Palitone Press

Obama Retains Another of Bush's Evil Dictatorial Powers

2009-03-09T17:42:00.000-06:00

ITYS ... YA:

Supreme Court urged to drop enemy combatant case
Yahoo! News, Wed Mar 4, 6:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Wednesday renewed its request that the Supreme Court ... not rule on whether a president can indefinitely detain terror suspects in the United States. ... [Click here to read the rest.]

Aw, but it's completely okay if Obama does this sort of thing, because, unlike Larry Moe Curly Soprano-Bush, Obama is civilized and sophisticated and liberal. Right? Evil isn't evil if the leaders committing it are civilized and sophisticated and liberal and supposedly photogenic and supposedly charismatic and supposedly intellectual.

And it doesn't hurt if they are also able to read meaningless rhetoric off of a teleprompter in a supposedly appealing, mesmerizing and inspiring manner.

Oh, and the perpetrators of these evil-for-the-sake-of-good acts must only be members of the U.S. federal government (or members of American law enforcement agencies, or members of foreign governments that have the U.S. government's temporary blessing), because U.S. leaders are the duly self-appointed "good guys"; and the duly self-appointed "good guys" are always allowed to commit evil acts if they are spun as "good causes." Besides, they have been trained (by their very own agencies, mind you) to know "the difference" between "justifiable" and unjustifiable evil far better than anyone outside the U.S. government could ever hope to grasp "the difference."

Yep, that's "hope" and "change," all right. If only I had known that Obama wasn't using those words in the same sense(s) that the dictionary defines them, I might not have been so skeptical about him during the presidential campaign. Well..., Actually, I would have, because every carefully selected presidential candidate is merely a temporary PR manager for a permanently entrenched power elite (aka unelected bureaucracy) that never changes its policies.

Great Question

2009-03-09T17:41:00.000-06:00

"All the hardcore, Jim Jones kool-aid drinking Obama supporters never really cared about ending the wars. They just wanted a Democrat to micromanage them. Obama has made it abundantly clear his policies are no different than Bush's. So why then, did all these Obamabots hate Bush so much?" ••• JesseKantstopolis, who wrote it as a comment on this excellent YouTube video on March 4, 2009.

Driving Over the Cliff

2009-02-10T21:12:00.001-07:00

By Paul Craig Roberts
CounterPunch

...To whose agenda is President Obama being hitched? Writing in the English language version of the Swiss newspaper, Zeit-Fragen, Stephen J. Sniegoski reports that leading figures of the neocon conspiracy--Richard Perle, Max Boot, David Brooks, and Mona Charen--are ecstatic over Obama’s appointments. They don’t see any difference between Obama and Bush/Cheney.

Not only are Obama’s appointments moving him into an expanded war in Afghanistan, but the powerful Israel Lobby is pushing Obama toward a war with Iran.

The unreality in which he US government operates is beyond belief. A bankrupt government that cannot pay its bills without printing money is rushing headlong into wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, the cost to the US taxpayers of sending a single soldier to fight in Afghanistan or Iraq is $775,000 per year!

Obama’s war in Afghanistan is the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party. After seven years of conflict, there is still no defined mission or endgame scenario for US forces in Afghanistan. When asked about the mission, a US military official told NBC News, “Frankly, we don’t have one.” NBC reports: “they’re working on it.”

Speaking to House Democrats on February 5, President Obama admitted that the US government does not know what its mission is in Afghanistan and that to avoid “mission creep without clear parameters,” the US “needs a clear mission.”

How would you like to be sent to a war, the point of which no one knows, including the commander-in-chief who sent you to kill or be killed? How, fellow taxpayers, do you like paying the enormous cost of sending soldiers on an undefined mission while the economy collapses?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. [Read the rest here.]

Obama's Justice Department backs Bush secrecy on renditions suit

2009-02-10T20:44:00.000-07:00

Stephen C. Webster
Published: Monday February 9, 2009
RawStory.com

An attorney for President Obama's Department of Justice has told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it supports the Bush administration's controversial state secrets defense in a lawsuit over the prior president's "extraordinary rendition" program. [Read the rest here.]

35 Inconvenient Truths

2009-02-05T20:23:00.004-07:00

The errors in Al Gore’s movie.

Published by the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Click here to read those 35 inconvenient truths. People who are truly open minded (aka "interested in the truth, not political correctness," will have no fear of clicking that link (as well as the one below). I was entirely on Al Gore's side until I built up my courage and did my own investigating.

If that isn't enough for you, then watch this excellent documentary produced by Britain's Channel 4 Television: The Great Global Warming Swindle (not your typical "loony conspiracy-theorist" gang, eh?).

Obama, of course, is continuing the lie.

Obama to Overthrow a U.S. Puppet?

2009-02-05T20:21:00.000-07:00

Eric Margolis
Contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada
February 3, 2009

Washington is rife with rumors that the Obama administration plans to dump the US-installed president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, and replace him by one of four CIA-groomed candidates. The problem is, three new stooges won’t be any better than one old stooge.

London is warning Washington both against a precipitous change of regime in Kabul that would be widely viewed as crass political manipulation. ...

Obama’s dismaying eagerness to expand the war demonstrates political inexperience and a faulty grasp of events in Afghanistan. ... The Afghan War will have to be ended by a political settlement that includes the Taliban-led nationalist alliance that represents over half of Afghanistan’s population, the Pashtun people. There is simply no purely military solution to this grinding conflict – as even the Secretary General of NATO admits.

But instead of diplomacy, the new administration elected to stick its head ever deeper into the Afghan hornet’s nest. The bill for an intensified war will likely reach $4 billion monthly by midyear at a time when the United States is bankrupt and running on borrowed money from China and Japan. ...

Why is President Obama, who came to power on an antiwar platform, committed to expanding a war where there are no vital US interests? Oil is certainly one reason. The proposed route for pipelines taking oil and gas from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea coast run right through Taliban-Pashtun territory. ...

The US and its allies cannot be seen to be defeated by a bunch of Afghan tribesmen. Coming after the epic defeat in Vietnam and the trillion-dollar fiasco in Iraq, defeat in Afghanistan is simply unthinkable to the military-industrial-petroleum-financial complex that still seems to be calling many of the shots in Washington. [Click here to read the rest.]

Obama Continues Crime of CIA Rendition

2009-02-02T21:43:00.001-07:00

The role of the CIA's controversial prisoner-transfer program may expand, intelligence experts say.

By Greg Miller, Los Angeles Times
February 1, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- The CIA's secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

[Read the rest.]

Already - Three Promises Broken (at the very least)

2009-01-30T22:38:00.005-07:00

My own commentary follows the four news clips.

----------

Obama airstrikes kill 22 in Pakistan
The Sunday London Times, January 25, 2009
Islamabad is the first to get a taste of the president’s ‘tough love’ policy. ... The airstrikes were authorised under a covert programme approved by Obama, according to a senior US official.

----------

US pours cold water over hopes of Iran deal
The London Times, January 30, 2009
The White House warned Iran last night that military action is still one of its options despite the "hand of friendship" offered by President Obama.

----------

In America, Speaking the Truth is a Career-Ending Event
Counterpunch, January 26, 2009
Paul Craig Roberts
The Bush regime was a lawless regime. This makes it difficult for the Obama regime to be a lawful one. A torture inquiry would lead naturally into a war crimes inquiry. General Taguba said that the Bush regime committed war crimes. President Obama was a war criminal by his third day in office when he ordered illegal cross-border drone attacks on Pakistan that murdered 20 people, including 3 children. The bombing and strafing of homes and villages in Afghanistan by US forces and America's NATO puppets are also war crimes. Obama cannot enforce the law, because he himself has already violated it.

----------

Leaving Iraq? Not On Your Life
CounterPunch, January 23, 2009
By Ron Jacobs (retitled by MW of Palitone Press)
...Since he was elected, Mr. Obama has hedged on this promise [to bring the troops home from Iraq]. Since he was inaugurated, the Pentagon and its civilian boss, Robert Gates, have hedged even more. Now, they insist, US troops should remain. ... Even if Barack Obama overrides the Pentagon and Mr. Gates ... there will still be around fifty thousand US troops in Iraq. This is because Obama's call to bring all troops home from Iraq that began his campaign somehow morphed into a call to bring home only those troops determined to be "combat troops."

----------

I Told You So
Palitone Press, January 25-30, 2009
For those of us who stand outside the pathetic sham that is American two-party politics and study it objectively, the future under the faux intellectual, Barack Obama, and his cabinet of warmongers is ENTIRELY predictable (almost as if we are reading directly from "the establishment's" game plan — which, basically, we are). But trying to point this out to Americans who unquestioningly believe in that sham is like trying to talk sense to members of a cult who are excessively arrogant and self-righteous due to their cult's long history and almost universal acceptance.

The first time you try to convince members of this cult to, at the very least, investigate objectively all cult leaders — including their favorite ones — in order to discover that they are all frauds, the "cultists" look at you with smiles (or frowns) of supreme condescension, as if you are either a harmless, but deluded, blasphemer or a potential nuisance. If you continue to try to convince them, they will become annoyed and ignore you. If you persist beyond that, they will become openly hostile and shut you out completely. No amount of rational debate or proof is going to convince them to doubt their favorite leaders or their own deeply ingrained, highly partisan perceptions of reality. To them, the phrase, "open-minded, scholarly investigation," is just a trick to get them to read the "loony, biased opinions of deluded fringe groups."

"Luckily," the newest cult leader (Obama) has already started to break his promises to his devoted cultists (even if they refuse to see it), as we tried to tell them he would. Severe disillusionment among his followers is predicted for the not-too-distant future. This I welcome, as disillusionment often leads to a recognition, once and for all, that American two-party politics is, indeed, a sham — a sinister sham.

Update: According to the January 26, 2009, edition of the London Daily Mail, Fifteen percent of Americans appear to have become disillusioned with Obama already. Contrary to what most Obama supporters may think, I think these people have given him more than a fair chance. He just blew it in record time. However, I realize that he has promises to keep to the sleazy establishment that put him in the presidency. Making promises to them is like making promises to the Mafia. You break them at your own risk. That is the sham that is two-party politics.

