A Return From Hibernation

LoL is now officially back from its months-long spring recess. I have to personally and wholeheartedly apologize for the lack of posting during this period, yet I must say it was *extremely* hectic. You really have no idea what I mean when I say this, but anyways, I shouldn't keep focusing on the past, honestly...

A lot has happened in my absence. And I mean a LOT of stuff has really gone on. Just yesterday, Sandra Day O'Conner resigned from the Supreme Court of the United States, thereby creating the first vacancy in over a decade. And now there's going to be a *huge* fight that will spark. Everyone is currently thinking that Alberto Gonzales will be picked for the job of Associate Justice, but I personally disagree ... I mean, come on, the man has only served about 5-6 months as Attorney General.

Two countries legalized gay marriage - Canada and Spain. *yay!!!!*. And Spain equated heterosexual and homosexual couples as equals when it comes to the *legal* system which is a *HUGELY* great thing!

John Bolton came up for a cloture vote in the Senate - twice. Both of them failed, and this is such great news. Honestly, for a minority with little to no power, the Dems are winning a lot of fights under the leadership of Harry Reid - the Terri Schiavo fight, the victory on the filibuster debate, Bolton (for now), etc.

Now the Senate will recess tomorrow and I'll expect Bush and Rove, the sleazy people that they are, to perform a recess appointment, and by those rules, Bolton will be in the job at the UN until January of 2007, when he'll come up for another vote in the Senate.

I have just returned from the National Student Leadership Conference (NSLC) so I know what I'm talking about when it comes to government.

The Iraq death toll stands at 1745, just as I had predicted, along with greater than 150,000 Iraqi (civilian) casualties. Typical of this administration.

Everyone needs to meet Concepcion Picciotto, a woman who has been protesting nuclear proliferation from her own makeshift stand across from the White House, every single day since August 1, 1981. I got her autograph ... amazing *happiness*.

Alright, more updates will come later. I need to vacate this computer for now.

The Impossibility Of Neoconservatism: John Bolton Vs. The World

I am greatly encouraged that a huge fight has been ignited over the confirmation of John Bolton to be the US ambassador to the United Nations. It is very startling but very encouraging that a number of Republican senators have publicly come out against voting for Bolton. And this is actually very necessary, since Bolton is a very, very dangerous man for this job. There really is a lot of evidence for this - and also the fact that Bolton has not, in truth, been dedicating his life to reforming the UN. Rather, he and his neoconservative colleagues are dedicated to undermining the UN - as if it is bad enough already! StopBolton.org, founded by Citizens For Global Solutions, provides much information about this subject. They proclaim John Bolton as, "remarkable consistent in his contempt for international cooperation and his inability to exercise discretion in his work." And that is just the truth, however hard you might take it. Because John Bolton, rough around the edges, has two agendas. One of them is to dismantle the UN and provide for the United States to completely withdraw from the international community, and the other is to get rid of anyone (no matter the cost) who gets in his way. Here's some proof of this attitude:

"Denoucning the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was the happiest moment of my governmental service career."

_{The Wall Street Journal, 2002}

^Okay, undoubtedly the ICC is corrupt and flawed as an organizational entity. But Bolton himself just flip-flopped and now he's turning around say, "Oh, I'm ready for the job! We need to have American leadership!" So first he *rejects* leadership by applauding his own decision to renounce the ICC Rome Statute, *but* uhp! then he goes and turns around and says that we need American leadership.

"We do not support the promotion of international advocacy activity by international or non-governmental organizations, particularly when those political or policy views advocated are not consistent with the views of all member states."

_{Statement to the UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons and All Its Aspects, 9 July 2001}

^ Now, what Bolton really means here is that if the views of the NGO in question are not with his views, then negotiation is no longer possible. This is obviously showing what I said earlier, that John Bolton is willing to step over anyone, ruin anyone's reputation, and stop at nothing to get what he wants. He's really not representing anything over the UN except neoconservative ideology. Its ridiculous how they operate, but the neoconservative idealogues simply do not have diplomacy on their agenda. Its shown directly in the quote above - you know what it is? "It's my way or the highway" is truly their standard operating procedure. Oh, and its all of them by the way. Just look at Bush's 2002 State of the Union. "You're either with us or you're against us." Real good definition of the War on Terror, huh? See, this is how they work. There's no diplomacy for the right wing - there's no compromise, there's no middle ground. Not at all. And these characteristics are also embodied by John Bolton himself. It is either his way or no way. Now Bush is just so unabashedly proud of this, since he's arrogant like that, but this is really...really...scary to me.

