of labor really existed. I still don't know exactly how the man was ever the "protector" of the family when he worked 8 hours or more per day and even more hours before 1938. This is hardly time at home "protecting," but basically we are stuck with these sex role myths which obscure a lot of relevant discussion. We just retreat back to stereotypes when we starting to unpack our expectations and problems. If boys are being neglected by their mothers which they might be, it is the change from when moms neglected their daughters, but this all ignores the fact that no one has stood up and said fathers need to be there to do the role that mothers did, or that we've created teaching as a woman's job with all the control, complaints and dominance problems that women face in society. (By means of comparison, our economy is falling apart, but nobody is demanding higher standards and extra tests before we let someone become a business leader, or demanding that someone pass various subject tests to run for political office. Politicians are often ignorant of facts, lacking in basic theories of governance and economics and yet Teachers who are mostly women are treated like crap in our public discourse while politicians who are mostly men are allowed to give themselves pay raises and the most generous perks package of any career in America)
Two parents raising the family means two parents raising the kids, not this divided "protector, provider" BS for dad and "nurturer" for mom. In fact, if women are helping provide then men should be helping to raise and nurture. If men were involved as nurturing parents and we demanded this of them, then this men problem might very well go away because the mom could nurture and encourage her daughters to be strong, successful women, and fathers could encourage their sons to be strong successful nurturing men. Of course this is not necessarily just about mothers and fathers, but this is about two parent households regardless of gender. Of course though, this reading of the problem would blame today's adult men and Baby Boomer men for their numerous shortcomings but they run our society so nary a word, and never a real discussion of their bad parenting. It is easer to blame woman teachers in Elementary School, or absent Black men fathers (though there are plenty of absent white men fathers, absent even if physically there, who escape the societal scorn). There might be a point about neglected sons, but the neglect is not of their well-being or chances for success since the Country Club is still the seat of deal-making and power and so those "games" which we are told are keeping men from growing up are actually the means by which they will still find their way to power and wealth. It might not be deals on the Golf course, but it very likely could be deals on the latest MMORPG. "I met this Night Elf on World of Warcraft and his printing company is going to do our flyers." The true neglect of sons is in our unwillingness as a society to help them to recognize that strong confident women allow them to break out their prescribed roles as men and allow them to be more fulfilled themselves.
However the discussion seems to be about men's inability to live up to the stereotype of men rather than of men empowered to transcend the stereotype. This is the problem. Women are encouraged to transcend feminine stereotypes, but men are considered neglected because we are not encouraging them to simply fit into the stereotype as well as we used to do.

Cautious Optimism on Biden

2008-08-27T05:45:00.000-07:00

So I just saw one of these "national" news pieces about Biden and it is giving me cause for perhaps some optimism. It is also funny how finicky the stories can change which is why my optimism remains cautious (I say this because a story like I just saw while Biden was a candidate for President might have allowed him to do more than just drop out, but instead during those days the story was on his mouthy, folksy racist statement against Obama, which he didn't mean with hatred but with ignorance, but which nonetheless reminded African-Americans- I assume- of just what they struggle against every day in the US).
This story on "The Today Show" defined Joe Biden as a humble Irish Catholic of the working classes whose life was marred by tragedy. If his Irish Catholic roots compose a large part of the story then there might be a chance for him to pull in people who are suspicious or hostile towards Obama. Of course if Republicans have their way they will pull a page from the Kerry playbook and try to play up his support for women and women's health options as somehow anti-Catholic. My only hope is that Biden and Obama somehow manage to hold on to the Irish, Catholic, Working Class frame for Biden. If they do and the frame (and it is all about frames... just ask George Lakoff) holds there is a real chance to pull in voters in Western PA, Ohio etc, all the areas where people are aware enough to know that they are hurting, but not educated enough to recognize that voting for Republicans only exacerbates their economic pain and all the rippling extra consequences (broken homes, drug dependency, violence etc.). Here is the hoping. See even the Travellinguist can be optimistic at times.

More Proof of how amazing Out-Of-Touch Republicans are.

2008-08-23T18:50:00.000-07:00

I received a fundraising email today from Senator Orrin Hatch and the Republican Senatorial Committee which provided this quote from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board:

The nation has had prior almighty Senates, of course, and it hasn't been pretty. Free of the filibuster check, the world's greatest deliberative body tends to go on benders. It was a filibuster-proof Democratic majority (or near to it, in his first years) that allowed FDR to pass his New Deal. It was a filibuster-proof Democratic Senate that allowed Lyndon Johnson to pass his Great Society.

If ever more proof was needed of the amazingly distorted incredibly messed-up values which motivate the Republican Party this is it. Orrin Hatch is quoting me that collection of nutjobs at the Wall Street Journal who are denouncing two of the consensus better policies ever enacted in the United States. In fact the only legitimate criticism I have ever read of the New Deal was that it didn't go far enough and was primarily aimed at propping up the capitalist system, the one which was failing and which the Wall Street Journal board has a clear stake in maintaining. Perhaps if Roosevelt had failed we wouldn't have to worry about these sociopaths from the Wall Street Journal who think profit margin is more important than human life and human dignity. Alas it did and so alas we do. Similar things can be said for the Great Society though those programs are not quite as cut and dry good, though I still support most of those programs imperfect though they may be. Sadly, I expect this type of psychotic anti-social stuff from the Wall Street Journal but for a Senator from Utah home of the LDS Church's extensive religious "welfare state" (not legislative but church-based and extant nonetheless) to quote this article as a means for motivating us to give money, really shows us just what sort of scum these Republicans and their supporters are. This email tells us that Republicans are fully committed to a government which serves the highest and wealthiest classes in this country with no-holds-barred and serves up the rest of the citizenry on the barbecue pit of capitalism. If a bunch of little people get burned, or roasted or otherwise consumed by this class than so be it, they should have been born rich themselves. This email shows me too that "class warfare" is not the provenance of the working and other lower classes but quite fully the design and work of the upper classes who try actively to stomp and take as much as they can from the rest of us to feed their sociopathic greed and selfishness. Let us hope there is a hell so that they can feel the burning of the flame one day.

Obama just Lost.

2008-08-23T13:00:00.000-07:00

So as we all know Barack Obama, bowing to the advice of "experts"- the same experts who've lost every election not featuring Bill Clinton since 1980, has selected Joe Biden as his running mate. A man who has attempted to show that he represents "change" has selected a man serving in the Senate since 1972 because his "experts" told him he needed someone with "foreign policy" experience. Stupid. American's don't give a rat's ass about foreign policy!! Only "experts" do. Didn't George H.W. Bush learn this when he was rejected by margins only slightly less than those rejecting Bill Clinton in 1992? (To remind you, he had great "foreign policy" credentials but was powerless or unwilling to clean up Reagan's economic mess) Well anyway despite the fact that Americans clearly wanted a woman and clearly wanted "change" in Washington, Obama has selected a man who is a long-time insider who loves to hear his own voice only slightly less than John McCain does- a man who screws up while running his mouth at least as much as McCain does too.
So this is my take. Gov. Bush got elected president; Gov. Clinton got elected; Gov. Reagan got elected; VP Bush got elected; Gov. Carter got elected; see a pattern. Well now we have another double senator ticket. Let's look back on those... Kerry-Edwards.... failure. VP-Senator Gore-Lieberman failure. Mondale-Ferraro (Sen-Rep). Dukakis-Bentsen (Gov.-Senator- with foreign policy experience) etc. These jackasses don't seem to understand that when the American people want change they want someone from outside of Washington like say Gov. Napolitano from Arizona or Gov. Sebelius from Kansas. What you might notice is that both these aforementioned Govs. are women. Hmm... you just narrowly defeated a woman in the primary. Women are supposedly "tough sells" for you and so just because of some Russian posturing and military action (bound to happen regardless of our candidates thanks to the "Foreign Policy experience" of VP Dick Cheney and his cohort of jackasses) you select a man who ripped you, who let his race-face show while calling you "attractive and well-spoken." You've just doomed your candidacy. With Napolitano or Sebelius you could have attracted women to your ticket, concerned women, you could have let the country know that you want serious change not the same old Washington BS which Sen. McCain represents. But no, you picked Biden and now you are going to lose.
There are positives though. There is a chance the election would have been stolen from you by corrupt (or corrupted/hacked) voting machines in states like Ohio and Florida and that could have harmed the chances of whomever you selected as your VP. So, now Sebelius will be free to run against Sen. McCain to promise the change we wanted this election cycle but were too stupid to vote for. From what I have heard Sebelius is quite competent and that is good because with four more years of profoundly stupid and corrupt Republican executive authority, and pathetic weak-willed Democratic toadying, this country is going to continue its slide down into the sewer for four more years and the mess will be even bigger and more wretched than before.
As an aside, if the US just defaulted on its debt the way Russia and Argentina did in the last ten years we'd be ready to grow as rapidly as those two nations are the moment.

Affirmative Action....... Necessary?