P.S. Of course, it is always possible (actually, highly probable) that millions of liberals will either deny, ignore and/or justify Obama's broken promises throughout his entire presidency, just as millions of fanatical conservatives continued to deny, ignore and/or justify Bush's actions throughout his entire presidency. As always, in such cases, the permanent beneficiary is our massive, increasingly Orwellian federal government, that continues to function like clockwork, regardless of party.

The More Things "Change" ...

2009-01-24T09:13:00.001-07:00

London Times Online
January 23, 2009
President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'

Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W. Bush has not changed. ... locals also said that three children lost their lives. [Read the rest.]

Update 1 of 2, 8:38 AM, January 24, 2009:

Obama Dips His Hands in Blood
Posted by Lew Rockwell at 07:28 AM
Obama seemed like a decent guy, but as president, he has no hesitation in killing a group of people in Pakistan, including three little children. But what is murder in the private "sector is just public policy for the state, and Obama is head of state, so he wields his terrible, swift Predator on people he doesn't know, and of whom he knows nothing. During the campaign, he famously said that if missiles were endangering his daughters, he would "do anything" to stop them. Think anyone else feels the same way? (Via Antiwar.com)

Update 2 of 2, 8:38 AM, January 24, 2009:

I say: Obama "finally" has some innocent blood on his hands; and he even broke international law to accomplish it too. What an enlightened soul.

Of course, like most war criminals Obama can always say, "I was only following orders."

However, if he really believes that then he didn't need to run for president in the first place, because he knew what he was getting himself into. If he didn't know from the beginning, then it should have become abundantly clear by the time he was the sole remaining democratic presidential nominee.

Amidst All the Lies... A Hint of Truth...

2008-04-21T13:31:00.002-06:00

Finally!

"The Lying Warmonger Times" (aka The New York Times) has published a tiny hint of truth, in which they "finally" expose a certain group of liars (while mostly absolving or feigning ignorance regarding the third -- and, by far, guiltiest -- party in the conspiracy). This group of liars has turned my stomach every time I've seen their smug faces on TV for the past five and a half years. Here is just a brief bit of that "tiny hint of truth":

In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay... The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo...

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance... Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air... Collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants...

The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation. These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated...

Click here to read the rest.

Thankfully, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com discusses the third guilty party to which I refer above (I've added the bold emphasis):

In 2002 and 2003, when Americans were relentlessly subjected to their commentary, news organizations were hardly unaware that these retired generals were mindlessly reciting the administration line on the war and related matters. To the contrary, that's precisely why our news organizations -- which themselves were devoted to selling the war both before and after the invasion by relentlessly featuring pro-war sources and all but excluding anti-war ones -- turned to them in the first place...

I could see from the very start (long before the war started) that the media was doing this. So why, then, were the majority of Americans unwilling and/or unable to see it? It was so blatantly obvious! Is it, in part, because they have been subjected for the past sixty years to too many blindly patriotic, mindless movies featuring such "kill-them-first-and-ask-questions-later" stars as John Wayne, Clint Eastwood and Steven Seagal? Is it because, in their blind rage, they wanted to get revenge on someone, anyone, no matter who the guilty parties involved really are? This is a question that has caused me no end of intense frustration for the past five and a half years.

In my opinion, the CORPORATE media (for what corporations wouldn't manipulate the output of what they consider to be their very own "PR departments"?) is, by far, the guiltiest of all three guilty parties.

Why are they the guiltiest?

Because if they had been doing their jobs for the past eight years (actually, the past 95 years), we wouldn't have this sort of government (which is quickly approaching fascist) and this nearly unfixable economic, diplomatic and military mess in which we are now mired. Nor would we have the small group of handpicked, corporate stooges that run for president every four years, thus ensuring that the bad guys are never replaced, and our criminal foreign policy is always seen as "just and decent."

Why again is the media the guiltiest of the three?

Because, due to their willful complicity in all of this unconstitutional mess, most Americans of the 21st century are not only uninformed and filled with incredibly stubborn, misplaced pride (and excessively hedonistic desires), but are also stupider than fence posts. We have the media to thank for our idiotically mindless -- and depressingly unconstitutional -- brand of patriotism more than we do the government or those traitorous retired generals.

P.S. Of course, our horribly federalized, completely shallow, politically and "patriotically" correct (to a fanatical degree), incompetent educational system has primed all of us to be completely receptive to the lies (and hedonistic pleasures) broadcast by the CORPORATE media. I worked in that federalized educational system for five years and saw it first hand!

P.P.S. And, no, I don't believe in religious-based local education either. That warps most people just as badly as does the federal education system.

For the Sake of Our Nation, Do the Unthinkable

2007-11-19T18:40:00.000-07:00

I am returning to this blog after a very long absence. Why? Because I consider it my duty to my country. I don't make that sort of a clichéd patriotic statement very often since it has been so horribly abused and perverted by the immature adults and criminals of this nation. That should tell you just how strongly I feel on this matter.

I hope you won't get bored with this long essay, which is, in essence, still in rough-draft form. I've even thrown in an excellent music video as a bonus.

There Is Still Time
Three or four years ago, when I first heard Rep. Ron Paul speak to a nearly empty U.S. Congressional chamber, I never dreamed he would come to enjoy the amount of success that he has experienced in the past five months, an amazing degree of success that has occurred in spite of his having been initially ignored, then lied about and finally demonized by the corporate-owned mainstream media. He truly inspired me three or four years ago, but I must say that the millions of Americans who have been inspired by him in recent months is far more than I ever dared to dream [Update 11/23/2007: Here is an amazing example of that inspiration, which was created by students at the University of Nevada at Reno.]. I am afraid to say it out loud, but I once again believe there is a small chance to save our nation from the evil people.

But it will require all honest Americans to make a major effort, as the Founding Fathers expected us to do.

So, Without Further Adieu...
If you are a registered democrat or independent, please do the unthinkable: Temporarily (or permanently, if Mr. Paul purges the evil from the party) register as a republican so we can help Ron Paul defeat his fascist warmonger opponents in the republican primaries and the democratic warmongers in the general election. That's what I'm going to do -- and I am far from being alone in making the switch --, even though I never dreamed I would return to that party again. Why? Because Ron Paul is the only hope we have left to end both of our illegal wars and to prevent or -- God forbid -- end a third one in Iran. In fact, he is determined to bring our troops home from all 130 nations in which they are presently stationed (how many of you knew that we had troops in that many countries?). Equally as importantly, he is the only candidate who will keep our nation from sliding into a permanent dictatorship (unless Bush and Cheney cancel the elections, which they almost did in 2004).

No, Ron Paul is not your typical republican, not by a long shot.

Horrified Democrats, Please Hear Me Out!

Democrats, please don't worry about the democratic primaries. Even if they weren't already decided (which they clearly are), every candidate is basically alike, except for maybe Dennis Kucinich, and he doesn't stand a chance. No matter which democratic candidate wins the primaries, he or she will be someone who is completely owned by the corporate establishment, especially the three "top-tier" candidates.

At the very least, think of it this way: By registering temporarily as a republican and voting for Ron Paul in the primaries, you will be helping to ensure that none of the evil republicans will make it to the general election. And, by then, I believe you will have seen the light and will gladly vote for Ron Paul in the general election, too.

Well and Succinctly Said
A reader nicknamed "Zenken" says it perfectly:

Who'd have thought that a mainstream Republican with a classically conservative message could end up sounding so liberal that he is accused of being a radical, and by others as "certifiably crazy"? I guess this illustrates just how far the neo-cons have dragged this country into the bottomless pit. After hearing Ron Paul's views, several of which I do not agree with, I am now left with no other choice than to become a registered Republican so I can vote for him. As president, he will probably do a lot of things that will piss me off, but at least I'll be pissed off in a free country.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

But Isn't Ron Paul a Long Shot, Too?

Right now, many of you are probably thinking that Ron Paul stands just as little chance of winning the primaries and the general election as Dennis Kucinich. Well, if you think that way, then you've been fooled by the lying mainstream media. For example, Ron Paul has won 21 of the 41 republican straw polls that have been held around the country in the past five months, including in such diverse places as Alabama, California, Wyoming (Cheney country!) and New York City (Giuliani country)! Check out that link and see the entire list for yourself. Furthermore, he has come in near the top in many of the remaining straw polls.

As you study all those victories, ask yourself, "How come the mainstream media hasn't told us about them?" Even Keith Obermann, the only true defender of the Constitution in the mainstream media, has never even uttered Ron Paul's name, even though they are clearly kindred spirits in many ways. It is almost a certainty that Olbermann's bosses are preventing him from mentioning Paul's name.

Still in Doubt about Ron Paul's Chances?
Then compare this tiny set of maps of independent meet-up groups that are being organized in support of the republican and democratic candidates. Ron Paul's map leaves the other nine candidates' maps in the dust, waaaaaayyyyyyyyyy, waaaaayyyyyyy, waaaaayyyyyy in the dust. You have to see his map to believe it. It seems that millions of Americans are learning about Ron Paul in spite of the corrupt mainstream media.

In fact, in an independent fund raiser that was held in a single 24-hour time period on November 5, Mr. Paul received a record $4.2 million in donations over the internet. In this quarter alone, he has already raised about $8 million, mostly in small amounts from regular citizens. Does that sound like someone who doesn't have a chance? There will be another 24-hour fund raiser on December 16, which is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. From the sounds of it, it may possibly dwarf the November 5, fund raiser (I hope). [UPDATE 11/21/2007: It appears that I am right. Click here for details.]

What Europeans Think: Music Video Tribute

By electing Ron Paul, we also have a chance to redeem ourselves in the eyes of the world. Look at this excellent and very inspiring music video that was put together by a European and dedicated to the millions of American supporters of Ron Paul (there is even a European Ron Paul meet-up map in the video).

Not since the days of John F. Kennedy have the citizens of other nations been this inspired by a U.S. presidential candidate. Why are Europeans, among others, so excited about republican Ron Paul? You would think no citizen of any other country would EVER trust another republican. The fact that they are this dedicated to Ron Paul should tell you something about the man. But I think this History News Network editorial explains very well why non-Americans like him so much: Ron Paul: The Only Presidential Candidate to Challenge the American Empire.

[UPDATE 11/21/2007: I should amend the above, for it appears that some citizens of the United States have not been this inspired since the days of JFK either. For instance, Racer wrote the following comment at TruthDig: "I am 65, and the last president I voted for was JFK, and Ron Paul gives me the same hope that JFK did. I will be proud to vote for Ron Paul. This 2008 election is a make it or brake it for our constitutional republic, and this country needs a president with a plan, not a story teller, or a member of CFR global elite. Just one more thing. John Zogby is a member of CFR, of the Zogby polls."]

