Liberal Out Loud

A Return From Hibernation

2005-07-03T21:43:00.000-04:00

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

2005-04-22T22:35:00.000-04:00

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

2005-04-20T12:39:00.000-04:00

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...

2005-04-18T22:32:00.000-04:00

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

2005-04-17T20:08:00.000-04:00

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

2005-04-08T23:12:00.000-04:00

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

2005-04-07T22:32:00.000-04:00

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.

Ticking Time Bombs: An Independent Judiciary As Well As The GOP Itself

2005-04-06T00:12:00.000-04:00

If you are a member of the Republican party who's farther to the right than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Bill Frist, then you *know* that you've got a problem. Just who am I talking about hear? Tom DeLay. Tom DeLay is one of those really, you know, *really* rare Republicans who has publicly been ostracized by Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. For that to have to happen, it must mean that his positions and radical right-wing views simply aren't suitable for the fractured Republican party of 2005. Consequently, they want him out. And I really don't fault the party leadership for wanting him out - his positions are ridiculous and and unworkable, and his ethical violations number more than the Bushisms that exist. And that is a lot! Well, it is unfortunate that there is not a so-called "Dump DeLay" movement currently in Texas (alert me if there is), because that would sure be helpful in his removal. It really is a spring cleaning chore - to toss him out of the house...the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Because he needs to go, and there is really no better time than now.

My main reasoning here is that he's already broken ranks with Bush and Cheney and *Frist*! I mean, if you can manage to do that, then its clear that you must be *hated* within the GOP. This schism actually only occurred today, when Bush and Cheney both declared that they "support an independent judiciary." Finally, *finally*, both the Fake President and the Real President have issued a doctrine which I support! An endorsement of an independent judiciary! Yes! But as for DeLay, he does not support that. Of course this is due to all the corporate donors he has that he wishes to keep private (hint to you, Mr. DeLay: they aren't meant to be kept private), and all the ethical violations that he does not wish to talk about, or all the illegal campaign contributions that he has received over the years, etc. And then of course, to cover himself, he not only does *more* illegal things, he blatantly declares to the American people that the judiciary cannot be trusted and it is out of control.... because it is enforcing the law. Think about that. It is very sad, to me, in this day in age, that these right-wing fundamentalists cannot live with the judiciary because it is based on *reason* and the law. In fact, in the age of the Patriot Act, the judicical branch of the government is the only one left that is still democratic.

That is exactly why it must remain independent - so that it can preserve the *true* version of democracy (not the one Bush promotes, you know, the version that says you'll be arrested if you don't agree with me). Assigning all paleoconservative (or worse, neoconservative) judges to the important posts are really not going to do any good. Apart from the ridiculous moralizing that will be done, the country will only be more divided. And its not such a radical idea to think - it is the conservative contingent of this country that divides it the most. Scarily true, isn't it? Well, it is. But the point is that an independent judiciary *must* be preserved. Neoconservative judges are only setting the country back a few *hundred* years ago, and that cannot be any good. What is truly dangerous is NOT liberal "activist judges" - the activist judges who are what I call "retrograde conservative" are the most dangerous. Activist judges exist on both sides, no doubt, but those on the right are far more dangerous than those on the left. The difference lies in two very, very simple terms of language here. "Progressive" versus "regressive". It is as simple as that. Don't take the BS that liberals *must* be "nuanced" (though they may be) - its just that liberals are more progressive. Progressivism is not a crime. On the other hand, regressivism is severely dangerous - to the welfare of this country as well as its citizenry.

And it has now come to the point of an internal GOP schism. This is exactly as I have been predicting ever since the 2004 elections. Unbridled with grand power and claiming a "mandate" (untrue of course) , the Republican party is now splitting at its seams. Even people like Bush & Cheney, and Bill Frist, have come out against DeLay and his cronies, etc. And then you've got the moderate GOP to deal with - Sens. Collins, Snowe, McCain, and Chafee (who did not even *vote* for President Bush in the 2004 election!). Let's face it - too much power within the GOP is now leading to its eventual demise. The debates over Social Security and the "independent judiciary" are only going to serve to fracture that party more, and there really is no debate about this. Its just a simple logical fact that there is too much power and space within the GOP to accomodate all points of view and all opinions. The so-called "gun nuts" just do not go hand-in-hand with the CEOs of Wall Street, and the Religious Right crazies do not get along with liberal Republicans. The sectional trends parallel those of the Civil War - and the neo-secessionist map of "The United States of Canada vs. Jesusland" is only more evidence of this.

So it is really only a matter of time before the Republican party experiences a major split - and we've already seen the beginnings with the *extreme* right (Tom DeLay) and the liberal Republicans (Lincoln Chafee & co.). Only a matter of time...

A Dangerous Ascendancy: The Religious Right In Modern America

2005-04-05T22:20:00.000-04:00

So this Terri Schiavo thing really got me mad while it happened. Not only because of what the out-of-control Republican congress did, but also because of the fact that a personal tragedy was promptly turned into a national spectacle. This didn't have to happen - and the ensuing controversy was largely unnecessary. But this country cannot truly be free if the Religious Right is to attain power as it is currently attempting (almost successfully) to do. Now, this is how I see it: The people in the Religious Right (or as Randi Rhodes would say, the Religious Wrong) have the perfect right to be twisted, loony neoconservatives who believe that Islam is "satanic" and that America needs to be saved from itself. They have the right to believe that - but what they do not have the right to do is to impose their will and their values on the rest of the American people.

I will not be hesitant in admitting that I am a proud member of the reality-based community, that I am a liberal, that I reside in a blue state. I will be just as passionnate as the Religious Right - and I will not, above all, permit a double standard. The Religious Right can try to push me around as much as possible, but when I fire back - that must go unchallenged from my side. Now, anyways, as I was saying about the Schiavo case. The really sad thing is that we had these loony radical conservatives (radcons) who actually are so caught up in their own theology that they had the audacity to say that Schiavo could recover, that she could do well with speech therapy, that she was minimally conscious, etc. Well, those were all lies. It is the plain and simple truth that the Religious Right outright lied to the country for two straight weeks. Now, I'm not at all surprised, because the Religious Right tends to do a lot of lying. But they refuse to face medical evidence and pure fact. Apparently, they do not seem to understand the fact that you do not regrow a brain. They refuse to accept the fact that once you are in a permanent vegitative state, you are basically dead. They still refuse to understand, mainly, that people have the right to die.

Of course, its all based on ridiculous theology and sacrements, etc. Since the Christian conservatives all believe that all life is sacred, they went so far as to say that the death of Terry Schiavo was "murder" and "sanctioned killing." How utterly ridiculous! Abominable, I tell you. Murder is deliberately inflicted *pain* on someone in order to force their death - but in the state that Schiavo was in, she didn't feel pain in death. She was not conscious enough to have any sense of pain or discomfort! Of course, the loonies over at the Religious Right will do absolutely *anything* to spin the country into buying into their own agenda. Let's face it - that is really the only aim of the Religious Right, and it is what they do best (unfortunately). The Christian conservatives will not let the rest of the country believe what they want to believe - there is no right to believe anything other than a deeply twisted version of Christianity, according to them. That is supremely scary - the encroachment upon the freedom of religion, and the freedom from religion as well.

What is even more ridiculous is the fact that these people have elected congressional leaders who are right in bed with this terribly reactionary agenda. Tom Delay, the rapist of ethics, only so boldly and clearly illustrated this when he said that "the men who allowed [Schiavo's death] will pay." I think that those are pretty threatening comments, do you agree? Well, people like DeLay, Bush, Frist, etc. are among the most dangerous when it comes to the right-wing Christian agenda. Of course, absolutely no one in America seems to understand this, as they just keep voting against their self-interests. DeLay was actually the one who suggested that Schiavo would recover with speech therapy - and to me that is purely insulting, as well as his claim that Congress will be confronting an "arrogant, reckless, and out-of-control judiciary". Well I guess he means a judiciary that is *enforcing* the law! Then the Christian agenda also has Randall Terry - another freakoid - on their side. In my personal opinion, I think that his comments were among the most disturbing:

We've seen the Pledge of Allegiance under attack because of 'under God', the Ten Commandments have been removed from the public square, homosexual marriage has been created out of nowhere, and it is time for America to tell the judiciary: No. No more.

Okay...so apparently, he is not for the total seperation of church and state, given his comments. He apparently is a gay-basher, discriminatory and probably racist as well towards other minorities, but on top of all of that...he clearly does not want the law of the land to be enforced. Since he claims that the judiciary needs to be put in its place by an angry Christian citizenry upset with the current status quo, it is more than obvious that he does not want to uphold the rule of law in a secular society. Rather, Randall Terry and his flock of 4 million evangelicals would prefer the "Christian nation in a war with Satan" version, put forth by General William Boyken. The fact is that the Religious Right is one of the most potent and dangerous forces ever to confront this country and this society. Freedom of belief is a granted right, yes - but there is no freedom written in the Constitution that gives people of a specific creed or belief system the right to impose *their* will on others who do not wish the intrusion upon themselves. I find it even more disturbing that many Washington politicians are pandering to these people, but hey, that's why they are there.

These religious fundies do not realize their arrogance (and ignorance). The now-infamous post-election headline in The Daily Mirror serves to show it -- how can 59,000,000 people be so stupid? Well, its because they don't *want* to hear anything other than their own agenda. Conservative and close-minded, I know, but it is the unfortunate truth. All they'd really like is to overthrow the judiciary and convert this country into a true Christian theocracy. At the rate they're going now, it is scarily a de facto theocracy. This is one of the things that secularists *must* rail against, at all costs. It is not worth moving to the center of the Democratic party in order to calm these people down - because in fact, they really never will. That's how far to the right - how far out of the mainstream - they are. And I really believe that it is time for the Democrats to start waking up and realizing that the Religious Right still constitutes a minority faction in this country! Until *someone* realizes this, the ascendancy of the Religious Right and their anti-constitutionalist agenda is only going to continue. And it is most saddening to me and millions of my fellow Americans.

Lessons From 2004: The Future Of The Democratic Party

2005-03-12T12:23:00.000-05:00

Everyone says that the Democratic Party is in shambles, and I would only agree to an extent. The Democratic Party is suffering from many, many ailments - but one of them is by choice, not by nature. This is how the members (congressional or otherwise) of the party present themselves to the American people and also how they lead within their ranks. There are numerous issues that I will discuss - each of them inherently nuanced and different, in their respective manners. Apart from how it presents itself, the Dems' bad image is present also by choice. It is a simple idea - the liberals are afraid to be themselves. And this is most troublesome. It is extremely unsettling to know that the representatives who have been elected to serve the people have not been satisfying their constituents. Liberals are afraid to stand up for being liberal! Its really annoying, in addition to being frustrating, but it is the truth. They have given into Republicanism and GOP-pressure.

Structurally, the party is not at all in shambles. During the past election cycle, the Republicans may have set fundraising records - but this is due to two one primary reason: the power of incumbency. The power of incumbency permitted the GOP to surpass the Democrats in terms of funding - but even this would not matter, in light of how the Democrats presented themselves as a party, and how they promoted their image. I cannot even count how many missed opportunities there were during the last cycle - and how many blunders there were in regards to campaigning. Horrible mistakes were made (hehe, no pun intended), but by the time anybody realized this, it was way too late! So, as a result, nothing could be done to rectify the situation and it was a done deal that George W. Bush's reelection was secured. So this was due to how the Democrats presented themselves as viable candidates - but again, this was a choice. Had the Democrats not chose to present themselves and never strike back against ridiculous Republican attacks, they would have had a fighting chance up until the very end - but of course, they just couldn't do this, and by the end there was no hope left.

These things happen all by choice - the Democrats have been basically beaten into submission. And now, sadly, they are just too afraid of being Democrats to fight back. It is atrocious, honestly. Its simply a fact that they must stand up for their values in order to get elected. This is precisely why a Howard Dean-like character is needed! There must be someone put up who can unite the party with two crucial ingredients: vigor and enthusiasm. And to start having misgivings about someone like Howard Dean, who is a proven leader and a viable candidate for heading a party, is absolutely abominable. Such a person is extremely necessary for the rejuvenation of the Democratic Party. And running away from this would be inappropriate and ill-advised. It is *so* Democratic - to run away and hide from those big and scary corporate Republicans and neoconservatives! But this is precisely what the party must rail against; it should never be allowed to run away from a challenge! To do such a thing is really...disgusting and despicable.

Then there is always the possiblity that the GOP will implode (my prediction), and it won't matter how good or bad the Democratic Party will be - because they will just be the only ones left to elect at all! The GOP implosion idea probablyl does supercede the problems of the Democratic Party - because if the GOP were to self-destruct, then the only remaining alternative would be to elect Democrats. By this time, I believe that the nation will already have figured out (hopefully) that Republicans are consistently screwing them over, and are not working for the betterment of citizens all across the country. Hopefully, the country will realize that neoconservatives only have a global domination agenda - not an agenda for the American people. Rather, the Republicans have an agenda for corporate superpower, but again - not for the working person in Middle America. By the time of the GOP implosion, Democrats - bad or good - will be the only party left to prevail.

Democrats will no doubt be prone to infighting within the party - there is absolutely no debate about this. The GOP implosion regardless, the Democrats will *still* be subject to infighting - unless they get it together right now. The competing wings of the party are only too well known - there are three main wings: the Clinton wing, the Kerry-Kennedy-Edwards wing, and the Dean wing. So the structure that results after the infighting is completed will ultimately determine the future structure of the party, including other factors as well. These other factors include the likely GOP implosion, the way the Dems will present themselves, etc. These factors all matter - but my thought is that Democrats will still be subject to infighting even *after* a GOP implosion. This is all too unfortunate - but it is the truth. The unfortunate truth is that, honestly, the Democrats either have to get it together right now, or else they never will.

There is a choice involved here. Just as the Democrats chose not to present themselves well in the last election cycle was a choice. But now - the time is to look to the future. There are choices that the Democratic Party has to make for its own betterment - but it must happen *now*, or else the rejuvenation and regeneration of the party will never occur.

Conservatism In America: An Alternate Definition Of Freedom

2005-03-11T12:56:00.000-05:00

Let's be very simple here. Republicans are liars. Compelete liars. I am so disgusted and ashamed of what they have done to corrupt free speech and real democracy in the United States. The way the First Amendment has been abused is most despicable - and the abusers should be the ones most ashamed of their actions. And the manner in which the abuse has been crafted is secretive, immoral, rash, and completely unethical. Many people are skeptical that the Bush administration has ever done such things - but these people are sadly being misguided by the most secretive government ever seen since the Nixon era. The abuses of the Constitution are being perpetrated in such a deceitful and deceptive manner that being a United States citizen has become an embarassment. It is grotesque - what has been done by the Bush administration in its crusading attempts to stifle dissent all over the country - as well as what the government has done to cover their record up.

One example is Republican party and White House events. Attendance at official events such as these is strictly limited to registered Republicans - which may seem legitimate at first, but the other things that happen are more severe. In my own home state, a woman of a deceased soldier in Iraq was protesting at one of the Bush campaign events, only to be arrested by local police for trespassing! Regrettably, one of the congressmen in my state even suggested that she should be allowed to protest - but not at my event. Well, there you go - the GOP's version of democracy. Their version limits freedom - it doesn't expand it! Not one bit...and for the Republican party to quash dissent by arresting a protesting woman because her son died due to their own rash, ill-advised and illegal actions is shameful and mind-boggling. I mean, who do these people think they are? WHO? They believe that they're superior to everyone else, they pander to openly religious organizations, they arrest anyone who does not agree with their values. It is a disgusting thing to believe - but it is the unfortunate truth. It only illustrates some more that Republicans do not stand for real freedom - and real democracy.

During the 2004 campaign, GOP rallies were quite carefully organized - to their credit. Members of all rallies and all official events were hand-picked, and carefully vetted. Trespassers or non-ticked holders were ejected from events and were barred from attending any future rallies. It is still happening. This is precisely why the GOP does not stand for freedom and basic civil rights - they just cannot seem to accept the fact that all people deserve a voice. Preferring to be ignorant, the Republicans have decided that only big corporate donors (Halliburton) should only be allowed into events and also that it is the responsibility of the federal government to stifle dissent. Now, if I recall, back in 2001 - and again in 2005 - the President took the Oath of Office and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution, which states that all men are created equal, was not upheld at all. Instead, it has been subverted. This is most regrettable - and more so it is regressive. The entire Republican party of 2005 wants to turn the clock back - and take the country back to a simpler era, back in time.

This is one of the most frightening things to me, in the current day. To be regressive - and to take the country back to a bygone era - in dangerous and uncertain times is extremely dangerous. Why won't the President embrace the future? Why does he keep bringing up his "faith-based agenda"? Why does he have to express his religious zeal to a nation that does NOT want to hear it - more so to a *world* that does not want to hear it? It is due to ignorance and stupidity. Even more than arrogance. By this I mean that the Republicans simply don't want to hear opposing viewpoints - they don't need to - and its because they don't care. It is so sad - but there is only one conclusion: the Republicans are lacking of a conscience. They don't have even that. And if you don't have that, then you really don't have anything. How can the Republicans stand up around in the world in the name of freedom and democracy if they deny it to their own fellow citizens at home? No, I will NOT settle for political spin on this. I want answers before anything else - and I demand to know why do the Republicans stand up for freedom abroad when they use tools such as the Patriot Act to surpress liberty at home and also as they quash dissent to fit their own agendas.

As this continues to happen, I can only see the decline of freedom throughout the world - not the promotion of such. It is frightening and it is sad - but it is, admittedly, the truth. Some of the most brutally oppressive regimes continue to exist in the world, such as Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia...Yet the politico figures in conservative Republican circles throughout the United States remain ignorant to this. In fact, they have most regrettably taken a lesson from it! No wonder the Saudis are their best buddies! It is so obvious - Secret Service interventions everytime the Bush administration has an authorized person at a campaign rally, protesters being arrested for trespassing (but really because they have a different, more enlightened and balanced agenda), it all goes with what is being done in other countries throughout this world. We already have a Central Intelligence Agency which has taken to shipping prisoners to brutal regimes so that their torturous experienced will not be subject to United States law. We have a president who uses the Patriot Act to suit his own political and social agenda, and we have a Republican party which stifles dissent at every opportunity it gets.

Real democratic, huh?

Secession: Moderate Republicans & The National GOP

2005-03-10T23:32:00.000-05:00

All along I've believed that the Republican Party -- the GOP -- will implode. This, in my view, will be due to deep internal divisions which will eventually break the party at its seems. Such internal divisions may not have always been intended to exist - but the fact is that they do. And these fault lines can lead to an extremely unbalanced party, with unbalanced values and ideals. At this point, the Republicans think and believe that they have won everything - that they are on top. And it is true, yes, they have won almost everything. But having such an ingrained superiority complex is a sign of deep inferiority, and deep in their hearts, Republicans know that they aren't as savvy, smart, or knowledgeable as many of their liberal friends. This is not a vast misstatement either - it is true that Republicans gain their superiority by appealing to the American people with their despicable ignorance and dirty political tactics.

It is so disgusting that this goes on *every* single day. There is a war against intellectualism in America, most exemplified in the form of Karl Rove. "You tell your smartie-pants liberal friends up in New York that Republicans are the people's champions." Or so he says. But that type of arrogance is what is precisely most dangerous - not only to the country, but the the GOP itself. Look at what's happening to them over Social Security - a battle that the congressional GOP leadership and the White House will not win. The American people are already extremely wary with this privitization plan - over 50% say that they are unsure or have misgivings about it, and several prominent Republicans have come out and expressed that they are extremely worried about Bush's personal accounts, "ownership society" plan. And you know what "ownership society" really means? It doesn't mean you own something that you purchased - it means that you're on your own. Now, for years (decades, really), Social Security has been the so-called "third rail" of politics. No one even dared to touch it, no one from any political party would touch it. Now of course, the Republicans over at the White House issue an internal memo that says that the Democrats "are the party of the past" and that "for the first time in 60 years, the Social Security battle is one we can win." Well, there you go - their real agenda. Dismantling Social Security. You don't want it? Look to the Republican party of 2005.