"Support for the International Criminal Court concept is based largely on emotional appeals to an abstract ideal of an international judicial system."

_{Statement before the House International Relations Commmittee, 2000}

^ So, what do I have to say about this? Well, now we see outright anger and disgust coming from Bolton at the exact concept of the International Criminal Court. This is outrageous really because of the fact that it shows how neoconservatives talk the talk of "The UN is a critical orguh-nii-zay-shun" but do not walk the walk. Its really obvious now, and I don't understand how Bolton can work for an organization that he doesn't believe in. And he said that his comments were back in the 1990s, but his above quote is from 2000. So he hasn't changed. People like him don't change.

"The Senate vote on the [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] is also an unmistakeable signal that America rejects the illusionary protections of unenforceable treaties."

_{The Jerusalem Post, 1999}

^ Now this quote is harder to digest. As hard as it is to say, what Bolton says here *does* have some truth in it - that the CTBT will be ineffective without enforcement on the part of the UN, the US, and the rest of the member states. But John Bolton himself shows literally no initiative on nuclear proliferation, regardless of the participation (or lack thereof) of the United Nations. It is really disheartening, to be honest, because it is nuclear proliferation that is the most critical security issue over the next few years. For Bolton to outrightly expose the fact that he will not commit to this is ridiculous, outrageous, and frankly very scary. And this is why John Bolton is unacceptable - this is why I cannot have any faith or confidence in him. Bolton's ideology gets in the way of his job, and that is not permissible. While what he says may have some truth to it, having an attitude of contempt and selfishness will not improve the situation.

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world and that is the United States, when it suits our interest and we can get others to go along."

_{1994 Global Structures Convocation}

^ Wow...this one is one of the most disturbing. And extremely disheartening. "There is no such thing as the United Nations" is the true neoconservative ideology. See, I think that most of the neocons (especially here in the US) are put into a bit of a tough position. They can't exactly *verbalize* their views that they would prefer dismantling the UN rather than reforming it because saying something like that would be socially unacceptable...but nor can they abandon their core beliefs of a unipolar world with the US as the sole superpower. See - Bolton's true ideology is revealed in this quote..."when it suits our interest". The neocons know that they have to dismantle the UN to get what they want. But there is a distinct conflict inherent here. Neoconservatives know in their inner core that the existence of the UN will continue to be a detriment to their greed and power, so they must dismantle it. In essence, the UN is antithetical to their interests of money, power, and greed.

Now, to be fair, I understand that the UN is a deeply flawed organization. I *know* that it has suffered many failures over the past decade and a half, and of *course* it is in desperate need of reform. But what I'm saying here is that the neoconservative agenda will only serve to make the situation worse. I would not endorse the neoconservative and imperalist agenda to offset the damage that has been created as a result of the UN's numerous failures. That's all. I just think that the neoconservative agenda of greed, money, power, and imperialism will only serve to make the current situation much worse than it already is...as if it *can* become worse. John Bolton is representative of the "we don't care, screw you, it's my money and power and I want it" agenda, and his prescence at the UN will only further accentuate that. That's really all we get with people and neocons like John Bolton who really do not have the UN's interests at heart (as most definitely shown in the quote above).

I frankly think that the neoconservatives have been put into a very difficult position in the world today. They can't exactly *verbalize* what they all believe because that would be deemed to be socially acceptable and would only alienate them from everyone. But neither can they abandon their core prinicipals...so what do they do? They lie, steal, cheat, and play as dirty as they get. And some don't even have to put up a facade like that - some of them, like John Bolton, reveal how freaking dangerous they are when they say what they say. Here's some more from this maniac:

"If I were redoing the security council, I'd have one permanent member because that's the real reflection of the distribution of power in the world."