Finally, if you still have any last lingering doubts about trusting Ron Paul, just read some of his own words. As you read, please ask yourself if these are the words of a modern republican/neocon fascist? I certainly don't think so. I'm none of those things, but I've been shouting most of these quotes all of my life. The first four are more reminiscent of Gandhi than of a republican of the 21st century:

Ron Paul Says

1.) "The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence."

2.) "All initiation of force is a violation of someone else's rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state..., even if it's supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals."

3.) "Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense."

4.) "Setting a good example is a far better way to spread ideals than through force of arms."

5.) "Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."

6.) "Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy. A few have, and others will continue to do so, but too many—both in and out of government—close their eyes to the issue of personal liberty..."

7.) "Monitoring the transactions of every American in order to catch those few who are involved in some sort of illegal activity turns one of the great bulwarks of our liberty, the presumption of innocence, on its head. The federal government has no right to treat all Americans as criminals by spying on their relationship with their doctors, employers, or bankers. In fact, criminal law enforcement is reserved to the state and local governments by the Constitution's Tenth Amendment."

8.) "No matter how well intentioned, an authoritarian government always abuses its powers."

9.) "You wanna get rid of drug crime in this country? Fine, let's just get rid of all the drug laws."

10.) "Failure of government programs prompts more determined efforts, while the loss of liberty is ignored or rationalized away. Whether it’s the war against poverty, drugs, terrorism, or the current Hitler of the day, an appeal to patriotism is used to convince the people that a little sacrifice of liberty, here and there, is a small price to pay. The results, though, are frightening and will soon become even more so."

11.) "Justifying conscription to promote the cause of liberty is one of the most bizarre notions ever conceived by man! Forced servitude, with the risk of death and serious injury as a price to live free, makes no sense."

12.) "Our country's founders cherished liberty, not democracy."

13.) "The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people."

14.) "One thing is clear: The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens pay nearly half of everything they earn to government."

15.) "I am absolutely opposed to a national ID card. This is a total contradiction of what a free society is all about. The purpose of government is to protect the secrecy and the privacy of all individuals, not the secrecy of government. We don't need a national ID card."

16.) "I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is freedom, limited government, and minding our own business overseas."

17.) "I believe that when we overdo our military aggressiveness, it actually weakens our national defense. I mean, we stood up to the Soviets. They had 40,000 nuclear weapons. Now we're fretting day in and day and night about third-world countries that have no army, navy or air force."

18.) "War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures."

19.) "Cliches about supporting the troops are designed to distract from failed policies, policies promoted by powerful special interests that benefit from war, anything to steer the discussion away from the real reasons the war in Iraq will not end anytime soon."

America: From Freedom to Fascism

2006-09-19T11:02:00.000-06:00

The documentary film, America: From Freedom to Fascism is now available on Google Video. It is a major production by big-name producer Aaron Russo. I have not yet watched it myself. I thought I would give the few random readers who pass my way a quick heads up.

Corporate Mafia in Republicans' Clothes

2006-09-11T14:40:00.000-06:00

LiberalTruthSayer recently criticized the ABC piece-of-trash movie that blames 9/11 on Presient Clinton. The movie's script was written by an arch neoconservative who has no qualms about lying. As you may not have known, it was actually written into the neoconservative philosophy by the movement's founder, Leo Strauss, that it is necessary to lie to the American people in order to "save" the United States from itself.

LiberalTruthSayer's comments section is plagued by an incredibly annoying, unthinking conservative named olerockytoptennsessee. He argues using the same tired old emotions and demonizaton tactics that have always been devoid of substance. Sometimes he makes several unfocused, ranting comments in each blog entry, thus polluting her very nice site. I stopped reading his comments sometime back because they never change. Once again, he made several comments in a row, this time at the entry linked above.

This is my response to LiberalTruthSayer's entry (the first paragraph), as well as to "Rocky" (all four paragraphs).

Yes, isn't it rich that this movie is a lie about a lie? The first lie is how it happened and who really had a part in it. The new lie is a pathetic attempt to attribute the fake/intentional "failures" behind the first lie to a democrat. It is yet another attempt to convert this country to one-party rule, just like the old Soviet Union. That's the sort of America that Rocky obviously believes in now.

It's hard to believe Rocky was probably once a government-hating, backwoods conservative before the corporate mafia took over the once-honest republican party -- and then took over the mainstream media and used it to brainwash people like Rocky (I'll bet he temporarily returned to his old government-hating ways while Clinton was in office).

The corporate mafia knows that most republican voters blindly vote a straight-party ticket, regardless of their candidates ("because we can't let a hippie democrat get into office, now can we?!"). Members of the corporate mafia must certainly have thought to themselves, "Hmmm, blindly loyal republican voters. What better way to get elected? And you know, deep down in your heart, that they would defend us to the death if we were ever accused of any criminal behavior, because -- hey! -- we're republicans! Check your skepticism and common sense at the door!"

True to form, now that the members of the corporate mafia have been safely installed in office, those same blindly loyal republican voters are staunchly refusing to believe any of their elected representatives are criminals. Why? "Because "they're republicans! That's why! No criminal would EVER join the republican party. Criminals would NEVER try to fool God-fearing republican voters into thinking they are patriotic, red-blooded Americans simply to get elected. Would they? And, even if they did fool us, they're still republicans! That's all that matters. Better a criminal republican who is hell-bent on destroying this nation and our constitutional freedoms in an orgy of greed than an honest democrat or honest third-part candidate!"

No, Really! It Was a Whitewash

2006-09-05T09:37:00.000-06:00

What do the following people have in common, besides their overall employer?

John M. Cole, Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist; FBI

John Vincent, Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI

Robert Wright, Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI

Sibel Edmonds, Former Language Specialist; FBI

Behrooz Sarshar, Former Language Specialist; FBI

Mike German, Special Agent, Counterterrorism; FBI

Gilbert Graham, Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence; FBI

Coleen Rowley, Retired Division Counsel; FBI

Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer, DIA

Dick Stoltz, Retired Special Agent; ATF

Bogdan Dzakovic, Former Red Team Leader; FAA

Linda Lewis, Retired Emergency Programs Specialist; USDA

Mark Burton, Senior Analyst; NSA

Click this link to find out. If you feel you really must, then please skim the article until you get to the list of people I've just mentioned. There you will find a brief paragraph following each name that details their mistreatment by a certain group of biased sham artists. The true Americans among you might get a bit angry at our government as you read. If you do, then great. That's what I want.

The Power of Nightmares

2006-08-20T00:29:00.000-06:00

WOW!

When something gets me really worked up, I have trouble writing about it. I have to force myself to limit the number of superlative words that I am tempted to use. And my descriptions of the individuals in question become more personal, to the point where they resemble insults, but are actually accurate portrayals of those individuals.

By way of an introduction, let me quote my last paragraph: "Here's my proof: The Power of Nightmares."

Tonight I learned that my intuition about the neocons has been based on solid, verifiable fact for the past 26 years, not just a strong gut feeling. Of course, I always knew this, but I could never prove it before. Why did I always know it? Because I entered adulthood just as they started to take power. As a result of that terribly sad fact, I have had a front-row seat to their shenanigans ever since.

Neocons are children, mentally and emotionally. And just like children (or, more accurately, just like selfish, self-righteous, arrogant, spoiled children), they see this extremely complicated world in very simple, black-and-white terms. What's worse, they are completely incapable of seeing it any other way. I just didn't realize HOW right I was about them until I clicked the link in the second, sixth and final paragraphs (if I link to it enough times, will that convince you that I really want you to watch it?).

What's even sadder for all of us is the fact that they are also the dumbest, most deceitful children in the world (that's a fact, not an insult), yet they honestly consider themselves to be intellectuals.

Don't take my word for it, though. Watch the documentary, The Power of Nightmares. You may think you have the ability to prove the producers wrong in their depiction of the neocons, but you don't. I have only watched part one, so far, so it is possible that the producers don't go far enough in revealing the depths to which these people, backed by the military-industrial complex, would sink to achieve their agenda.

Question: What ALWAYS happens when dumb people gain power?

Answer: The truly greedy, powerful, evil people (in this case the CEOs of the military-industrial complex) take maximum advantage of them. Together, they are destroying this once-great nation for purposes of truly naive idealism and truly disgusting greed.

We now see what happens in a very complicated world when people with childish fantasies get their hands on the reigns of power.

Here's my proof: The Power of Nightmares.

A Setback for An Aggressor Nation & It's Ally

2006-08-17T21:32:00.000-06:00

Here are just a few thoughts and enlightening links on Israel's recent invasion of Lebanon:

Israel did not "win," and the lie that Hezbullah was targeting only Israeli civilians is clearly shown by an Israeli journalist: From Mania to Depression, by Uri Avnery. Now compare that to the innocent civilians that the "good and decent" Israeli army purposely targeted in Lebanon.

The fact that Israel lost is shown even more clearly in this incredibly concise commentary: What Did and Didn't Happen in Lebanon; It Ain't Over, by Rachard Itani.

Hezbullah did not start this war: The Two Israeli Soldiers Were Captured in Lebanon. Even if they really did cross into Israel to kidnap the soldiers, it would still have been a criminal act, not a first strike in a major war. Israel, with full encouragement by their partner in crime, the United States, had just been waiting for an excuse to invade Lebanon, and this weak one was all they could come up with. Was Lebanon supposed to have become one of the future embarkation points for the invasion of Syria by U.S. troops? Will it still happen?

Israel's goal isn't survival. It's theft -- theft perpetrated while hiding behind every nation's fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they complain: An Interview with Noam Chomsky on Lebanon.

A Jewish writer and teacher in Montreal, Canada, explains it very well: No Peace Without Justice, No Justice Without Truth; Pulling the Plug on Israel, by David Himmelstein.

"Demographic threat" is a new code phrase for racism. Guess who uttered it and who is enforcing it with extreme violence.

Who set the historical precedent for Hezbullah's supposed fighting methods? War Crimes in Lebanon.

The U.S. news outlets' incredibly biased reporting: The US Media's "Special Relationship" by Remi Kanazi.

Just one of the possible reasons we get distorted one-sided news in the U.S.: AIPAC Congratulates Itself on the Slaughter in Lebanon, by John Walsh.