Now the moderate wing (thank gosh for its existence) of the GOP is absolutely being disenfranchised. They do not like any of this - and frankly, I sympathize. Not being able to stand anything that the GOP leadership is doing is most understandable. There are several senators that I can name off the top of my head who are not at all in bed with the congressional leadership...Lincoln Chafee (who didn't even vote for President Bush in 2004, preferring to cast his ballot for the former President George H. W. Bush), Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (both of Maine), John McCain, etc. They act as if they are majorly upset with the GOP leadership - and they have the perfect right to be. The congressional leadership is one of the most disgusting and abominable institutions that has ever graced Capitol Hill. And it is an embarassment to at least 50% of the American people - the 50% that actually have a conscience. The other half, well, you know, they're all too busy praying to God that all gays burn in hell and sending their kids off to war - to needless death.

In the end, it is most probably that the GOP will implode over the course of the Social Security debate - and will, ultimately, be put into an interminable position. They will have to make a choice - whether or not to abandon this ridiculous zealot Christian right and embrace the moderate wing of their party, and then there is the other option: continuing embracing the Religious Right and thus divide the country even more. I don't really think that these people understand what they're doing...this country has not been as polarized as it is currently since the 1960s, and the Republicans believe that by putting a pink slip on anything non-Christian or non-American, that they will continue to win respect. Well, they will from the 50% of the American people who have been convinced ever so wrongfully that the GOP has their interests at heart. As I have illustrated in previous posts, such a thought is so distasteful and everlastingly insulting.

Now by exercising their superiority complex over everyone, the Republican party is beginning to alienate key voters. Yes, I understand that an astonishing 97 out of the 100 fastest growing counties in the US voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 election - but this statistic is inherently misleading. These counties are the exurbs, places which are, despite all accounts, essentially rootless. These are people who go to establish the so-called "megachurches". Megachurches are religious institutions which also double as malls, day-care centers, etc. One of them is located in Surprise, AZ - and it is quite the sanctuary, offering Krispy Kreme donuts at sermons, housing videogame centers for young children, having more Christian rock sessions than anything else, etc. These places - where you find Walmart on every 2 corners - these are the exurbs. And maybe the GOP doesn't have to worry about the exurbs. Or, as time goes on, maybe they should. Because the rest of the country is pissed off. The Republicans have basically revealed themselves to be extraordinarily incompetent and unfit to serve the people. Now they'll continue in their ignorant stupor, as always, even while their party breaks at the seams. This is happening, as I've stated above, due to deep internal divisions and differing ideas within the party.

The war of ideas has just begun. And it doesn't even have to do much with the Democratic Party - just look to the GOP, where the conflict has brutally and bitterly divided party members. Its already happening - and the destruction of the GOP is underway.

A Reversal Of Fortune: Democracy, Torture, and Neoconservatism

2005-03-09T13:52:00.000-05:00

"As I said publicly before, and I know for a fact, that torture is not - it's not productive. That's not professional interrogation. We don't do torture."

-- Porter Goss, CIA Director

Wow, what a lie! You know, the Republicans have no conscience. This is what permits them to allow the use of torture and have no subsequent misgivings. But the Republicans - in denial mode - do not admit that it was this President who gave the order for and authorized the use of torture. "We don't do torture" -- can you believe it? I wonder if Porter Goss, head of the CIA, has ever read the Bybee memo. Yes, I understand that the language contained wtihin it was deemed to be far-reaching and inappropriate, but there is a larger question here -- Why was it allowed to even exist in the first place? The fact that Alberto Gonzles actively sought a legal opinion on the definition of torture pretty much proves that he had an intent to use it (and still does). This is one of the things that bothers me the most about these conservatives. They say that they are promoting "moral values" yet they also seem to believe that it is an American value to engage in the use of torture for our prisoners and detainees. You know, the people that we put in Abu Ghraib were there for the most minimal of infractions. One guy had stole a car - and another a loaf of bread, so that they could both provide for their families. What did they get for that? They were shocked with electricity, many were beaten, sexually abused, etc. But what did Rummy do? He lied about it for 5 months.

But we have not made any progress. Now we have Porter Goss testifying that his agency does not promote or condone torture when he full well knows its now-infamous policy of shipping US detainees around the world to countries where their fate will be accepted more easily. That is disgusting and atrocious. The United States has decided that the fallout from Abu Ghraib was too much - so now they will be shipping detainees out to third-world countries where they can be tortured without being under the specter of the US. No, they won't be our problem there! Its terrible...There was a standard of human treatment that the United States was supposed to protect in the world - a standard that the US championed in the aftermath of World War II. The Geneva Conventions declared that the world would never go back to its pre-war status, that terrible things such as the Holocaust would never happen again. But that promise, most regrettably, has not been fulfilled. As the US continues to engage in its "ghost detainee" policy, it not only circumvents international law - but also international conventions on human rights. Doesn't the Republican party understand - this is why 30% of Americans are ashamed to say that Bush is their president? No, of course not - the White House, Republican congressional leadership -- they do not care. In fact, they are *happy* with the way things are going - and to me, this is grounds for impeachment. Not only what has been done is immoral - but it is illegal. This does not bother many of those on the right - to them, the attitude is: isn't this great? Now we can torture people that aren't white with our power!

I didn't even have to mention Guantanamo -- there our torture problem is bigger than ever. And many of these lunatics on the right subscribe to one of two mindsets - either a) they know about it but do not care, or b) they do know about it and do think that its morally just. Everyone big says we have a torture problem -- the Red Cross (who was amazingly allowed in), the Washington Post, the New York Times -- they've all said and *and* substantiated it. But there are things that bother me more about the neoconservatives who advocate it. The neocons and the radicals who believe that torture is necessary and proper are the exact same people on the Christian right who preach that one must love thy neighbor. The hypocrisy is *unspeakable*. It is of the highest degree - and hypocrisy is one of the biggest things today in the GOP. The neoconservatives who go to Washington see no problem with condoning and promoting torture in the Bybee memo and the August 2002 Gonzales memos - but then they will turn around to start funding faith-based, Christian organizations which preach the sanctity of life, liberty, and prosperity. Now I don't think that the right-wing in this country understands it - but everyone else in the world sees them as racist bigots. And such a viewpoint is not without fault - because its true. Do you see where I'm going with this? As long as the faith-based organization is Christian, its alright - but if the detainee is of the Muslim world, then Bush and his cronies go ahead with the electricity.

It really is terrible. The United States' hypocrisy in it is amazing. But of course, no one in the government would like for you to bring this up. And this isn't the only place either. Does anyone remember Latin America back in the 1980s? Those were the days of the death squads - the so-called 'contras'. President Reagan, for those of you who didn't know, illegally sold weapons to Iran ("protecting America, right?") and used the profits to fund the Nicaraguan contras - the death squads. The contras would then be placed (illegally) in Nicaragua and entrusted with overthrowing the left-wing Sandanista government. See, this is what unfettered power does. Excessive power leads to needless death, as shown in Nicaragua in the 80s and now in Iraq. There was no threat then; there was no threat now. It is of my highest opinion that communism would not have been a global threat unless its influence had permeated to all regions of the world. But the simple truth is that it didn't - and our incursions in Vietnam (death toll: 58,000 Americans) and Latin America (death toll: 70,000 Nicaraguan/El Salvadoran) did not pay off in the very least. Nor are they paying off in Iraq either - where 1,500 United States soldiers have died for absolutely no reason and our international reputation has been ruined. Containment was working - as much as you neocons will not want to hear it, the Clinton administration had Iraq under control.

Its disturbing that during the transition from the Clinton administration into the Bush administration, Rummy nearly fell asleep at one of the defense policy board meetings. This is because, of course, as Richard Clarke revealed in Against All Enemies, Rummy had his own secret agenda for Iraq and didn't want to hear anybody else. There's another thing that I find disturbing about this administration - their outright refusal to listen to anyone whose viewpoints they deem to be unacceptable. So now we've still got the Republicans on the Hill and in the White House lying. Honestly, its like its their only tool. Now they think that their efforts to "spread democracy" are actually paying off - but what they'll never mention is just how many people they've killed, how many people have been wounded or hurt (emotionally and physically) as a result of their actions, etc. Never will the neoconservatives of this country admit any wrongdoing. Rather, they'll just proceed - the torture and all. Its so sickening that the United States is going back on its record - instead of standing up for human rights, we are degrading them. Alberto Gonzales, who suggested that we should "reexamine" the Geneva Conventions, is emblematic of this new reality. The United States has now allowed numerous human rights violations to take place around the globe - just look to Latin America, to Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, China (whose atrocious record on human rights goes ignored by the US), etc. As Al Gore now infamously said in 2004, the lesson to learn here is that the abuses of power that took place in Abu Ghraib were a direct result of the abuse of truth that characterized this administration's march to war and the abuse of the trust that had been placed in President Bush by the American people in the aftermath of September 11th, 2001.

This is the reversal of fortune -- the United States was supposed to stand up for freedom and human rights everywhere - and it was supposed to protect those basic rights. But it has not - the US has engaged in torture, human rights abuses, etc.

While that may be the most disturbing and sad thing in today's world, it is true. The United States of 1945 is long gone, you remember? The one that stood as a strong partner with the world community in authoring the Geneva Conventions, the one that was proactive in the creation of the United Nations? That's gone. Now, the United States has become the antithesis of the United Nations - and it is one of the most shocking and unfortunate things ever to happen on the face of the Earth.

Everlasting Bliss: Apathy & Illusionism In The GOP

2005-03-08T13:10:00.000-05:00

One of the main points of the modern Republican party is illusionism. It is now a fact - Bush, his cronies, his corporate and congressional allies - the ones who do NOT have your interests at heart - are the biggest pack of people in denial that I have ever seen in my entire life. What is scary about it is not only that they are in a state of denial, but that they are content with that fact. There are many manifestations of such illusionist attitudes - and consequently, many disturbing instances in which the Republicans appear to be simply, and not surprisingly, blind to the events occurring around them. To me, its more frightening than it is understandable - to see Bush being so stubborn genuinely and honestly makes me question his leadership potential. His habits of ridiculous insistence, even in the face of defeat, are not only startling - they are horrifying. This is administration's attitude to what it has done in the world - its not right...they sit content with real issues facing the country - and the world, at large - and they are completely and utterly oblivious to viewpoints other than their own. To them, what they say matters and that is all that need be known. And this bothers me very, very much.

Bush is now parading around the White House, triumphant and courageous that his bold initiatives for "freedom" have now altered the course of world history by infusing people with revolutionary desires. Well, let me say this - it is not long to last. The road to freedom is a pretty bumpy one, and there are certainly numerous speed traps on Lebanon's course, and Iraq's course. The Republicans would *never* acknowledge, for instance, that many of those protesters in Lebanon were actually pro-Syrian. The Republicans stood by and watched as the death toll of Americans in Iraq ballooned above 1,500. But why must they do this, and remain devoid of a conscience? Its because they don't care. Remember, its not about America for them - its about financial and business interests. So look at them for what they are - corporate criminals. They would never care if your son or daughter died in Iraq for no reason at all; they don't seem to mind that those protestors in Lebanon may have been terrorists...

The Republicans simply don't care when it comes to our treatment of detainees. "Torture them!" is what they say. And its what they belive in too. Sickening as it may be, neoconservatives across this country have gotten to the point where they have, through successive instances of denial, convinced themselves that there is nothing inherently wrong with torture. To me and millions of other Americans, torture is not only immoral - but it is also inhumane. The neoconservatives, *of course*, went and set and recommended policy (hint hint: read the bybee memo)...but most disturbingly - they did not then and do not now think that the law matters. Law, in this case, can be national or international. Whichever you pick - the GOP has put itself into a 'denial stance' - where it denies the constitutionality or applicability of various laws for their own personal and/or political gain. It is of the higest disgust to me. I recall that the New York Times just reported that 26 inmates (detainees) died within our custody. You know, I wonder why, when we have a President and an attorney general who both endorse torture as a legal means of interrogation, I'm not surprised that there are mysterious detainee deaths.

The Republican leadership of this country does not care about the startling events unfolding around the world. They have expressed absolutely no interest in a number of disturbing events that have taken place or are simply unaware of their existence. For example, Republicans would *never* care about how Russia has just sold the secrets of its nuclear procurement program over to Iran...the right-wing of this country does not even realize that the threat from North Korea (which may have just produced a nuclear weapon) is the one to pay attention to. These right-wing people are among the most blindsighted *ever* - it doesn't matter what could be happening halfway around the world as long as it doesn't affect that person. I mean, that attitude is so disgraceful...but you've got to remember that they don't care and that they do not have your interests at heart - not at all. The root of all of their sickening apathy is the fact that they have no conscience - they are just willing to flex their political muscles because of a shameless greed run amok.

Illusionism even manifests itself on domestic policy issues - not just in the foreign arena. Despite *numerous* polls showing evidence to the contrary, the Republicans actually think that they're going to win on Social Security. Well, let met ell you, they've gotten all they wanted so far - but not tihs one. Howver, it does not matter to them what those who are repreesented think - the Republican party platform can be summed up in four very simple words: moeny, power, arrogance, greed. That's really all there is to know about them, honestly. But the most disturbing attribute is the hidden fifth one - their illusionism and their ability to deny reality in a very, very off-the-cuff maner. Personally, I've always believed that denying reality would make one lose his/her place, but it only keeps the Republicans going. Now they're believing that Americans are going to be *more* than willing to begin to invest Social Security money into the stock market. Now, apart from this being a disastrous plan in itself, does it account for the millions upon millions who will opt out of such a privitization? NO! If you are not part of the Republican agenda, you will not be taken care of by tem...its so despicable...

Hopefully, in the end, their denial will be their undoing. We know why it exists - or somewhat as to why. I believe that the special reliance on faith in the American presidency now is a direct result of the atmosphere of fear and irrationality created by the Republican administration in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. The point is this - Republicans have been able to hijack the American psyche into a state of persistent illusionment which has only been detrimental for this country. By ascending to the top of the ladder by way of devisive and immoral political tactics, the congressional leadership is now able to get away with murder - easily. Think about it - they've already gotten Rice in, Powell out, Gonzels in, Bush has renominated those 20 crazy federal judgeship nominees, the bankruptcy bill, the steroids hearings - if they want it, they get it. But this attitude has now lead them to begin to abuse thei power - Senator Bill Frist has now talked of changing Senate rules to provide for the use of the "nuclear option" - which would, in essence, nullify filibusters. Of course the Republicans don't care - they *prefer* it like this. Can you believe it? The political party that controls all of the branches of the United States government turns a blind eye whenever it likes - to suit its own material and financial desires.

Its undemocratic, unamerican, and immoral.

Translation: it is of the Republican Party.

E.I.: Ethical Intelligence

2005-03-07T20:22:00.000-05:00

ATTENTION: Randi Rhodes will be returning to Air America Radio full-time beginning St. Patrick's Day, 3.17.2005. I wish her good luck in recovering from surgery and in welcoming her back to Air America. Also, I look forward to her most insightful and entertaining commentary.

I'm always saying that the Republicans have no ethics. They don't have ethics whether or not they're serving in Congress. But look at what the Washington Post had to say about Tom DeLay (the second most dangerous man in Congress) and his tarnished record on enforcing ethics rules:

"To be precise, [the ethics committee] has no mechanism for investigating or disciplining members who violate ethics rules. The proximate cause of this breakdown is the revolt by the five Democrats on the evenly divided ethics committee. Led by the ranking Democrat, Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.), committee Democrats understandably balked last week at acceding to new rules for how the panel should conduct its business -- rules dictated by the GOP leadership and slanted toward making the ethics process, already tilted in favor of gridlock, even more feckless."

Great...well, the Democrats *needed* to revolt against the GOP rules. This is simply due to the fact that the GOP rules do not work at all. And even if they did work, it all wouldn't matter, because as long as you have the Republicans in Congress, you can count on it that rules will not be enforced and those who play by those rules will not be rewarded. Think about it. Look at how they are promoting their ethical agenda - they have used the so-called "DeLay" rule to defend corruption and illegality. Instead of using a vote along party lines on the evenly divided ethics committee, the Republicans attempted to force their rules through at this time of year with the entire House Republican Rules Committee package - usually offered at the time when the Congress convenes in January. But that was 2 months ago...

So now, with the committee still evenly divided with 5 Democrats and 5 Republicans, the GOP leadership has still been able to get what they wanted even if they do not have the simple majority in all cases. Eh, you know, I'm not surprised...2000 was *not* the end. Since these conservatives and Republicans stop at nothing to get what they want - whether its power or its money - there is no rule which they are not willing to break. And that is very scary, and extremely dangerous. On the Ethics Committee in particular, it means that Tom DeLay will go unchecked - and it is crucial that his record be examined and understood (in full); his ethical sins outnumber those of possibly anyone else in Congress. Nice "family and moral values" that were preached in 2004 do not carry over to the legislative session...Republicans cannot believe that they are really hypocrites, so they hide from their wrongdoings. But since Tom DeLay will be actively taken care of by the GOP and their failure to enforce rules, I will provide exactly what Tom DeLay *has* done:

Arranged for a Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth associate (Jack Abramoff) to pay for London accomodations at the Four Seasons hotel totalling $13,000
Revealed that he financed his entire trip to London by using money taken from an anti-Social Security lobbyist
Was involved in the corrupt organization known as Texans for a Repubiclan Majority (which is now under investigation by a Democratic Austin D.A.)
The New York Times, in a front page story reported that DeLay is under investigation for ethics committee finance irregulaties, including arranging for several large corporate donations
The Washington Post reported that DeLay had accepted trips from the U.S.-Korea Foreign Exchange Council, in violation of House Rules (the council was registered as a foreign agent)
DeLay admitted that he had been actively involved in raising funds Texans for a Republican Majority (TRMPAC)
Finally, The New York Times revealed that DeLay has been bringing in massive corporate donations for his own personal legal defense fund

What is really sick is that the people whom he represnents actually believe that he has their interests at heart? When? When will you stop voting contrary to your own self-interests? Tom DeLay does not have the concerns of the common voter at heart - he's a corporate billboard masquerading as a representative of the people. This person does not have any sense of ethics at all - and it is an insult to suggest that he does, or that he stands for "good values". Let us get this straight - and I'll make it quite simple - For the Republicans to be shepherding moral and family values while still holding onto this guy is the ultimate hypocrisy. There is no excuse for what he has done, but Republicans who can violate ethical rules and turn the other cheek, do not see a problem with it.

In October 2001, DeLay had the audacity to attach a provision to an *anti-terrorism* bill that would prohibit foreign companies from taking contributions from failing tobacco companies. Why did he do this? So that he could keep the money for himself. GREED. That is what DeLay and his people live by. It was obvious - he had accepted $131,000 from tobacco company contributions the year prior. So of course he just changes the rules to suit himself - as always. In June 2002, DeLay attended a business function at the exclusive Allegheny Golf Club just as the House and Senate prepared for debate over energy policy. It was reported that DeLay received the position of the company on the issue even before he saw legislation - this information came from corporate employees who had had to pay $25,000. DeLay has also been using the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to track wherever his Democratic opponents have been flying...

Without Delay is a good place to find all of the House Majority Leader's ethical violations and recommendations for him. The citation/backup of all the above claims can be found at this page.

What is most disturbing about all of this is that these ethical violations are those perpetrated by the House Majority Leader. That is disturbing - when the Majority Leader has innumerable infractions against him - and cares nothing about it, or does not even take the time to acknowledge it. In other words, Americans had better start waking up now and realizing that the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives is corrupt and that Tom DeLay ought to have no place in it whatsoever. Republicans, conservatives, neocons, whatever you call them - do not have the interests of America at hand and are, on top of that, without any discretion in their unchecked and repeating pattern of ethical violations.

True Neoconservative Ideologies

2005-03-06T12:07:00.000-05:00

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.'

- Columnist Ann Coulter, September 2001

'I believe it (Islam) is a very evil and wicked religion.'

- Franklin Graham, November 2001

'Muhammad was a demon-possessed pedophile.'

- Rev. Jerry Vines, former president, Southern Baptist Convention, June 2002

'I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.'

- Lt. Gen. William G Boyken, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence and war fighting

'This is not a war between Arabs and Jews. It is a war between God and the devil.'

- Telivangelist Benny Hinn, July 2002

'I believe the Qur'an teaches violence. It does not teach peace, it teaches violence.'

- Franklin Graham, Belief net interview, August 2002

'This man Muhammad was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic. He was a robber and brigand.'

- Pat Robertson, on (Hannity & Colmes), September 2002

'I think Muhammad was a terrorist.'