2008-08-04T19:38:00.001-07:00

I will know that affirmative action is no longer necessary when I can go for a week without hearing an anti-Black slur or a conversation between whites when for no obvious contextual reason one person will ask when hearing a story of human interaction, "Was he/she Black?" People who ask that are looking for confirmation of their own prejudices- ALWAYS. It is amazing how the more miserable and pathetic a person is, the more they will forcibly inject race into a conversation to somehow insult African-Americans or Mexicans. With the economy in the crapper thanks to the actions of an overwhelmingly, disproportionately white political party (Republican) these sentiments manifest more vocally and frequently, which shows that too many whites don't understand who really is to blame.
I am not sure Affirmative Action is done fully right as there needs to be some way to balance the disadvantaged white Americans who've been held down by a legacy of discrimination. They weren't slaves that much is certain, but Appalachian Americans are definitely held down, for example. There is a reason they rallied to the Union side during the Civil War. The great-great-grandparents of the current southern Congressional delegations, who were of course Congressmen themselves since government runs in the family quite strongly in the South, treated them like crap like then and still do today. It would be great to have more mill worker's sons defeat mill owners in elections the way John Edwards defeated Lauch Faircloth, but without Affirmative Action that can bring in those couldn't-even-afford-slaves-back-then white people the only people who can dethrone the hereditary Southern elite are African-Americans which means the race strategy will remain live and well. However, the persistence of racial discrimination, and the reality that the largest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are women tells me that more still needs to be done throughout the entire society not just the American South.
To extend my previous point. I will know Affirmative Action is no longer necessary when at least half of all our elected officials are women (since women are the numerical sex majority on Earth and in the United States) and I can go one DAY without hearing a remark objectifying a woman or telling her her place (with Howard Stern and other "shock jocks" still on the air this will not be a day soon).
Sadly there are some whites who oppose Affirmative Action on principle, but the conversations I mostly hear indicate that most whites opposed to Affirmative Action are simply racist and prejudiced. They do not even know that women benefit from the program because for them it is all about 'Blacks.'
To summarize their opinions, and forgive the use of the slur but this is being authentic, as I often hear whites complains about Blacks, their points can be summed up by me as "The problem with ni^%&ers is they are racist." Do you get it? Yes, that is exactly the point.
Every election cycle where Republicans are losing, Affirmative Action comes up, so expect McCain to make a big stink particularly as he becomes more and more desperate as the numbers poll against him and especially in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and maybe even Florida. I am not sure if he'd pull out that card in Georgia or not since it might backfire by rallying more minorities to Obama, while racist whites would split between him and Barr.
So expect it to all hit the fan, especially because Obama is without a doubt a successful product of Affirmative Action, an intelligent man who needed help because his background would have held him down. However, don't expect him to even HINT that that might be the case, because in America everyone "does it themselves, through their own efforts" even if they obviously inherited daddy's Senate seat the way Lisa Murkowski did in Alaska, or their daddy's Chicago political machine the way Richard Daley, Jr. did, the one which helped Obama in his day. Both parties are guilty of this, and clearly this means that those who have power pass it on to their own while those without have none to pass on, thus another reason to maintain affirmative action in its purest form, which requires that people consider qualified people of all colors and sexes and physical abilities (or disabilities) and veteran status. Quotas are for lazy Personnel Offices without a doubt. Alright enough on this for now.

Excerpt from an email.

2008-07-28T09:06:00.001-07:00

So I wrote this to a friend and figured I'd blog it, spelling errors and all.
________________________________________________________________

That was also my luck that i went back in the days (Clinton years- Rubinomics... Treasury Secretary Rubin who wasn't an idiot like the clowns now) when the US dollar was still a good currency. I think that is what is so upsetting too, to know that I need a dollar fifty to buy ONE euro whereas it used to cost me only like 95 cents! I mean damn! Heck when I was in London it was still only dollar sixty for a Pound not two dollars. It's like we can go, but it would cost us soo much money for basic things. On the other hand the exchange should be attracting more Europeans to come here and spend their currency, help boost our reserves, but NO they have to be annoyed with us by the way we've behaved so they don't want to come and visit as much and spend money like they used to do. Obama was on Face the Nation and he was defending his Popularity in Europe (because in America a candidate has to defend himself when he is popular in other countries) and his defense was that he didn't get Applause when he criticized European "anti-Americanism". I mean jee whiz, he didn't get applause when he told Europeans that they were wrong to be critical of US government behavior... hmm... fascinating. Cheney and others basically denounced France and Germany when they didn't just toe our line and yet Obama is supposed to denounce Europeans for their "anti-Americanism". Also how he expects that they need to "step up" and help us in Iraq. This is especially funny given that none other than Colin Powell once said "you break it you own it" as in we messed up Iraq so we should own it, but Obama expects that Americans will appreciate how he DEMANDED that Europeans help us out of our mess.
I think what I hate most about this country is that we are most ignorant, self-involved people on Earth. I mean not a single politician could stand up and hope to win a national election by telling us the truth, YET we rip on "indulgent" parents who don't criticize their children or discipline them. UM, so parents are supposed to be harsh disciplinarians, smacking down their kids when they act up, but America is perfect and we are not allowed to ever point the stupid things we do or smack down out country when it does things wrong. It is amazing. Of course even funnier is the people who scream the loudest about how those who criticize the United States "don't love their country" are the same ones that profess that true love for children is "tough love." Hypocritical a-holes.....
Alright sorry a rant. It shows by Obama is a strong candidate. he knows how to kiss the ass of ignorati (as I call the more ignorant, xenophobic, jingoistic- and often proclaiming "Christian"- among us), and not dare to tell us the truth. Of course this he share with McCain who tells us in his commercials how "dangerous" everything is and how he will protect us. This country will never get better until we reward honest candidates. Funny that we denounce politicians as liars, and yet we don't like to hear the truth and denounce them for that too. Truth-tellers don't get elected. Our country is just broken and I despair of being able to fix it. Maybe i should just move to Europe. It's not that they are perfect, by any means, but they at least take to the streets and get their government's out when stuff goes wrong. We don't. We just whine and then elect the next Democrat or Republican who promises to change 10% of the problem.

Falling Gas Prices and "Sending Messages"

2008-07-25T14:46:00.000-07:00

So gas prices fell slightly recently and John McCain said that it was because president Bush lifted the ban on off-shore oil drilling. Well, if this is true, it would be based on the perception that someday we might have oil of our own, since it would take a decade or more to actually have any oil (probably after we finished wiping out polar bears and other forms of wildlife in toxic spills and disasters).
Well, assuming for a second that McCain's logic is sound, that the OPEC people began releasing more light, sweet crude because they wanted to placate us and make us stop planning to one day drill and one day in a decade or so have some little bit MORE oil of our own, since we do produce oil, and also since major oil companies hold dozens of off-shore leases which they don't even bother using already, then we see something else. If the fear that we might no longer be dependent upon OPEC oil is making them open up the spigot can you imagine if we seriously tried to show the world that we were going to go off oil altogether, foreign and domestic? If that were the case not only would OPEC open more spigots, but ExxonMobil and other Big Oil American companies with endless record profits skinned off of our backs would also start using their existing leases to open their spigots. We might have the perfect storm where EVERYONE, not just Saudis and Venezuelans and Nigerians were trying to flood the market with enough oil to make us forget such silly things as clean, renewable power like wind, solar and biomass.
It worked in the 1980s after Reagan came into office. Jimmy Carter had challenged America to be free of oil and foreign oil by the 1990s. He was run out of town on a rail and suddenly the Saudis were pumping oil like there was no tomorrow (because there wouldn't have been for them. They'd have been strung up by their own people long ago if not for the mercenary armies and police forces they buy with our oil payments to keep the Kingdom "stable.") and prices dropped. Consequently we forgot all about Jimmy Carter's bold challenge, used him as joke fodder and hooked ourselves ever more deeply into the oil, which is now blowing up our economy as I write.
Taking McCain's logic as sound, if threatening to drill opened up foreign oil supplies than threatening to go off oil altogether should open EVERY spigot and drop prices quickly enough that we could completely forget about alternative energy until the next crisis. But oh yeah, that is the problem. McCain's logic is not sound. He is a crank, old fool speaking to audiences of people who, like him, don't know how to use computers or the internet or understand the economics of monopoly which allow these oil companies to squeeze every last dime out of us as our homes are foreclosed. Some basic economic theory could straighten this all out, but well economics pretends it's a science and like the real sciences, Americans are woefully ignorant of its rules, precepts and theories.

The Fallacies of Messianic Presidencies.