_{National Public Radio with Juan Williams, 2000}

^ Need I say more? Of *course* that's the real distribution of power in the world....but is that what he wants? He *needs* that status quo. He *wants* to preserve it - it is *vital* to his neoconservative agenda! It is so obvious. For John Bolton and the neocon halo of power surrounding him, such a reform would be greatly welcome because it would be the equivalent of putting the US in complete control of the UN - and this would be extremely dangerous, and what's more significant is that it would not offset the problems of the UN - structurally and otherwise. Think about that - he'd have one permanent member of the security council. That permanent member could overrule *anything* and *anyone* and if it was from the US and under this government...I doubt that it would be anyone with a respectable record nor would it be anyone who was not a radical neoconservative. And this is so dangerous...to think that someone would *want* to dismantle the UN in order to promote their agenda...its mind-boggling to me. The neocons...they have no conscience.

"General Assembly resolutions and international conference declarations, (such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Agenda 21, and the Millennium Declaration) are 'mind-numbing.'

_{Policy Review. Bring Back the Laxalt Doctrine, 2000}

^ This is just sad...Read the article that Bolton authored to see what I mean...

---

Let's examine John Bolton's record of *actions* now, not just his rhetoric. In his past, John Bolton has...

• Attempted to reassign two intelligence analysts who challenged his policy conclusions
• Made an unusal number of requests for transcripts of secret conversations involving high-level US intelligence officers
• Angered British officials with maverick Iran policy
• Tried to fire officials for attempting to tone down Iraq WMD information
• Not forwarded crucial intelligence information to Colin Powell, former US Secretary of State
• Put relations with North Korea on the line, then lied to the US Senate about it. This claim was also verified in this story by the New York Times in which Thomas C. Hubbard, former ambassador to South Korea, affirms the allegations.
• Greatly exaggerated WMD evidence, in this letter to Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT)
• Allegedly harrased a USAID worker
• Allegedly threatened to fire a woman who requested maternity leave

So you make the decision. You want this neoconservative idealogue to be representing your country at the UN where he will only worsen the current status quo and further *his* agenda?

I think not.

Nothing But Theocracy: Eliminating The Filibuster

I think that this filibuster fight has really shown the lengths and the extents to which the GOP will go to...just to get what they want - and only what they want, at that. Yesterday, Senator Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader spoke to a Christian, anti-filibuster rally, promoting the Republican agenda. There are two main issues I have with this. One is purely constitutional, from a legal perspective; the second one is from an ethical point of view. So I'll discuss the constitutional/legal one first. But before all of this, let me just put what's out there on this site. First off, the GOP argument with the judicial filibuster is that it would be corrupting the democratic process to deny judges an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. But in reality, its not. As Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) said while the Senate was in session, quite simply in fact, "No...they don't [deserve an up-or-down vote]." And he's right. Besides, it has been all of 10 judges who have been denied an up-or-down vote, and out of all the ones that Bush has nominated who have been confirmed, 10 is not that all much. Really. The Dems have been *more* than reluctant in not giving judges a fight, so 10 judges who, by the way, are in fact too conservative, do not necessarily deserve an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.

So now for the constitutional perspective. The Republicans allege that the democratic process is being subverted and corrupted just because of this. But in fact the Republicans are not conservative - they are neoconservative idealogues who do not have a good understanding of the Constitution and how it works. Instead, *they* have been the ones to subvert it with all that they have done over the years. But getting back to judges - the Senate is fulfilling its oversight responsibility by denying the executive branch a free pass at getting judges appointed. The Republicans in Congress, of course, would *never* understand this - since they have miserably failed in their oversight responsibility. In fact, they've chosen to fail in this respect, which disturbs me greatly. And they're doing it again in this case just so that their ideology is shepherded through the Congress to the judiciary at the expense of all legal and constitutional procedures in the way. The legalities that are in place are there for a reason - but the Republicans cannot live with the law, so instead they decide to change it when it doesn't suit their interests (which by the way is a very sociopathic thing to do) and will never, *EVER* learn to play by the rules. Not that they ever have, either. Look at Tom DeLay. Enough said.