- Jerry Falwell, October 6, CBS 60 minutes

'You know what we ought to do? We ought to take every single Muslim student in every college in this nation and ship them back to where they came from. And we ought to tell every other Muslim living in this nation, if you say one word, you are gone. You're gone. With a diaper on their head and a fan-belt around their waist.'

- Jimmy Swaggart, Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, Nov. 10, 2002

'Somehow I wish the Jews in America would wake up, open their eyes and read what is being said about them...this is worse than the Nazi... Adolph Hitler was, but what the Muslims want to do to the Jews is worse...'

- Pat Robertson, Christian Broadcasting Network, November 11, 2002

'Islam is a very destructive type of faith... They are a revengeful people....'

- Paul Mills, pastor of Arlington Faith chapel

The Last Frontier

2005-03-05T12:32:00.001-05:00

Disclaimer: This post deals with George W. Bush's plan for an alternative energy source. It is not about oil in specific relation to Halliburton and/or Iraq. Rather, it is about the flaws of his alternative energy plan.

Oil is a big thing in America. I'm not even making a judgment about it yet, but I'm just saying that it is *huge*. Look at the members of the governmental cabinet. Many of them were former high-ranking executives of worldwide oil service corporations...in fact, they still have ties to these corporations. For George W. Bush, it started with Arbusto, which was a complete failure of a business venture. Then came Harken Energy Corporation, which also collapsed in 1990. But then Bush dropped out of the oil business for awhile, however he still maintained his ties with those in it. Through his father, who had moved the Bush family to Texas via *his* contacts in the industry, Bush himself maintained lucrative connections as governor of Texas, and finally, as President of the United States of America. Dick Cheney served as the CEO of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000, when he stepped down to run on the Vice Presidential ticket. Condoleezza Rice had served on the board of directors of Chevron Corporation, another major oil services comapany.

So you ask why this is all relevant? Its because of the Bush plan to drill in the National Artic Wildlife Refuge, in Alaska. Finally acknowledging that we do have a problem in regards to energy and fuel sources, Bush has tapped into the idea that we have to drill into the Alaskan reserve. Yet he fails to understand the nature of doing this. It is only %0.025 of the *world*'s oil that can be found in the Alaskan reserve, and that is not sustainable. In fact, it will only make the problem that we have worse. Since the oil of the world is destined to run out in about 40 years, it would not be advantageous to the United States to use the Alaskan Reserve to deplete it even more quickly. With these conservative ideological plans, there is simply no sense. If Bush is going to say that we need a new source of energy, then get a new source of energy. You wouldn't want to sustain yourself on a *very* shaky source of Alaskan oil when you might need that oil only in an extreme emergency - like an embargo, for instance. Perhaps those are the only instances when Alaskan oil's drilling is justified.

And then one would ask, well, there *would* be gain because drilling in the Alaskan reserve would only involve American companies? One would allege that doing so, with American oil services companies, would bring down the cost of oil (as it would not be Arab-controlled). But it is the oil companies that stand to gain here. Not the common consumer. Its simple logic. The Arabs, along with OPEC, are artificially inflating the cost of oil to their benefit - they have the control, and they are only selling the oil to the Western world at the price of their choosing. This price will not be what it is necessarily worth - and so it is currently hovering around $55 dollars per barrel, due to OPEC's corrupt adjustment of prices. Now, put the American companies into the equation. Are American companies going to sell the oil for a lower price when the average American already believes that the "average" price is the Arab price? Absolutely not. The American companies will do nothing but follow suit to what OPEC has already done. The price of oil is not going to go down just based on its location. And in fact, the real price value of Alaskan oil is probably *already* high because it is so rare - despite the American companies following OPEC's artificial adjustment policy.

This plan is not feasible, economically or finacially, nor it is environmentally. Had we done research on alternative energy sources 30 or 40 years ago, then we would definitely ahead of the curve. President Nixon was quite liberal in opening up the Environmental Protection Agency. But the Republican party of today is a very different party. Now radically neoconservatives have hijacked the GOP agenda to suit their desires. And a consequence of their desires (which are money and greed) is the gradual but real destruction of the environment. Yes, yes, I do understand that we did not sign the KYOTO Protocol under President Clinton, but there were deep flaws existent in that proposal - flaws to our detriment. But that's not the point. Millions of dollars that could have been directed towards research and investment in alternative energy sources were instead used for a needless and illegal war that has no real basis, in Bush's FY2006 budget.

Always remember that the Republicans have their interest in ties to major conglomerate corporations - in this case, they are oil service corporations. They do not have the common people's interest at hand. Bush is now selling a ridiculously flawed plan that is a) economically unsound (because US companies will follow suit to Arab ones for their own profit), and b) the simple unworkability of Alaskan oil - because of its rarity. Also, the final flaw in the plan is that it actually *extends* our dependence on oil, foreign or otherwise. It does not end it. Not at all. It only extends it. And the oil is going to run out in 40 years. The oil services companies really have to start waking up and realizing that their profit margin will be zero when the oil runs out. They will be completely out of business, but of course it is not about long-term security. Its about short-term greed.

And I didn't even mention how many conflicts of interest exist between the government and the private sector oil corporations...But it was more important to establish the premise for *why* the plan will fail before even going to describe the corruption within it.

Right-Wing Radicalism: Confronting Arrogance In America

2005-03-04T20:54:00.000-05:00

Republicans actually think that they are in the mainstream. Its just another lie fed to you that they are "with the common man" by FOX. In reality, they are anything but. It is time for America to start waking up and realizing that the people running the country have their interests in MNCs (Multi-National Corporations) and global conglomerates. Their interests do not at all lie within the nation in which they hold citizenship. The point is that Republicans are way too far out of the mainstream to even be considered for representing the people of this nation. For example, just yesterday, Lindsey Graham (R-SC) had this to say regarding the the abolition of slavery:

"We don't do Lincoln Day Dinners in South Carolina," Senator Graham told a Lincoln Day gathering in Tennessee Saturday. "It's nothing personal, but it takes awhile to get over things."

Well now you know not to dispute me when I say that these Republican neocons and conservatives alike refuse to believe that, over 150 years ago, the South lost the Civil War. They refuse to believe that the Emancipation Proclamation set an end to slavery for good - the Republicans, let me tell you this, would rather that they have slaves still. Conservatives like that are so backwards that it is incomprehensible. They don't want to do a Lincoln Day Dinner because "it takes awhile to get over things". Its been *150* years. That is a long time - and these right-wingers need to wake up and start realizing that they're going to have to abandon their Confederate flags and work with the Northeast to start *doing* things or else the state of the nation will only worsen. Its no longer acceptable to hose black people down a road or beat gay people with Bibles. The right-wing of this nation *must* learn this. It is critical, it is essential. But who can even hope for change when it deals with this close-minded, stubborn nation?

The Bush people and their right-wing allies are continually alleging, for example, that they want to promote a "culture of life." You do NOT promote a culture of life, as I've stated numerous times before, by killing thousands of Iraqi civilians in a war whose purpose only serves the interests of those at the Board of Directors at Halliburton. War is profitable only for the rich and the elite - but at the expense of the poor, and at their demise. So its not promoting a "culture of life" at all. And they can't have it both ways either - the right wing cannot continue to promote this senseless war that has killed thousands and continue to blindly repeat that they want a culture of life. But they usually mean it in regards to abortion. However, the Republicans really do not understand it as it works. How can you equate a fetus with a grown-up person? You cannot, you do not, equate a prenatal organism with a developed adult. Its simply ridiculous to suggest it. However...you want to know what these crazy right-wingers want to do? Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) proposed that doctors who perform abortions should be given the *death penalty*. Now, really, think about that. If a women is raped, and has an abortion under that law, then her doctor will be killed. Not at all a "culture of life", as we know it.

The American people are being stabbed in the back. Of course, they don't know it. Right-wing radicalism is doing it to the country every single day. Look at this bankruptcy bill that's being debated in the Senate right now. The Republicans are convinced, wrongly, of the stereotype that people are deliberately filing bankruptcy to evade paying off debts. But this stereotype is untrue. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) figured out that only specific groups were doing this. Schumer figured out that only very specific groups were doing this - especially anti-abortion groups and militant groups. He offered an amendment that would not extend bankruptcy protections to these groups - which was not part of the original bill. The reason that these radical groups are filing for bankruptcy is so that they hope that they will not have to pay their debts, but this stereotype is untrue for the majority of Americans. Do the Republicans realize that only antiabortion groups are fraudently using the bankruptcy system? Yes, they do. So they defeated Schumer's amendment that would have extended the bill's provisions to these radical groups.

But I'm not surprised. The Republicans never tell the truth - they never produce what mainstream America wants. They are so ignorant and furious over everything, and that they don't give a damn about screwing up your life shows that they are unfit for command. Oh, and you knew who else voted against the amendment? Joseph Lieberman. Now, I'm a Democrat, but he is ridiculous. He even voted for cloture. Huh - real "freedom and democracy" right? Yes, I use that slogan against anyone who preaches it - Republicans and Democrats - because there are those of both parties who do not really stand for it. What we need is to take back the House of Representatives in 2006. Because there needs to be a Democratic majority in at least *one* house of Congress. Then the Articles of Impeachment can be written up - they always originate in the House. And someone will have to stnad up to this Republican president and say he's gone way too far. Then all the congressional Republicans will say, "Oh, Clinton, Clinton" - well guess what? Clinton didn't preside over a war and a bad economy! Oh...moral affairs trouble me about this country...blah blah blah. BS. Well, the Republicans, to their unfortunate credit, are so good at evading the truth. They don't care about his affair - they just wanted to hate a fellow white Southerner who didn't support *their* cause. You see - they hate everyone who is not like them.

People like Joseph Lieberman might as well be Republicans. But it works both ways, strangely enough. Others such as Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), and Susan Collins (R-ME), might as well be Democrats. It is *so* obvious how much Lieberman wants to be a Republican, and how much the three others want to be Democrats. In fact, I'd be happy if Lieberman would just submit his letter of resignation from the Democratic Party to Harry Reid's desk right now. Because its come down to that. Some Democrats are incompetent - very unfortunate, I know. But you *cannot* get caught up in Bush's rhetoric about "freedom and democracy". Remember the Inaugural Address??? "America's goal is to spread freedom and democracy." -- TRANSLATION: IMPERIALISM. Why doesn't *anyone* realize this? Or are they simply afraid to admit that they do disagree with this President? The Patriot Act considered, I'm not all that surprised...>.<...But anyways, Bush's "freedom" rhetoric. Now he's saying that "freedom will prevail in Lebanon" and that there has been a chain-reaction of democratic-leaning movements in the Middle East because of the Iraqi elections. What crap. Does he know Lebanese history? NO. Does he know that Lebanon had fought a 20-year long civil war whose effects are still deeply profound and far-reaching? NO. Does he know that 500 Pro-Syrian protesters were in Beirut the other day? Of course not. Don't expect these movements to last. The Middle East, save for Israel, is one of the most duplicitous nations in the world, and even besides that - Modernization does NOT equal Democratization/Westernization.

Of course, remember, the Republicans don't understand this. They *like* it that way. Remember. They really like it that way. They are perfectly content in their ignorant stupor.

Go here in order to Sign the petition to impeach the president.

Voudon Shangri-La

2005-03-03T23:31:00.000-05:00

Well, so we're back to square one. Because Bush talks the talk but does not walk the walk. I have two words for this: John Bolton. That's right - our new nominee for U.N. envoy/ambassador. But let's take a look at the real John Bolton. It is truly the record that matters. Bolton has harshly disparaged the United Nations in the past. In 1994, for example, he charged, "There's no such thing as the United Nations," saying that "If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference." Well now I understand that that's 1994, but these people don't change their minds. Once a unilateralist, always a unilateralist. And as I've always said - this is Bush-esque hypocrisy at its most. Bolton is not really "committed" to working with the UN. As he's said, the organization is ineffective - so why put time and effort into the job? You see, its these people - these neoconservatives really do not have an agenda that will help our standing in the world. Instead, its this global domination agenda. Don't believe it? You only have to look to their think tank in Washington - its called "Project For The New *American* Century". Well, think about that title. There are massive implications. Look to Iraq for the consequences of those implications.

Four years after having made those statements, Bolton came back up with another one - "Many Republicans in Congress - and perhaps a majority - not only do not care about losing the General Assembly vote but actually see it as a 'make my day' outcome. Indeed, once the vote is lost, and the adverse consequences predicted by the U.N.'s supporters begin to occur, this will simply provide further evidence to many why nothing more should be paid to the U.N. system."

So you don't even have to look to me now - he said that. He even said that congressional Republicans are ignorant of the UN and its role and standing in the world community. Look at his blatant ridicule. Bolton does not only not care about his role; he has active contempt for the organization that he will serve, if confirmed by the US Senate. That's really no way to go about business in this world. Not only are his statements outrageous - but they are also quite radical. This is only another item of proof that Republicans and neocons just are simply incapable of showing any ounce of respect for the international community. It is quite sad that they are knowledgeable of this. However, their problem is their lack of conscience. It would never, ever, bother the neocons that they are living in a bubble. They're *happy* with it that way. And that is very scary. All they want to do -- and it is illustrated in these statements -- is show outright hatred for the UN and anything non-American in favor of imposing *their* values upon everybody else. This is really dangerous since Bolton's nomination is coming at one of those times when we are still in the process of rebuilding shattered alliances. Maybe I shouldn't even call it that - because the "rebuilding" is just for show. Bush and Bolton still go home at night and say to themselves, "America's vision of spreading freedom and democracy around the world is one of great inspiration." And they cannot look to anyone else to assist - they're too arrogant for that, God forbid they *join* others in the process...

On the Bolton nomination, Harry Reid (D-NV), Minority Leader, released this statement:

"This is a disappointing choice and one that sends all the wrong signals. At a time when President Bush has recognized we need to begin repairing our damaged relations with the rest of the world, he nominates someone with a long history of being opposed to working cooperatively with other nations. Just as unfortunate, Mr. Bolton has overseen this Administration's flawed proliferation policy that has seen North Korea quadruple its nuclear arsenal and seen Iran take dangerous steps toward the development of nuclear weapons. Mr. Bolton will have much to answer for during the course of his confirmation hearings."

Well, that is pretty much true. Calling for accountability is a must for Democrats, since Republicans need to admit that they are not responsible. Bolton having to answer hard questions is a top priority and yes, he is a *very* disappointing choice. The reference to North Korea was especially pointed - this Bush administration allowed the North Koreans to develop a nuclear weapon and thus be added to the list of nuclear powers in the world. For anyone who thinks that "America's security lies in George W. Bush's hands", I want them to take a long hard look at North Korea before they say that. Because such a statement would be utterly ridiculous. The Republicans are not protecting America - they are protecting their corporate business interests abroad while neglecting the security of the US. America, meanwhile, is getting stabbed in the back by the very people who were put into the highest offices of the land by its citizens. Most frighteningly true. And now, to make matters even more worse, we have a UN envoy nominee who disagrees with the entire concept of the United Nations and is not very enthusiastic about ascending to the post.

I reckon that I shouldn't be surprised over this. This nomination is only the latest in a string of them that have proven to be extremely dissatisfying. If you go back to January, you'd remember...first it was Alberto Gonzales. Torture Man. You know that we now have a CIA who has a policy of shipping prisoners to other countries, such as Egypt and Syria, to be tortured there so that we do not have to remain accountable and culpable here at home. It is the height of hypocrisy - we do that as we say that a) we stand for "freedom, liberty, and democracy" and b) as we say that we are opposed to hostile states such as Syria - we're sending our own prisoners there to be tortured! It is amazing how this country has deteriorated into a reactionary, anti-intelligentsia, anti-internationalist bastion. It really is amazing...what has been done in the wake of the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 to hijack the American psyche into a state of permanent paranoia. Next in line of the Bush nominations came Condo-liar Rice, who not only *lied* about the intelligence in the leadup to the Iraq war but who also has a deeply flawed understanding of the implicatoins of US policies abroad. And then, don't forget, there was Bernard Kerik! Think of that, that guy almost became our Secretary of Homeland Security. What a show that would've been...But, the press did their job *one* time, and I admire their work in getting the truth out. But that was like a one-time thing, with Rupert Murdoch owning almost everything in media nowadays.

So, in conclusion, we have major problems on our hands. We have a team of unilateralists, with Colin Powell gone, and we have this new guy Bolton - who has been so arrogant in showing his objection to the very organization that he will serve if confirmed by the Senate. The international affairs business is extremely deep and very nuanced, and Bolton does not seem (to me) that he has the stratagem or even the will to handle such a job. Does Bush or Cheney care about this? Oh please, absolutely not. They *want* it. These congressional Republicans want these yes-men, Condi, Bolton. They want to go along with the agenda of the so-called Project for the New American Century. The name really does speak for itself. The emphasis is on the word American - neoconservatives have a grand dream of global domination - American domination. Obviously, in this regard, they do not have any idea of the consequences of such domination by way of their little Faustian bargains. Of course not - consequences are things totally alien to ignorant neocons. The only agenda for them is money. Its called greed. Money and power are the only two things that the neocons are after. Not that hard to explain, really. Does Enorn ring a bell? How about WorldCom? Yeah. Those two are pretty good examples. But so, yeah...those are the two things that neocons are after: money and power. With John Bolton over at the United Nations, it'll only be easier to achieve...

1,500

2005-03-02T00:28:00.000-05:00

This is a very poignant picture that I thought I'd like to share with all of you.

1,500 American troops have now died in Iraq. And, as John Kerry said back in 1971 to members of Congress, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" And that still rings true today. What is going to take for the American people to realize that this war was ill-conceived, mismanaged, and ill-fated? How long is it going to take for America to realize that 1,500 troops have died for no legitimate reason? It's scary how arrogance grips America right in its spine, and now has allowed its people to turn a blind eye to the abuses of international (and national) law(s) which have led our country down this path of destruction, which has now claimed just more than 1,500 lives.

1,500 - at least, in my view, is a lot of life. And this is exactly where Bush talks the talk but does not walk the walk. During the campaign, I recall that he repeatedly emphasized how he wanted to promote a "culture of life" throughout America because he thought that ought to be encouraged. But he's not endorsing a so-called "culture of life" if he has shamelessly let 1,500 Americans die for no reason at all and for having also killed more than 100,000 Iraqis, many of them small innocent children. It's not by any means close to a "culture of life" - Bush means that he desires to spread democracy (or at least his twisted version of it) at gunpoint, in the form of a US military operation. It has already been seen how the military has been abused by this President, and the consequences of this have resulted in the needless deaths of 1,500 American servicement, one most recent of which was from my own hometown.

Bush is, if anything, the most insistent President that America has seen in a long time, and if he to stick with this attitude, I wouldn't foresee a change in the status quo. The insurgents - and I say this *all* the time - they're only going to keep killing! They're not going to stop! What makes Bush think that Sunni extremists are going to welcome democracy and cheer with garlands of flowers - I don't know why he thinks that. But if you take it as a proud member of the "reality-based community", such as myself, you would only see the numbers of insurgents increase at a rate synonymous with the deaths of American soldiers. 1,500 will become 2,000 in about five months, and 2,000 will then become 2,500, and then 2,500 will become 3,000. And when we reach 3,000 - we will have sacrificed more American lives for an unjust cause than lives that were lost on September 11, 2001. That is truly disturbing.

If Americans were to do well for anything, then the first thing that would have to be undertaken as a national initiative would be learning the collective history of nations. Because, face it, Americans do not know history. And that's the simple truth. If they did, then maybe they wouldn't forget Vietnam, or maybe they wouldn't forget Watergate, or Iran-Contra. But Bush and his top crony - Karl Rove - have, most simply, hijacked the American psyche into a state of chaos and delusion. In the months after 9/11, Americans were gripped in such a state of shock, awe, and fear, but Bush did not at all seek to heal these wounds - he sought to capitalize upon them. And he did, most regrettably. In part because of these lazy congressional Democrats who do nothing (i.e., Tom Daschle, whose unemployment is justified)....but anyways, Americans suddenly forgot historical precendents and were convinced that the new "war on terror" is something brand new, strange, different, and uncertain. And for all that talk, its really untrue. Suddenly, everything from Teletubbies to left-wing essays became unacceptable. Government reports became censored to a degree not seen since the Nixon Administration. Anti-government protesters were suddenly arrested. Detainees were tortured. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney became national heroes and Halliburton became a national icon. And military recruiters showed up in the poorest ghettos when the CEO's corporate children drove their Porsches out of their gated estates to the most preppy of schools.