2008-07-24T08:15:00.000-07:00

I read a Maureen Dowd column lamenting how difficult it is to mock Barack Obama when a thought occured to me. She'd mentioned how many of his followers view him so seriously. as a messiah of sorts who will save our country and our economy, that they don't like jokes about him.
Ironically, or perhaps not, this brought me back to President George W Bush's second inaugural day. It was raining, as if the heavens were crying for the death and destruction which four more years of this sociopath and wrecker of nations was to bring. Well I don't even recall which of the big networks I was watching, but the reporter interviewed this older woman with a country accent about her feelings being at the Inauguration. As she visibly choked up and began crying she explained how blessed she was to be watching this man whom God had given the presidency to, and how blessed he was by God and all this other stuff linking God to Bush and God to her. Well two thoughts occur to me. Given all the blood on President Bush's hands, not mention floodwaters, do these Christians who believed him to be a God-inspired man still believe this even though his own people denounced them as "crazies"? We were carried into eight years of the most destructive and harmful presidency in US history (not for us since only about 10,000 Americans have died in terror attacks, flood, and wars of lies,- far fewer than died under Lincoln- but for the millions of Iraqis whose lives have been destroyed
and the economic destruction which will bring our country low and which is reverberating into the developing world in terms of famine and epidemics aided and abetted by American economic "choices."), by people who believed that this man was "God's servant" doing "God's work" and all sorts of other things I have heard.
Well another thought occurs to me. What if President Bush WAS put here by God? That disturbing idea suggests that God DOESN'T bless America anymore as our politicians love to say as people lose their lives and livelihoods at the feet of failed economic ideology and failed imperialistic schemes. If Bush was put here by God to help speed up global warming by denying it and drilling more oil, to destroy our military in an Iraqi quagmire, to allow our largest Southern port to be completely wiped out in floods, for the Plains to be wiped by tornadoes, floods and storms on a fairly continuous basis etc, then that means that God does not like us. If God picked President Bush, then God clearly does not like Americans or the United States. He clearly believes that our nation should be weakened and humbled. Considering that others of the Republican (religious) party have suggested that the United States is "the last, greatest hope of humankind."-Mitt Romney or "the greatest nation in the history of humanity, humankind"- Romney again- then it is a humbling that is long overdue. The hyperbolic statements of American politicians display an arrogance which is unparalleled in the world, and in light of our growing irrelevance as a power is also comical and farcical.
The people who believe God sent us George W Bush are often the same people who believe in a punishing and wrathful God. If they are correct then their beliefs are consistent. We were too big, too morally sanctimonious and so God punished us with George W Bush. (God also seems to be punishing Iraq and Afghanistan but that is another blog post.) God wants to teach us humility so that we can once again reside in a land of "milk and honey." Unfortunately, since the Republican party is the party of religion and "individualism" (i.e. I was born rich, and daddy's friends gave me jobs, so somehow I "earned" it) this means that the current crop of deluded Republican businessmen are not the ones to lead us in humility since they are men of overweaning pride and arrogance. Mike Huckabee was the minister who might have displayed the humility God demands, but as we see, the religious portion of the party does not control it, so I am not optimistic the John McCain would help save us from God's wrath- assuming of course that the religious "God gave us Bush" Republicans are correct. Since McCain himself believes that he is such an awesome guy (see his campaign ads that talk about how "maverick" he is rather than explaining what he might actually do as president), he clearly has not learned any lessons in humility, but from one of the bottom achievers in his Naval Academy class who somehow (read: his important Admiral Daddy) ended up a Navy flier (one of the elites) and has no problem talking about how he earned everything (including his second millionaire heiress wife after ditching his first when she got too old for him) he is not the picture of Christian humility at all.
As for Obama. He is not a terrible guy, but the messianic urges driving people behind him should worry us. If this goes to his head, we might end up with the Democratic version of George W Bush, an insane, power-mad goof. At least Obama is smarter than Bush and actually did earn what he has (though of course with help from his friends as he will actually admit), but messiahs can be disappointing or at least I assume since no one talks about Bush's "Religious Base" much anymore, nor do they talk TO them either. Obama is definitely going to be better than McCain, but the logic of American politics means that he won't change as much as those "worshipping" him seem to think he will change. US politicians need a does of reality and a dose of humility and those politicians who preach this don't get anywhere. However, hyperbolic statements about the "greatest nation in the history of humankind" seem to resonate with Americans desperate to cling to something more tightly than their "Guns, God and Fear of Outsiders."

Energy with Obama and McCain.

2008-07-18T07:56:00.000-07:00

So it seems that both McCain and Obama have "energy plans." Well McCain's plan is basically let's do what we've already done despite the fact that I know global warming is going to kill us and my plan will just produce more global warming for years before I reduce it, possibly pushing us way beyond the tipping point. Of course he wants to drill for more oil, you know W style.... give oil companies who've been strangling our economy while reaping record profits even more of the same.
This is so stupid I can't even believe people are listening to him. Multiple people have repeated the claim which if true is even more damning that oil companies have only used 18% of their off-shore licenses already. If this is true, which it might be since I've heard from several reputable organizations, than McCain is in full pander mode, just utterly bending over for the companies who have caused these problems through their suppression of alternative energy research. (What I mean is that it is an open secret that oil companies buy up patents for technology which might challenge oil's dominance) It is a shame that McCain is pandering, but not unexpected given the way he's sucked up to all kinds of people from his own party who've smeared him over the years, particularly George W Bush who won South Carolina by starting the rumor through a "push poll" that McCain fathered "an illegitimate Black child." Of course given that Strom Thurmond did too and the good people of South Carolina kept sending him back to Congress suggests that this shouldn't have worked, but it did and President Bush got to steal the election from Gore in the fall rather than having a campaign about McCain and Gore. This probably could have not only saved McCain's soul but our nation's.
McCain has gone crazy the last eight years as his party has slimed and rejected him. He is like the son of an abusive father who aspires to be just like him despite being punched, knocked down and rejected by the same father. You feel bad for him, but don't want to have a lot to do with him. Given that the current president Bush already has used his father issues to warp this country the last thing we need is another damaged dysfunctional Republican in the White House. This brings us to Obama, raised by a single mom, who likely has his own father rejection issues, but who thus far seems to have put them behind him and used them as a source of strength not weakness and irrationality. His energy plan is the typical Democratic stuff. "Alternative energy" but don't be too rough and honest because we remember what happened to Jimmy Carter for telling it like it is to us. The sad truth of American politics is that you can't challenge the American people or tell them hard truths or else they will reject you. President Bush told us the best reaction to 9/11 was to go shopping and we did and ignored the looming economic crisis as we spiraled downward into debt and stupidity. They want quick fixes even ones that aren't quick (like drilling for more oil which wouldn't do anything for years and just delays the inevitable extinction of oil supplies). As we know the Democrats are the weird type of panderers in that they try to please everybody especially those people who aren't going to vote for them anyway. Republicans know that liberals won't vote for them so they just slime and disregard us, but Democrats suck up to Christianists and neo-fascists as if that will somehow get them votes from these psychos. Well I guess this is American politics in general, but it is particularly egregious for Democrats to not stand up when they are the opposition party called upon to OPPOSE the dominant party's ideas. Obama talks a beautiful game, but ultimately is just slightly more liberal than Clinton and not nearly as liberal as Edwards or Kucinich or Gravel.
So this is the way I am thinking about the energy plan. Ideally, the Apollo Alliance plan would be our wholesale strategy, but since it is not, I have a new idea. We should build nuclear power plants. Ok that's not new, what is new is my idea for that plan: we should only build them in states whose representatives are stalwart supporters of the plan, such as Alabama, Idaho, Mississippi, Texas etc. Besides the fact that the people will get what they want, nuclear power plants in their own backyard, we can perhaps have some of those states like Alabama and Mississippi and Idaho which are net recipients of federal money (as in they get more money from the Feds than they pay in taxes despite being fiercely opposed to taxes), contribute to the whole country. They will have lesser power needs so they can produce surplus nuclear electricity and provide it to states like New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and California which pay more taxes than they ever get back from the Federal government and provide more economic activity for our national economic health. I would suspect that this would be a win win. Jobs at nuclear power plants would be a boon to these job poor states as well.
As for John McCain's other proposal, to suspend all gas taxes. That is another stupid pander. Our federal highway money comes from gas taxes, and without that money more bridges would collapse like in Minneapolis and the roads would end up destroying cars and trucks. I was in Louisiana when the state was being punished for keeping an 18-year-old drinking age by losing Federal Highway money. The roads were HORRIBLE, like driving in the third world. If McCain got his way (which he knows he wouldn't so this is a no risk proposal for him) we'd either go further into debt because we'd borrow the money to maintain the roads, or our roads would collapse. Since his excuse is that the trucking industry is suffering from high gas prices, I wonder what the impact would be of driving trailer trucks on crumbling roads. I suspect more blowouts leading to higher tire costs, more accidents leading to more destruction of property and life, and of course more late deliveries so a net loss to the trucking industry. Far be it for McCain (or Obama for that matter though this isn't his proposal) to tell the straight truth about this. Of course, even this depends upon the oil companies instantly lowering their prices to compensate for their cut tax costs. I suspect we'd see a gradual and thus illegal decrease in prices which would mean extra money from our pockets into oil company coffers as they slowly brought gas prices in line with costs, plus some excuses for why they couldn't just reduce the gas prices overnight as they should do if the taxes were eliminated overnight; these would be excuses which, no doubt, McCain and other Republicans would be happy to repeat to us since oil companies fund their campaigns.
We waited too long to do this, to recognize this problem of oil dependency. I mean I understand it because the mass of the American people wouldn't have spent more to begin changing things during the Clinton boom years, but that is when we could have done it. Clinton, of course, was neutered (though sadly if he'd been physically neutered than he couldn't have been politically neutered) by his stupidity and so couldn't (or wouldn't) challenge us to fix our problem back when gas prices were low and we had money, so now we are stuck with this mess. I mean sadly, there is an advantage to Bush's stupidity. By destroying Iraq he brought us to the crisis point quickly (rather than waiting until the environmental crisis) so that we are now more willing to do things to fix it, but of course that wasn't his plan.
Anyway this is disorganized, but I will say one last thing, Corn ethanol is not an answer. That is just stupid. It is summer and I saw 4 ears of white corn for $3 on sale at Acme! I mean that is insane. I used to get corn 4 for a dollar in-season, but now corn costs TRIPLE that and since Free Markets dictate growing more corn to take advantage we don't have other sorts of vegetables and what not which constitute a healthy diet. Living in a country that is the fattest on Earth this is definitely a problem. In other words, oil problem leads to FAKE ethanol solution which drives up food costs, which cuts into healthy food options which contributes to fatter citizens which contributes to more health problems which contributes to higher health costs on a system that doesn't even insure those most vulnerable to dietary problems means even higher insurance costs. So yeah high gas prices are literally going to drive up insurance premiums which will make companies less willing to provide it and will price it further out of reach of those lower income people who eat cheap unhealthy food. What a disaster!
Anyway this is enough. I know I hardly have any links or specific but I suspect a quick google search will find my evidence easily enough so if you don't believe me I challenge you to find the evidence to disprove me. It will not be that easy and I will no doubt have an answer to your challenge. I am not burdened as politicians are by having to provide simplistic stupid answers to the ignorati.