In respect to this anti-filibuster, Christian rally, well what can I say? Its purely disgusting. For all of those who do not believe me when I say that Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, and George W. Bush are nothing but people who pander directly to the Religious Right, well I say, here is your proof. HERE is your proof. Bill Frist, by attending this rally, has made the correlation between faith and his political agenda. He has effectively demolished the "wall of seperation" between church and state in order to promote his own political and moral agenda. This of course does not rest well with MILLIONS of people throughout the country. This is so ethically wrong to me, and many others. You only just have to look at what this crazy, out-of-control-in-bed-with-the-Religious-Right GOP said at this rally. "The future of democracy and ordered liberty actually depends on the outcome of this [filibuster] struggle." Wow, what a lie! The way the Republicans twist the truth is *amazing*. I have to give them credit for that - but in reality, their hidden agenda is much more dangerous. The Republicans only want to establish a Christian theocracy in this country - really. Proof? Look at how their top officials pander to the Religious Right (which is really their base if you think about it). Look at what they went on about during this rally.

Tony Perkins, president of the right-wing Family Research Council, said, "What we are saying tonight is that as American citizens, we should not have to choose between believing what is in this book and serving the public." Oh well there you go. Wall of seperation between church and state = demolished. And there is something even more disturbing besides this fact. The very idea that the filibuster fight was equated with a religious struggle in and of itself reveals the irresponsibility of the GOP. Not even the quotes about how the filibuster is "inappropriate and undemocratic" and all that Republican garbage, not even all of those ridiculous assertions. But the fact that the Republican party (or at least the extreme right-wing in it) had the audacity to equate the filibuster fight with a religious struggle shows to me either one of two things - a) their main goal is to establish a Christian theocracy and convert nonbelievers, or b) they are so insecure with knowing that the country is not safe that they have begun to completely rely on faith for their missions. Absolutely ridiculous, what they are and what they stand for. The former of the two possiblities is more likely to be true in my opinion, though the latter is just as valid.

In conclusion, what the Republicans are doing is highly repulsive and insulting. I am honestly ashamed to be a citizen of a country in which such an irresponsibile and arrogant political party is in power. Now that the Republicans have taken the outrageous step of attempting to ban the filibuster on the basis that Democrats are "against people of faith", I can no longer say that I'm proud to be an American. Because, in all honestly, I'm really not. I'm disgusted and what has been done - it is the GOP and their theocratic agenda which is corrupting democracy, quite the contrary to the belief that the use of the judicial filibuster to block just *10* nominees is undemocratic. Remember, that was a figure of 10 nominees...out of about 300. Oh, *and* this is hypocritical - since the GOP used this tactic against some of Clinton's judicial nominees...and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was absolutely right when he said...

...this is going to come back to haunt the Republicans one day.

The Right-Wing Does The Darndest Things...

Sometimes Republicans really, really make me mad. I'm serious, though. They honestly make me mad to the seams. And I'm not taking it anymore, honestly. Look at what is happening in the Senate. We now have a egomaniacal and sociopathic Majority Leader, Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) threatening that Democrats who oppose radically conservative judicial nominees are attacking their character because they are "against people of faith." He even appeared in a TV spot that encouraged and promoted this attitute - through mainstream America. Absolutely ridiculous is the fact that America actually believes all of this hogwash - there's no truth to it at all. It is again the repetition of the GOP character assassination tactic - if we can't get something to work for us, then we'll brutally take down everyone else and not even *think* of the consequences. << *THAT* is the true ideology of the Republican Party of 2005. So depressing it is that our country is being run by these absolute morons.

The so-called "nuclear option" in and of itself is a complete abomination. Not only would such a measure corrupt democracy even more under the auspices of the Bush administration; it would take away the fundamental human freedoms. These are simply known as minority rights - and yes, I understand that this is *very*, very hard for the Republicans to believe - but minorities do have rights. Of course if the Republicans don't get their way, then they'll go cry wolf - but I stand by what John McCain said about THIS arrogant proposal. He esentially said that if such a thing is to happen to the Dems, then it will come back to haunt the Republicans when *they* are out of power! And he is absolutely correct - its not only arrogant and downright stupid; its also ill-fated. The fact that people like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist even *exist* in our legislature is an insult to me, it really is. And its ridiculous how they can evade the truth! Its always some new attack against an "arrogant judiciary run amok" or how "liberals are ruining everything." But can the GOP congressional leadership *ever* be held accountable for *anything*??? No. Don't think of that happening any time soon.