I have saved the best editorial for last: How Israel Could Destroy Itself; Delusional Expectations, by John Chuckman. Here is a brief quote from it (the comment in brackets [ ] is my own addition):

"Israel began by moving into a bad neighborhood [in the late 1940s, without invitation, and simply took land that had never been theirs], and everyone involved understood this from the beginning, yet Israel behaves as though it should be normal to enjoy a pristine Disney-like suburb with white-picket fences. It reacts to activities in the bad neighborhood that disturb its fantasy with ferocious indignation. Israel's destructive behavior is explained largely by this delusional expectation.
"If Israel had spent half the resources it has spent on war over the last fifty years instead on helping its neighbors and building up their economies, the region would be a far better place today. And if Israel had been willing to make reasonable concessions to the needs of others in the region, there might well be lasting peace today."

My concluding thought (just in case I am misunderstood): Israel is a nation, not a religion. It is populated by people, not by saints, and is governed by a greedy, violent, self-righteous government with total disregard for human rights. Criticism of the actions of a nation is not equivalent to criticism of that nation's predominant religion. That is a defense behind which many crimes can be, and clearly are being, perpetrated with reckless abandon.

I naively supported that country's aggressive land grabs for most of my adult life because I thought they were the good guys. I have every right to change my mind, and I've done so.

This Is America??????

2006-08-17T12:10:00.000-06:00

Not much to say here. The article says it all: 9-11 Investigative Journalist Harassed And Beaten By Undercover Cops.

The Republican Snowball

2006-07-14T14:36:00.000-06:00

I originally published the following as a comment at Tom Degan's Daily Rant. in response to a commenter nicknamed "fenrir." I like it well enough that I thought I would give it its very own blog entry.

Without further ado:

fenrir said: Regarding the republican party, "A person may be to blame, but not the entire party..."

I say: That's like saying, "A mafia member may be to blame, but not the entire mafia."

We have to admit that certain organizations and/or political parties attract a certain element of humanity (for a variety of reasons, both good and bad). Over time, by bits and pieces, some of the more radical elements corrupt the original philosophy of those organizations/parties to fit their own whims. Some are for ridiculously self-serving, petty reasons, but which hurt no one else in the country (certain liberal elements); others are for authoritarian reasons, cloaked in a veil of patriotism, that definitely infringe on the rights of everyone else in the country (certain conservative elements). Eventually, those bits and pieces add up. Once that accumulation passes a certain point, as has happened in our Congress, there is a snowball effect, and the corruption takes on a life of its own. Eventually, there is a point of no return for that snowball, and one must admit that that particular organization/party is a lost cause.

Personally, I believe that has happened to the republican party. It started in the mid 1960s, as Tom states (maybe even a little of it during the "red scare" of the 1950s). By January 1981, with Reagan's presidency (actually, George H.W. Bush's vice presidency), the snowball was starting to get out of control. All hope for the party was lost in January 1995 (although this may not have been clear to everyone yet), with Newt Gingrich's republican "revolution" in Congress (even Nixon's White House counsel John Dean believes this, as did Barry Goldwater).

As I state in my previous comment, I wouldn't vote for a republican candidate now, or ever again, even if he or she was the reincarnation of Gandhi, because he or she could possibly allow the bad republicans to keep a majority of seats in either or both houses. I suspect that there are many other Americans who feel the same way, and the numbers are growing -- hence the republican need for hackable voting machines made by republican-dominated corporations. If the republican snowball keeps on expanding and destroying everything in its path, even some hardcore republican voters are going to abandon it. If you doubt me, here is a very shocking survey that might give you pause: John Birch Society. You cannot get more TRADITIONALLY conservative than the John Birch Society.

In my book, this means the republican party is lost, although it may take a long time for it to die out. When that day comes, traditional, honest conservatives will have to start a new party from scratch.

Thus the cycle goes on.

I Smell A Rat

2006-07-13T20:09:00.000-06:00

This is pretty simple math.

Israel has attacked Lebanon.

Israel seems to be threatening to attack Syria.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad has warned Israel not to attack Syria. This implies that he will send Iran's army to the aid of the Syrian army if Israel attacks it.

President Ahmadinejad is an extremely stupid person sometimes, almost as stupid as Usurper Bush. Usurper Bush's neocon handlers know this. Israel knows this. I'm willing to bet that both entities are taking full advantage of Ahmadinejad's stupidity, just as the final draft of their carefully written script requires. They are baiting the trap.

If -- When -- Iran's army comes to the aid of the Syrian army -- against "poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel (even though its army is larger than the armies of most of its neighbors combined; and even though it has nuclear weapons) -- Usurper Bush will insist to Congress that the United States must defend Israel at all costs. [There will be no explanation as to why we must defend Israel, since Israel has never -- in all of its history -- been of the slightest strategic or economic interest to the the United States, whatsoever. No oil exports, no food exports, no clothing exports, no U.S. military bases, nothing. Zilch.]

AIPAC (the staunchly pro-Israel lobbying group) will finally call in its markers and demand satisfaction from every member of the U.S. Congress, stating that it now expects repayment in full for the millions or billions of "campaign" dollars it has given them over the years. That satisfaction will naturally come in the form of Congress's approval of Usurper Bush's "purely altruistic" plan to invade Iran in order to "defend poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel.

The lapdog republican Congress then approves Usurper Bush's "purely altruistic" plan to invade Iran in order to "defend poor, innocent, practically defenseless" Israel.

Usurper Bush thus pulls an end run around all of his critics worldwide and finally gets a "legitimate" excuse to invade Iran after all. And Syria will even be thrown in as a bonus "enemy."

I smell a dirty, evil sewer rat -- or two. Is it possible that Israel's recent military overreaction was actually predesigned to ensure that the United States will get to attack Iran and Syria? Is it possible that that military overreaction is actually unrelated to a few dead or kidnapped Israeli soldiers?

It's too bad for the world that the United States is so short of troops these days. One can imagine the excessive slobber, from overactive salivary glands, that is even now dripping down the chins of Usurper Bush and his neocon handlers as visions of invasion and/or nuclear bombs explode in their heads.

[Update: 07-17-06: It appears that my theorizing above (from four days ago) may have been completely correct. Read this (making sure to note that the article continues below the video "screen"): Danny Schechter: The WWIII Meme.]

Disgusting Hypocrisy & Double Standards

2006-07-13T15:23:00.000-06:00

1.) -----

I'm opposed to the invasion and brutal occupation of Tibet by China and the systematic genocide they have been conducting there since 1950. I even saw the Dali Lama in person a few years ago.

"I'm with you all the way, man."

2.) -----

I was opposed to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait back in 1990, even though I found out later it was because Kuwait was stealing Iraqi oil by drilling at a slant into Iraqi territory. Iraq warned Kuwait several times to stop, but Kuwait didn't listen.

"Yeah, that was a pretty despicable act on Iraq's part. I didn't know Kuwait was doing that stuff, though."

3.) -----

I was totally and violently opposed to the imprisonment and murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis in World War II and the subsequent theft of their property and wealth. One of my favorite movies of all time is Escape from Sobibor.

"Yes, that's one of the worst crimes in the history of the human race."

4.) -----

I was opposed to Serbians killing Muslim civilians in a genocidal manner in Kosovo and Bosnia and then taking their land merely because many residents in those provinces wanted independence and were willing to fight for it.

"That was really horrible. I agree with you."

5.) -----

I was opposed to the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor a few years ago.

"So was I. I'm glad the UN forced the Indonesians out and allowed East Timor to become an independent nation."

6.) -----

I am opposed to the mass genocide and eviction by the Sudanese government of the minority inhabitants of the Darfur region merely because a few Darfur rebels fought for more rights. The government is now using it as an excuse to take their land and kill them off.

"Yes, it's sickening. I cannot believe we are doing so little to stop it from happening."

7.) -----

I am totally opposed to the unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq (and the theft of their future oil rights) by the United States.

"Yeah, I've been protesting that one myself. Bush and Cheney used non-Iraqi terrorists as a weak excuse to invade that country."

8.) -----

I'm absolutely sickened by the right-wing christian takeover of the republican party.

"Yeah, those religious nuts need to keep their noses out of our government. They're destroying our democracy."

9.) -----

I am opposed to Israel's systematic mass imprisonment and murder of Palestinian civilians (including women and children) and the blatant theft of land that the Palestinians have owned for thousands of years.

"You disgusting, anti-Semitic, neo-nazi piece of trash."

I see... So what you're saying is that Israel isn't like all the rest of the countries I just mentioned. Instead, it is allowed to perpetrate crimes against humanity -- and no one, including the press, is allowed to identify them as crimes -- simply because most Israelis are Jewish? How come I'm not anti-christian for my opposition to the Serbian and U.S. invasions of Muslim territories? How come I'm not anti-christian due to my disgust with right-wing christians who are taking over our government? Or, if even if I did happen to be anti-christian, how come that's OK with you? How come I'm not anti-Muslim for my opposition to the Sudanese government's practice of genocide in Darfur and the Indonesian government's occupation of catholic East Timor? How come I'm not considered pro-Semitic and anti-Nazi for my total condemnation of the Nazi holocaust of World War II?

"Hmmm, I didn't think of it that way."

Yes, I know. From now on, please stop with the hypocrisy and double standards. No nation, including Israel, has the right to hide behind its predominant religion -- no matter what that religion is -- in order to commit its own atrocities. And no one should be demeaned and condemned for exposing those atrocities for what they are.

[Inspired by Israel's recent attacks on civilian targets in Gaza and Lebanon, no matter what their excuse might be.]

Framing Isn't Just a Foreign Affair

2006-07-09T16:10:00.000-06:00

Darn that Gene Lyons! The famous mainstream editorialist has just ruined my day -- actually my foreseeable future -- by stating a possible conspiracy theory that is just too feasible -- or rather, too scary -- to contemplate (and I never used to be the paranoid type). I'm almost glad that I hadn't thought of it myself at some point in the past, at least not in such concrete terms. When even mainstream journalists start to think such thoughts, then one can only imagine the depths to which our government has sunk. [Off-topic note: Lyons also puts into perfect words why I despise The New York Times -- most of the time.]