Let's not forget salmonella...

2008-07-02T04:13:00.000-07:00

I wrote the other day about our inability to feed ourselves.... well I was just reminded by NBC news this morning that tomatoes were infected with salmonella, and this falls months after spinach was infected with e. coli. So not only can't we feed ourselves properly, but our veggies are even full of bacteria and viruses so what food we do produce here is dangerous and unhealthy. Our FDA can't even figure out where the viruses originated. They aren't even sure if the salmonella (also known the virus you get from chicken and eggs) originated with tomatoes. I mean damn. We are running out of healthy and safe food. I just don't know what to do anymore.

More on McCain's "Leadership" Credentials

2008-07-01T11:00:00.000-07:00

This needs to be taken with a grain of salt of course, but there are links to outside sources and information. Nonetheless there are serious questions here which need addressing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-klein/mccains-secret-questionab_b_107409.html

The Structural Agricultural Problem.

2008-07-01T08:15:00.000-07:00

So I have though about this a lot and of course feel the need to finally write it down a few minutes after devouring a Plum which traveled across the country from California to me.
Our agriculture is a mess. Ethanol has of course exacerbated this problem by encouraging even more people to grow corn, but it is not the cause of it. Corn Syrup certainly is. We grow so much corn to the exclusion of so much else that we've gotten ourselves trapped. Corn Syrup sweetens our food more than basic sugar (The stupid Cuban embargo is probably part of this but not all). I once saw someone refer to soda/pop/cola whatever you call it as nothing more than Corn Juice and well it pretty much is. We grow corn to drink, corn to feed our cows and pigs, corn feed our cars. What this means is that we have little agricultural diversity. I look at other countries, those ones we condemn for providing subsidies (subsidies which we do provide to cotton, tobacco and given Ethanol and other things to corn as well) and they have a richer diversity of agricultural produce.
What do we have? California. Lucky for us, California is a large state with a huge diversity of produce, but it can't feed us all in this country. We cannot feed ourselves a healthy balanced diet just from our own production. We still have apples in New York and Washington, but I've spent the last ten years watching Orange groves in Florida be demolished to give way to the newest McMansion developments which now stand largely empty thanks to stupid housing policies and mortgage policies. A totally free market just seems to lead to a lot of waste and the "corrections" which we wait for to deliver us from corporate stupidity usually punish us, the regular people and not the corporate people who got us into this mess. So I guess free markets work great for CEOs, but not for us, but then again, the Federal budget is chock full of "programs" which are subsidies in other names which often just like corporate pockets. If subsidies are bad for markets than I would have to say, that maybe for profit (which of course goes directly to big Agribusiness concerns like Archer Daniels Midland) but for providing a rich, varied and healthy diet to the citizens of this country subsidies might be just the answer. Of course, the subsidies we provide for cotton which is useful I will admit and tobacco which ends up costing on the production side to grow it and from the ruined soil it leaves behind, to the massive health costs we have to pay for people dying from smoking the leaves of this plant. Can you imagine if all of our tobacco fields were turned over to grow veggies? We'd probably cut cancer and emphysema deaths while providing a boost in health veggie consumption which might help us slim down since we are the fattest nation on Earth because of these unhealthy consumption patterns.
So perhaps, we need to just yank the subsidies from ADM, R.J. Reynolds and other big Agricultural corporations, and redirect them to healthy diverse agriculture production. In this way we might also reduce the carbon footprint of having to transplant basic produce which we can produce everywhere but only produce in California and then truck across country. Imagine Iowans able to eat lettuce, and onions and fruit produced in their backyards rather than the infinite fields of corn. Imagine our cattle able to eat other than just corn to fatten them up. They'd be less fatty and more healthy. Well I guess this is just a pipe dream because too many Senators and House members are committed to these subsidies for their home districts/states to the detriment of a sane nationwide agricultural policy.

Wesley Clark's criticism of McCain.

2008-06-30T11:53:00.000-07:00

I love the crocodile tears being shed by Republican operatives about Wesley Clark's comments that because McCain was a prisoner of war he is not necessarily qualified to be president. This from the people who have slimed veteran after veteran, including Max Cleland of Georgia who gave limbs in service. Secondly, I am tired of this BS about how veterans are untouchable. I am sorry. Volunteering for the military is just one of many choices people make, though statistics (look them up if you don't believe me) show it is a choice made most often by those who are on the low end of the pay scale. To hold up veterans as these magic good people is a crock. Some no doubt are good and patriotic people and others violent sociopaths who like to make naked piles of prisoners and massacre villages My Lai style. Being a veteran neither should give one a free pass nor additional scrutiny. What is especially funny to me is that the loudest voices denouncing Democrat veterans and religiously defending Republican ones tend to be silver spoon fed business elites who've never been near the military except to sell them equipment or pose for political pictures.
It is true that McCain served and was tortured, but before we hold him up as a paragon of virtue we have to wonder just how many Vietnamese civilians were blown up, or chemically poisoned or shot to pieces by the ordnance loaded on McCain's aircraft before they shot him down. It doesn't make torture right obviously, anymore than those police who beat the hell out of actual violent criminal suspects before arresting them is, but it should temper our enthusiasm. Then again, this is America and the death of foreigners is utterly unimportant to us. We simply don't care. We are the most selfish people on Earth. When we were attacked the world sympathized with us. When the Spanish were attacked we were most concerned with whether they'd bring their troops home from Iraq, not at all about broken Spanish families whose lives were destroyed that day because their government followed us into military imperialism.
I hate the fact that so many Americans are utterly devoid of logic and facts that you can't even argue with them. I am not sure who said it but I saw a reference to the notion that some smart-minded people shouldn't even argue with the ignorati just ridicule them and I for one feel quite the temptation to do so. Interestingly enough, I find a high corollary between white Americans with racist feelings and their "support" for all things military and imperialistic.... hmm... I wonder what that illustrates. Oh wait I know what that illustrates, that people who are utterly ignorant about their own fellow citizens also blindly follow the patriotism which defends this country even those same fellow citizens they look down upon for reasons of skin color, religion etc.
Whoops divergence. Anyway, John McCain was a fighter pilot who admitted he doesn't know a lot about economics. This does not make him qualified to be president. Of course this isn't saying that Barack Obama is "more qualified." It is simply a false argument to speak of "qualifications." There are some basic ones, spelled out in the Constitution, 35 years old, born in the United States. Both men fit, thus both men are qualified. I am tired of this BS about being "experienced" or "qualified" enough. President Bush was the Governor of Texas and President of the Texas Rangers (who traded Sammy Sosa) plus failed CEO of several oil companies. Republicans weren't concerned about experience then. Does this mean that they are now repudiating "unqualified" candidates like our current "worst president in US History"? No it just means they are banking on the short attention span of our media to feed the short attention span of the voters to whom they condescend, rally up and then whose needs they ignore when in power.
In short, those people complaining about Wesley Clark's comments. Go do a hitch in Iraq patrolling Sadr City and then talk to me about "qualifications" or put more succinctly F$^%# YOU!

Following Israel's Lead.

2008-06-17T10:29:00.000-07:00

So I read this article today at the New York Times online site. This is just an excerpt:

Israel and Hamas Agree to a Cease-Fire, Egypt Says

By ISABEL KERSHNER and GRAHAM BOWLEY

JERUSALEM — Israel and the Islamist group Hamas have agreed on a mutual cease-fire to take effect Thursday following negotiations brokered by Egypt, Egyptian state media announced on Tuesday.

The official Egyptian state-owned news agency MENA and state-run television quoted an unidentified senior Egyptian official as saying that the truce would start at 6 a.m. Thursday. Israeli officials would not immediately confirm or deny that any agreement had been reached.

Talks, brokered by Egypt, have been proceeding intensively between Israel and Hamas, which controls Gaza. Both sides have appeared keen on achieving a cease-fire, but until the truce comes into effect neither side is likely to stop exchanges, and on Tuesday three Israeli airstrikes hit targets in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli Army said.

_________________________________________________________________

So, I seem to remember John McCain and other Republicans condemning Barack Obama as naive and foolish for explaining that he would talk with anyone including Hamas. He was denounced as stupid and naive. Jimmy Carter was denounced as a traitor for meeting with them as well. We were told that we were selling out our Israeli allies, negotiating with terrorists, etc.
Now, lo and behold it turns out that the Israelis were speaking with Hamas the entire time..... hmm interesting. So I guess the Israelis must be naive and traitors to their own nation for talking with Hamas....? It goes to show how distorted and asinine American politics and way too many American politicians are. Israel is doing the exact thing that Obama was called a traitor for doing or worse, some even suggested he was anti-Semitic. Well I wonder McCain and the rest of the Christianist End-of-World politicians are saying now? Is Israel foolish? Uh oh, I think McCain and the Christianists must be anti-Semites because they called people anti-Israel and foolish who would speak with Hamas and that label clearly extends to the Israeli government and Israeli Army... I guess that is the definition of a self-loathing Jew huh?
The fact is, despite killing and back and forth, Israel must speak with the Palestinians if there is ever going to be a permanent end to the bloodshed. It's been almost 100 years now (not thousands like the ignorati pretend it is)- 100 years of conflict because the British decided to divide and conquer the Middle East by putting two formally peaceable communities Arabs and Jews at each other's throats. Thanks Churchill!

Stupid Email Forwards.....