But the Republican administration stole billions. 9 billion dollars alone were stolen from the Coalitional Provisional Authority. 1,500 lives were stolen from innocent families struggling to make it on their own in a new country called America. When is this all going to end??? I don't know. With King George in the White House, we are headed down a very unpleasant road. Social Security is in jeopardy - and Bush came to my own home state yesterday to promote his privitization agenda (or rather, his dismantling agenda). Protesters were met with charges of disorderly conduct by the disorderly police. Medicare is in jeopardy. In fact, Alan Greenspan, who has just lost *all* of his credibility, basically admitted a couple days ago that Bush's policies have turned up a fiscal burden so large that it could plunge the economy into a deep crisis which will then be passed on to my own generation. So sadly, of course. But, then you ask yourself. Is this president looking out for you? And the answer is NO. Please stop thinking that he's on your side. Because he's not. It's the simple truth.

The reality-based community accepts truth as it is. But I suppose, or rather, I know, that the faith-based community does not. And that is very dangerous. Dangerous enough to let 1,500 lives slip away without a legitimate or even possibly satisfactory reason.

Please, Mr. President

2005-02-28T11:56:00.000-05:00

President Bush owes not only an apology to the American people, but also to the US military. He has wroned them so badly that our international reputation has been ruined. And the consequences of this are so far-reaching that there has to be a point when we, the liberals, say to Washington, "Stop, enough is enough." Think about what Bush has done. There are have been two main errors in Bush's use of the military, and its effects are so profound that their implications are value of careful and immediate consideration. The two main errors are, a) the misuse of the US military in terms of what it should be utilized for, in the world theatre, and b) the overextension of the US military.

So, the first thing - the misuse. If you were to ask any United States soldier what he or she signed up to do, that person would tell you that they signed up to defend the United States of America aganist all enemies, foreign and domestic. They would *not* tell you that they signed up to be imperalistic. And don't question that the US is being imperialistic. Just think to the inaugural address (the 2nd) - "spreading freedom and democracy to all corners of the world." And that is not the job, simply, of the United States Armed Forces. You do not spread freedom...at gunpoint. But Bush and his cconservative allies do not understand this; they believe that freedom and liberty can be spread at the whim of a trigger of a machine gun and electrodes in prisons across Iraq. And now, look at the consequences of the abuse of the military. Our alliances....are in shatters. We no longer have a credible reputation abroad. And don't say, "Oh, you liberal, you're an internationalist, you don't really know anything..." Because you need to know how to play in the international arena if a country is to succeed in this world. And you don't get along in the international world community if you use a *military* force to spread freedom and democracy. That is, in other words, spreading liberty at gunpoint. "Be free or die"...doesn't go over so well with the international community of nations.

Secondly - the overextension problem. This is more than a prolem; this is a *very serious* issue confronting our country. We cannot, due to Bush's ignorance and arrogance, use our military when we need it - due to it being severly overextended. How do we handle the threat posed by North Korea? We can't...because we're in IRAQ. And that is a problem. How do we handle Iran? We really are crippled there too...because we're in Iraq. The Bushies will never get off of Iraq to confront the real threats. Remember last year, when Bush actually proposed a *plan* to move our troops from the DMZ in Korea (they've been there since 1953)...and now North Korea possbily may have a nuclear bomb...and Bush wants to get *OUT* of there??? It does not make any rational sense at all. Not with the defense policies of the GOP. Never. No rational sense for any action, and never any responsiblity or accountability for that action. We are now faced with real threats from both North Korea *and* Iran...and with Bush doing utterly nothing. Except a quick "you have nice shoes" to a British reporter. Good way to be protecting America, that's one true thing...'cause Bush doesn't really have a plan for defending the nation

We are reaching an age in history at which point it is time to begin to critically evaluate our role in the world. We have now reached the point where we may be causing more harm - to the world *and* to ourselves - and we must realize it for our own betterment. Think about what has been done in the past few years. We have overextended and misused our military - it is now being used as an imperialistic force, not a protective one. Wrong role. We have also mortgaged our future to the Chinese. They own...most of our foreign debt, if not all. But they soon will own *all* of it - if we do not stop the advances. The US will eventually succumb to Chinese policy and economics if it does not do enough to lift itself out of the trade deficit hole that it has sunk into as a result of gross fiscal mismanagement by the Bush administration. We torture our detainees. Look at the Bybee memo, and the DIA Report of last month. The Red Cross was allowed into Guantanamo Bay - they say we have a torture problem. But the only ones authorized to know about what goes on in dark rooms behind secret doors are the senior members of the Bush administration. And they *like* it that way. It is most disgusting. But you know what really is disquieting about this? It was that the US helped to found organizations such as the UN, and the US had used to champion the cause of freedom and human rights throughout the world. Now, the US has come to be the antithesis of liberty, from the Patriot Act to the gulags in Abu Ghraib.

The most disturbing thing about all of this is how we conduct our debates about the issue here in the United States. We don't really have "debates" - we have pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity whose corporate contact list can outmatch that of anyone else. Now, what is the problem with this? These pundits know absolutely nothing about United States foreign and diplomatic policy over the past 50 years. It is an *insult* to have these people as servants of the people - in our deeply right-wing partisan, corporate media. We are not really discussing the issues confronting the country, we are hacking them out in a partisan manner which is really not producing anything of significant interest or value. And that is extremely dangerous...to a very high degree it is.

As Maureen Dowd said in her excellent column entitled "W.'s Stiletto Democracy", it was *funny* to see Bush lecturing Vladimir Putin about democracy and freedom, and civil liberties. Please...it was pathetic. With the Patriot Act and all the GOP has done to squash dissent against this president? Please, Bush lecturing Putin was an exercise in supreme arrogance...and its not to be topped by anyone else in the world. Really, Bush is always talking about "protecting America, and making America safer, and America this and that"...but his actions DO NOT meet his words. In regards to Russia, Putin's government just *admitted* (voluntarily) that they are assisting and funding Iran's nuclear program. And Bush thinks "I can do business with this man". Nice...we're still over in Iraq, where a bomb killed over 150 people today...real nice for the spread of freedom, human rights, and democracy, and what else? Iran and North Korea - the real threats that have been ignored by this administration. The ones that really pose a potential problem to the United States. Can we use our military to combat these *real* and potent threats? Quite unsurprisingly, no, not at the moment. Because we're in Iraq - overextended in Iraq - the Bushies will never let down about Iraq. If there's oil there, then the Republicans will steal. So, you know, we've got to stay there. So that Bush can continue to steal.

Its called American greed. And selfishness. And it is a *direct* consequence of the abuse of the military, all of whose members deserve a sincere apology from this most illegitimate President of the United States of America. So please, Mr. President, take us out of this illegal war and return our military to a place of high status (don't degrade them)...and restore our international reputation to what it once was. Otherwise you're not "protecting and defending America". Not in the very least.

The Roots Of Arrogance

2005-02-26T12:42:00.000-05:00

Fiery Zill Miller at the Republican National Convention, stooping to any level to deride those unlike him, August 2004

Arrogance is something that many people possess, but do not understand or are even aware of that fact. I find it to be very interesting in the United States, in how it manifests itself, and its role in society. The Bushies are, in my opinion, one of the most arrogant breeds on Earth. Not just those Republicans in the government, but conservatives all across this country. Perhaps it stems from living in an upper-class country, sheltered from the real problems that plague the global community. Now let me point to a few instances in which I see the arrogance up front and center, in all of its glory - the Republican Party of 2005.

As I mentioned above, arrogance comes from being sheltered and not being akin to the problems of the world that plague so many others. All who live in the United States are more sheltered than the rest of the world - and are not exposed to all of the world problems that exist. Now, you might ask, why are Republicans the only ones who take this lifestyle for granted? The answer is simple - they stand to benefit from arrogance. This is because a hierarchical society in which we, as Americans, live, is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. The GOP, a party traditionally associated with the upper classes of society, stands to be a beneficiary at the expense of those who are at the bottom of the ladder, those who do not have a voice, those who are in the minority, and those who are discriminated against. Republicans really do not care about the common man who plays by the rules and strives to make a living in society. And that is the primary reason for why it is so difficult for the common man to even make a living at all, anymore. The next generation of Americans will find that their members have little to no hope of being successful, if the current generation even does have some hope left (after the Bush policies).

But arrogance has taken on a whole new meaning with the Bushies. With the Republican party controlling all branches of government, responsibility and accountability takes a bow in order to give in to things such as ignorance, evasion, and illegality. And the whole new realm of this is in the foreign theatre. Because now, the Republicans have (regrettably) demonstrated that they do not have a grasp of foreign policy, how to conduct oneself in the international community, etc. And again, the reason for this is their arrogance. They truly cannot help themselves. It is a "Me first" attitude which does not seek to help others and seeks to satisfy the self above all else. Arrogance itself, though, (the very concept of it) may be difficult to understand. I see the best way to explain it is that it is an inferiority complex turned in on itself - thus creating a superiority complex. Republicans and all other types of conservatives seek to demonize and dominate because they feel that they are superior to all other types of people, but this is because they are truly inferior - and they know it - in their conduct, in their attitude, in their actions.

Liberals have always rallied against this, seeing arrogance and ignorance as a threat to society, and the world at large (which it is). But arrogance is now exemplified in the form of Bush. He does not know how to conduct himself in the European theatre and does not understand a very nuanced international system. But honestly, look at his attitude towards Europe. "Oh, you have nice eyes, and you have nice shoes," he says to a British reporter. But what real work did he get done? Nothing. Oh, let's see, he said that NATO is the strongest alliance in the world...Hmm, let's backtrack...it *would* be, but not after what he did to it with the whole Iraq fiasco and whatnot. He said he would severely reproach Vladimir Putin for going back on *his* promise to further democratize Russia...eh, no, that didn't happen. And it all stems from arrogance. That's a special kind though - the kind you see in the "diplomatic theatre". Its very different when its on the homefront.

Ever see the guy with the five American flags in his backseat? Patriotic, no doubt, but blind patriotism. Arrogance, its right there. Ever see the guy with 10 "Support Our Troops" ribbons? Arrogance. What's most arrogant is the assumption that the Middle East is able to be democratized! Now, not to sound defeatist, but its the simple truth - one cannot impose democracy on such a region which has *never* seen it in its entire history. In other words, gung-ho militarism is not the answer. But conservatives all across this nation just cannot understand that - and I'm beginning to feel bad for them, because they simply just cannot understand. But I kick myself, saying, no, don't sympathize...because of a very scary reason. Conservatives actually *pride* themselves on their ignorance. They believe that it is their duty to be *proud* of the fact that they do not care about any agenda other than their own. Don't look to me for proof - look to them. Look at how they so cleverly and skillfully evade thought-provoking questions. Scott McClellan. Bill Frist. Tom DeLay. Its so simple to them - don't admit that you're ever sorry, be relentless about it, and *never* say that you may be wrong. Because conservatives can't be wrong, their mantra says. And that is arrogance in its most supremely pure form.

"I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it" really is what the Republicans believe. And sometimes their arrogance leads to new heights - it leads them to simply become misinformed about things. I was watching a guy who was on CNN yesterday, a featured guest, ramble on about how gay people should not be allowed in the military because straight people have the "freedom" from gay advances on their sexuality. Wow...you really think that there's time in the military for homosexual advances? Really, give me a break. And conservatives also believe that the American people have just given them a mandate - whoa, that's one of the *most* arrogant things that has come out of their mouths in the recent months past. They actually believe this. Republicans think that the 58,000,000 people - 58,000,000 - who voted for John Kerry, are just illegitimate and unworthy of care and attention. So, if those people ever try to stage a rebellion or have an outcry, the right-wing media, Rupert Murdoch and all, leads the way in shutting them down.

Which brings me to the next item on the list - Republican arrogance is so easily revealed when they are desperate to limit dissent. And they are desperate. Because they know, *very* deep down, that it is their agenda which is illegitimate (in the eyes of the American people), so they have to shut the other side down (the reality-based community, i.e., the truth). And, I regret to say, the Republicans have done a very good job of crushing and limiting dissent. The Patriot Act is the obvious example (with such irony in the name, because real patriots are the ones who bring forth truth, not lies), with their shadowy business dealings being the runner up. Just look at what they are trying to do with Social Security. "Private Retirement Accounts", making it sound all jolly and rosy. Wait 'til your money is all gone, then see how jolly you feel. The Republicans won't care about this though, if its not them, then it doesn't matter. And the most *disturbing* thing about this is that they take pride in this. If you don't believe me, then just *watch* how some of them act. Even in body language. Remember that clip from Fahrenheit 9/11, with Bush playing golf at his ranch? He said, "Did anyone say nice shot?"...and that, my friend, is egotism at its worst. Most revealing, in my opinion.

The sum total of all Republican arrogance is that conservative Republicans are not really proponents of democracy. They envision a society in which the system makes losers and winners - and the losers are losers who will never be cared for, while the winners and benefactors will always be cared for. And there's no debate about it. Because Republicans do not care about people. The arrogance that has developed in them has ridded them of a conscience. I mean, honestly, we torture our captured detainees. We torture them. Why? Well, Republicans really do not like anyone who doesn't have white skin. They're bigoted and racist against minorities, and they have made the system so that minorities are at a disadvantage. Progressivism seeks to correct all of these terrible injustices, but Republicans, in their ignorant stupor, turn a blind eye. Of course. 1,493 people have died in Iraq. Soon to be 1,500. Do Republicans care? No.

It is one of the saddest things about today's GOP.

Freedom Is On The March...Backwards.

2005-02-23T17:28:00.000-05:00

So, first off, I'm sorry if I haven't posted in awhile. I've been busy...>.<

Anyways, what is there to talk about in political news of the day? Well, there's John Negroponte, who despite his extensive diplomatic experience, does not meet the criteria necessary for qualification as the new National Intelligence Director. (or czar). We have the congressional Republicans who have pushed a bill through Congress that limits the amount of class-action lawsuits which can be heard. So if you're say, a group with a problem (ex: coal miners who have contracted a fatal disease and you'd like to sue your company...no, under George W. Bush, that is not allowed). Hell, *nothing* is allowed anymore. It is now "unpatriotic" to say anything against the President, his Cabinet, the war, etc. And that's wrong. That goes against the very principles on which America was founded. That's exactly what the Republicans just do not seem to get - they keep preaching democracy, but they do not practice it at home. They keep preaching that democracy is the antidote to terrorism (which is not, but nevertheless), yet they don't practice it at home.

Bush, not to mention him having ruined our economy for the former part of this century, has also corrupted the free press. We've already seen it happen with the paying off of various columnists to promote administration policies, and we've also seen it happen on the more dubious side of journalism......(*cough*, Jeff Gannon). I will never relent in saying to people: do not forget Watergate. Do not forget Iran-Contra. Don't even forget their disgusting media tactics. Do I even have to mention examples? Yes. (Because these proof-hounds are up my tail). Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Yes, there was a Bush volunteer working within their ranks in the campaign. Willie Horton. That was incredible, it brought down the candidacy of a man in one moment. Oh, yeah, here's another one. Remember back in 2000 (oh 2000) when South Carolina voters got calls from Bush volunteers early on, saying, "Remember that Senator McCain has a black baby?" Yeah. The Bushies are that low. The most dangerous thing about them is that there is no rule that they are not willing to break. And this time, it was even worse. John Kerry, maybe not the best candidate of them, was a war hero. And the Bush people had the nerve to take it and turn it against him, and ruin his image. Had he been elected, that controversy would've stayed, because the Bushies *never* relent.

There are some other, more indirect, ways that the conservatives have corrupted the free press. For one thing, Americans (most of them, at least) now have 3 major news networks to choose from. You've got MSNBC, CNN, and FOX. (not FOXNews, FOX - it's not real news). There are 6 major corporate conglomerates behind these stations (i.e., GE). (No pun intended). But these companies also donate heavily to the Republican Party (the contributions to the Democratic Party are just not as large)...and are closely linked with the Republican Party and its members. Do not forget the inauguration. Remember all these big companies that donated about $200,000 towards the ceremonies? Remember how we were *going* to spend more money on the inauguration then for tsunami relief before Bush decided that that would look bad? Yeah. But Americans really have no choice among news networks, because they're all the same, they reflect the same corporate special interests, they do not represent the people, and the Republican Party is 100% behind them. Especially FOX.

For all it talks about being "Fair and Balanced," FOXNews is not worthy of such a reputation. It is, without question, the most partisan news coverage on television. Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity (what a right-wing scumbag), Brit Hume, Tony Snow...the list just *keeps on going*. And part of my discontent with FOX is with what they do NOT cover. How many times have you seen a guest on one of their partisan news programs whose views are not necessarily that of the members of the boardroom of the News Corporation. In other words, liberals are not permitted. Not even that. Independents are not permitted...or strongly discouraged. The media doesn't have a liberal bias! If there is a bias, then it is a strictly conservative bias.

And not only with FOX. I'm grossly disappointed in CNN's coverage, of the Oil War in particular. Sure, they may be better than FOX in that they might feature an anti-war guest or two, but they're never really going to *cover* what goes on the ground. You will never see the maimed Iraqis, or our own wounded soldiers. You will never see our soldiers returning in flag-draped coffins, because Bush put a "media ban" on such images. Well, if you Republicans believe that's democracy, then you must be off of this planet. Because it's not. The Republicans DO NOT BELIEVE in any such thing known as democracy. What they believe in is corrupting the free press, quelling dissent, and portraying civil disobedience as unpatriotic. And that is simply not the kind of democracy that America should be standing up for.

So, the bottom line is, that Bush's talk about "freedom is on the march" and "democracy is taking hold" is really just very shallow. Because he does not practice it himself at home. And I didn't even have to mention the Patriot Act...

High Crimes & Grand Scandals (Fair And Balanced: Part II)

2005-02-15T23:07:00.000-05:00

One of the lessons that I've learned when dealing with this administration is that you can never think 'it's over'. You can never think that something will never happen again. You can never think that something that it is unprecendented will never reoccur - because it will. I am specifically referring to the two more instances of media abuse by the Bush Crime Family. Want me to explain? Ok, here we go:

The Valerie Plame Affair. Yes, we all know what happened. Robert Novak leaked the name of Valerie Plame - a covert CIA operative - to the press. Valerie Plame was married to Joseph Wilson, who is at odds with the administration. So why is Judith Miller, a reporter for the New York Times, being indicted with this federal offense? Well, 'cause a) the Bushies absolutely and vehemently *loathe* the NYTimes, and b) they can never be responsible for the actions of own of their own. Judith Miller over at The Times asked a question - she simply asked a question and demanded answers to the fraud, the lies, and the illegality. It was Robert Novak's crime, it was HIS CRIME - and she may be going to prison for this!? Lunacy, is the only word to describe it...honestly. People such as myself have raised the question: Why hasn't the prosecutor gone after Novak? Well, no one knows. But the answer is quite simple. The Bush administration needs a scapegoat (Judith Miller) for their dirty dealings and they don't like the NY Times...but the biggest reason of all is that they are willing to break the law to get their way - which was, in this case, to screw Joseph Wilson. And they did it, and they're getting away with it. Every step of the way, they're getting away with it.

Jeff Gannon. Oh, this is really amazing. This is corrupting the free press at its very core. This is classic Bush-Rove tactics right up at the forefront. Jeff Gannon, or so he uses the pseudonym, was a "reporter" who was admitted into the White House Press Corps. Even though he had absolutely no credentials - he was...er, approved. Oh, wait, let me describe what he'd done prior. He was writing for Talon News Service...and what is Talon News Service? A derivative of GOPUSA.com, which had been in operation for 96 hours at the time of his induction into the White House Press Corps. And he had written *8* stories, in total. Oh, and I forgot some other things. In addition to writing on Talon News Service...he operated/hosted web sites such as hotmilitarystuds.com, and such. Ok...FAMILY VALUES ALL THE WAY!!!! Anyways, he did all that, and they still let him in. Why? Because, as usual, there was no background checking, no fact checking, no resource referencing, no nothing. He gets in there because they decided that a conservative columnist who would ask easy, softball questions...would be ok for them. Now he just resigned, but this is outrageous. It is the corruption of the free press. Not that it would be free anyway...since there are basically 6 major media companies to choose from. AND IT'S ALL OWNED BY RUPRET MURDOCH! Well, some of it, at least. *scary*...