Plan A, Part 1: U.S. Imperialism to "Fight Terror" (with Collateral Profits)
The Bush/Cheney Regime has stretched the U.S. military to the limit in that tiny postage stamp of a country known as Iraq. In doing so, it has re-revealed to the world the "soft underbelly" of our superpower status (it was originally revealed in Vietnam). As a result of this over stretching, it has now become somewhat impractical for them to try to frame some other Middle Eastern nation for a future "terrorist" attack within the U.S., although they certainly seem to be trying lately with all the "successfully foiled" terrorist "plots" (some of which have been attributed to poor, young American men -- keep that in mind -- who have neither the means nor the know-how to blow up massive skyscrapers). In essence, the Pentagon no longer has enough military personnel or taxpayer money with which to wreak "vengeance" upon yet another oil-producing nation (Usurper Bush has, according to inside sources, actually considered using nuclear weapons on Iran because of his lack of other options). In short, the Bush/Cheney Administration cannot attack any newly framed "transgressor nation" without partially or wholly abandoning its ill-gotten gains in the previously framed "transgressor nation" -- Iraq. [Some of us predicted this over stretching way back in early 2003.]

Plan A, Part 2: U.S. Dictatorship to "Protect Us from Terror"
There is more to the Bush/Cheney agenda than U.S. imperialism. They are also power hungry here at home (as if you needed me to tell you that). According to "Plan A", "foreign terror threats" are supposed to be the necessary excuse for increased domestic authority and decreased democracy. But what if they can no longer afford to use "foreign terrorists" as their primary excuse to abolish the U.S. Constitution? How, then, will they continue their dictatorial power grab here at home (and avoid war-crimes trials and hard prison time)? Well, there is always Plan B (which they might have been considering doing all along, anyway).

Plan B: U.S. Dictatorship to "Protect Us from Terror" (Revised)
Gene Lyons has provided me with a possible missing piece of a puzzle that I have been trying to assemble for some time now. It appears that Bush/Cheney might not have to rely solely on "foreign terrorists" to accomplish their domestic goals. Lyons concludes his most recent editorial with this unpleasant thought:

"Reasonable people never want to believe that extremists [radical conservatives and neocons] believe their own rhetoric. But quit kidding yourselves. This is mass psychosis. The next terrorist strike, should it happen, will be blamed on the enemy within: treasonous "liberals" who dissent from the glorious reign of George W. Bush. Unless confronted, it's through such strategems that democracies fail and constitutional republics become dictatorships."

Conclusion
You scoff at such a theory? I sincerely, with all my heart, hope you are right; however, as I remember it, it was an American (a gung-ho, flag-waving veteran of the first Gulf War) who was captured, tried and executed for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing (even though the FBI and local police confirmed to Oklahoma City TV stations that bombs were planted inside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, and that they had even successfully defused two of them).

Maybe, as I have imagined all along, "treasonous liberals" are the motivating factor behind these things... For months, I've been trying to figure out what excuse the government would use to start filling them. Lyons has provided me with a possible answer.

Am I getting a little too carried away here? Probably. The losers in the White House don't have much credibility left to accomplish much of anything, and if they had any credibility, they wouldn't be concerned with liberals. But, hey, as I say, it has finally come to the point that I am keeping company with famous mainstream media journalists, as far as paranoia goes. That's not an insignificant thing for me.

Illegal Immigration Finally Costs Mexico Dearly

2006-07-07T12:50:00.000-06:00

In a recent entry entitled, The Double-Standard Test, I wrote the following analogy regarding Mexico, the United States and millions of illegal Mexican immigrants:

Imagine two lifeboats on the open sea. Both are filled to capacity with passengers... The first boat suddenly springs a slow leak. It may well be moral and instinctual for some of the passengers in the second boat to invite the passengers from the first boat to join them [in spite of the fact that the passengers from the first boat are already inviting themselves into the second boat], but is it realistic? Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible for all concerned in both boats if those passengers in the first boat took some initiative and fixed the leak instead of abandoning their boat?

Well, the consequences of abandoning their "lifeboat" -- and not helping to fix that "leak" -- has finally come back to haunt the millions of illegal Mexican immigrants who chose to abandon their native land to its fate. The following quote is from an excellent editorial entitled, Anatomy of a Fraud Foretold, by John Ross (published at CounterPunch):

One of the IFE's [the Mexican "Federal Electoral Institute's"] more notorious accomplishments in this year's presidential elections was to engineer the non-vote of Mexicans in the United States, an effort that resulted in the disenfranchisement of millions of "paisanos" living north of the Rio Bravo. Undocumented workers were denied absentee ballot applications at consulates and embassies and more than a million eligible voters were barred from casting a ballot because their voter registration cards were not up to date and the IFE refused to update them outside of Mexico. Untold numbers of undocumented workers who could not risk returning to Mexico for a minimum 25 days to renew their credentials were denied the franchise the IFE was sworn to defend. The PRD insists that the majority of undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. would have cast a ballot for Lopez Obrador.

I hate to say, "I told you so."

Well, no, actually I don't hate to say it... "I told you so."

The presidential vote in Mexico was very close ("closeness" being the preferred smokescreen tactic of republicans in the U.S. who wish to cover their own vote stealing in countless elections). If illegal Mexican immigrants had remained in their own country and had worked for change, there might have been a president there now who would have tried to improve conditions in Mexico dramatically (or at least until he was assassinated by the CIA, etc.). Even conservative Lou Dobbs of CNN, who clearly doesn't like Socialists, appeared to admit as much. Instead, thanks to fraudulent elections, aided and abetted by millions of absent Mexican voters illegally living in this country, Mexico will get another cohort/puppet of the Bush Administration (as is Vicente Fox), and the newly revealed plans for a North American Union, whose government would likely have the authority to countermand decisions made by our own government (thereby nullifying huge portions of the U.S. Constitution -- any idealists reading this should remember that fact if they think a union is a good thing, as I once did) is one step closer to reality.

Footnote: Make no mistake. If Bush is in favor of an American Union, then it cannot possibly be for the good of the citizens of any of our countries, but rather it is for the convenience of his own puppet masters' authoritarian goals and for the unlimited profits of global corporations (puppet masters and corporations probably being one and the same).

Here is video proof that I am not just making this up:

Yet Again... Do I Dare to Hope?

2006-07-04T21:05:00.000-06:00

Although the federal government is desperately short of that element of humanity known as "good guys," we now at least have an extremely solid legal basis for the prosecution of the members of the Bush Administration for war crimes. Amazingly, the legal groundwork for this prosecution was laid by yet another criminal organization, the very organization that illegally installed this future war criminal as president back in December 2000: The Supreme Court of the United States. Read on:

Supreme Court: Bush Administration Has Committed War Crimes

...What has been largely missed is the clear point that the Supreme Court has now declared that for the past five years, Bush and his gang of war-mongers, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State and former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, former Attorney General Donald Rumsfeld and current Attorney General and former White House Chief Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and many others in the administration, have been guilty of violating the Third Convention on treatment of prisoners of war. They are also, therefore, in violation of federal law, which back in 1996 adopted that convention as part of the U.S. criminal code. [Read the rest here.]

Do I Dare to Hope?

2006-07-03T10:11:00.000-06:00

I'm trying to restrain myself...

And not to hold my breath...

Could something really be happening?!

Finally?!!

"RFK Jr., Florida Law Firm to File Federal Whistleblower Suits Against Two Voting Machine Companies!

"First Case to be Filed Next Week, According to Attorneys Scheduled to Meet with U.S. Dept. of Justice Officials This Week."

Read the rest here.

Yes, maybe this is a very small step; but it is at least one taken in the right direction, finally. One step in the right direction is better than standing still facing the wrong direction (RFK Jr. just needs to be very careful for the next few weeks).

Please watch this excellent 35-minute video:

Votergate - The Presidential Election Special Edition (Election Fraud)

Truth and Laughter

2006-07-02T14:12:00.000-06:00

I laughed out loud at when I read the name of a particular U.S. demographic group for the first time just moments ago. It is mentioned in Max Udargo's Blog. Below are just the first two paragraphs of that blog, which was written in early May but has not lost any of its impact on me:

"President Bush appears to be losing support among a key group of voters who had hitherto stood firmly with the president even as his poll numbers among other groups fell dramatically.

"A new Gallup poll shows that, for the first time, Bush’s approval rating has fallen below 50% among total fucking morons, and now stands at 44%. This represents a dramatic drop compared to a poll taken just last December, when 62% of total fucking morons expressed support for the president and his policies..." (Read the rest here.)

Rather Than Couric

2006-06-27T11:21:00.000-06:00

Tom Degan, one of the best new voices of the blogosphere (and long renowned for his comments at Alternet), has just written an excellent piece on CBS News, the hostile ouster of Dan Rather and the planned arrival of Katie Couric in September 2006. I have been thinking about this topic quite a bit myself lately.

Tom Writes
"When [CBS] announced that they were replacing the great Bob Scheiffer on the CBS Evening News with someone of the journalistic stature of Katie Courac, that did it. When it comes to getting the news, "cute and perky" doesn't really work for me. Maybe she'll surprise us. When Mike Wallace arrived at the company in 1962, no one took him seriously either."

My Reply
Yes, but in 1962, every single tributary of the mainstream media wasn't owned by the same five republican-driven corporations, and there was certainly no policy at that time to promote "cute and perky" faces to the job of presenting party-line, zero-substance, PR propaganda. In the present era, no journalist will succeed in the PR industry (because it's not really "news" anymore) if he or she doesn't follow those rules. If a "journalist" even dared to try to expose any really substantive truth to the public in any story regarding the Bush Administration, or present the other side of a story fairly, their show would either be cancelled or immediately moved from its prime 7 PM (EDT) time slot to 11 PM (EDT).

Couric
As for Couric herself, I have had zero respect for her (to put it mildly) since April or May of 1995, when she interviewed a celebrity who believes in always questioning our government officials and never simply taking their word for anything (I'm almost certain that man was comedian David Brenner, whose hometown is Philadelphia, PA, birthplace of the Constitution). I believe (because it's not easy to remember the details), Brenner came on to discuss the U.S. Constitution or the freedom to dissent, or something like that. The interview took place shortly after the Oklahoma City bombing, and the country was in a rage against the sort of radical separatist groups to which Timothy McVeigh supposedly belonged (even though he had been a rabidly patriotic soldier in the first Gulf War just a couple of years earlier).