2008-06-13T07:55:00.000-07:00

I once again received a pair of lies from my mom. They masquerade as telling the truth about Obama or Clinton or some liberal, because clearly this is a Right-wing tactic. They have destroyed this country's economy, let New Orleans drown, stand by as their croneys hack and slash all the natural world, and have destroyed not just Iraq but millions of lives there, but they write up some email about Obama keeping his hands folded and I am supposed to be outraged. The sad thing is that many people are outraged. Even sadder is that the people who are outraged can't sit in the cigar smoke-filled rooms and hear the laughter by these Republican political operatives who author these things and just get to laugh as the people whom they represent soak it up. I mean clearly, people who want to lie to the public and do so expecting them to believe it and want to manipulate them not only don't care about them, but actively hate them. You don't manipulate someone you about. These emails continue to circulate among the people and the people who wrote them continue to laugh at those people who circulate them, since once they've scared you into voting for them they will continue to hack and slash the environment, drive your gas prices up and reserve an ever large portion of the nation's wealth for themselves.
I mention the hack and slash because I am sure I can't be alone in noticing just how many more people seem to be dying in tornadoes and other extreme forms of weather. I suspect that highly destructive weather is the result not only of global warming but the fact as with New Orleans that natural barricades (in New Orlean's case the extensive swampy wetlands to the south of the city which used to absorb most of the hurricane fury) are being trashed leaving us exposed when a tornado does strike, or a wild fire breaks out etc. PS I know this post is absent many facts, except the New Orleans one, please check it!!!! However, as the emails I am complaining about seems to show facts aren't important.

Have to brag....

2008-06-12T11:08:00.000-07:00

So I remember in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina when people were fleeing the city and certain unscrupulous partisan hacks were trying to keep certain Democrat-leaning populations away, yes the African-American population, I said that this was not going to work forever because New Orleans was about to begin a transformation into a Latino city as Mexican and Central American immigrants both legal and illegal would begin moving to the city to work the reconstruction. Today I read an article in Newsweek from a few weeks ago in which they casually mentioned that "Taco trucks may soon outnumber FEMA trailers." In other words I was right. I hate to be a braggart but unfortunately things are unfolding just as I expected them to unfold, but this is significant because the balance of political power always rested on Creoles both Black and White battling it out over racial and economic issues, but now that the Creoles are bailing out the new power might be within the hands of Latinos and this in one of America's most important economic cities. This is something that will make a difference though I am not sure how as yet.

Obama's "Hispanic Problem"?

2008-06-11T15:20:00.000-07:00

Um newsflash to the major media, Democratic primaries are different from general elections! The media are suggesting repeatedly that Barack Obama has a "Hispanic Problem" because Hispanics preferred Clinton to him... This is asinine on the face of it. Because Hispanics preferred Clinton doesn't mean they are going to automatically prefer McCain the candidate from the opposition party. In fact in many states, though sadly not all of them, the only people who got to choose between Obama and Clinton were registered Democrats which indicates a certain distrust of Republican values. I would like to suggest that Republicans, because of the very racist way which they discuss immigration issues (which could be discussed in a much more rational and less offensive way though, I guess not alarmist enough) would automatically have a "Hispanic" problem even if McCain has not stooped to the race-baiting which characterized many of his cohorts in the Republican race (Yes, I am speaking about you Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter).
The reality is that President Bush, early in his presidency, attempted to reach out to Hispanic voters and they rebuffed him and his party. McCain has a Hispanic problem because he is a Republican and despite Hilary outgaining Obama, Obama needs only say hello and I am not a racist SOB who wants to round you up in camps and deport you and he can lock up a big chunk of the Hispanic vote. I say big chunk and not all because of course the Cuban fanatics in Florida will never vote for Democrats who have the nerve to say that the Cuban blockade has not worked and that there are more productive ways to engage with world leaders whom we disagree with. And yes thankfully fewer and fewer Cuban Americans are fanatics, but the voting suggests a majority of them still are. It's a shame that Cubans will define their AMERICAN votes based upon whether the government hates Castro enough, but I guess there are other sub-groups obsessed with our government's love or hate for particular foreign nations.
So wake up. I am tired of stupid reporting that displays no sense of reality and even less of the way our country functions. To equate Hilary Clinton's strength with McCain's strength is the most profoundly stupid thing I have ever heard. If Clinton were just like McCain we wouldn't have heard so many Republican talking heads devising strategies specifically to defeat Clinton because they would have been at least as tolerant of Clinton as they are coming to being tolerant of McCain.
Let me say this obviousness again, Clinton doing well with Hispanics in the Democratic primaries means exactly nothing about whether Obama will win Hispanics against McCain (especially when her big win in Puerto Rico is completely meaningless because Puerto Rico residents aren't allowed to vote for president in general elections).
So let me call upon our media to pull their heads from their collective asses and see reality as reality is.

Two Years Since I last posted.....

2008-05-28T07:46:00.000-07:00

Two years ago I was worried our economy would crash, loathed our government, figured little would change if/when Democrats won and just felt hopeless. Now I am back posting and everything I feared has come to pass. I just can't believe how messed up this country is. We fixate on bashing Mexicans when the people who need bashing is an elitist government concerned with stupid things like "extending US influence throughout the region" "insuring stability in our financial markets" and the like. I knew the Democrats wouldn't roll back any of the destruction of the preceding few years but I figured they'd at least stop further deterioration. Instead they have barely slowed the roll of the mess we are in. I read Ted Rall a lot and it is amazing that man who calls for humane treatment of individuals, the rule of law and the like is denounced and subjected to death threats. It is double amazing that he has not managed to catch on to any sort of media since his columns over the last few years have proved accurate in their predictions. I wonder how people can carry on about a "free market" and pretend that "liberals" are the ones who are ruining, not a government that protects and subsidizes huge corporations who then pay tax rates lower than I pay on my salary. We are a disaster. Everything is wrong and I don't know how to climb out. One day I will write a real analysis that is thorough and thoughtful but now my return to Blogging is a rant. Sorry. I am much more analytical than this, but I need to get back in the game.

Military Base Closings....

2005-05-14T12:41:00.000-07:00

Anybody else notice a funny pattern in base closings? It seems that the bases in the Northeast are closing while ones in the South and West are growing. Coincidentally, Blue states will be losing even more jobs while Red states will gain them. I guess this is the price we pay in for voting with our consciences in Bush's America, a systemic assault upon our economic livelihood. I also notice that those states slated to get bases have very weak labor laws and are fervently anti-Union... again a curious pattern....
Then again if all the military bases are in the South and West at least the legions of new America-haters will not strike out against the Northeast but against the people that voted for the man who has fomented more terrorism and more hatred for America than perhaps even Bin Laden himself.

Totally $^%%^#ed up Budget.

2005-04-29T11:13:00.000-07:00

So Republicans... not all of them, but too many of them (Cheers to Gordon Smith and others who had the courage to stand for principles above party) have outlined a budget plan which will cut Medicaid spending and endorsed this as a guideline for their budget process.
What a disgrace! The same week they oppose medicaid they enthusiastically support pouring another $80 billion down the bloody and oily Iraq hole. They have decided that older Americans and the working poor should help to insure that $80 billion doesn't increase our deficit too much, so that our wealthiest corporate elite can continue earning record profits despite a sagging economy. The deficit will increase nonetheless but that is besides the point, because clearly the Republicans who voted for this believe that the only money worth spending is for the destruction and crippling of human life in Iraq and not for the preservation, healing and maintenance of human life in the United States. This supposedly "Christian" party has abandoned all pretense to basic human values in their pursuit of money and wealth for their elite members. Incidentally, the Congressional health insurance program, rated among the best if not THE best in the United States will suffer no such cuts despite the fact that the average member of Congress is a millionaire with more than enough money to purchase HIS own health care independent of what we taxpayers provide to them as part of their "benefit."
They are pushing us to the limit and if poor Americans in the Midwest, South and West (those Red Staters- the ones who are so fond of their guns) ever open their eyes and figure out how often they are screwed and manipulated by a rich, amoral power elite, blood will run in the streets. I am just thankful I live in the Northeast where we don't love our guns nearly as much and where we prefer to negotiate our problems and avoid warfare as much as possible. A reckoning is coming and it is neither our fault nor will it be our problem. We know where our values lie and we refuse to be bamboozled by a degenerate power elite who will change the rules to protect their corrupt leader, declare the opposition "opponents of faith," all while placing unending, bloody warfare above human health care and referring to themselves as a "Party of Life."
Good luck Pro-war, anti-health Republicans! What goes around comes around.

The Intelligence Commission is a Sham.

2005-03-31T20:13:00.000-08:00

This intelligence commission is saying that the CIA messed up in provding faulty intelligence to the president and not vetting its sources. This is a LIE! This whole commission report is a fabricated whitewash to cover up the president's lies and those of his corrupt disgusting administration.
If CIA officials hadn't vetted the source and if the President had no idea the information was false, how come the rest of us did?! Why because the president is lying and many intelligence officials including many in the CIA resigned their posts to tell the truth and to report upon the pressure being placed on analysts. I find it interesting that no news report has named the people on this committee investigating poor intelligence in Iraq. I also find it interesting that not one of the dozen or people who were criticizing the bad intelligence seem to have been called before the committee. Hmm I wonder why? Because they would tell the truth and screw up the plans. This is corruption at the highest level.

Lazy day for me so read this instead....

2005-02-24T09:18:00.000-08:00

More stuff about Bush's Whore, since yes that is what he was. Ok maybe he was also Rove's Whore but you get the idea....