Then of course we have John Bolton - the ultracrazy far right-winger, ex-Reagan and Bush administration employee, etc. etc. Bush, who is just too dumb in the end to make *any* judgment, is left to stand up there and say, *texan accent*: "Well, huhhuh, uh...Ah nawhmihnated Jawhn Bohltuhn for duh Yooneyetihd Nayshunz beekawz he is thuh best mayun forah thuh jahb." Yeah, real great leadership we have in this country, right? If you look back in a few posts of mine, then you'll see that John Bolton is the type of neoconservative who believes that a) it is geopolitically impossible for the UN to exist, and b) if it is to exist and function properly as an institution, then the US leadership is critical. Well, I'd agree with point b - but none of it matters (nor does point a) - because Bolton's style and decorum has now been (rightfully) called into question. And I know, this is rare on LoL, but I commend Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) for expressing his severe reservations on the nomination of John Bolton even though it contradicted the overall position of his party. Sometimes, a shake-up is needed, and things *must* be examined from all angles in this case, not just the blindsighted GOP one.

When will the arrogance end? I honestly do not know. As support for Social Security rapidly drops, there may be *some* hope left. But concurrently, with the casualties mounting in Iraq (1565), and as the "Iraqi Security Forces" are more brutally attacked than American and British servicemen combined, I can see no end to this Republican-engineered madness that has enveloped this country and has turned paranoia and ignorance into a phenomenal national epidemic. Perhaps the only good thing that could happen to the GOP will be its implosion...And even with that, nothing will be certain. Because *someone* WILL have to pick up the pieces that are going to be left in the wake of everything when this administration leaves Washington. And please, do NOT give me some uneducated Republican answer, like "Oh you shut up you liberal pussy you hippie communist George Bush is the greatest president ever!!!!!!" Because you know you're wrong if you say that, and don't try to BS me into thinking that you're right. Because you're not. The Republicans have been so arrogant as to anger me to the point where I no longer care if you try to label me or paint me as a liberal. Because I am *proud* to be a liberal.

Now if you can't get over that, then I'd think you're really insecure. Just as the state of this nation is with its scarily crazed neoconservative leadership.

Plummeting Under Pressure: The Future Of The American Economy

Just as I said, America's economy is going down the tubes. Not surprisingly, I've been right all along. It's only *now* that people are beginning to notice this. About 3 weeks ago, the Dow Jones Industrial Average stood hovering around 10,900. Fast forward to now - now, its at 10,000 and falling. More proof, you say? Alright, look at the Nasdaq Composite index. Just one month ago it stood at 2,900. Then look to the present day, and you'll see that it has fallen to nearly 1,900 (and falling). And now, if you go to any business center, you will see that its members are clearly in the belief (rightfully) that Wall Street is down in the dumps. If you go to CNN Money, then you will notice that nothing, and I mean *NOTHING* is going right. Besides the stock indexes disturbingly having plummeted through the bottom, all lot of other stuff is also going wrong as well (unbeknownst to the American people, of course.) General Motors has had its worst quarter since 1992, oil prices are up, the technology sector is failing us, and now all the Wall Street investors are panickcing and are forecasting the worst. In Bizarro World on Wall Street, you can find their qualms. And don't be surprised when you do.

You would probably ask me why I even *raise* this issue. But there is a very simple point to it all. Its only fair that President Bush's flawed and misguided policies have led us into this financial hole out of which we are unable to climb. Did we ever ask for this? (Well some did, but I certainly didn't). You might also ask precisely *how* he did this. But then again, that's very, very simple to understand. First, you have to know about the price of oil (oil runs the world...literally). Its only around a mere $50/barrel. That's never happened historically, really except for the oil embargos of the 1970s. And so when it *does* happen, our economy is drastically affected - negatively. Remember that the Saudis own about %7 of our economy, and so if they decide to withdraw their assets, there will be a nationwide depression. But when the price of oil is being artificially inflated by the Saudis themselves (as it is), they can make a profit - at the expense of the United States and its economy. And that's really all it is - the Saudis, who have been artificially inflating the price of oil for their own benefit, have indirectly caused this plummeting to occur by, in effect, paralyzing the markets.