I mean, the encroachment upon civil liberties and freedoms has just got to stop. I don't exactly know when Republicans became Democrats and started prying into people's lives, and I don't know when Democrats became Republicans and started standing up for fiscal responsibility and such...but this is becoming ridiculous. It's like the sentencing guideline ruling passed by the Supreme Court last month. Now, if you're pulled over on the side of the road, for say, speeding...ok, fine. But then the officer brings the dogs over and they sniff marijuana. Right then and there, you're charged with two crimes. But you should only be technically guilty of the first - since to proclaim the second, it would be an illegal search and seizure...no reasonable suspicion/probable cause whatsoever. But the right-wingers in this country don't believe in proof or the law or the Constitution...its just about protecting our families, strengthening the military, prolonging the American hegemony...and by screwing the little guy on the street. That is the truth.

I've always wondered to myself: from what exactly are protecting families? The minority couple down the street, or the gay or lesbian person in town? Why do they need to pour tons of money into needless wars while neglecting the homefront? Why does the right have to establish such lucrative corporate ties - only to be brought down in scandal...It's something that it is unfathomable - how they are so greedy. Iraq is not about democracy and freedom at all. It is about selfish greed...selfish greed, and that is none other than despicable. Speaking of despicable, have you heard of what happened with Maya Keyes, daughter of conservative Republican Alan Keyes? (or, in better language, a right-wing freakoid)...He is such a bigot, a *huge* member of the Religious Right...(oops, sorry, I meant the Religious Wrong. *We* are the Religious Right)...and his daughter Maya is a lesbian. So what does he do? He kicked her out of the house, calling her a 'liberal queer', and refused to make her college tuition. Issued a statement saying 'oh, my daughter is an adult, so she can make her own decisions' and dropped the whole thing as an issue. Nice father, eh? Oh, right, by the way, he *also* called Mary Cheney a selfish hedonist. Now, that is today's Republican party - a bigoted one. I know many people don't believe me when I say this - but it is NOT the party of Lincoln any more. Now..its the party of bigots. Total 180 turn, right?

Wake up and realize who these people are, running the country.

An Issue of National Security

2005-02-13T14:02:00.000-05:00

Okay, so Bush sold himself throughout the campaign on the basis that he could better protect the United States. Well, let's check the facts - something that the right doesn't ever do. While Bush was bantering on about how John Kerry is a flip-flopper, a liberal, a guy from Massachusetts, a big spender, wrong on national defense - he sat by and allowed North Korea to develop a nuclear weapon. In his 2002 State of the Union, he used the despicable phrase "axis of evil" to describe the "terrorist states of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea." Well, he went to war with the wrong one. I've never been totally able to fathom exactly why it is Iraq with which the neocons are obsessed. But it is. North Korea...eh, that hasn't been high up on their agenda. If they would bother to concern themselves with what is going on over there, then they would realize that North Korea's regime, led by the maniacal Kim Jong-Il, is one of the most brutal and oppressive in the world. Outside the isolated state, it is widely known that the people of North Korea are forced to work in labor camps and are subject to torture and physical, mental, and sexual abuse. Sure, Saddam Hussein did oppress some of his people too...but you know, he did not have the means or capability to attack the United States. Kim Jong-Il *is* crazy enough to attack with a nuclear weapon. The question remains: Does he have the capability to get it over to the US to do so?

If the answer to that question is yes, then the US has to decide - quickly - what it must do. The Bush administration has put up a blockade and has refused to agree to bilateral talks. I do not necessarily fault them for this - because Kim Jong-Il probably will not come through in negotiations to give up North Korea's nuclear program. But I do fault the administration for allowing this to develop. The Clinton administration had it under control (oops, sorry neocons, I said Clinton). But the Bush administration wrote off North Korea to deal with...IRAQ. Donald Rumsfeld, as revealed in Richard Clarke's book Against All Enemies, almost *fell asleep* during the transition in January 2001 at a DoD meeting where he was briefed about Al-Qaeda and other terrorist states. He just wanted to know about...Iraq. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. That's all the neocons want to hear. They've only *just* began to pay attention to Iran, and they've sat by and let North Korea add themselves to the list of nuclear powers in the post-Cold War world. I personally do not believe that North Korea has the capability to deliver nuclear weapons to the US - but I do believe that Kim Jong-Il is crazy enough to try - and for that reason, we must actively watch what is going on over there. We must not ignore it, like the Bush administration has so wrongfully done over the past four years.

The right-wing media, and its ridiculous noise machine, has covered all of this up - like they always do. But I refuse to listen to them. I mean, this President, he's just incredible. His budget is disgusting and he really is not "protecting America". Cutting funding for our first responders after he *said* that they are our greatest asset is NOT protecting America. Allowing North Korea to become a nuclear power...that is not protecting America. Not surprisingly, we are not able to deal with North Korea in a military way. Where is our military? IRAQ. Back during the campaign, President Bush actually announced a military-reshuffling plan that moved troops *away* from North Korea. *Wow*...he moved troops away from North Korea (troops that had been there since the 1950s in the DMZ) to go to...where? IRAQ. Of course, the propaganda-spewing right-wing media does not ask questions about this. An unfortunately very well funded right-wing media network of think tanks and TV networks...has let the mistakes of this President fall under the radar. These organizations include think tanks such as Project for the New *American* Century, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Christian Coalition, the Traditional Values Coalition, and the partisan FOX News Channel

Many Bush voters in 2004 wrongfully believed, as the media told them, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction at the time of the US invasion. Many Bush voters also believed the conservative misinformation that more WMD are *still* being found in Iraq. So with the media right in bed with Bush, there is no hope for any attention that might have been paid to North Korea. We really can't even use our overextended military to solve the problem - they're all in Iraq and there is a maniacal President who is refusing to leave until "the job is done" and who isn't really for democracy. Come on, enforcing trade policies against our own workers, exporting jobs, limiting dissent within his own administration, and creating an everlasting-threat atmosphere with the Patriot Act and the right-wing media...does not make a person who is for democracy. Bush actually promoted the idea, during 2004, that terrorist leaders wanted John Kerry to win the presidency. Of course, FOX repeated this throughout its coverage and such...and the American people, FOX's largest audience, believed this.

North Korea? No, I'm sorry, no attention had or has been paid to that. Ever. During the past four years. It was all, "liberals are bad, they spend too much, families are the bedrock of America, we're a Christian nation"-bullshit. Right, the Republicans think that they are so pure - that they have the best morals...don't they have any compassion? Don't they understand what is really happening in North Korea? In the labor camps to innocent people? "Compassionate Conservatism" is not...really all that good. Look at where progressive, Democratic policies have led - balanced budget, responsible environmental protection, a decline in abortion and teen pregnancy rates, strong economies, and the like. Look where conservative policies have led - reckless war, reckless spending, lucrative corporate scandals and crimes (um...WorldCom, Enron, Halliburton, Bechtel, *insert name of oil/natural gas services company here*).

So with North Korea actively developing *more* nuclear weapons and having at least one already...with Iran having a nuclear program...with Saudi Arabia being one of the most brutally oppressive regimes in the world...the neocons had decided to invade....IRAQ. We are less safe because of this. We have created a terrorist haven in Iraq, and we are less safe because of it. What happens then? The right-wing media picks it up and promotes conservative policies while hailing Iraq as a "democratic success" and promoting the ideal that "Republicans can now win the Social Security battle for the first time in six decades". Translation: They want to dismantle it. The conservative media does not cover Bush's flip-flops, the conservative media purposefully tries (successfully) to intimidate a nation of 300 million...and attacks the Democrats for opposing these things.

National security...isn't all that high. Not with that current situation. With the status quo, I'd be very worried.

Compassionate Hypocrisy: The FY2006 Budget

2005-02-08T15:53:00.000-05:00

So, Bush's budget is absolutely despicable...

A reduction of funds from $600,000,000 to $60,000,000 for police and firemen -- the first responders. Might I remind everyone that Bush, who along with his economic team proposed this cut, is the same person who said that we must protect our first repsonders at all costs - the ones on the front lines? See, it's Bush's twisted logic. He just endlessly repeats - *endlessly* - that the country is more secure on his watch and that we are "strengthening our homeland defenses." Well, according to my logic (which is much better than Bush's...), cutting your funding of first responders from 600 million to 60 million - and there is a *huge* difference between the two - is really not that good of a way to "protect and strengthen the homeland defenses."

Ok, cutting veterans benefits. Well, I would adopt the slogan of their anti-Kerry TV ads to explain Bush's stance on vet. benefits. "There's what Bush says, and then there's what Bush does." Well, in this scenario, he *says* that it is a moral virtue to honor our veterans (which it is, granted) but then he cuts their benefits and makes it more difficult for them to access them - under his proposal, they must now pay a *very large* increase in their co-pays for Medicare...*all by themselves*. Programs such as mental rehabilitation for veterans - gone. And that's really really stupid, being that we're going to have an influx of a lot of veterans from this war - this illegal war. It's exactly what it is once again - they support the war and by virtue of that, they do not support the troops. And they give them a cut in benefits when they return home (hopefully they do return).

No Child Left Behind? Even if the act in itself is a failure, Bush will still fail to fund it. It doesn't really matter to him. 48 education programs cut. You know, in his statement, he said he's not happy with programs that do not produce results, or stagnating ones. Or he doesn't like the continuity of stagnating programs. Well, apparently, he doesn't understand that you have to teach a child the material in 1st grade *and* 2nd grade *and* 3rd and so on...maybe that accounts for his own education, for all I know. No, I am not being unfair here, since the IQ of the man is...something which is easily debated.

Home heating aid for the poor - gone. So, this is what I say to those people who cry about how the Bush administration is so "compassionate." Compassionate conservatism...is a nonexistent thing. It does not exist. It is not real, it was simply a get-elected campaign slogan...well, that was before he had to steal the election. But anyways...if you live in, say, International Falls, MN (the coldest city in the country), and you can't pay for home heating, then you aren't getting any. I can tell you that much - 'cause Bush and his cronies do not really have a regard for the common man who is struggling.

What's really outrageous about this budget is actually what is not contained within it. The total cost of the Iraq war and also the $80,000,000 request he's asking for - is not included. Plus, the cost of privatizing Social Security, even though that plan is inherently flawed - is not included. Well, this is called deception, and its what the administration does best. They know, as a Republican administration, that they are forced to admit that federal defecits are not desirable (even though, hehe, deficits *are* now a Republican virtue, but you know what I mean...), but since they have a conscious inability to accept responsibility for *anything* at all - they just have to cover it up by not including certain high-cost items within the budget. Then, as a result of that, they say that this fiscal year's deficit will be better than projected - but they're not *really* telling you the facts - 'cause those estimates, which by the way are made by a Republican-appointee in the Office of Management and Budget - are not included in the FY2006 budget.

It's most disgusting, and hypocritical above all. I do admit that the deficit would have become Kerry's problem had he been elected. But, if Kerry were in that office, the hypocrisy wouldn't have been there. Because now the American people are getting exactly what they asked for - they wanted this guy in the Oval Office, and they got him. But it is because of Bush's policies that we are now hailing this record deficit, which along with the trade deficit with the Chinese and the Japanese, could threaten to bring down are economy.

But no one talks about the trade deficit, because we have to be "strong and unrelenting on the war on terror." Which means, if you need a translation of Bushspeak, that we must continue to fault Democrats, not accept responsiblity and be held accountable for actions, and post record deficits no matter the cost.

Debunking The State Of The...What? Union of God-Fearing People & Halliburton Boardroom Executives

2005-02-05T14:52:00.000-05:00

He claims that Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in by 2018.
The nation is ALREADY bankrupt. China owns our deficit! Do they know that we're in debt with every other country in the world? No...but they'll just keep talking about 'freedom on the march'.

Bush, the moron that he is, claims the economy is being held back by "frivolous asbestos lawsuits". Guess who made an asbestos claim? Halliburton. Made a claim. For asbestos. Not to mention that only 1% of the rise in healthcare costs is accounted for by the frivolous lawsuits.

Bush claims 'freedom is on the march' and that 'democracy is taking hold'. Yeah, well why doesn't he talk about what we've done in Iraq? Why not talk about what schools he's opened, or what he's reconstructed? Why not talk about restoring electricity and water to millions of Iraqis? Because he hasn't.

Why did Bush open the Saudi border? That was a momumental mistake. The Iraqis almost enjoyed living in a secure environment for the 3 days we gave them. Then we opened the borders again. Why? Because Bush, and Rove & Co. both know that they need chaos to steal. They proved it, you can't have the Coalitional Provisional Authority steal and divert $8.8 million that was supposed to be used for reconstruction.

And you know what? The electricity was actually turned on -- but only once. In the prisons. And it went to the prisoner's genitals. It's freedom with a razorblade on its back! Don't these American neocons understand this?

Besides, the turnout for the Iraqi elections was only 50%. Everyone in America is crying about how we brought this good thing - this democracy - to them. FALSE. It was the Iraqi people that demanded this. They were so patient -- they waited a year and a half -- since Bush was opposed to elections in 2003 and 2004. The Iraqis demanded this; we didn't *bring it to them*.

Oh, right. He's assigned *Laura Bush* to head the anti-gang task force??? Well, first, wait. I should say I really did love that moment during the state of the union when he said that 'young african-american men are in the wrong place: gangs'. It is so obvious how much of a racist he and his cronies are! They still can't get past it! They still cannot judge people by the content of their character; instead the neocons see color. But really, do you think that Laura Bush -- a librarian from West Texas - is going to know how to relate to inner-city kids in gangs? I am oh so sure that Laura knows who the local gangs are, and where to find them. And I'm sure that in Bed-Stuy, everyone is just going to adore her walking up the street. Well, I guess she might know vehicular homicide, since she did kill her boyfriend with a car once.

And Gale Norton - the Secy. of the Interior - wow, she is really on something. She's going to personally go out there and use the chainsaw to cut down trees by herself? Right, because the Republicans don't use their "conservatism" to "conserve." Right, ok...

"Saddam Hussein has most of the most lethal weapons known to man" came from this "President". *godzilla sound*. "We said, let the inspectors in and he would not comply." (The inspectors were on the ground at the time of that comment).

"We're holding corporate criminals to account." -- what happened to Ken Lay? Oh, he was indicted. Right, what else? NOTHING. Kenny boy is still there. We put Martha Stewart in jail. Wow...and the scary thing is, she didn't do anything wrong. She was a smart investor who knew *exactly* what she was doing, so we put her in prison??? Gosh...

"For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with $2.2 billion to keep Social Security afloat." I got news for you, the Iraq war costs a billion dollar a week. Bill Clinton knew something - he knew that to keep the system good, he'd have to have a surplus. So he reinvested 60% of the treasury surplus into Social Security -- which would've kept the system good until 2055 -- but, uh, right. Bush spent the surplus. All of it.

Fiscal accountability? Well Bush stole just about $9 billion from the CPA, but you know, Paul Bremer wouldn't oversee that. "Oh, I guess we can't do Western accounting in a war zone." But we can look for WMD. Right...

All the neocons and conservatives: "OH, BILL CLINTON LIED UNDER OATH! OH MY GOD! HE'S A LIAR!" 'Cause you know, if you lie all the time but you have an "R" after your name, it's okay.

Do you really believe that it was worth the $200 billion of taxpayer money?

And Bush lied, too. Do you understand that? Do you understand that this man is the real congenital liar!? And do you understand, all you neocons, that I have the right to say that? I am not 'disrespecting the office of the President of the United States' -- HE IS!

IT IS NOT MY FAULT IF YOU WON'T READ! YOU'RE AN IDIOT IF YOU DON'T! FIND THE FACTS!

Americanism: A Religion Of Ignorance

2005-02-04T12:01:00.000-05:00

Why are Americans so friggin' arrogant? Because Democrats suck I just want to say, it is NOT my fault if you won't read the papers. It is NOT my responsibility if you don't read. How many times do I have to say that if something is NOT on TV, then it does not exist in our culture! The Republicans have this thing - they are so goddam insistent - even if they are disproved! And they've convinced all the Americans that we're some sort of 'liberal elite' which is nuanced and such. It is all a HUGE LIE! There is NO liberal elite. Liberals are not 'nuanced' in any way. They are not higher than anybody else in the country! But nor are the conservatives - the cons and neocons believe that they are so morally superior - oh, so, you know, no one else is good enough. The difference between us and them is that they believe that God is leading them - not us. So even though the truth is that there is no liberal elite (cause all the conservatives occupy the elite government positions), the Americans believe that there is. So then we have a culture war. Or wars. Great...and in the crossfire, ordinary Americans do not read the papers, they do not know what is going on in the world, and they do not care...now, Americans aren't stupid to begin with - but a sense of arrogance develops. And then the arrogance is played out in the sphere of the Religious Right...

WAIT! No, it is all about the vocabulary. As Randi Rhodes says, *we* are the Religious Right. *They* are the Religious Wrong. It is NOT a Christian value to torture people. But the right supported the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. It is NOT a Christian value to lie. The right has supported the war, Halliburton, and all the opportunities for lying in this administration. It is NOT a Christian value to steal. The right does not recognize that America has been stealing oil for our benefit for over a half-century (and they don't know that that's why we're so hated in this world). It is NOT a Christian value to steal. Well, has the Christian majority in this country paid attention to this? NO! They are too busy promoting 'God, Family, & Country' - in other words, blind patriotism and blind religion. Which also leads to blind loyalty. That is the real deadly sin.

Apart from being arrogant, the most damning thing that the right does is the fact that it proslytizes. If you are not wealthy, then you won't be taken care of in their ranks. If you're a minority, the Republicans (Neocons) will not look to support and aid you. If you are an oppressed person, don't look to the GOP to further your cause! The Republicans believe in one simple thing - the white man's hegemony. It does not get clearer or starker than that. Now, there are *some* Democrats, who, regrettably, are also racists and believe this. But not as severly as the Republicans do. The Republicans have managed to carry on and on and keep whining about the loss of the Civil War. Well, guess what guys? YOU LOST IT! So, GET OVER IT! It's DONE!

Which reminds me, who has brought all of the change for the better in the country? LIBERALS. Who lifted us out of the Great Depression? Who led us through two world wars? Who fought for civil rights? Who produced the strongest economic expansion in the history of the nation? WHO? THE LIBERALS DID. While that was all happening, the conservatives (who would then become neocons) were behind the scenes, establishing these HUGE ties and dealings with big business corporations - globally. The GOP made a series of alliances after 1975, when the welfare state broke down. They did it all to get in power when they could, and they finally did at the turn of the century. Now, I admit, regrettably, they've accomplished that goal. But at the same time, the GOP made an alliance with the Christian right. It is, as Thomas Frank says, author of What's The Matter With Kansas?, one of the most unusual and unlikely alliances. But it has been established.

I've been saying it time and time again - the real threat to America comes from within. The Patriot Act and the corporate hegemony (Rupert Murdoch) is only the beginning in the deterioration. Now, this is *coupled* with the fact that no one in America reads the papers and the int'l affairs journals and no one fsking knows what goes on in the world, no one understand the "clash of civilizations", as Samuel Huntington puts it, and no one cares. It is only a matter of time before America meets its demise - from within! It's a terrible thing, because America *is* a good country and I love what is supposed to stand for. But let me make it very clear - there is a very big difference between what America is supposed to stand for and what it does stand for.

The latter is going to get it into *immense* trouble.

Fair And Balanced

2005-01-30T13:09:00.000-05:00

Everyone in the country who is ignorant enough to believe that the Bush administration isn't deceptive is moronic. I especially point to their use of the American media in illustrating this. As of now, it has been revealed that 3 different commentators and columnists have been being paid by the administration to promote their policies. On top of that, these media venues have been complicit with such illegality and immorality. The first case that we've heard about was the case of Armstrong Williams.

Armstrong Williams, a conservative commentator, was paid a whopping sum of $246,000 dollars to promote education p0licy for this administration. Apart from their failing education policy, this was a flagrant abuse of the law. The Bush administration, whose members hold utter contempt for the rule of law, callously and casually disregarded by using propaganda to promote their already despicable policies. Now, $246,000 is a LOT of money! More importantly, it is a lot of *taxpayer* money. Think about that. It is possible that if you were one of those good souls that did not vote for the Bush crime family, then your tax dollars are *still* being used in propaganda tactics to promote the administration's policies. The Department of Education is responsible for this ridiculous and illegal act, but of course, is not held to account...again, if you break the law in this government, you get promoted.