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/022405E.shtml

Funny English Interlude

2005-02-23T04:52:00.000-08:00

So Prince Charles, the Crown Prince of Wales, will be marrying his true love finally. The Queen is not attending the ceremony and the Brit royal watchers are clucking that she might not be attending because she is the head of the Church of England and this is a wedding of two divorced people.... This is not the first time the divorce issue has come up. There was talk about whether Charles could become King because of his divorce... Well this is why this is so funny. The issue of divorce and the King (or Future King) is not new. Silly Brits, the only reason why you have a Church of England is because your King Harry (Henry VIII) wanted to get a divorce, and installed himself as the head of the new Church of England PURELY for this reason (ok, and also to steal all the Catholic Church lands). It is pretty silly to say that Charles couldn't become King (and thus head of the Church of England) because of his divorce or that that is the reason why the Queen won't attend (because of her role as Head of the Church) when you frankly would have no Church of England for them to lead if not for the philandering ways of one of your kings. Get some perspective (and no the Queen should not wear a pants suit either- for those of you who remember that "scandal" of January 2003)!
You should be devoting your time to helping shame your government into shaming MY government for our horrendous acts around the world. The USA is really screwing up a lot of things: world stability, the environment, world court etc, and you are worried about Prince Charles getting married without his mum in attendance... Then again I only know about this because OUR media is covering it so clearly we are also pretty silly.
Memo to the Today Show, President Bush had a RINGER in the White House Press Corps who also happened to be a prostitute!!!!!!! Why are you talking about who will or will not attend Prince Charles' wedding!

Now He's Hiring Hookers.....

2005-02-22T08:23:00.000-08:00

So it seems that Bush wasn't content to pay off supposedly "reputable" columnists/journalists like Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher. Bloggers better ones than I am clearly have discovered that the so-called Jeff Gannon, a White House reporter famous for lofting softballs at the present during Press Briefings which he would hit out of the park and preen like Peacock was actually a male prostitute of a different name. Just amazing. Even more amazing is that with all the scandal that arose when Jayson Blair was caught lying not a single major news service has picked up on this or even comment on it. Heck even US News and World Report columnist John Leo who spent his entire column praising Bloggers for causing Vernon Eason of CNN to resign by uncovering remarks he made in Davos, Switzerland failed to completely mention the skill with which Bloggers uncovered the story about a male prostitute who, while using a fake name somehow gained access to White House Press briefings... Given this era of security paranoia. It is amazing that someone could do such a thing, especially since Congress failed to give this "Jeff Gannon" guy the same credentials....
I guess it might wrong of me to imply that the White House let this guy in deliberately to ask Bush the softball questions he appreciates best, but then again this is the President who has held the least open press conferences of any president in history and during War Time no less. My only satisfaction is that the truth of his lies, deception, fascist-style manipulations will eventually become public and I have a long life to watch his reputation properly sullied in mud as the most dangerous, evil president in our nation's history. Yes, even more criminal and worse than Nixon, even more reckless and stupidly "optimistic" than Hoover and certainly more corrupt than even that other famously corrupt Republican administration under U.S. Grant. I hope conservatives realize that they are planting the seeds of the DEATH of their movement since the more the play around the more it will require totalitarianism to maintain and that is one thing we won't stand for.... I hope.........

Wall St. Journal Editorial about the "Exit Strategy"

2005-02-04T05:39:00.000-08:00

The WSJ in their brilliant fashion once again opined that it was crazy to look for an Exit Strategy now that Iraq had held elections.... Fascinating because I thought our mission in Iraq was to find weapons of mass destruction which we didn't find so thus we have already overstayed our mission. I am glad for Iraqi elections and glad that with a government in place we can leave. We should never have gone incidentally but now we can leave.
The WSJ also seemed to ignore the Democrats contention that the insurgency in Iraq was against the US presence! UM how stupid are these money people. The insurgency is against us, the US, and if we left Iraq the people who hate us would have no more reason to kill us. They still might want to kill those who collaborated with their invaders but I guess that is the decision many Iraqis made to work with us. It is also amazing that we feel like we have to "train" the Iraqi armed forces... Last I checked they had a military and we dissolved it. In other words they had people with military training. If none of those are available then no wonder we are in such a fight there because they means that all the people who have military training are fighting against us. If not then President Bush is lying to us again just to keep troops there long enough for us to secure the oil spigot! Hmm war for oil.... No not us.....
The last stupid point from the Wall Street Journal is that we don't Honor the sacrifice of soldiers who died by leaving. So does this mean that the soldiers that die from now on are Honoring the sacrifice. I think that adding more US bodies to a pile of dead doesn't quite honor the dead it just creates more death and more misery, but hey what do I know I am just a Latino kid whose people are dying there in big numbers. I am not a big WSJ editorial writer with millions of bucks and not even a sniff of military duty in my family. I guess it is easy to talk about honoring sacrifices through more sacrifices when your family and friends won't have to be sacrificed on the pyre.

So to put none to fine a point on it. Fuck YOU, Wall Street Journal. Perhaps we should ship your whole fucking editorial board to Iraq so you can serve in the military and perform the "honoring" that you are so concerned about!

Social Security Privatisation is corruption and fraud.

2005-02-03T08:26:00.000-08:00

I am basically going to say what many of us who've looked at the issue have said. There is no "CRISIS" in social security any more than there was a crisis in Iraq until President Bush lied about it often enough that his "Big Lie" became a sort of social truth.

Let's look at what this plan to save us from this fictional crisis would do. It would take the money that we workers would pay now to support our retired parents and grandparents and invests it in the stock market. The problem is who then would pay for the retirement of our parents and grandparents? They paid into social security for their entire careers with an expectation that they would receive a benefit when they retired, so we'd be denying it to them. Of course we could borrow money to pay for it which is what Bush is proposing.

Borrow money, huh? So much for Bush and his Republican party being "Fiscal Conservatives." What they really are is selfish ideologues more concerned with destroying the legacy of the New Deal than balancing the budget. Borrowing to pay the benefits would add trillions more to a debt that they have already run up to its highest level in US history. How come Republican administrations like Reagan, Bush and Bush II always rack up these extensive debts and yet we let them call themselves fiscal conservatives? It is such bullshit, but meanwhile the so-called "Tax and Spend" Democrats like Bill Clinton end up sitting on balanced budgets. Basically propaganda overwhelms our reality. So anyway, Bush's plan would crush our government under debt and help turn us into an Argentina, Bolivia or Brasil, countries with massive debt loads and perpetual instability, though those three are turning it around so I guess there is even hope for the North American "banana republic" in which we now live.

But it is even worse. If we had had our social security invested in the stock market in 2001 we would have lost some 20% of our retirement money when the market lost some 20% of its value. Sure we are recovering now, but having no money for four years could very well have been the end for many seniors with medication and other expenses to pay (especially since the prescription drug plan has led to inflation in drug prices). No thanks, I would rather have a set retirement figure from social security around which I can plan than a random fluctuating market place that can crash and burn just as I need it strong.... Incidentally one of the reasons for the market's volatility the last couple of years has been the massive government debt, a debt that would go up considerably with privatization.... So you see privatizing would basically add to the very destabilizing forces that make privatization a bad idea in the first place!

But let us go further.... We get this money so we can invest it right? Well we can't invest it wherever we want because though they say they "trust" us with our money they don't trust us enough to make our own investment decisions. The government will decide in which companies and bonds we can invest.... Excuse me.... These Republicans who are so big on government not telling the people what to do, and selling this social security thing as a giving back of money to increase our freedom is going to tell us in which companies we can and can't invest.... How would the government decide which companies are "safe" investments? Would it depend upon how much they spent for the Inaugural Ball? Would they have told us Enron was a safe investment? I mean after all Enron contributed might loads of bucks to the Bush campaign as did Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling personally.... Bush cited them as an example of a good company. Well good thing this particular government pick didn't contain my social security money since it would completely be gone now. So we would have a system where government officials, already too cozy with a Big Business community that basically funds their elections, inaugural balls and other things, decide which of these Big Businesses could receive our social security investment money..... hmmm that seems a little fishy don't you think?!

Let us turn from the problems of the government to the problems of the business. The fictive person that is a "corporation" is a sociopath concerned about profit only while disregarding morals, ethics and human interest. We depend upon fallible humans to restrain the sociopathic tendencies of the corporation, and as we know these fallible humans FAIL to do this fairly often. Furthermore, given the way companies get their favors by essentially bribing government officials it is safe to say the more sociopathic companies would be those that get status as Social Security dollar recipients. In other words we'd be investing in companies who would have demonstrated their ability to profit at the expense of people, so our public money, money given for the public good would actually go towards investments in companies which LEAST have the public good in mind but more the profit margin.

This plan basically take billions of dollars of the public money (money we thought we were putting away in some sort of lock box for the future) and invests it in private companies who have only their own interests at stake (at least in Communism the supposedly "public" money went to supposedly "public" companies) , who have no interest in looking out for us and who are susceptible to corruption and shoddy business practices so that we can have a "secure" retirement. Worse still it does so by increasing our already overbloated debt load, pushing us towards a status analogous with South American oligarchies, and taking away the guarantee of security that this program promised to today's retirees.

Let us hope this program dies a violent and horrendous death for if not, unable to pay our health care in old age, living in a nation which defaulted on its debt, many of us surely would.

Interesting.....

2005-01-25T11:21:00.000-08:00

Bush supports freedom when he kills tens of thousands of Iraqis, but
Bush supports "life" when he takes away a woman's freedom to control her own body....

Troop Shortage? Shocking with all the Yellow Ribbons I see!