Oh, but I forgot didn't I? OUR PRESIDENT - he has a business relationship with the people who contributed to this, not to mention whose government gave citizenship to those who hijacked planes on 9/11. And even apart from that, he hasn't done *anything* to make the financial crisis any better. Instead, as I always say, he's been giving tax cuts to the wealthy at the expense of the poor, and if you don't believe, then you only have to look at the official government data that says that the gap between the rich and poor has been growing every consecutive year since this President took office back in 2001. And on top of that - there's even *MORE* to worry about. Twin deficits. As I say, when this President arrived in Washington to "heal and unite America", he did nothing except destroy it financially and divide it socially. When he took office, he was left with a projected 5 trillion dollar surplus, but what did he do? He turned it into a 420 billion dollar deficit (and counting). Nice work, eh? Yeah, and besides, now we have what is called a trade deficit too. For those of you who didn't know, the facts its that China and Japan own our debt, and in turn, own us.

With all these factors combined - the price of oil rising, the twin deficits, the tax cuts, and Bush's relationship(s) with the Saudis - something disastrous is bound to happen. And you can take my word for this. I don't mean to be a pessimist, but what is happening is real. In 40 or 50 years, China may become (and probably will) the next world superpower, and faces us. But what could we have done? We'll be crippled by that time, and the fact that *my* generation is going to have to deal with this angers me the most. Really, that does get me upset. And what bothers me even more is the people who doubt this, preferring to sell their souls to a non-existent God who, by the way if he did exist, would not have *great* pecuniary instincts anyway. So now America is in trouble like never before - and all of these factors have contributed to one thing above all - the erosion of our traditional manufacturing base. I'm not at all surprised by this, because Bush is just that dumb. And he intently *wants* this all to occur - which scares me. Not exactly "protecting America and strengthening families", right? Exactly. As soon as our manufacturing base is completely gone, we can all say goodbye to our economic security (if you even have it to begin with).

I've always proposed a solution to this, that of course no one will listen to..."Because you're a liberal." Right, really reaching across the aisle. But anyways, I've always said that if America would just do what it did back in the WWII era and the immediate aftermath including the 1960s, then it might *just* have some semblance of a chance for the future. Now, since our manufacturing base is rapidly eroding (with no sign of end), it is only logical that the United States develop a hi-technology sector of the economy. It is truly the only way to go. The National Science Initiative of the 1960s must be brought back. You have *no* idea how much things like NASA benefited the economy. Oh, everyone said, "what do we need a friggin' space program for?" But in fact, things like NASA *enourmously* benefit the economy by providing a HUGE amount of medical technology/scientific jobs for those who seek them. But if we are to get out of the financial hole we're in, then we must develop this sort of base. It can't, obviously, just come out of nowhere. The only way, in my view, is by helping the Japanese and Chinese, reducing our twin deficits *immediately*, developing another source for energy (we can't rely on the Saudis, not for long...), rolling back the tax cuts for the rich and then using the profits to benefit everyone *else* in America... and then hopefully, *hopefully*, the country will recover.

But there's really not that much hope when George W. Bush is the President.

*Edit*

Oh, and there was just a %17.6 plunge in the housing market. As I've been saying. This is the biggest drop in that market in 14 years. Nice, really...

The Immaturity Of Conservatism

You know, the one big thing that I fault John Kerry for was that he wanted to take the high road. It is so unfortunate, but it is true that it is no longer possible for a candidate (in American politics) to take the high road. The conservatives are so immature in this day in age that it has become totally impossible to have a rational discussion anymore. Proof? Well, just look to the campaign season last year. Look at the flyer that they sent out to voters "Liberals are going to ban the bible. *picture of gay men kissing*. Ridiculous. In that kind of climate, how is it at possible to even have a discussion at all? They've already defined the rules - and that's what the Democrats must be committed to rail against. They cannot allow the GOP to set the agenda - their agenda of war, imperialism, bigotry and hatred. Besides, look at what other inappropriate comments they've set out. "If we don't make the right choice, then we have a danger of being hit." -- Dick Cheney, August 12th, 2004. So then we've got the *Vice President* of the United States publicly saying that the Democratic party is incapable of protecting the nation. Quite the contrary - it is the Republican party that is promoting and practicing an agenda that is only setting us backwards in the war on terror.