I guess I thought that Armstrong Williams would be an end to the adminstration's Stalin-lite tactics. Regrettably, I would be proven wrong. Maggie Gallagher, an anti-gay commentator, has been also paid by this administration - and at least $40,000. Her columns are syndicated and appear in various newspapers across the country, and has testified before the Senate about her support for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. The Department of Health & Human Servies (HHS) actually decided it would be good to pay her because they believed that "heterosexual unions strengthen families." Gallagher then communicated their bigoted viewpoint to millions of Americans when in the National Review, she wrote, "Polygamy isn't worse than homosexual unions, it is better." So this is how far to the right the Bush administration really is - they will go to *any* length to promote their viewpoint - even if it means breaking the law. The government has thus been paying Williams, to promote a failing education policy, and Gallagher, to promote hatred and bigotry against gays and lesbians.

*Incredibly*, it does not end there. A third columnist, Michael McManus, has been being paid off by the administration. Having been paid $10,000 thus far for "assisting marriage counselors" to (i.e., reading the Book of Revelations in science class), McManus has not apologized. He has skilfully yet wrongfully evaded responsibility and accounability by alleging he was not aware of the existence of a true contract between himself and the Department of Health & Human Services.

Again, it is especially of note that these commentators were paid with TAXPAYER MONEY! Money that probably came from you and I. That is an absolute and utter disgrace, and someone in the administration *must* take account for this. I am happy that Michael Powell has left the Federal Communications Commission, but that does NOT erase the fact that these occurrences happened under his watch. The Department of Education and HHS is also of equal account. Margaret Spellings, the new Secretary of Education, has promised to open a full investigation into these offenses, but there is no credibility on her part that she will follow through. HHS, has, not of yet, done anything. And this would have been *much* more scandalous under any other administration. I always point that out -- why are the Republicans so insistent on refusing to allow Democrats to even think of impeaching Bush when they impeached Clinton for sex!?!?!?

It's ridiculous...like all the other nasty things these neocons do up in Washington.

Arabian Nights & Dangerous Seas: Staying The (Arrogant) Course

2005-01-27T11:40:00.000-05:00

I love how Bush still thinks that "democracy is taking hold" in Iraq, and thus we must "stay the course". Well, just now, as I write this, the news reports are coming in about today's attack on US soldiers -- to be precise, 36 of them were killed in the bloodiest day since March 19, 2003, the beginning of the illegal occupation and war. So 36 are now dead. This is, by the way, in the aftermath of the other shocking attack that left 22 dead. The casualties increase every month...and there was one person, whom I shall never know, who summed it up *perfectly*. It was a Vietnam veteran who wrote a letter to the editor in the NY Times just a few weeks ago, who said, "Any war that is based on lies and/or false premises is doomed and destined to fail."

^^ Yep, couldn't agree more completely.

Apart from the skyrocketing casualty count, the costs of the actual war itself are becoming unbearable. And that's an understatement. Bush just asked Congress to appropriate another $80 billion dollars for it, and the total cost of the war has now exceeded $200 billion. ANNUALLY! Now, you know, even though the Office of Management & Budget is *supposed* to be some sort of independent entity operating within the ranks of the government, Bush and his cronies were able to hijack control of that too - and so now, with a simple phone call, those above numbers are NOT included in the FY2005 Budget that will go to Congress. The White House, regrettably, knows exactly what it's doing, and knows exactly how to evade the truth.

So...as I've said, we're approaching the end of American hegemony, and I did that post without even including the Iraq war costs! And the tsunami aid, which, by the way, the US is trying to scale back.

There's the arrogance of the US again. Some in the government believe, or some in the government were made to believe (i.e., Colin Powell), that the tsunami aid money will be an example of US generosity and goodwill and that the Muslim world should take this opportunity to recognize it...what a dumb move to say that! Terrorism is NOT going to go away with financial aid. Terrorism is caused by the extreme economic, political, religious, and social instability in the Middle East -- coupled with a deep distrust and inherent hatred of modern, secular, Western, values! So giving tsunami aid money....is simply not going to cure anything. Indonesia actually EXPECTS American money -- because they feel they've been robbed over the past 60 or odd-some years. And they have! So it's not going to be taken as on opportunity to recognize American generosity. And the fact that America presumes that it will be (taken as such), is arrogant beyond belief in itself.

In Iraq, the US similarly displayes its arrogance and refusal to understand the reality, the facts, and the history. They would know, if they studied history, that the Middle East is not a land of democracy, and as unfortunate and bad as that may be, it is true - and democracy cannot "take hold". It would be in America's best interests to leave - and let Iraq descend into chaos, as it will, so history says. Secondly, what the US has been most ignorant about regarding Iraq is its effect on the Al-Qaeda network, led by Osama bin Laden. We have done what bin Laden could not have imagined in his wildest dreams - we have invaded an oil-rich Middle Eastern nation and disposed of Saddam's secular government. Didn't the US *even take the time to know* that Hussein and bin Laden were mortal enemies??? Didn't the US understand that we're taking bin Laden's side in getting rid of Hussein's government!?!?!?!? Well, no, because the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress didn't raise a single finger to what was being done, whether it was their making history irrelevant or the injustice of the concept of the war itself.

It's amazing but - since Americans don't know what goes on in the world because we've become so superficial like that - NOTHING has been done about the "real terrorist states". This I mean by Iran, North Korea...but most importantly, Saudi Arabia. Now, this is my radical theory. I believe that bin Laden's interests are the exact same as our interests. bin Laden hates the Saudis with a vengeance, and it's not like maintaining our relationship with them is such a good idea. The Saudi government is the MOST duplicitous one in the *entire* world, and the oil is going to run out in 40 years anyway, even if we do have to make crony deals with them like always. The answer lies in Russia - where all of the massive oil reserves are buried in Siberia and can be unlocked in a decade or so, and also coincidentally, where all of the unsecured nuclear reserve leftovers from the Cold War still lie today. Has the Bush administration taken any steps to make sure that they don't get into terrorist hands? NO! Of course not...

I mean, there are just a few simple things that characterize this government - no responsibility, no accountability, no justice, no dissent, no conservatism, no fallout, no history, no care -- and if you embody all of those things, like say for instance, Condi Rice

YOU GET A PROMOTION!!!

Did I mention Iraq is supposed to have elections in January? The insurgents already voted - every US soldier was their ballot.

Bringing Down The House: Corporate World, Corporate Casino

2005-01-24T17:25:00.000-05:00

We are nearing the end of an era. That era is the one of American hegemony. We may be able to save our civilization, yet risking life is not the method by which we must do it. But more importantly, shipping our jobs overseas is not the way to do it...and it's not that I don't like outsourcing (because I know that some of it cannot be prevented), it's just that we're trapping ourselves into a corner.

In China, work is done for cheap rates. People who are just coming out of communism are seeing that 33 cents per hour is a grand fortune, and China has so many of those people - about 1.1 billion. Yes, they (horrendously) employ children. So what happens? American corporations realize that, in a capitalist world, the more productive places are overseas - China, Taiwan, etc., where cheap labor is *abundant* and where profits are much more easily made than over here. Basically, the big GOP-donor corporations say to the American worker: "If you can't compete with 9-year olds making shoes for 10 cents per hour, then screw you!"

We have a huge trade deficit with even our own neighbors. A long, long time ago, we actually had a trade surplus with Canada and Mexico. Then we did something called NAFTA. All of the so-called expert economists predicted a huge rise in sales and profits for America - well, if we got that, that wasn't the thing to look out for. We now have massive trade deficits with both Canada and Mexico.

Come of the think of it, we have trade deficitis with almost every single country across the globe. Save for...oh yeah, right, ok, Australia, Egypt, and Belaruse. 'Tis ok, once the Bushies work out an agreement with Australia, you can say goodbye to that surplus! Now with that situation, I mean to say, when we import more than we export with almost every single country in the world - that produces these massive trade deficits (which by the way, is NOT a conservative thing to do) which strain our own economy and basically cripple it. Like the effect 9/11 had on it, but taking more time and at a slower rate.

On top of *all* of that, the dollar is as weak as its been in the last few years. 2004 was, for the first time since the 1980s, the third in year in a row during which the value of the dollar...declined. The dollar itself is being outstripped every single day by the Euro - which is testament to the growing power of the EU that can and will eventually bring down the American economy.

Now...think about all of this. Massive trade deficits all around the world, specifically in China, Japan, etc., a weak and declining dollar, a homeland federal record deficit of about, let's say, 400 billion dollars, a war to handle, and with Bush's spending out of control...with the demise of the American economy will come the end of American hegemony.

^^ Not that the end of hegemony is necessarily bad or good in the grand scheme of things, but it's going to happen, and very soon. I didn't even mention the fact that Bush is going to bankrupt Social Security, not by virtue of leaving it alone, but by interfering and establishing "private investment accounts".

The most scary thing about all of this is the fact that we're enforcing our own (ill-fated) trade policies against our own workers. Labor union membership has been declining since the Reagan Revolution and even more scary is the fact that Americans, simply put, do not read the papers, do not watch the news, do not know what is going on in the world and between their own borders. So with disaster occurring soon, and with the country on a downward spiral with no end in sight, we can only hope that something good (economically) will happen.

But it's not that likely.

Radical Subversion: The War Against Law, Oversight, And The Constitution

2005-01-23T17:35:00.000-05:00

So...Bush and Cheney, to their credit, are really good at keeping secrets. The things in the 12th house of their natal charts are so damn strong that no one finds out what they're doing - not that they're willing to reveal it at all. But one of the most secret things is the Patriot Act. And how the Act has been used to persecute the war on terror against America's own citizens. Now the Republican hawks keep crying out about how they can't capture terrorists without the Patriot Act and all of that ridiculous crap, but the ulterior motive of the Patriot Act is so that the Republicans can intrude on the lives of ordinary American citizens and pry into secrets - just because, you know, since they couldn't make the Get Clinton campaign successul, they have to get a new enemy - and it became the American people.

The Patriot Act has been abused numerous times, but the right-wing media just doesn't pick up on it (of course). And even now, Sections 805 and 505 have been ruled unconstitution. Section 505 allowed the government to issue "National Security Letters" and demand information from ISPs (Internet Service Providers) without any congressional oversight or penalty. Section 805 said that "expert advice" on the subject of terrorism was illegal. 805 was in violation of the First and Fourth Amendments, and 505 was in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. BUT - the Bushies just love to subvert the Constitution, so you know, it just doesn't matter.

Let's see what they've done which has not been ruled unconstitutional (though it still is). In Las Vegas, officials used to Patriot Act to subpoena two stockbrokers in a corruption case against a strip club owner. The Act states that its provisions may be invoked in regards to terrorism AND money laundering. Now that is real outrageous - corruption is bad, no doubt, but it's not exactly terrorism, and should not be included within the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was used to sobpoena journalists to divulge information in regards to their stories about Adrian Lamo, a computer hacker. In May 2004, the FBI used the Patriot Act to surround the house of a Buffalo art professor who was under suspicion for terrorist activites. You know what? He was an associate art professor whose artwork dealt with the politics of biotechnology. Right, that's terrorism. Okay. The Patriot Act was used to prevent the ACLU from divulging the text of its countersuit challenge to the Act. Anarchist Sherman Austin was discriminated against just due to his political views and was put in prison, and the Patriot Act assisted in his capture. No, he was NOT a terrorist. The Patriot Act was used to amend the Copyright Infringement Act and then was used to charge the maintainer of a WebTV game show. Right...ok, 16-year olds downloading music and computer hackers and art professors ARE NOT TERRORISTS. They ARE NOT part of Al-Qaeda or something.

You know, the reason all of this happens is because of this impotent Congress that will NOT oversee what they are supposed to oversee. All of this - ALL OF IT - the religious right, the war on oversight, the dismantling of the CIA (which is really what is happening, not the strengthening), the Gonzales memos which told Bush that his power was unlimited, the corporate scandals, ALL OF IT - was brewing over a 40-year period since the 60s backlash started! It's not a conspiracy, it's just called the Project for the New American Century - their think tank. And they themselves? They're not Republican! They're not for democracy! They are radicals, they are not for democracy, and the most amazing thing about all of them is that they are so bold that THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT!!!

Now, the government shouldn't sit around and concoct ways to violate and subvert the Constitution. Normal lawyers and public officials would be disbarred if they did that! But there is NO oversight in this lame-duck Congress...there is no judicial oversight, there is no congressional oversight, there is no executive oversight!

Most congressmen didn't even read the Patriot Act. They put it on their desks in the middle of the night, a 3000-page document. No one read it. Everyone, with the exception of Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, approved it.

No Excuses: The Time For Accountability Is Now

2005-01-18T22:24:00.000-05:00

Finally, finally, I am impressed with the Democrats.

Condoleezza Rice, who is expected to be confirmed for the position of Secretary of State, was grilled at her hearing today. Especially by Senators Boxer and Kerry. Now, when was the last time there was a Democrat-led grilling? This was a well repudiation of the wimp factor. It is a new start for the Dems...(oh I forgot to post this - thank you/props to Sen. Boxer for the election objection! much appreciated...that we experience some rare moments of true democracy under the Bush government).

Anyways, Sen. Boxer pointed out many, many inherent contradictions that were made by Rice during the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004 - and also the inconsistencies (or should i say flip-flopping, anyone?) which were articulated towards the American people in the leadup to the war in early 2003 and late 2002. I am serious, Boxer and Rice really got pissed off at each other, but it was so justified...

Kerry had this intense line of questioning that reveals his intelligence and depth of understanding of the subject matter - and also of the implicit consequences of our actions in Iraq - not many senators are aware of the history of the region in which the Idiot-in-Chief launched a ground war. He pressed Rice repeatedly to answer the questions, repeating them to her in a forceful manner - but what did she do??? NOTHING. She's brilliant, and also good at evading the truth. So...that was the dry part, yeah....Kerry just came back from Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations - so I know that he knows *exactly* what he's talking about.

But Rice's record in this government is quite disgraceful. First of all - every American needs to understand this - she failed the country on 9/11. Her and her staff, deputies and such, disregarded the now-infamous August 6, 2001 PDB (Presidential Daily Briefing) that warned of an imminent threat against America. She failed in the intelligence gathering and the case made for the Iraq war - but what is *really* outrageous is that she then shifted the reasons for going to war and pushed on with that - what should she have done, you ask? She should've had the integrity to respectfully resign her position - and leave the administration.

But you know, if you want to *keep* your job in the Bush administration, you make mistakes. As a result of her mistakes, she will now become Secretary of State, succeding Colin Powell - whom I truly did respect, and whom the Bush fanatics turned into a puppet.

(They sent Colin Powell to view the tsunami disaster first-hand, fine that's ok, but Bush waited freaking *3 DAYS* to let the breathtaking catastrophe interrupt, god forbid, his dear little vacation in never-never land.)

Not to mention the fact that Condi Rice, as a woman, is not going to be received in the Arab world. I do *not* have anything against women, but it is true that there is a hugely apparent cultural barrier between the West and the East. One of the screws in that barrier is the fact that in many Arab states, women are oppressed and are second-class citizens...now with Condi as the top diplomat, she's not going to be well received - and how are they going to accept her to mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (not that it'll ever end, and not that the government will make an attempt to solve it)!?!?

"The time for diplomacy is now."
- Condoleezza Rice

I'd make it, since actions speak louder than words...

"The time for accountability is now."

^^ She is the real flip-flopper.

The Party Of Lincoln No More

2005-01-17T21:42:00.000-05:00

Ladies and gentleman, you have the right to remain stupid.

But if you'd take a real look at it, it's kind of interesting. Members of the Bush administration are actually beginning to concede that Iraq is a battle that cannot be won. Just yesterday, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (*cough*, neocon war hawk) admitted that Iraq may be too unsafe for elections to take place.

Also just yesterday, an attempt was made on the life of a prominent female candidate in Iraq - in fact, the second time since May 2004 that such an attempt took place. Ghazi al-Yawar, the interim (or installed) "President" conceded that certain Iraqi provinces are just not secure enough for credible elections to take place.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has gotten so far into the depths of denial that he's had to insult the US army to their faces and then subsequently ignite fury from the members of his own political party. Well, let me tell you something, making up excuses for an already failed war is not any way to resolve the situation. Making up excuses, and by doing that - trying to avoid the reality of the ground war - constitutes an inherent truth that Rumsfeld is deeply, yet subconsciously insecure about his job performance (and rightfully so)...But that doesn't matter - because, as we've seen time and time again, the way to keep your job in this government is to make mistakes.

When the international community denounces a war by calling it "illegal" and unjustified, then you know you have a *huge* problem on your hands - or at least that's what conventional wisdom would tell us. But Bush is so arrogant that he'll believe that what he did was right the day he dies. And you know, everyone says that the Democrats need to keep it up with taking the high road - and not stooping down to the sleazy level (in politics) that the Republicans prefer. But the unfortunate truth is that there are no rules anymore. The Dems just won't win if they continue to play by the rules - or not even the rules, but just by being nice. No, that has to stop. With the introduction of this arrogant and racist Bush administration, rules and standards were suddenly tossed out of the window.

Now, everyone counters that by saying the Democrats are morally unacceptable. But do they ever dare to question Republican motives? I sincerely believe that it is time for the Democrats to start playing dirty - the Republicans *almost SUCCEEDED* in removing President Clinton from office. If they can do that for some...thing that he didn't get with his wife, then we can impeach Bush for war crimes. It is that simple. They are relentless - oh, but we're not allowed to be, says the stereotype. Uh, no. End of that. Now.

Real Republican motives include establishing a world hegemony. Ever hear how many times they say that America is the best country in the world? Not a bad saying, but with them it's excessive and blind patriotism. They've even got a think tank called Project for the New American Century....does that imply that the century, in their eyes, needs to be controlled and regulated by America? They believe America acts best unilaterally, when it is the "police force." The Republicans in Congress and otherwise, save for a few moderates like McCain and Collins and Snowe do not believe in the world community. They believe that it is the burden and role of America to "bring democracy" to oppressed regions of the world. Hint, hint: Imperialism doesn't work. They just don't call it imperialism. Some of them are more vocal; they write books on the subject of establishing an American hegemony. Their other secret agenda is to concentrate wealth in the hands of the few and the powerful - their people. Well, that is the wrong agenda for a democracy.

That isn't to say that you can have democracy with capitalism - you can't. But their idea is to make it worse than it already is.

So, let's think: They've been in denial about Iraq, and now, in January 2005, they're just beginning to notice that they've made massive errors. They want to estabish a global American hegemony to further their idea of concentrating wealth in the hands of the few and the powerful. They are secretly racist and discriminatory against gays/lesbians/minorities. They are imperialistic. They are domineering, arrogant, and relentless in their blind pursuits.

But the biggest offense of all is that they've lied to the American people about it time and time again.

Serendipitous Misfortune

2005-01-16T16:56:00.000-05:00

Since 1979, the United States of America has had a strategic interest in Iran. And it has recently been revealed, in the past two months or so, that Iran is seeking to become a nuclear nation. Now, with all that I say about how the media overplays and overinflates terrorist fears, I do believe that one of the real and significant and present dangers is the risk of a nuclear terrorism-related incident. Knowing that, what, if any, threats does Iran pose? And does it or does it not have the capability to act on its intentions, only if, of course, it possesses those intentions?

I do freely admit that it wasn't the most wise of all decisions for the US to even get involved in Iranian policy from the get-go. But the Carter-haters out there really don't have it right this time -- we got involved as early as in 1953, during the Eisenhower administration. 1953 marked the first US intervention in Iran (in that century), when we participated and assisted in the overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh, and we did it...so that we could install a pro-Western government.

But you know the history, the pro-Western government was overthrown in 1979, and the Shah of Iran left in disgrace. Enter Ayatollah Khomeini, the theocratic Islamic fanatic - who set up, of course, a radical Islamic government. Now...the US set the stage for that. I only fault it for not seeing what was coming - for not abiding by the Law of Karma, for not examining the possible consequences of the actions it took.