2004-12-02T11:01:00.000-08:00

Why do we have a troop shortage? Don't 58 million Americans support the President and even more "Support our Troops." The glare coming off the yellow ribbons that festoon all the gas guzzling SUVs is enough to blind most motorists yet we don't have enough troops.... Shouldn't we be able to scrounge up a couple of hundred thousand from those millions of Bush voters and yellow ribbon people who are actually willing to fight or support our troops by fighting by their side?! As Bill Maher said in 2001, Putting a Yellow Ribbon on your car is "LITERALLY" the LEAST thing you can do! It doesn't protect our troops or bring them home sooner. It doesn't resurrect thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqis not to mention hundreds and perhaps thousand of dead Afghanis. It doesn't heal the psychological scars of those tortured in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib or any of the other places where we imprison and torture people who are often, if not always, innocent. OK enough...

Kerry Concedes but Ohioans Fight on.

2004-11-18T09:55:00.000-08:00

I read this line in the Cleveland Plain Dealer "Cincinnati - Seeming to brush aside John Kerry's concession speech, the Ohio Democratic Party has launched a federal court fight over nearly 155,000 provisional ballots by contending a proper accounting of those votes might decide who really won."

Seeming to brush aside....? Well the fact is, it is not up to Kerry alone to determine whether or not votes are counted or whether they will bring victory or lead to his defeat. The media makes a big deal about concession speeches as if the candidate's admission of defeat constitutes the defeat. This is not the case because the politician alone does not decide whether he or she will serve or whether she or he is defeated. The people decide through their votes no matter what any politician says! Consequently whether Kerry fights or not doesn't matter. If the people, those that voted for Kerry, and those that voted against him want to fight to make sure all ballots are counted or that all the elections are fair then it is up to them to decide.

Of course we all know why Kerry conceded. Our fickle media would have labelled him a whiner had he fought and if he'd fought and still lost, as Gore did, he would have to slink away much as Gore did for a while. The difference between Gore and Kerry is that Kerry is a Senator and he still has a job to do and if the media, always ready to play up scandal and personality "flaws" regardless of party affiliation, would have pounced on him and savaged him as a whiner, then he would have lost the ability to be a strong Senator as he has promised he will be. He is a Senator who had 45 million people supporting him. No other Senator can claim that, certainly not those Senators (John Kyl- AZ, Bill Frist-TN) speaking out against Arlen Specter's forthcoming Chairship of the Judiciary Committee. Let us hope that Kerry follows through on his promise to stand up for us in the Senate and to not bow to media pressure (as he already did this one time).

Ohio might not turn towards Kerry as many of us hope, because of the President's fear and hate mongering tactics and an ignorant electorate, but at the very least we should all just acknowledge that regardless of what Kerry or Bush say this is a nation of the people and so it is the people who decide whether to challenge an election result not the politician (even when the politician does she/he does so as one of the people). Kerry could have stood up and announced that he lost and didn't deserve to be president and it wouldn't matter if we the people stood up, demanded a recount and found him to the be winner! He would still have to take up that mantle (unless he resigned making Edwards president) and serve.

So next time you read a newspaper talk about how Kerry conceded so thus there is no reason to fight, write that newspaper and point out that Kerry is but one of the American people and so his decision to say he lost is not the final decision. The final decision does and always will lie with the people of this nation.

Speaking of which, we have to be ever vigilant because if this election taught us one thing it is that there are forces at work in society who think they know better than us and who are committed to insuring that many of "we the people" cannot vote, or do not have our votes counted. It is for THESE people (those who cannot vote, or whose votes will not be counted) NOT for John Kerry that the Ohio Democratic Party is fighting. Every vote should count and if not even a John Kerry victory would meaningless.

Born on the 4th of July.

2004-11-14T13:53:00.000-08:00

I am currently watching the end of Oliver Stone's "Born on the 4th of July" starring Tom Cruise. This movie, for some reason shown only after the election, tells the true story of Ron Kovic, a Long Island man who volunteered for the war in Vietnam, was paralyzed, and like John Kerry (though physically wounded far more than Kerry) became a Vietnam veteran against the Vietnam war.
This movie lays out the sort of turmoil we are going to face again as we finally learn the truth of the lies of Iraq, the murders of Iraq and the crimes of Iraq committed by our soldiers, who should not be there and who would not have committed crimes if they were kept at home.
War is inherently immoral. It turns young adults into killers, innocent civilians into "collateral damage" blown to pieces in "precision bombings" conducted with 500 pound bombs over their homes and holy places, and turns young and poor men and women into "terrorists" and "insurgents" and freedom fighters. Once we let loose the dogs of war they are not easy to reign back in.
The scars and bloodshed, the wounds and hurt will not go away. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis are dead because of our actions. Almost 1200 American soldiers are dead because of President Bush's orders and a reaction to them that is as ferocious as it was predictable. Hundreds or so of soldiers from other nations not to mention our Iraqi "allies" (derided by many as "Collaborators" in occupation which of course they are) also are dead. Families are without fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, because of our actions.
I hear from others that Hussein was worse.... or Hussein was a butcher. OK. We can't deny that. He killed tens of thousands of people. Sadly, so now have we, and for what? Hussein is in prison, Iraq is in turmoil and thousands are dead. Seems to me that the only difference between Iraq under Hussein and Iraq under Bush (don't buy the lie that Iyad Allawi, himself a former trained killer for Hussein's Ba'ath Party, is in charge) is that now more than a thousand US soldiers and those from other nations are also dead. We have a promise of elections in January in Iraq which do provide a certain amount of hope, however as many have pointed out to me (while arguing that the democracy in Lebanon is illegitimate) is that elections while under the occupation of foreign powers cannot be considered legitimate.
So where are we now? Tough to say. Thousands dead. Thousands more certain to die. Elections to come? Well one might hope so.... of course there are elections to come in Cuba too, eventually, and we didn't have to flatten Cuban cities to make it so.
We are just in a conundrum, one that occurs in all situations of war. I honestly don't see this entry as one going anywhere.... I don't have answers really other than we must try to get away from this idea that we can bomb our problems away. It doesn't work especially in situations when nothing was happening. There was NO war in Iraq until we brought war to Iraq. Now there is war in Iraq and there will be war in Iraq for years to come.
Democracy is government of the people by the people. By this very reason outsiders cannot impose democracy. Imposition runs counter to what democracy is supposed to be, and so our project in Iraq is doomed to failure because of its inherent contradiction. If it were not doomed to failure we would not have had to impose Iyad Allawi in power. Allawi is a man who, according to complaints from Australian SAS soldiers reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, was seen personally executing prisoners in an Iraqi prison (one bullet to the back of the head) 5 days before assuming power from L. Paul Bremer. Allawi served in Hussein's secret police monitoring and executing Iraqi dissidents in Europe before Hussein took a dislike to him and tried to have him killed. He is not a good man, he is not a holy man, he is not a revered Iraqi figure and he is no principled anti-Hussein dissident. He is a killer and a thug. If not for Hussein's change of heart in the 70s Allawi would be rallying insurgents against us rather than US soldiers against them. Let us not mistake Allawi for a democrat. He is a tyrannical strongman, and our use of him demonstrates the incipient failure of Bush's project in Iraq.
Let us hope. Let us hope for an end to the bloodshed. Let us beg our troops home. Let us beg our troops to avoid killing innocents. We are in a catch-22 whose only escape route is a removal of our troops and an apology for the death of innocents in our project to "liberate" them, as well as an apology to the families of those soldiers killed by the actions brought on by lies and the waste of their lives for no purpose.
Although I have lost faith in organized faith because of the faithless actions of the so-called faithful, I do pray for the souls of those whose souls have been given flight years before they should have. I hope that those who found no peace in their lives can at least find it in their deaths and that those left behind can find the strength to choose peace and forgiveness rather than death and vengeance because it more than we deserve (and probably more than many of them deserve as well) but it is the best that we and they can hope for.

Maybe not so Red.

2004-11-07T11:08:00.000-08:00

So more and more articles I read keep saying that at least two of our Red states might not have been as Red as we were led to believe. I mean it makes sense. There are three large swing states with exit poll results going Kerry and then the two states with Republican governors happen to go for Bush while the one with the Democrat goes for Rendell.

Of course one might say it is simply a matter of corruption from all three governors. Of course I would say that this is not the case. Pennsylvania was Blue in 2000 with Republican Tom Ridge as governor, while Ohio and Florida both went Red in both elections with Gov. Jeb (not to mention Secretary of State Katherine Harris- Chair of Bush-Cheney2000 in Florida) and Gov. Taft (not to mention, coincidentally, Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell- Chair of Bush-Cheney2004 in Ohio). Incidentally Pennsylvania re-elected a Republican Senator (Arlen Specter- endorsed by Bush) while voting for a Democratic president, while both Florida and Ohio narrowly elected or re-elected Republican Senators and voting for Bush. I mean Specter was in a tight race with Democrat Joe Hoeffel so if PA was corrupt why not just give Hoeffel the Senate too but they didn't so I can discount the Democratic corruption conspiracy in PA.

So what we have then is Ohio and Florida using electronic-computerized voting machines, exit polls that don't meet final results and, in Ohio at least the CEO of voting-machine-making company, Diebold, giving thousands to Bush and promising him to "deliver Ohio." Then you have a state (Florida) with the BROTHER of the president sending his police (the Department of Public Safety answerable directly to the governor's office) to investigate elderly African-American voters (as Bob Herbert documented leading up to the election) for "voter fraud" BEFORE the election even took place, but then denying the right of voters to see his "felon list" and examine the voting machines beforehand while not fixing the machines when they totally screwed up in the March primaries!