During the course of Couric's interview, she asked him several questions. To one question, he responded as all TRULY patriotic Americans have responded since the founding of our government in 1787. It's been eleven years since the interview, so I don't remember his exact words, but his response was very vaguely along the lines that he didn't trust our government without question and that no American should trust our government without question. He may even have said (or I was thinking it myself as I watched) the Founding Fathers expected American citizens to be ever vigilant in scrutinizing the actions and motives of our goverment. Keep in mind that Brenner wasn't discussing the FBI debacle in Waco in 1993 or to the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. He was just speaking in general.

In short, Brenner was being the sort of person that the press had been championing for decades.

But, by 1995, times had changed. Couric suddenly, and with great hostility, launched into classic TV-news ambush mode, comparing Brenner to the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols and all the members of the Neo-Nazi groups in this country.

With a very loud scream of disbelief and anger, I immediately switched the channel, and I have never watched Couric since. I can say with great certainty that I despise her and her cutesy, innocent-looking, cherubic face. In that brief moment, she had lumped all patriotic Americans in with radical hate groups because we dare to question our government and to mistrust its motives in some cases.

Anti-Climactic Post Script
As for Rather's retirement, I'm hoping he will soon be hitting us with a few excellent exposés on the Bush/Cheney gang of evil stooges now that he is free of major corporate shackles (or as free as any news person can get in this country). I'm not going to hold my breath, but I might slow my breathing down a bit -- every once in a while.

An Amazing Coincidence

2006-06-26T11:28:00.000-06:00

Regardless of your position on this topic, you cannot help but admit that a major coincidence (at the very least) took place on the morning of June 23, 2006.

It all began on the evening of June 22, 2006, when "Hannity & Colmes" (on the FOX/RNC Channel) had a guest on by the name of Dr. James H. Fetzer (see endnote). Fetzer is a member of 9/11 Scholars for Truth. Due to some unexpected initial confusion on the part of the hosts regarding their chosen "attack theme" (they got their "facts FOXED," as Fetzer said), Fetzer was given a rare opportunity to answer an open-ended question -- almost without interruption. As the lawyers all say, "Never ask a witness any question to which you do not already know the answer."

Colmes asked Fetzer something to the effect, "So can you give us one piece of evidence that would tend to point toward 9/11 being an inside job by the Bush Administration?"

While Ollie North (who was guest hosting for Hannity) was apparently still lost in confusion, Fetzer had a rare opportunity to speak a few full sentences without hostile, obnoxious interruptions. He said (and I'm paraphrasing here again), "I point you to Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Mineta said he had encountered Vice President Cheney in a bunker in Washington, DC, at 9:20 AM, on the day of the attacks [forty-three minutes earlier than Cheney said he had arrived]. Every few seconds a young man would come into the room and say, 'Sir, it's 50 miles out. Sir, it's 40 miles out. Sir, it's 30 miles out,' and so on. Finally the young man asked the Vice President, 'Sir, do the orders still stand?' Cheney replied gruffly, 'Of course, the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?'

Fetzer went on to explain that only later did Mineta learn that the young man was referring to Flight 77 approaching Washington, DC, and the orders the young man was referring to were obviously orders NOT to shoot the plane down [please see my first July 6, comment in the comments section for an update on this paragraph]. That's why the young man had finally asked if the orders still stood, to which Cheney replied that they did. Shortly thereafter, Flight 77 (or a "reasonable" facsimile thereof) struck the Pentagon.

Obviously, the producers of the "Hannity & Colmes Propaganda Hour" had not anticipated such a damning bit of irrefutable evidence to escape over "their" airwaves to their glassy-eyed, drool-chinned audience.

Here's the Real Kicker...
The very next morning, less than twelve hours after his 9/11 testimony had been unexpectedly "exposed" to the FOX faithful, Norman Mineta resigned as Secretary of Transportation.

What an unbelievably amazing coincidence of timing!

Just for the sake of argument, let's say Mineta's timing was truly nothing more than a coincidence. If so, then he couldn't have picked a worse time to announce it (unless it was his relatively subtle way of sending a message to the masses). Or, if he was forced to resign by Bush/Cheney (for whatever reason), they couldn't have picked a more self-incriminating time to make it happen.

There has been barely a peep about Mineta's resignation in the mainstream media. I saw the same, generic, non-informational, totally uncurious five-second clip about it several times, but there has been absolutely no speculation as to why he did it (although his recent back surgery is implied to be the main reason). That's incredibly unusual behavior for our babbling heads, isn't it? Other high-level resignations in the last few months from the Bush Administration were the subject of endless babble among the MSM "elite."

A Final Thought
I can only imagine the sudden conflicting thoughts of at least five out of every one hundred Fox viewers who had heard Fetzer mention Mineta's damning testimony just a few hours before Mineta resigned. What must they have been thinking for a short time before their self-hypnosis kicked back in?

Click here to download the clip of the four-minute interview (in Windows Media Format). An AVI version is here.

[Note: James H. Fetzer (FM) Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.]

VIDEO: Cheney Usurps Command of NORAD

The Trojan Horse Party

2006-06-14T11:07:00.000-06:00

The following is an observation of an independent voter (me):

Bad people with lots of money, power and sinister motives have learned to choose their electors wisely.

The Set Up
Most Americans would probably agree that democrats tend to vote across party lines more than republicans do. Republican voters, on the other hand, have traditionally shown a very stubborn loyalty to candidates and elected officials of their own party. They tend to remain loyal to those candidates and elected officials even when they are caught telling serious lies or engaging in illegal behavior. In fact, republican voters seem to be completely unwilling to admit that anyone in the republican leadership is capable of making mistakes or of engaging in illegal activity. (1)

What an Opportunist Would See
Herding republican voters in a particular direction is a snap..., but only if you are "one of them." For instance, if a republican leader (such as George W. Bush) points to a perceived enemy (either foreign or domestic, or real or invented), republican voters will immediately start waving the American flag while eagerly waiting for orders to attack the "enemy" and/or smear any "disloyal" doubters in this country. If a democratic leader (such as Bill Clinton) points to a perceived enemy, republican voters immediately accuse him of pulling a selfish ratings stunt.

Trying to herd democratic voters in any direction, on the other hand, is like trying to herd cats. They are an unwieldy collection of loosely allied groups who can barely agree with one another half the time. They have allied themselves with one another merely for the sake of political convenience (since the two-party system is entrenched in this country). If either republican or democratic leaders point to a perceived enemy (either foreign or domestic, or real or imagined), many democratic voters (and independent voters) will march in protest and demand proof of the government's claims before they will lend their support to such a cause. (2)

An Opportunist Makes His Decision
Now please tell me, if you were a wealthy, greedy, power-hungry individual with sinister motives, and you wanted to fool the largest number of voters into voting for you and defending you blindly once you were elected, which group of Americans would you choose to hoodwink? Would you try to smooth-talk an unwieldy collection of loosely allied groups who can barely agree with one another half the time? Or would you smooth-talk those voters who are blindly, fanatically loyal to their party, no matter how corrupt their candidates or leaders might be? If I were a greedy, sinister, corrupt power broker, and I wanted to fool the greatest number of voters into voting for me, I would definitely campaign as a republican and spout all sorts of patriotic and democrat-bashing clichés. Depending on where I live in this country (Nebraska, for instance), I would almost certainly win the election in a landslide.

In Conclusion
What this tells us is that those Americans who are the most patriotic of all are also the most gullible in allowing evil people to take over our country. The Republican party has come to resemble the famous Trojan Horse, and republican voters are the Trojan soldiers who are unwittingly bringing the bad guys into the fort. I wish republican voters would keep that in mind from now on. I fear that it is too late, though. The damage has been done. The evil people are already in power (thanks, in part, to gullible voters and to the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004), and they will find every way they can never to relinquish that power again. (3)

-----

Footnotes
(1) Such blind loyalty might, in part, be attributable to the almost thirty years of incessant conservative propaganda that has thoroughly demonized the democratic party. This propaganda seems to have left most moderate republicans completely afraid to vote for any democratic candidate, even when they cannot stand the republican candidate. Even when members of the republican leadership are caught red handed engaging in illegal activities, republican voters usually rationalize that they did it because that is the only way for "decent, patriotic American leaders" to get around "evil liberal" judges and politicians, as well as the "liberal" media. Breaking the law is the only way they can fight the "good fight" in order to "save" America.

(2) By the way, nourishing a healthy suspicion of our government's activities is exactly how the Founding Fathers intended for Americans to act.

(3) Thanks to rigged voting machines (a fact proven by several official tests) that are manufactured by virulently pro-republican corporations.

The Double-Standard Test

2006-06-03T16:30:00.001-06:00

Illegal President George W. Bush is promoting what amounts to an open-border policy with Mexico. Why hasn't it occurred to most people (liberals, independents and other common-sense Bush haters) that if he is for it then there are probably a thousand reasons that we should all be totally against it? That embarrassment of a human being cannot possibly have a noble motive in promoting such a policy. He has never had a noble motive in his life (check out the definition of a sociopath; if that doesn't describe George W. Bush, then nothing does). He clearly has an ulterior motive, and he is tricking liberals in this country (using their ideals against them) into giving him exactly what he wants (keep in mind that I am a staunch independent who leans ever so slightly to the left in most situations). His chief aim is almost certainly to help corporations by replacing high-wage American workers with low-wage foreign workers. He is probably using those foreigners to lower our own wage standards, so that we will all eventually have no choice but to work for the same low wages if we want to put any food at all on the table. The richest of the rich (one percent of the population) will then get to add a big portion of that ten-percent of America's wealth that they don't already control to the remaining ninety percent that they do control. Of course, as immediate citizens, these immigrants would also get to vote right away, and one wonders who they would vote for in grateful numbers (Jeb Bush? or George again, if he breaks the law and chooses to run again?). Of course millions of them would settle in California. Would they be enough to turn California into a Bush state? There may be more sinister motives behind Bush's immigration policy, but that remains to be exposed.