So now, in the year 2005, we are faced with a possible nuclear threat from Iran. What has the Bush administration done? Ah, well, they said we're gonna try diplomacy. Good idea, but this is a lose-lose situation. War = loss. Iraq II. Diplomacy = no advances. Nothing. So they're gonna try to negotiate. They've been trying for 2 months already. Have they gotten anywhere? Well, maybe a few business contracts here and there - undoubtedly ones that have conflicts of interest - but, no, they have not accomplished anything significant in terms of protecting America. Good for their record, huh?

Iran, in my opinion, probably does not have the capability to transport a nuclear weapon to the US on its own. But with help from terrorist networks operating within its borders, it poses an extremely significant threat. But again, what has the Bush administration done? Well, nothing. They *could have* shut down the funding towards Iran, they could move towards tougher sanctions, they could move towards better intelligence about and inside Iran. But they have not done any of those things, since they are embattled and obsessed with Iran's now chaotic neighbor, Iraq.

Ironically, we participated in the 1953 coup in Iran - only to find that 50 years later, we would invade its neighbor, taking the very same actions.

Both resulted in failure. The persian puzzle cannot be solved in the manner that this president has handled Iraq.

How To Inaugurate A Republican President

2005-01-15T13:40:00.000-05:00

One of the more outrageous and quite frankly, embarrasing (but not to the right-wingers) is the fact that this administration is completely and unequivocally refusing to reimburse Washington D.C. for inauguration-related festivities and costs.

The facts - the administration and its private inaugural committee are spending in the region of 40 million dollars for their "celebration of democracy". Oh, yeah...it's gonna be the biggest ever, too. Being the first post-9/11 inauguration, this will have an unprecented security detail. Ok, fine...but 40 million dollars? Really, there are better places for that money to go. Mr. Bush, look at America's plight, and those who suffer. Be generous, and if you really are a "compassionate conservative", then stand up against the extreme, out-of-control far-right-wingers now in control of your party!

Anyways, back to the inauguration. D.C. will get no reimbursement. Lunacy, really. Also important is the fact that, you know, of course we have the Christian Right supporting this every step of the way - they even wanna come out with their huge crosses (no, not neck-chains), like *posters* of *BIG* crosses. Are they that moronic? THIS GUY BUSH IS HATED BY 90% OF THE WORLD. AND THAT INCLUDES 50% OF HIS OWN COUNTRY!

Gosh...who knew? We've got inauguration-boy getting all pepped up, admitting his choice phrases weren't really that choice after all - "Bring 'em on, Dead or Alive" - yeah, that, um...*now* he realizes. Gee, what great timing...ugh.

In the last inauguration, the media bias was ever too apparent. NO ONE watching TV on January 20, 2001 (the last good day of American government) saw the massive protests, the egg-throwing at the limo, the fact that Bush couldn't even do the traditional walk to the White House, all of that. It wouldn't be revealed...until June 25, 2004 -- in Fahrenheit 9/11 (what a godsend). And this inauguration, there'll be protests. By the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition and United for Peace and Justice...will they be covered by the mainstrea media? NO. An unequivocal no. Those are just the facts - the media has, no *not* a liberal bias, but a *conservative* bias.

But maybe Bush won't be able to the White House anyway. We do have *some* sane people in this massively screwed up nation (surprise, surpise).

But there was one victory today. Charles Graner, claiming he was "acting on illegal orders" was sentenced to 10 years in military prison for abuses committed at Abu Ghraib. Yup, he's guilty all right, because he *committed* the infractions...but he's telling the truth that he acted on orders...orders from who? THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION! duh...anyways, this is one of those rare times/instances in which the justice system actually *works*.

Ah...justice in this country is so elusive. Especially with the top-ranking members of the current government. A disgrace, unfortunately, it is.

Dissent: Punishable by Death (Actually, A Higher Virtue)

2005-01-12T13:34:00.000-05:00

There is one simple fact, above all, when you're dealing with the Bush administration. The fact is, dissent is not tolerated. A few examples for liberals and loony conservatives alike:

1. Cabinet meetings are completely scripted. They'll say, oh, Condi, talk about international security for 5 miutes, Rummy, talk about the military (translation: go into denial) for 7 minutes. And, Gonzales, talk about how the American people have to give up their freedoms. There's NO discussion or debate. It is completely scripted, and there is no interjecting and/or intervening. Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, in his book, compared the cabinet meetings of the Clinton and Bush administrations. In Clinton's administration, issues would be examined from all sides, and then-President Clinton would only make a final decision after thouroughly examining those views/perspectives. Now, with the Bush crime family, we have scripted meetings, in which (to Bush), "it's my way or the highway" mentality playing out.

2. Press conferences. In this administration, with their rampant intolerance and contempt for anyone who doesn't share their views, press conferences are also rigged. Questions from reporters must be submitted to the press secretary, Scott McClellan, a bully and a right-wing idealogue. So, basically, you'll get picked to ask a question if they like it and if you're lucky. THEN, god forbid you if you ask a different question - because if you, you'll *never* be called on again.

3. Protests. There are those who believe, oh, "civil disobedience is still disobedience." WHAT BS! Civil disobedience is the most necessary think if a democracy is to survive. Anyways, the administration recently tried to limit and/or revoke the permits held by protesting organizations of the upcoming inauguration. Back up a few months ago, to the Republican (*cough*, I mean Christian-Cross-On-The-Podium-Where-You-Exploit-9/11) Convention. HUNDREDS of INNOCENT people were arrested, brutalized, and on top of all that, demonized by the irresponsible NYPD. I mean, really, look at the number of investigations into them for excessive use of force resulting in death or injury. Pick and choose. Terrible.

4. Bush himself. And the rest of the clan. They just will not answer the questions of the people. I really have to give them credit for being such good liars, and evaders of pointed questions. They are in such denial that, when they know they're wrong at heart, they just have to blame the Democrats, or those 'liberal north-easters', or those 'intellectuals', or those 'lefties', or those 'commies'. It's ridiculous. Such denial that now basically everything that comes out of each one's mouth (now that Powell is leaving) is a lie. They know they're in trouble, and they're lying to the American people about it. At least Democrats like LBJ and Clinton can admit when they lie. But these Republicans can't, because they know that if they do, they'll disappoint their "we're good, moralistic Christians" crowd.

Oh, you know, yeah....i like that slogan, When Clinton Lied, No One Died.

When Bush lied, 1357 died. And counting.

The Sum Of The Measures Of A Conflict Of Interest Is...

2005-01-11T22:24:00.000-05:00

The Republicans (congressional or not) have one thing in common (all of them): it's a lack of honesty. See, basically, right-wingers just have an unevolved character. They do not understand the true values of America. So let's get in to what they did:

In a report prepared for two Democratic senators and representatives, the VAST amounts of conflicts of interests among companies for reconstruction in Iraq are detailed.

Now, here's the biggest problem. There are contractors -- and then there are subcontractors. But the problem with the Bush business dealings in Iraq is the fact that the contractors that have been employed by the administration have their *own*, seperate, personal dealings with the subcontractors that have been employed by the administration. THAT IS A RECIPE FOR THIEVERY! Now, here are a few examples:

1. $28.5 billion for reconstruction - joint venture by Parsons and CH2M Hill to oversee $1.7 billion for Fluor, Washington Group International, AMEC, Black & V-Tech ---- NOW, the problem? The two parent companies, Parsons and CH2M Hill have significant conflicts of interest. Parsons and Fluor have a $2.6 billion venture for the development of oil fields in Kazakhstan OUTSIDE of Iraq! See, there's a venture between the contractors AND subcontractors - OUTSIDE of Iraq! Ah, now since there's no OVERSIGHT because the Republicans are lazy, or they don't care, or they're putting up a sham, no one noticed this.

2. The subcontractors under the control of the parent company- their decisions in the Iraq operation affect the *private* dealings of Parsons (the parent)!!! Parsons is teamed with Bechtel on $1.8 billion dollar reconstruction contract. Parsons has an $800 million contract for reconstruction in northern Iraq. BUT - these affects Parsons' own private dealings within the US because Parsons and Bechtel have significant ties within the US!

3. CH2M Hill -- according to the report, CH2M Hill has "ongoing contractual relationships with three of the firms IT IS OVERSEEING! (in Iraq) - Washington Group, Fluor, and AMEC. IN ADDITION to what they do in Iraq, CH2M Hill has an ongoing business venture with the Washington Group for a cleanup project in Miamisburg, Ohio. IN ADDITION to what they're doing in Iraq, Washington Group, Fluor, and AMEC *all* have governmental contracts for another Department of Energy cleanup project in Hanford, Washington.

The report also states: In March 2004, the Coalitional Provisional Authority (CPA) awarded 10 contracts worth $5.1 billion for the reconstruction of various sectors in Iraq. In technical terms, these contracts are cost-plus, single-award indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts. This means that these are open ended contracts that allow the federal government to place task orders for specific goods and services. Under the federal procurement regulations, these contracts are supposed to be awarded to multiple contractors so that there can be competition at the task order level. By awarding each contract to a single contractor, CPA PRECLUDED COMPETITION over specific task orders."

^^ They are SUBVERTING the Constitution and they're using the American people's taxpayer money to do it.

The result of these open-ended no-bid contracts? The companies all have MONOPOLIES! Ex: Washington Group International got ALL the contracts for electrical work in the north. Perini got ALL of the contracts for electrical work in the south. Result? NO COMPETITION. So much for Bush who preaches the free market economy.

---

And precisely WHY did this all happen? Because of the concerted effort, on the part of the congressional Republicans, to make war on America's system of checks and balances and to dismantle those wise constraints on concentrated power. The Republicans have indulged in a fundamental lack of oversight. They have failed their responsibility as the majority party in Congress. They have failed to oversee the contractors and subcontractors to whom contracts were appropriated.

But the biggest crime of all? THEFT! This is thievery - mark my words, the conflicts of interests in Iraq are a direct result of the Bush administration's zealous drive to steal the American taxpayer's money. It is thievery; it is illegal.

The Bushies actually support this. They think about, you know, the old-boy network philosophy...the ends justify the means.

But anyone who's ever studied ethics knows...that that's exactly how you get into trouble.

And that the Bush administration, and their corporate cronies, have none.

Patriotisme Vrai

2005-01-10T13:40:00.000-05:00

All the Bushies are desperately clawing at the seams, threatening to anyone that he or she has committed an unpardonable sin of sorts if that person has chosen to adopt an anti-war stance. They've made the allegation that one is "unpatriotic" if one doesn't support the idea of the war in Iraq. This is, yet again, one of their ridiculous fear-and-smear tactics...the extreme right-wing of this country believes that dissent is unpatriotic. Well, my friends, dissent is truly the most visible form of patriotism.

I believe that putting a "Support Our Troops" ribbon on one's car is a show of false patriotism. Does that person really support the troops? Or is that person just putting the decal up to show that they're joining the rest of the pack? The problem with an excessive patriotic fervor, like the one in the aftermath of September 11th, and the one currently occurring, is that it leads to one thing...more dead bodies. The problem with an entire country displaying decals that support the idea of the war is that the country is only going to fuel the resentment against it. Unless the person with the ribbon really has a son or daughter over in Iraq, then that person is simply committing to a cause without really examining its ends or goals first. And that is truly dangerous.

There is an important distinction to be made. Yes, I support the troops. The ribbons imply for support for the war. I do not support the war. I do support the troops.

A wise soul once said that the difference between the current situation and the aftermath of World War II was that the United States reformed itself after the previous instance had expired. Now, there is no end in sight to the lies, deception, and most of all, arrogance that comes with it. Since, you know, the Bushies just cannot admit a mistake, they have to blame the Democrats, blame Clinton, blame anti-war people, blame dissent, blame liberalism, blame the Kennedy family, blame Massachusetts, blame France, and praise God. But anyways, the fact was...after WWII we reformed and we restarted. Now, there is none of that. I quote General Joseph Hoar, who testified before Congress in 2004...and everyone, Republican or Democrat, damn well better listen to a guy like him. He said, "We are on the brink of failure...I believe we are looking into the abyss." Ok, now when a guy like Joe Hoar uses the word "abyss", we really have to sit up and pay attention to exactly what he is saying.

The Bushies can't admit wrongdoing or any sort of errors, so they just go about hanging ribbons, hanging flags, covering nude statues, changing "french fries" to "freedom fries", and the like. There arrogance has gone to such far lengths it is incredible. I am ashamed to say it, but a congressman from my own state once introduced legislation that would bar any French company from participating in the reconstruction of Iraq. There is a congresswoman from Florida who introduced legislation to bring home the bodies of dead US servicemen in France, because that country "is a so-called ally that has turned its back on us."

And they believe that they're the most responsible party in the US when it comes to leading alliances. They think France isn't being sympathetic to their cause - look at them! They're the ones who have pushed everyone else away from the table! With their rampant arrogant legislation and subliminal moves to offend others! They are the ones who got us into this! And now the arrogance continues, as they call anti-war people "unpatriotic."

They called former Georgia Senator Max Cleland "unpatriotic." Guess what? He's a Vietnam veteran who lost 3 limbs! They went so far as to call him unpatriotic, and weak on national defense. Terribly, he was voted out of the Senate that year, when the Bushies ran their disgusting and despicable TV ad alleging his "lack of patriotism."

They allied themselves with the right-wing "527s" that were a contributing factor in the negative image of Senator John Kerry, former Democratic presidential candidate. Those 527s basically demeaned and undermined his image as a war hero, which he *IS*. That's the true irony - they brought Kerry down, alleging that he was a liar when it came to his military service, BUT AT THE SAME TIME - they glorified the President's "remarkable National Guard service."

Right...ok...yeah...*cough, cough* HIS FATHER! POPPY! Got him into the Guard! Wow...so much for a real President.

***on an unrelated note***

Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 won the People's Choice Award! YAY!!!!!!!!

***on another unrelated note***

History was made two days ago when for the *first time since 1877*, a Senator and a Congressman joined voices in an objection. The objection was raised *not* to challenge the results, but because of the fact that there are and will continue to be massive irregularities in voting all across the country (as there are no national standards) until we resolve this terrible problem. No, I'm sorry, but the Help America Vote Act did absolutely nothing, nor did the McCain-Feingold Bill, as admirable as its aims were. But anyways, thank you Senator Boxer! There was like, this huge fight on the House floor, and it basically was a fight between the African-American Democrats and the white Republicans. And man, some of the white Republicans really revealed their racism in that chamber...ugh. But what a show for true democracy! Not the imposed "democracy" that's happening overseas...double ugh.

***back to post***

"It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind."
- Voltaire

Iraq-Contra: Outrageous

2005-01-09T23:29:00.000-05:00

A list of *APPROVED* torture techniques in the memo signed by Alberto Gonzales in August of 2002:

bending back fingers

forced masturbation

choking

simulated eye gouging

keeping Iraqi civilians in outside cages regardless of the weather

throwing Iraqis off of bridges into water

simulated drowning

leaving bullets into prisoner’s bodies

killing wounded prisoners

taping prisoners to wooden boards

injecting drugs into prisoners

rape

murder

naked pyramids of prisoners

sodomy with broomsticks

severe beatings

electric shock

electrodes attached to genitalia

pulling off fingernails

putting lit cigarettes into ears

hanging from hooks

severe burning

3-month long forced sleep deprivation

sexual humiliation

^^ The guy who approved that is gonna be the next attorney general. THINK ABOUT IT. And where, just where are the Democrats? Yet again, they fail. Joe Biden gets up there during the confirmation hearing and says, "Oh, Mr. Gonzales, it's about your judgment, not your integrity. I like you - I want you to be candid with me. I like you. You're the real deal."

Sick. Thanks, now the Democrats are COMPLYING with this!

The new plan, boasts Rummy, is that we're gonna send the so-called death squads to Iraq to deal with this insurgency. For one thing, we're creating our own insurgency! Secondly, is this America? How did we get here? HOW IS THIS HAPPENING? The guys doing this policy are the *same* guys who orchestrated the Reagan "contra" policy. Yeah, great. We killed 75,000 *INNOCENT* civilians in El Salvador, in the early 1980s. And it was hailed as some sort of great success by the American military. You know what they did? They diverted the funds from the Iran-Contra scandal to fund right-wing militants in El Salvador to overthrow the leftist government there. Now, in doing so, they killed 75,000 innocent people. Wait, excuse me, not only did they killed them, they BUTCHERED them. To death. Can you believe they're about to do it again in Iraq? The Iraqi contras won't target the insurgents, they'll target the regular civilian population, anyone who crosses their path.

I can't take it anymore. I mean, people in America just can't take it anymore. How did we get here? How did we get to where we have this guy Gonzales who convinced this moron, this psychopath in the White House that this torture and these death squads are legitimate? Why are we returning to this world? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FIGHTING! We all agreed, after WWII, to NEVER return to torture.

60 years later, look what we've got.

And the sad thing is that under *any* other administration, this would have been scandalous. Oh no, but now we've got the Bushies telling us that this is justified and SUPPORTING this! And of course, the Democrats just sit by and watch.

Incredible.

In God We Terrorize

2005-01-08T23:54:00.000-05:00

About a week ago, we found out that "faith-based organizations" were given around a sum of 12 billion dollars in 2003 alone. Think about how much money that really is. 12 billion dollars. But consider in the context of its recipients, who they were, and what they do.

Faith-based organizations, as defined by this administration, are organizations that promote the idea of "faith". This is often manifested in religious institutions and such. Now, I have repeatedly stresed that it is just not a good idea to let faith and religion intercede into a federal government of a nation-state. Why? For one thing, by funding faith-based organizations (FBOs), then the government is implicitly endorsing them. Now I understand that it can be a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim organization, but regardless of their denomination, they are organizations that promote faith -- and the supposed importance of it. To the government I must only say one thing: we *must* keep this country secular. I don't care if it was founded on Judeo-Christian principles; that is in the PAST and does not necessarily apply to today. Today, we are an inclusive nation that welcomes all people. Now since it has been Christian organizations that have been given the most federal funding, we are seen or portrayed to be a Christian nation. And it is almost true, we are 97% Christian. Okay - now even though Christians constitute a majority in this nation, that does NOT give the government the right to subvert the Constitution and fund their organizations, endorse their "faith", and go about business.

Especially in a time when we're fighting a war against radical Islamic terrorism, it is NOT a good idea to promote faith in the homeland. Let me tell you what we are seen in the Middle East. We are seen as a dangerously belligerent superpower that wants to proslytize its Western and modern values. *In addition*, we are seen as the Christian nation that we are. Now, if the members of the government would just study history and not be so arrogant, then they would know that wars have been fought over religion -- I am referring particularly to the Crusades. The Crusades were a series of wars fought between Muslims and Christians -- the Christians were seeking to recapture the Holy Land, which had been indigenously occupied (at that time) by Muslims. Today, there is a minority *indigenous* Christian population, but we have also started a ground war in the Middle East in which most of our comabatants/soldiers are Christian. The Arab world does NOT see the US as a liberator; it sees the US as an arrogant imperliastic nation seeking a rematch of the Crusades! We are perceived as a violent nation that is coming back to spread Christianity for the second time around! It is NOT freedom and democracy that we are seen as bringing.

And besides the previous two arguments (inclusive nature, religious wars), we must keep this country secular. And that is because we cannot continue to promote faith. Faith CANNOT be substantiated. It cannot be proven. God is NOT proven to exist. I can't even scientifically prove that my astrological beliefs are real -- but there is strong evidence to suggest so, as opposed to the more mainstream religions in this country. Religion itself is detrimental to the health of a country if it is allowed to interfere in the affairs of that country because it gives its leaders something to turn to if they cannot account for themselves or their actions. Well, we can't have that, can we? Of course not. Secondly, religion leads to a deterioration in critical thinking. It promotes the belief that we should not question what is done and what happens in the world, and in the government especially. It allows us to turn a blind eye to what is really going on in the world. (This is organized religion, btw, that I'm speaking of.) Next, religious principles are just plain out ridiculous. They are NOT realistic. The whole point of certain religions are to prepare for after your death. Why do that when you're living? And plus, look what its done. Just look throughout history - at what religion has done. Wars have been fought over it. The Church owns at least 20% of the wealth in this world! Do you know just *how much money that is*??? IMMEASURABLE amounts! And, on top of all of that, it's contributed to this massive anti-intelligence movement that's been recently started.

So I agree with George Carlin. When will Jesus bring the pork chops?

Compassionate Conservatism For The Classroom

2005-01-07T23:34:00.000-05:00

One of the most strikingly failed pieces of legislation that has been pushed by this administration the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. What a disaster!