Well, to see this - look at their immaturity again: on the world stage. The world is simply fed up with this conservative, narrow-minded, and most of all, militant imperialism agenda of ours. Conservatives, in their ignorant stupor, of course cannot at all see this - but it wouldn't matter if they did, because they wouldn't care. There's another big thing about conservatism in America that I don't like - the fact that neocons and paleocons alike do not seem to care about the plight of others when they simultaneously pledge that they do. Example? Oh, all you have to do is turn on your TV every day to hear the words "compassion, freedom, and democracy" coming from the Idiot-in-Chief. But in the grand scope of things, those words have absolutely no meaning behind them. In other words, you don't achieve democracy by killing 150,000 Iraqis and needlessly sacrificing at least 1550 American lives. There is absolutely no consistency within the conservatives' ideology, and the fact that is so *obvious* is offensive. Plus, add the fact that this right-wing corporate media does not report these inconsistencies at *all*, then you can get me going.

Since the Republicans are so damn irresponsible - and can never admit *any* wrongdoing - they have to demonize someone else. And this is the one tactic that bothers me the most. The fact that the neoconservatives *always* have to change the topic to "those liberals" when they know, deep down, that they are the ones truly at fault! Well, let's just take a few examples. We have Bill O'Reilly, famously now a right-wing pundit, demonizing Michael Moore as an "anti-American, anti-democratic" person, but this is all untrue (proof of this will be found in another post). We've got Sean Hannity or some other rightist preacher going on TV and asking THE most BIASED questions so that the interviewee is manipulated into answering such that the conservative side benefits. Remember the whole Terri Schiavo case? I remember seeing him ask Schiavo's sister about a "possibly to a very likely recovery". I also recall that whenever Sean Hannity is confronted with an issue about his own party, he can never answer it - don't look to me, look to his show. He immediately jumps to the liberals who are the "anti-Americans" or who are "ruining the country." But it is he who has no facts to back up his rhetoric; instead, he is an immature conservative who can't even answer for himself.

The other tactic they use is repetition. Repetition, repetition, repetition. 2004 proved that even with the country in a not-so-good state, with the country's populace paralyzed in fear of another terrorist attack, a flawed candidate (like George W. Bush) could still win - and win big. Of course, the way this is accomplished is via the right-wing media + all the corporate connections to the GOP. And add in the fear. To understand the election of 2004, you must talk about fear. It really was the central component in this election, and it provided George W. Bush with the opportunity to capitalize on it. Wrongfully. Shamefully. Now, yes, I personally do fault John Kerry for not responding to this, but the shame rests with the President. The shame should rest with him! Because it is asinine - it is wrong, morally and ethically - to first put a nation into a state of fear and shock, thus crazily twisting the national conscience into a state of dissaray, and then to capitalize on it. THAT is the extent to which the conservatives will go to win. They put this nation into a state of shock and fear in the aftermath of 9/11 by convincing everyone that *no* one was truly safe, and then they capitalized on it by painting the opposition political party to be "weak" and "inept" to defend the country. Absolutely ridiculous, 'cause they didn't even give people the opportunity to examine the truth behind the issues - they knew it would hurt their current power hold on the entire government.

And this is all proof of how conservatives take the low road, their immaturity, etc. I didn't even mention how they love to throw it in people's faces. My main point here is that their immaturity is manifested in their militant attitude - towards non-Americans *and* Americans alike. The person that puts 5 "Support Our Troops" ribbons on their cars, and the person that is the head of your local church, the person that is a "family man", the "community leader", is in reality an arrogant person who is hostile to anyone outside his/her narrow agenda. I *hate* it when I can't discuss things with conservatives because of their arrogance and immaturity, but I've learned to deal with it, over the years.

However, the time for that is over, to stop *trying* to consider their agenda. It is time for us to start setting our own.