For the record, I am not at all against people immigrating legally to this country or even staying on extended visas or green cards. Throughout most of my life, if there has been someone from another country in the same room with me, I will invent any excuse I can think of to visit with that person. My brother even dragged a Norwegian tourist home with him once because he thought I would want to visit with him (I was actually head-over-heels in love with an Iranian woman in college, and, yes, she was head-over-heels in love with me too; to be truthful, though, I fell in love with her before I was fully aware of her foreign status). However, I do know that there is a limit to what our job market/economy can handle, and an endless stream of people immigrating here illegally is not sensible. Paul Craig Roberts, a conservative economist who hates Bush with a passion (he thinks, as I do, that Bush is the most dangerous, destructive and incompetent leader this country has ever seen) wrote the following a few months ago. The numbers are very sobering: Nuking the Economy. Roberts says it far, far better than I can, so I strongly encourage you to read his editorial (or at least the first four or five paragraphs if you are pressed for time). In fact, I strongly encourage you to read all of his editorials (most of which don't involve economics). They can be found at the same web site, as well as at two or three other sites.

Think of It This Way
Imagine two lifeboats on the open sea. Both are filled to capacity with passengers. Adding a few more passengers to either boat would cause it to sink. The first boat suddenly springs a slow leak. It may well be moral and instinctual for some of the passengers in the second boat to invite the passengers from the first boat to join them (I would probably be among those doing the inviting), but is it realistic? Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible for all concerned in both boats if those passengers in the first boat took some initiative and fixed the leak instead of abandoning their boat? Wouldn't Americans fix the "leak" if it was in our own boat? Isn't that what we've done a number of times in the past 230 years?

In fact, let's think about that for a moment: What if the roles were reversed? What if the United States was suffering from the economic "troubles" that Mexico is now experiencing? What if millions of Americans just abandoned this country and their moral responsibility as citizens and crossed illegally into Mexico or Canada and then, to add insult to injury, started demanding (while waving thousands of U.S. flags at huge protest rallies) that those governments give them full citizenship? Would Americans really have the audacity to do that? What would the world say about those millions of us who participated in those invasions and rallies? I suspect the general consensus would be negative -- AND RIGHTFULLY SO. Most liberal and independent Americans would probably be doing the loudest screaming, saying such things as, "How dare we impose our will on any foreign government! Those are sovereign nations! We have no right to invade their countries and then demand that they give us what we want!"

Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, and it is the United States that is being illegally invaded by the millions, we are demonized for not giving in to the invaders' demands. Why do other nations, and even tens of millions of our own citizens, hold the United States to a different standard?

Will the Misleading Never End?

2006-06-02T17:08:00.000-06:00

Lou Dobbs, whom I respect half the time, finally reported on the highly suspect "irregularities" of one of the voting-machine companies, in this case, Sequoia. He mentioned the "problems" experienced by voters in Illinois who recently used Sequoia machines in the primaries.

I thought Lou's report was probably too good to be true, and it was. He immediately blamed all of the company's shady problems on the fact that they are now owned by a Venezuelan company. It's mighty convenient for Lou that Venezuela is ruled by that "horrible" socialist and "public enemy" No. 3 or 4 or 5, Hugo Chavez (who is no more a threat to us than Castro has been since November 1962 -- after the Cuban Missile Crisis had ended --, only Hugo has that highly addictive magic elixir, OIL, which makes the ultra rich take all leave of their senses, their ethics, their common sense, etc., at the mere mention of its name).

Yep, Lou found a foreign scapegoat to take the implied blame for "all" of America's voting "irregularities." Never mind the fact that those irregularities were almost certainly engineered by the Americans who owned the company long before the Venezuelans had even heard of it. It's also mighty convenient that Lou found this foreign scapegoat just in time to counter Robert Kennedy Jr.'s Rolling Stone article.

Yes, Lou, it's totally OK to ignore the far more serious and thoroughly proven criminal behavior of such one-hundred-percent American-owned companies as Diebold and ES&S.

Lou condemns American corporations, such as Big Oil, all the time, but he refuses to condemn the voting-machine companies. Why?

I think the answer is simple: Big Oil cannot hide its criminal behavior from the American people. We are victims of it every time we pull up to a gas pump. The Mainstream media cannot hide this truth from us. The criminal behavior of voting-machine companies, on the other hand, is supposed to be a secret. We are not supposed to know that we are being screwed every time we use one of their machines; therefore, the mainstream media is duty bound to continue to hide those horrible secrets at all costs -- unless there just happens to be a foreign "enemy" to use as a convenient scapegoat. The mainstream media probably wouldn't even have reported this fact if it hadn't found it necessary to conduct damage control in the wake of Kennedy's article.

Yes, I am just speculating, but the timing is amazing. It has been public knowledge for a while that a Venezuelan company owns Sequoia. Why did Dobbs wait until now a day or two after Kennedy's article, to attack them?

Update June 7, 2006: On the June 5, episode of Lou Dobbs, reporter Kitty Pilgrim said, "The big worry for U.S. elections is Smartmatic and other voting machine companies are private companies. They have proprietary software that they can call a trade secret. Electronic voting experts with extensive experience say it's nearly impossible to verify if a proprietary system is tamper-proof... Some voter watchdog groups and others in congress are calling for a full review and say the ownership of all electronic voting companies should be reviewed to determine if it poses a risk to U.S. elections."

I got the above Pilgrim quotes from "Hannan," a commenter at BradBlog. I replied to him as follows:

"I just read Hannan's Kitty Pilgrim quotes after I made my previous comment. I didn't watch Lou Dobbs yesterday (after being frustrated with last week's report), so I must commend Kitty Pilgrim on making such helpful comments. That is encouraging.

"Wildly wishful thinking: Maybe she and Dobbs (or at least Pilgrim alone) are ever so carefully -- deviously -- working their way around CNN's neocon censors. Maybe their report on foreign (or at least Venezuelan) ownership of a voting-maching company is merely the trojan-horse method of talking about the electronic-voting scandal in this country.

"Yes, as I say, that is wildly wishful thinking. The skeptic, the optimist and the realist in me are equally powerful (or weak), and every day, all day long, they battle it out with one another like the Three Stooges during Happy Hour."

Those Annoying Coincidences

2006-05-28T09:18:00.000-06:00

The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to...

I Urge You

2006-05-26T12:16:00.000-06:00

If you value a free and democratic United States, PLEASE read this: Top 10 Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State

The Anatomy of Demonization

2006-02-27T12:20:00.000-07:00

Someone named "MM" commented on my message to Senator John Thune regarding the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination.

He/she wrote: "Ohhh I feel that groundswell rising against Alito. I Am Scared. You dems really really scare me... Yeah, I'm scared. Scared that you idiots would ever have power again in this country."

My reply:

Oh, there was a groundswell, MM. Just because most democratic senators ignored the the thousands of emails and faxes that each one received, and the mainstream media completely ignored the story, doesn't mean it didn't happen. I saw it happening. If you don't believe it, there's nothing I can do about it.

Furthermore, MM, this is the United States! Please stop demonizing the political party/philosophy to which you do not belong. Those are the tactics of the Communist Chinese, North Koreans, Cubans and former Soviets, to name just a few. The fact that republicans do it now on a daily basis speaks volumes about the sort of people who have taken over that party in the last two and a half decades. Your arrogance is astounding. You actually seem to believe that your party can do no wrong, and the other party can do no right (which is laughable since the neocons have done nothing right since Bush stole office). "Lefties" and "liberals" are no threat to democracy or freedom. If anything, they want too many "liberal" freedoms that conservatives find reprehensible (one or two of which I am not too thrilled with myself, but that's what democracy and compromise are all about, MM; in the U.S., no one is allowed to have it all his or her own way). At least those "leftist liberals" are in favor of excessive freedom, whereas you and other conservatives are not. You clearly appear to be in favor of forcing everyone to live life according to an ideology that is a weird cross between John Wayne movies and "Leave It to Beaver," even if it means passing restrictive laws to get us all to live that way. The problem is that you cannot legislate culture or religion, except in the Middle East. Those people excel at legislating culture and religion. By all means, let's be more like them.

Democracy dies when only one party holds the reins of power and demonizes (lies about) all opposition (more on this here).

To the rest of my readers (who number in the ones, I'm sure), I say that we cannot argue with modern republican neocons. They don't want to hear any opinion but their own. We can only watch in resignation as they finally get a chance to impose their long-cherished fantasies (many of them criminal) on the world and then watch as those fantasies fall apart around them (or rather around all of us); and that's what is now happening. Every one of Bush's delusional fantasies is falling apart. When it's all over with, we will get to say, "Told you so," as we reassume the reins of power and clean up their world-class messes (only I think it's too late to fix their messes in many cases). Many of us non-rocket scientists predicted these negative outcomes several years ago, including my newest hero, Paul Craig Roberts, who was President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of the Treasury and later wrote for the conservative Wall Street Journal and was also a contributing editor at the ultra-conservative National Review. You may read many of his reviews at the preceding link and the above link. He, too, is sure that putting Alito on the Supreme Court is a terrible mistake (in fact, he sees Bush himself as an abomination). However, he says it much better than I do. See for yourself. Why don't you demonize Roberts as a "leftie" too, MM? Oh, I know. You probably will, even though you would be totally off base.

Modern republicans don't like anyone who disagrees with even the smallest aspect of their republican neocon party line, not even other republicans. Such people cannot see anything but pure black and white. Even the slightest shade of "off-black" (aka "gray") is considered pure white to them and is demonization material. The fact that I am not a "leftie" would fall on deaf ears if I were to proclaim it to MM. For instance, I voted for Reagan in 1980 (although I quickly grew to hate him and am now somewhat embarrassed to admit that I voted for him). In 1992, to get rid of Evil Bush Number One, I voted for Bill Clinton. I quickly lost all respect for him because he became a sellout to corporate interests. I voted independent in 1996. I would have voted for McCain in 2000 (a mistake, I now realize), if he had gotten the nomination; however, Goober "Al Capone" Bush's puppet masters resorted to dirty tricks to defeat McCain. Instead, I voted independent again. I despise John Kerry because he is a complete Washington insider and corporate crony, but, thanks to idiotic democratic primary voters, he was the only alternative in 2004 to the truly evil Bush. I did not like Gore at all until this year, when he gave one of the most inspiring speeches that anyone has given in decades and forced me to reassess my earlier long-held opinion of him (come on, now, MM; break free from that North Korean philosophy of yours; click the link and listen to what the "opposition" party has to say; be an American). Finally, I would gladly consider voting for Chuck Hagel for president in the future, but NOT until the criminal republicans are a microscopic minority in congress.