Perhaps one of the most arrogant pieces of *legislation* passed under the auspices of that Congress and this adminstration, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) sure does leave many, many children behind. I point to one huge flaw that I have found. The NCLB act requires that teachers must be certified in each subject they teach at school. Ok, so that means that the elementary school teacher who teaches everything must be certified in *every single one* of those subjects. That teacher needs a science certification, english certification, history certification, OH and a foreign language one -- schools are now teaching world languages as early as the 3rd grade. Now you might say, well, this is a good thing because there need to be standards for teachers. That's a legitimate point. But, honestly, what does this do to the teacher in Wyoming or Montana or Utah, in a one-room schoolhouse, teaching all subjects to 5 kids? That type of teacher is negatively affected by this because that teacher now is required to seek certification (or recertification) in every subject he/she teaches. That teacher probably won't need such certification, because he/she has been teaching there for years and years and knows what to do and *is* a good or an excellent teacher. But now, under this abominable NCLB act, those really good teachers are forced to actually *remove* themselves from work to seek certification.

Huh. To me, forcing teachers out of work to make them become needlessly recertified leaves children behind.

One other thing I point to in this horrendous act is the fact that it reveals that its authors have an inherently flawed belief that standardized testing leads to better schooling. Such an opinion or belief could not be farther from the truth. NCLB and its advocates hold the belief that intelligence can be revealed in numerical tests, and that knowledge and the ability to retain it can be revealed in qualitative measures. That is *completely* inaccurate. Firstly, minds (generally) work at least 7 different ways. The mind's retention and attention to detail cannot be measured qualitatively or numerically in *ANY* way! What would lead to better schooling would be schools finding a way to connect with students mind in all ways possible, not just in a numerical or qualitative sense. The mind is like Scorpio, it is intricate and mysterious, and there is a battle fought for a predominant or preferred method of reasoning (in the individual). In the mind are many spectrums, only some of which emerge as dominant. So knowing that not everyone's mind works the same way, and not everyone's works in a qualitative manner, it would not make sense to measure the mind's abilities in a qualitative manner. But again, you know, the Bushies tell us that if we trust God and put faith in America, then the job will get done.

Really.

But under NCLB and its ridiculous pro-numerical assumptions, schools that post below-average or not "up-to-standard" test scores are placed on a "risk list" for failing schools. Federal funding is either partially withheld or cut off completely. Now...to me, that is NOT the way to educate students. Even if standardized testing did lead to a better education, it wouldn't matter under this act, because policing schools and then withholding previously promised funding from them is a policy that puts on the road to an even deeper educational crisis that the currently existing one. The penalty for not being "up to standards" discourages schools and is possibly even worse than the ridiculous provisions in this law itself.

And even if NCLB was a good way to measure schools' capacity to educate students, it *still* would not work since this administration underfunded it by a massive 1.9 billion dollars. So much for even making at least an ATTEMPT to push their policy through. I mean, it's still a bad policy and all, but they didn't even fund it! Explanation = lunacy. When the Republicans don't enforce a bad policy, something is wrong. Oh yeah, Sen. Ted Kennedy worked on it *partially*. So I guess the Bushies put an automatic stamp of disapproval on the legislation even if it was drafted by "the conservative senator from Massachusetts."

Ooh, excuse me. I just realized why it was underfunded. The Republicans don't really want to educate the country (it'll allow them to remain in power if more surface-level thinkers are manufactured)... and even though they think they are educating the country's youth, they know they aren't (some know they aren't). But they took the action of really *passing* the act because of the provision in it that states that every single public high school across this nation be required to provide the names of its attendees to the military. Whoa. Now, some schools, recognizing that this is insane, have sent notices to parents alerting them to this fact and asking for parental consent to release names. But many schools, unfortunately, do not send such a notice.

In that situation, the student's name is given to the military, the student gets a phone call saying the military will pay for your college, the student is shipped off to Iraq, and the student becomes another statistic on the casualty list.

The irony is that the historically most educated sections of this country (the Northeast, the Pacific Northwest) actually *realize* the massive flaws of NCLB and actively campaign to change it/or even go so far as to disregard it. Good for them. But the other regions of the country, historically less educated ones like the South and the Southwest blindly comply with the provisions of the law, and do not challenge them whatsoever. That teacher in the one-room schoolhouse feels the need to comply with the law and become recertified. And so, it is the story of a great misfortune, but also of a comedic tragedy. The all-too-apparent historical pattern is repeated indefinitely. The intelligentsia flourishes while the proletariat suffers. The bourgeousie of society reaps the benefits of a higher education at the expense of the commonfolk, who are not privy to such opportunity.

NCLB. It really does leave children behind.

***EDIT***

And now, we've just learned that the Bush administration has been paying Armstrong Williams, a conservative pundit, $250,000 to promote their failing educational policy on television screens across the country! This is the government using the media to promote its own agenda. That is the most amoral thing I have ever heard. When will it end!?!?!?!?

Of Trials And Torture

2005-01-06T16:24:00.000-05:00

As I write, the Senate is holding a confirmation hearing for Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales. Now, for four years, we've lived under the rule of John Ashcroft. And everyone thought that was terrible. But that was nothing compared to what we are about to experience. Currently, Gonzales serves as White House General Counsel.

In August of 2002, back when Bush and his cronies were revving up their fear-mongering machine via the right-wing media and such, there was a lot going on behind the scenes. Now, since the Republicans don't like to talk about truth and facts, I'm going to make them clear. In August of 2002, Vice President Cheney's General Counsel, David Addington, was secretly drafting a memo that sought the legal opinion and definition of "torture". This memo was submitted to Gonzales, who signed it.

"I want to make very clear that I am deeply committed to the rule of law," he said.

NOT TRUE! By *signing* the memo, he implicitly endorsed the legal definition of torture. The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits any US servicemen or personnel to engage in the torture of a US-held detainee. Since that's the case, and torture is prohibited, then there can only be one reasonable explanation for why this memo was drafted -- Gonzales sought the legal opinion so that he could proceed in illegal actions such as authorizing the use and execution of and techniques relatin to torture.

It has also been revealed that Gonzales also signed another memo that authorized the frequent movement and shipment to other installations of US detainees. Moving detainees around the world in order to keep them from being checked up on by the government is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions AND the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This memo, again, was signed and approved by Gonzales, and it approved policies for the CIA and DoD to move "ghost detainees" around the world, on a frequent basis.

All of these memos were drafted by the White House and signed by Gonzales, currently serving as the White House counsel. However immoral their content, the illegality of their approval lies in the fact that the Senate was *never* consulted. In fact, the Senate was completely disregarded in the faces of Gonzales and Addington, the right-wing idealogues over at the White House. That has, in Senator Ted Kennedy's words, serious implications in the seperation of powers in the US. It is only one of the MANY examples of the overreaching of the executive branch in this administration. The President and his counsel (or his VP's counsel) has NO right to draft a memo defining torture, and then endorse that definition without first submitting it to the Senate. They subverted the Constitution, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is a very little known fact, but Cheney actually had an office established in the Pentagon to embark on a prelimenary explanation of would-be Iraq policy. Oh yeah, this office -- the Special Projects Office -- is the one that got us into the Ahmed Chalabi fiasco *and* was a recipient of the Gonzales memos that endorsed torture -- and this office led us *directly* to Abu Ghraib.

Abu Ghraib was an international embarrasment for the US. However, what was even more embarrasing was President Bush's half-hearted apology to the Arab world, and his refusal to dismiss Donald Rumsfeld from the position of Secretary of Defense. The Gonzales memos, for one thing, disprove the administration's claim that a "few bad apples" had perpetrated these acts. The Gonzales memos prove that these policies came from the TOP, that they were sought by those at the top, and subsequently authorized by those at the top. There were a group of lawyers within the Justice Department, in that time, who were outraged by such drastic proposals (for torture) that they took the unprecendented step of going to a *private* attorney in DC, who specializes in human rights, to ask for his legal opinion on what was being done at the Justice Department and the Pentagon, through DoD.

This is the inherent contradiction within the US. It claims that it stands up for high moral principals, and claims that its being the world police force is justified because it is the nation that seeks to root out injustice in the world. But when that nation becomes the perpetrator of the very forces that it seeks to destroy, there is unavoidable conflict. The US has now endorsed certain war crimes and the use of torture, thus contravening its own military law and Constituion. Now, are war crimes and torture the morals for which the US seeks to uphold? I dearly hope not, but with a man seeking an endorsement of torture and then seeking to subvert the Constitution by bypassing the Senate, the moral deterioration of US policy is only all too apparent. Abu Ghraib was not, as the administration first insisted, perpetrated by "a few bad apples." These were policies directly from the top, authorized by Secretary Rumsfeld over at DoD, the Vice President, and the leadership at the Justice Department, including John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. So, with that, it will be very difficult for the US to stand up for freedom, human rights, and democracy for a very long time. The neocons and the hawks over at DoD and DoJ owe not only an apology to America and the Arab world, as Al Gore said in May of 2004, but also to every man and woman throughout our world who have held high the idea of the United States as a shining goal to inspire their causes to bring about justice and the rule of law in their lands.

So, during his tenure as W.H. Gen. Counsel, Alberto Gonzales has:

1. Sought keeping the names of the members of Cheney's energy task force secret

2. Supported the Patriot Act, curtailing and limiting civil liberties

3. Was the person responsible for the fallout from Nannygate - the Bernard Kerik scandal

4. Bypassed the Senate, subverting the Constitution of the United States

5. Subverted the Uniform Code of Military Justice

And he is actively admitting that he doesn't understand the questions coming to him from the Senators regarding his role in the administration and his participation in the drafting of these memos and such.

Bottom line: Torture is NOT an American value. The military (despite my criticisms of it) has a long history of treating detainees with humanity.

And this guy Gonzales, who endorsed torture, is going to become our next Attorney General.

Someone please wake me up and tell me this is just a horrible dream.

***EDIT***

I do *NOT* buy the argument that, in a post-9/11 world, the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply because we're dealing with a new playing field. That argument is ridiculously invalid. Ok, we've dealt with terrorism on *many* occasions since the United States' inception. One could make the case that the Civil War was terrorism. Or what about the terrorist attacks on US institutions abroad during the 70s, 80s, and 90s? Just because 9/11 happened, it does NOT mean that the Geneva Conventions don't apply. The WHOLE POINT of Geneva was that we resolved that we would not want to go back to the pre-World War II World of dark rooms and gulags. Now, if we were to decide that Geneva does not apply in the post-9/11 world, then that would be regressionist, and it would completely contradict our reason for combating terrorism itself.

Oh, and I forgot about the Bybee memo. The Bybee memo was another secret document drafted that gives Bush the "authority" to override ANY international law. Relating to torture or otherwise.

That's stupid when it's an *international* war on terrorism.

Voodoo Economics Revisited: H.W., It Was Your Own Son

2005-01-05T13:28:00.000-05:00

Just out: Bush plans to push ahead with his Social Security reform plan very soon.

Translation: Prepare for disaster.

First off, let's be clear what's at stake. Before I delve into the flaws in Bush's plan to reform Social Security, first I must say that it is not necessary to reform it at all. Leading economists, such as Paul Krugman of the NYTimes, have it right when they say that Social Security has been set up to lead us into the 2040s. That is a far time away. Now I'm NOT saying we should totally ignore any minor flaws that currently exist in the system. We really should conduct studies and determine the feasability of the system AFTER that point in time. However, there really is no need to worry about it now - unless Bush gets this plan through.

The Venerable Idiot himself wants to privatize Social Security. That is to say, he wants to make it a *business*. Think about that. Social Security, in the future (with his plan), won't be guaranteed. It will be a business in which you must make your own profit. He wants to allow people to invest their Social Security money in the stock market. Now, this is a recipe for disaster and I'll say why. 98% of brokers on Wall Street are extremely dishonest, and will run away with your money if you choose to invest it. Now, once it's gone, it does not come back. And if you lose your money, there's no FDR & WWII coming along to help get it back for you. Or, even if the brokers *are* honest, then the stock market could go down, and you could lose everything anyway.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. He *also* plans to borrow money at 3% (for Social Security), and lend it out to people at 2% (interest rates). This is the real formula for disaster. That's a NET LOSS. Now, seriously, given Bush's track record (economy-wise, presidency and pre-presidency), we know he's very good at losing money. Borrowing at 3% and loaning at 2% will result in a net loss of money that will never, EVER be recovered.

So we'll worry about the future of Social Security only if that RADICALLY CONSERVATIVE, extremist right-wing plan is pushed through the out-of-control-we're-a-strong-America right-wing Congress.

Huh, guess our chances aren't so good, after all...

Oh yeah, this guy Bush is the same guy that cut taxes but increased spending.

I laugh at the congressional republicans who supported him and actually called his economic plans "conservative".

Come to think of it, he's the biggest liberal spender of ALL TIME, even if his Social Security privatization/deregulation plan is just *that* far to the right.

Nobody knew it back in 1980, but the *real* voodoo economics would come just 25 years later, and its name would be George W. (Wrong) Bush

Danger Zone

2005-01-04T12:05:00.000-05:00

I was on CNN.com today, and the top headline was that the Governor (equivalent to mayor in their terms) of Baghdad, Ali Al-Haidri, was assassinated. The situation in Iraq has clearly deteriorated beyond imagine and will indefinitely continue to do so. Also mentioned in the article was the fact that this is the *second time this week* that the Green Zone has been targeted. This time, the assassination and attack was successful. With the Green Zone being targeted and with as many Iraqi police as coalition servicemen being killed, there is NO end in sight to the violence there.

Donald Rumsfeld has been repeatedly criticized for failing to plan for post-war Iraq. Fair enough, but it goes far, far beyond that. It is extremely probable that no US senator, congressmen, or member of the government had good foresight in the leadup to the war, in regards to what it would eventually become. Even today, there is no grasp of the real depths of the struggle we are in. It must be understood that America, though it stands for good in the world, cannot enforce its doctrine on the Middle East. The occupation of Iraq is one of the most arrogant and ill-fated military operations in history. What the US fails to understand is that when it invades a Middle Eastern country, whether for good or ill (or both), it is perceived as an imperialist and securalist Western, MODERN nation. The Middle East has an incredibly interesting history as being the crossroads region for all of the religions of the world, but now such mixture is detrimental to the stability of the region. America is perceived by *all* to be an imperialist, secular country which is trying to impose its own values on the Middle East. When you think we have an internal, domestic culture war, then you're not even thinking of the explosive mixture of religion, politics, and ideologies in the Middle East. The point is, if the US invades, it is doomed to fail in any operation it sets out to do because it does not realize the depths of the conflict in which it is intervening.

That is precisely what the US doesn't get - the United States actually prefers to overlook the religious conflicts in the Middle East and believes that democracy will trump all - as if to imply that religion doesn't matter and that secularism is the way to go. In my personal opinion, that's true. But you can't try to impose that sort of doctrine on the Middle East, torn by endless religious conflict. Democracy is something the Middle East hasn't ever seen, save for Israel, but even now Isreal's livelihood is being threatened with the seemingly everlasting Intifada II.

Iraq, like many other nations in the Middle East, is home to a number of internal warring factions. But there is one theory in history that has been proved time and time again. It is that if an outside country invades and occupies another country with domestic warring factions, then those factions will unite to face the occupier. It happened it Vietnam, when we intervened in their ongoing civil war, and it is happening in Iraq. Not surprisingly, it is one of the Vietnam-Iraq parallels that is never recognized or realized by the US media. Now, the three factions in Iraq - the Shi'a, Sunni, and Kurds have united to face the US-led "coalition of the willing," as termed by the Idiot-in-Chief himself, George W. Bush. With that happening, there is almost certain defeat in America's path. And it is already happening. As of this writing, 1336 troops have been killed in Iraq. Does the US realize this? Does the US realize that they are on a crash course to destruction?

Sadly and unfortunately, there is still much ignorance in today's world.

The GOP: An IED

2005-01-03T16:52:00.000-05:00

My first post!

I'm sure I'm still subconsciously thinking of the fallout from that fateful November day. The fact is, there may be a hidden outcome that nobody is taking the time to even notice.

What happens when a party or political entity has too much power? History teaches us that it will self-destruct, or implode. Look at the recent cases of Russia and China, where political parties have imploded taking countries down with them,or more historical ones such as the Ottoman Empire, where a long-standing reign was suddenly (and visibly) shattered. Today, the Republicans undoubtedly hold a majority in Congress. They hold the presidency. They hold a majority of the governorships in this country. The Dems have the lead in the number of state legislatures held, but only by 12 states. It is incredible, but the Republicans have managed what would have been a political impossiblity 50 years ago, aligning themselves with the most differing parts of society (i.e., the rich vs. poor, the elite vs. the common), and producing majorities in the houses of the local school board right down to the local school board or town council.

But such an alignment, logically, just is not good for the welfare of the country. I would point to a few major squabbles that have erupted among the Republicans since the election - after they claimed their "mandate". Firstly, a fight erupted among their ranks over the feasibility of awarding Arlen Specter the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Now, Specter is (quite admirably) a moderate Republican who stands for his principles and has not to my knowledge ever participated in shocking clandestine or illicit activities. If the Republicans want to "unite the country", then why would their leadership raise concerns about a member of their own party just because that member (Specter) believed that women have a right to choose whether or not to abort a pregnancy? That party is already becoming marginalized, and this is one of the most recent examples of it.

Secondly, there was the fight over intelligence reform. Okay, now I heard both sides loud and clear. But I believe that only one of them was righteous. I supported the reform bill, for a number of reasons. Number one is that it places accountability on people in the intelligence community. That's a first step towards improvement - since, currently, NO ONE is accountable within the executive branch. Second, there were some who claimed that shifting and organizing job positions in boxes in the intel community will not really improve the deep problems. But perhaps it will. There are, currently, 8 agencies that barely communicate with each other in the intel community. Changing that will definitely help. The Republicans claim they can keep the country safe better than us. Well, just by the fact that they had to have a intra-party issue over intel reform shows that they are really the ones who are grossly unprepared, in the words of the 9/11 report, to defend the country.

Miraculously, there were enough intelligent congressmen to approve the passage of the bill.

The Republicans claim that they have a mandate. Yeah, a mandate all right. They have a mandate for disaster. You name it - social security, health care, economics, terrorism - they are silently destroying this country from within. The most incredible thing is how public they are about their extremist right-wing agenda. It is startling, almost disturbing, how bold they can be. They are relentless in their blind pursuits.

Now the Democrats have to put a stop to that. The Democratic Disarray has to handle and put a stop to this if they are to live up to their expectations. It can NOT be done by drifting to the right. Democrats trying to be Republican-lite. It's like pleather. What do you want, plastic or leather? Pleather! No, they can't move to the right. Pandering to the center and the right-center during the Clinton years was purely a temporary solution. It can't be employed in order to maintain power. And that was proven in 2000, with Al "I created the Internet" Gore. The Dems are, I regret to say, professional losers. Even when they win an election, they still lose! So, then, one would ask, how do they rebuild and regain power? Well, first of all, the base must be activated. I have staunchly supported the belief that John Kerry was and always will be more electable than Al Gore, but I also belief that the main problem with all of the Democratic candidates is that they're simply...wimpy. When Bush gets up there and says, "I will never relent in defending America," people belief him by virtue of the fact that he is a member of the GOP. But Democrats, save for Bill Clinton, really can't resonate with America. This is besides the extremely deep structural problems within the leadership of the party. Now for 2008. Potential candidates who would even like a chance need to file with the FEC at least 30 months in advance, or they can just toss their chances away. It is extremely crucial that fundraising begin right then.

2004 proved that even with the country in a not-so-good state, a flawed candidate (if he/she is of Republican ranks and has some connections over at Halliburton - they provided some campaign jets for 2000) can win an election. This worries me, for I wonder if the same scenario could play out in 2008, but with the country in a worse situation. If it is SO bad, then just maybe the Dems could pull it off. But I wouldn't bet on it unless Iraq deteriorates beyond belief (which it will, given time) and a massive deficit (like 10bil) plunges us into a depression - but hey, that could very well happen. The Democrats can't return to real power - and by that I mean have power at all levels - until they can manage to win an election by convincing half the country that it is better than this out-of-control GOP. And how, precisely, do they the masses of that wisdom? Well, I leave you with one quote:

"The way to rebuild the Democratic Party is not from the consultants down, but from the ground up."

- Howard Dean