But, I will stop since others have written a bit more eloquently on this topic and uncovered far more evidence concerning irregularities than I can.

http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm , http://us together.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=4&u=/ap/20041105/ap_on_el_pr/voting_problems , http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php , http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm

So clearly some of these are partisan, but let's face it, would a Republican partisan even be digging around looking to uncover irregularities? No, I think not, so we can only expect partisans to investigate.
Kerry let me down by not fighting it more effectively, but hey Rep. Delay and Rep. Hastert made sure that voting machines couldn't have a paper trail, making any fight more difficult to wage, as well as an American electorate more willing to tolerate fraud than "instability." I guess the combination of American passivity and Republican legislative games have just managed to shut down democracy and enable vote stealing. If I were a Republican I would be worried too because just because the Republicans won this round of vote cheating doesn't mean Democrats won't be able to do it in the future and maybe even better. Our only guarantee would be a completely transparent and clear voting system. (not to mention stronger campaign finance reform which would keep these horrendous brainwashing ads off the news- from BOTH sides, and overturning the Supreme Court ruling that declares MONEY to equal free speech. I mean I always thought we enjoyed equal rights to free speech, but if money equals speech than a millionaire enjoys much more speech and far louder speech than I have which means we are not equal despite the Jeffersonian ideas in our Declaration of Independence and the 15th Amendment to our Constitution which guarantees Equal protection and assumedly equal voice under the law.

Oh yeah speaking of voting transparency. It is time we made Election Day a holiday. We have a holiday to celebrate Columbus who "discovered" the new world and managed to bring home syphillis and slaves to Europe, while abusing his crew and stealing their bounties (among other things). Of course he also helped begin what became a massive deliberate and accidental genocide of the native peoples here... anyway.... Columbus is not all the praise-worthy in my opinion yet we celebrate him so we should have Election Day be a national holiday since that would be more praiseworthy....

Since I have to respect the way Republicans affix BS names to their laws to hide their pernicious designs "Clear Skies Initiative" (to create pollution hotspots) "Health Forests Initiative" (to chop down forests) "Patriot Act" (to erode the rights patriot actually fought and died for) etc. We can all the Election Day holiday bill the "Freedom is on the March Bill" or "Celebrate Democracy by Voting bill"

I mean making Elections be on Tuesdays and also by making it difficult for people to register (except in Wisconsin where there is Election day registration and incidentally high voter turnout) we basically ensure that people who are struggling day to day cannot vote since they have to worry about jobs and paying bills rather than registering to vote a MONTH before the actual election, or getting up at 7AM to vote before heading to their 9-5 (or longer) job (and if longer than 9-5 with a lesser chance for overtime thanks to the new Bush Department of Labor regulations). With an election day holiday those long lines we saw at 7AM would not be an issue since we'd get all day to vote, or maybe heck why not make election day fall on a weekend when most of us are not actually working in the first place? Of course the reason that this hasn't happened is because those with the power really do not want a lot of people to vote so they leave it the way it is. I mean the "Founding Fathers" themselves spoke of this when they spoke of their fear of a "tyranny of the majority" or their fear of the "headless beast" which constituted the "masses." (Don't believe me? Read about Alexander Hamilton and the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia which produced a Constitution reserving the vote only for white, male landowners)

So perhaps our next great democratic struggle should be to extend the voting franchise by making it easier to vote and by celebrating out democracy by creating Election day holidays. That would make us more of what we should be. I mean what better way to celebrate Democracy than by voting. Of course if what I suggest about voting machines above is accurate then perhaps we need to protect what little democracy we have before we can extend it.

Letters to America After November 2nd.

2004-11-04T05:09:00.000-08:00

November 4, 2004

I start my blog career two days after the election that signals the beginning of the end of the career of the USA as a superpower. I was going to say respected but that ended the day our first soldiers crossed into Iraq.

Dear Red States,
Thanks a lot. We in the Blue states are now fucked. Note that the Blue States include such places as Chicago, New York, DC, Boston, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco and the states that fill these cities with workers like Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Rhode Island. I say thanks because WE are the ones that are going to get bombed, gassed or nuked because of your stupidity.
Guess what “security moms” of Nebraska, Alabama, South Dakota, Idaho and similar Red States, you had nothing to worry about. Terrorists don’t give a shit about your states. There is nothing of value to a terrorist. Heck the non-Union automotive plants in Alabama should be stocked with workers nearly as pissed off as a Baghdadi who also lacks health insurance and an adequate wage as his job is also done by a South Asian. Of course in the case of Iraq we don’t even have the dignity to outsource the job we just import the workers themselves.
You were told that President Bush would protect you and you bought that crap hook, line and sinker not realizing that the same insularity that protects you from having to think about what the world thinks or what the world worries about also protects you from having to suffer the wrath of the world, a wrath born of the same insularity that leads to the election of assholes without a clue in the world about how to build true peace.
Again though, don’t worry, Bush is protecting you by sending your children and spouses to Iraq to provoke another round of terrorist attacks on the Blue States.
Yes, I am aware the Virginia, Florida and Texas went Red but that is because their Blue State elements were outvoted. Tallahassee and Jacksonville and rest of rural Florida outvoted Miami and Palm Beach, and West Texas, Waco, the Houston suburbs etc. outvoted Austin and poor minority Houston itself.
Remember, the second worst ever terrorist attack ever perpetrated on America was in Tulsa, Oklahoma by a pair of red-blooded, blue-eyed Americans who would have killed 3000 if they could but they couldn’t find 3000 people in Tulsa associated with the Federal government congregated in one area at one time. So if you all want “security,” rather than worrying about bombing civilians in Iraq, worry about your fellow blue-eyed citizens in the US who want to bomb their own cities.
So once again I would like to thank you for worrying about something that shouldn’t worry you to vote in a man who will make sure that I and millions of others like me will continue to have something to worry about.
Sincerely,
Travellinguist

Dear “Security” Moms,
Concerned about the safety of your children? Want to do something about it? Enlist in the armed forces. The man you support is currently suffering troop shortfalls in the war you believe is providing security to your children, so strap on a flak vest (that you have to buy at Wal-Mart, preferred retailer of the “security” mom), grab an M16 (now, thankfully, also available at that same Wal-Mart thanks to the expiration of the Brady Bill), go over to Iraq and help “secure” your child’s future.
Oh yeah, speaking of securing your child’s future, thanks to our catastrophic debt load your children might not be able to afford to go to college and most certainly will have a job (if your child does manage to secure the proper loans from a wealthy banking company) with less “security” and lower wages than you currently have.

Sincerely,
Travellinguist

Dear Firefighters and Police Officers,

President Bush keeps saying how heroic you are and many of you adopted “jets” and what not in our armed forces who are bombing Iraqis and Afghanis as we speak, but thanks to Bush’s economic policies (tax cuts for the wealthy that starve our states) your wages are not going to go up and many of you will soon be out of work.

Wanna go to Iraq and become a firefighter in one of those new Firehouses over there that Kerry pointed out we are actually opening? Want a job training the new Iraqi “police force”? That might be all that is left for you.

Sincerely,
Travellinguist

PS Because of Hazardous duty pay you’d at least make a wage commensurate with the dangers your job entails unlike in the States!
PPS Thanks to Bill Maher who pointed out that your wages from the President (and the rest of us) are pretty much psychological and not financial.

Dear People who voted for Bush because of his “morality,”

Pro-life (which is what most of you mean by “moral”) doesn’t mean gleefully presiding over the most executions of any Governor in United States combined in the 1990s, nor does it mean ordering the military to annihilate the cities of Baghdad, Fallujah and Ramadi to get a few hundred terrorists while explaining that you “don’t count civilian casualties.”

Furthermore, Jimmy Swaggart talked a lot about morality, God and praying, too and still had an extra-marital affair. Talking it and Living it are two different things.

Sincerely,
Travellinguist

Dear Catholic Bishops unwilling to give John Kerry communion,

Thanks for acknowledging to the rest of us lapsed Catholics that it is acceptable to only focus on or follow part of the Pope’s teaching. In case you forgot, the Pope opposes abortion, but he also opposes the Death Penalty and the Iraq War (war in general).

Being the selective Catholic consumer as you Bishops are, I will choose to follow the Pope’s lead on the death penalty and Iraq War, and will also point out for the millionth time that if we just taught kids and adults about how to use condoms and other forms of contraception they might not want/need to even have abortions. Which do you think is the greater sin in the eye of the Church pre-marital or extra-marital sex, or abortion?

Sincerely,
Travellinguist

PS I don’t think the Pope was very fond of how many of your fellow clergy sexually abused children and then got free passes to new parishes after you covered the whole thing up. Oh yeah and if God really is concerned about our behavior and sees you as his agents on Earth It/He/She must have been really really pissed!

Dear Young Republicans age 18-26,
Help your President keep his campaign promise. We are running low on troops to meet our force commitments throughout the world and to “secure” Iraq. You think that the war in Iraq was the “right war, in the right place, at the right time,” well now is the time to put your money where your boisterous mouths are.

It’s your war, for your president, for your beliefs, go defend them. Sign up at your local recruiting station and you too can soon be defending the conservative way of life on the streets of Baghdad.

Since your president received “more votes than any president in US history” he should not have a shortage of loyal soldiers to execute his will. Prove you stand behind him in more places than just the Ballot Box.

Sincerely,
Travellinguist

Dear Mom,
When you told me that John Kerry was not the answer my heart sunk. You were lied to and you believed, you were manipulated and you let it happen. You reserved your skepticism only for the criticisms from the Left and not the diarrhea coming from the Right. My only hope for you is that the worst of my fears will not come to pass so that you can enjoy your retirement with adequate health care and the security that you’ve earned through hard work as a teacher, librarian and mother.

Love,
Travellinguist