Walks In A Neoconservative World

The confirmation hearings for John Bolton, appointed for the ambassadorship to the United Nations, are underway, and hell will break lose. Let's talk about Bolton himself for a moment. This is a man with serious flaws, and no doubt should they be examined. For one thing, his views deeply trouble me. I frankly do agree with him about the current status quo of the UN -- in other words, that it is one of the most ineffective organizations in history -- but I do not at all agree with him about how to solve this fundamental problem. Bolton is one of those who is an American supremacist, i.e., he believes that the UN can only recover and regain credibility if it is being led by the United States! Now that I take severe issue with! In his confirmation hearing yesterday, Bolton was the target of criticism from Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT), who, in a testy exchange, said something to the effect of this:

"We sent our Secretary of State to the United Nations to make a case for war and we presented intelligence that was dead wrong. We lost our credibility, we lost our standing. Do you really believe that it is that kind of country that will be able to effectively lead an organization as complicated as the UN!?!?!"

And Dodd makes an extremely good point - we failed the world with our intelligence, our lies, and we became the laughingstock in the UN. So now we have someone who comes around and just says, "Ooh, I was a harsh critic of the UN in the 90s because it lacked American leadership." Apart from being not feasible, American leadership would just be plain stupid at this point. Now that many nations around the world do not respect us, it would be completely worthless to have American leadership for the UN. And besides, what does "American leadership" entail? It basically means that America gets whatever it wants, when it wants it - imperialism, money, oil, more money, and so on. American leadership is full of greed - and this is the fundamental flaw - so if America were to be "leading" the UN, it wouldn't result in any beneficial gain for the UN - the only entity that would benefit would be America itself. Apart from this, that sort of recommendation is simply unworkable, since the United Nations is not a sovereign nation, nor is it a world government. Many people assume that the UN is a world government, thus it can be led from within, but this is untrue. Leadership in the UN is largely by consensus, and while this is ineffective, it cannot be prevented, otherwise the UN will fall to a more hierarchical and undemocratic structure.

John Bolton is a man who would greatly prefer this hierarchical model. Don't take this with a grain of salt; this is a man who has said that it is impossible for the United Nations to exist! I don't know how you can lead an organization, badly or not, if you don't believe in it and its existence. That does not equate, in my mind. Secondly, Bolton also said that if you demolished 10 stories of the Secretariat building, then it wouldn't make a difference. Nice ideology, huh? But here are the neoconservatives of the Bush administration not being afraid to be straight up with their ridiculous and radical views about the international system. See, Bolton and his people want to do the exact opposite to the system than what is intended. Bolton and Co. would rather see the UN dismantled (as he's clearly stated), and America be put in complete charge (as if it doesn't have enough in a unipolar world!). But the neocons will never cease to be power-hungry and greedy, so they keep on going. They are absolutely relentless. And this is exactly as I've been saying all along - the neoconservatives of the US are simply just puppets for a true agenda - total and complete American hegemony, really, the demise of true democracy in the world. They're also getting what they want, which is very scary. Bolton is a person who is destined to give this to them, as "American leadership" of the UN is a false promise, for two main reasons: 1) the UN is not a sovereign government which can be "led" in a hierarchical manner, and 2) even if it were able to be led, the US would not be the suitable "leader" based on the recent events that destroyed US credibility.

Want more proof of the incapability of putting Bolton in this job? Well, its only been about 2 days now since the Foreign Relations committee has been deliberating over the fact that he attempted to have a staffer fired who delivered the news to him that a proposed speech had language that the government prohibited him from disclosing. Bolton, of course, wanted to go on his crazy tangents about the UN which had been influenced by intelligence documents. However, the standard operating procedure for going on an angry diatribe like this is that you must send your speech through the intelligence community for it to be evaluated and then either allowed or disallowed. In Bolton's case, the language was so strong and so the intelligence community was wary and denied his request to permit it into his speech. But because *he* disagreed with his aides (substantively) on the matter, he attempted to have them fired. And if this were a one-time occasion, I might not be so wary...But as the Democrats on the Foreign Relations committee pointed out, this has been a continued pattern - and that disturbs me deeply.

^ Oh, and by the way, its great that the Democrats *actually* did something right this time! They presented a united front. That is what is needed. Let the GOP implode - let it go - but be united in your own cause as it happens. Be united in the cause against the appointment of the anti-internationalist John Bolton, an extremely devious and dangerous man, to the ambassadorship for the US to the UN. And plus, it'll be *really* good if Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) would not vote to confirm him - this would produce a deadlock in the committee and Bolton's nomination would never get to the Senate floor (and least not *yet*!). We shall see.