In conclusion, I am an American who believes in freedom at all costs (NOT neo-conservatism at all costs nor politically correct liberalism at all costs), but that declaration would also fall on deaf ears wouldn't it? I am an independent and have been since I was old enough to know what politics are all about. If I was forced to choose against my will, though, I would say that I presently consider the democratic party to be the lesser of two evils, because I cannot help but see the self-righteous, self-centered arrogance and greed of the conservatives who have hijacked the republican party and falsely demonized their opposition. I desperately want a third party to gain enough traction to scare both the republicans and the democrats into becoming honest again.

Democracy - WWF Style

2006-01-29T23:24:00.000-07:00

Many registered democrats (as well as many independents, probably) have been utterly baffled as to why democratic politicians seem to be consistently willing to play the role of the losers in recent years, or, even worse yet, side with this most horrible president in U.S. history. If they don't actually side with him, then they almost always surrender without a fight, or else they pretend to be beaten in a fair fight. Why?

It's highly likely that they are simply nothing more than cowards.

But what if they aren't cowards? What else could it be?

Here's my theory. It is presented in the form of a side-by-side comparison with another professional "show sport": professional wrestling.

The Identical Settings:
A.) Wrestling "arena."
B.) The Capitol building.

The Identical Opponents:
A.) "Evil" wrestlers vs. "good" wrestlers.
B.) Democrats (demonized as "evil") vs. Republicans (idolized as "good").

The "Fights":
A.) Battling for the world "championship."
B.) Battling over legislation/judges/the Constitution/world domination/wars, etc.

The Outcomes:
A.) With a few exceptions (to keep the silly "sport" from looking totally fabricated), the "good" wrestlers, with the help of the announcer, demonize the "bad" wrestlers, pretend to take a few fake "sucker punches" to the kidneys from the "bad" wrestlers to gain audience sympathy and then eventually win.
B.) With a few exceptions (to keep the democratic process from looking totally fabricated), Republicans, with the help of the mainstream media, demonize Democrats, pretend to take a few fake "sucker punches" in the kidneys from the "bad" democrats to gain voter sympathy and then eventually win.

The Aftermaths:
A.) The "bad" wrestlers and the "good" wrestlers (along with the announcers) leave the arena, receive their weekly salaries and go straight to the local watering hole, have some laughs together over a few tequila shooters and discuss tomorrow's script, which was written a long time ago, and has just been handed to them by the producers.
B.) Both the Republicans and the Democrats (along with their mainstream-media accomplices) leave the people's capitol, receive their weekly "salaries" and go straight to the local country club, have some laughs together over a few martinis and discuss tomorrow's script, which was written a long time ago, and has just been handed to them by "the producers."

The Results:
A.) A small, yet highly dedicated fan base thinks the wrestling is real, worships the "good" wrestlers and admires their every move. Much of the rest of the TV audience looks away, speechless than anyone could actually fall for such poorly acted crap. The majority of the TV audience, however, just doesn't care.
B.) A small, yet highly dedicated voter base thinks democracy is still real in the halls of Congress, worships the Republicans and follows their every move. Much of the rest of the voter base looks away, speechless than anyone could actually fall for such poorly acted theatrics. The majority of Americans, however, just doesn't care.

The Consequences:
A.) As far as "professional" wrestling goes..., it sure as hell isn't good for quality TV.
B) As far as Washington, goes, it sure as hell isn't good for democracy.

The democrats aren't the "losers." They're just actors playing the parts of losers.

Saving Our Constitution

2006-01-29T00:17:00.001-07:00

I just wrote the following message to Senator John Thune (R) of South Dakota. I know it is a hopeless cause, but it's better than doing nothing at all:

Dear Senator Thune,

Like you, I am a South Dakotan. I graduated from Lyman High School in 1979. You and I are from a generation and a state that prides itself on its philosophy of individual rights and freedoms. We believe in less government, not more. I know that deep down you are more of a South Dakotan than you are a loyal member of an agenda-driven political party. You have a chance to make history (and a very big name for yourself) by taking a very principled stand and protecting our Constitution, rather than voting for a person, Samuel Alito, whose record undeniably shows that he has ruled against individual rights 85 percent of the time.

Many conservative South Dakotans are so caught up in overturning Roe v. Wade that they are blind to the much greater dangers posed by Alito. That said, a survey in South Dakota shows that its citizens are evenly split between pro-choice and pro-life; therefore, as far as abortion goes, you are going to offend half the population of South Dakota, no matter what you do. So abortion is a non-issue in this particular matter. In fact, it is nothing more than a distraction.

Please tell me that you value our Constitution and our future as a nation (a nation that proudly does its best to "err" on the side of freedom every time in judicial matters) more than you value your temporary spot in the United States Senate. Millions of Americans have put their lives on the line in order to protect our Constitution from foreign threats. Surely, the very least you could do is put your senate seat on the line in order to protect it from an insidious domestic threat. You took an oath to do that very thing.

If you do not, this nation will feel the effects of your decision long after you have left office, maybe for all time. Almost certainly your children and grandchildren will not grow up with the same freedoms that we did. Are you willing to risk those freedoms for temporary political benefit? You have a chance to take a stand for something unbelievably important, instead of quietly towing a party line for a president who is clearly not pursuing the greater good for our nation (you must surely see that, as I do, since we were raised practically next door to one another). Far more South Dakotans agree with me than you may realize. Make them proud. They are more deserving of your representation than are those who have a particular agenda. Take a stand that will surely get you noticed (and even admired) around the world. Shock our mainstream media out of their six-year slumber. They will beat down your door to get interviews with you. When they ask baited questions, you answer bluntly. Don't mince words. The strength of your convictions will be far more impressive to their millions of viewers than will a comparatively anonymous party-line vote for a dangerous Supreme Court nominee.

In conclusion, let me repeat: You are a South Dakotan. I want to have faith in you, regardless of party affiliation (party affiliation is tearing this nation apart). I want to continue to brag to my Nebraska friends about the enlightened citizens of South Dakota, as I have for thirty years now (off and on, as I have moved back and forth between here and "home").

Thank you.

P.S. I think you may be unaware of the vast grassroots anti-Alito movement that has been building in this nation over the weekend. Believe me. It is definitely a bipartisan movement. Even the ultra-conservative John Birch Society has sided overwhelmingly against President Bush.

Sacrificing to Preserve the Constitution

2006-01-28T21:04:00.000-07:00

I emailed the following message to Senator Ben Nelson (D), here in Nebraska and a nearly identical version to Senator Tim Johnson (D) of my home state of South Dakota. Believe it or not, because I have nothing to lose, I also wrote a similar message to Senator Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska. It concludes this entry.

-----

"It amazes me that so many democratic senators are more concerned with keeping their senate seats than in keeping their oath to protect and defend our Constitution. Veterans have lost their lives defending it against short-lived foreign threats. Do you think it was easy for them to do that? The least you could do is risk losing your senate seat to defend our Constitution against a much more insidious domestic threat (one that will continue to threaten it long after you have retired from public life). More Nebraskans will respect your courage than you realize. For those who will be angry with you, tell them in no uncertain terms exactly what I have told you here. It's really as simple as that. A show of convictions may even impress a few of them, too.

"Yes, there are people in this state who would gladly sacrifice a number of our freedoms in order to impose their political and religious ideologies on all of us. Would you really cater to their whims in order to keep your senate seat for a few more years? The damage that will be done by Alito will probably be irreversible. Your grandchildren and their children will pay the price for the rest of their lives. They will never know the America we know. Please don't take the short-term easy way out. Why are you there, if you aren't going to stand for anything?"

-----

"I know that this is a lost cause, but I must try: You served in the military and put your life on the line in order to protect and defend this country and our Constitution from foreign threats. Many others gave their lives in the same defense. Now party loyalty is more important than defending the Constitution against an insidious domestic threat in the form of Samuel Alito (you must see how dangerous he is). As a result, your grandchildren may not enjoy many of the freedoms that we now enjoy. For their sakes, please stand apart from this president once again. If you could put your life on the line for this country, certainly you could put your senate seat on the line, too. What sort of country will our future soldiers be defending if you don't?"

My Comment to Craig Crawford

2006-01-26T14:10:00.000-07:00

Craig Crawford wrote a brief entry on his blog, Crawford's List, about the likelihood that Alito will overturn Roe v. Wade. He says that Alito probably will do so because that's why Bush picked him. Crawford concluded by saying that Americans elected Bush, so we asked for it: "You get the Democracy you deserve," he wrote.

In a rare opportunity to correspond with a member of the mainstream media, I replied in his comments section as follows:

Whether the mainstream media wants to cover it or not, the evidence strongly indicates that Bush was not legitimately elected in either 2000 or 2004, Mr. Crawford. So, no, sir, we didn't ask for this president.

  On what evidence do I state my opinion, you may ask? There is no shortage of such evidence, and it is not the stuff of crazy conspiracy theorists. Eminent scholars and mathematicians have even shown the statistical impossibility of Bush's victory in 2004 (Google it for yourself). Furthermore, it has been proven (although you would never know it by the mainstream media) that Diebold voting machines, among others, allow vote tampering, not only at the local level, but at the much more crucial central-tabulator level, where one person can change the overall tallies that are compiled from the hundreds or thousands of precinct machines with a couple clicks of the mouse. The conclusion of one participant in an official test is that such flaws could not have been accidentally built into the software (see the Leon County paragraph below).

  A few examples:

  Bev Harris [of Blackboxvoting.org] showed Gov. Howard Dean how to get into Diebold's main server through an "unlocked back door" that she had discovered by accident. This demonstration took place prior to the 2004 election. He was able to switch votes in a mock election in just a few seconds without leaving a trace of his presence. This all happened on the actual Diebold servers without Diebold's knowledge. I saw it happen. It is recorded in a 30-minute documentary film, which is available for free online [here] (may require QuickTime software).  

Still skeptical? The Department of Homeland Security's very own web site warns about Diebold's back-door security flaw. In fact that flaw was listed on the site prior to the 2004 election, yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Even more amazingly, the warning is still there. Click here to see for yourself.  

Still skeptical? Click the following link to read the findings of an OFFICIAL Leon County, FL, test of a Diebold optical-scanning machine in December 2005 (yes, just a little over one month ago). This particular report was written by one of the participants. You can Google "Leon County" and "Diebold" to find a number of local press reports of the test. It's funny how the mainstream national media has not covered it.  

Finally, how come the exit polls were way off base ONLY in those states that used voting machines? And in each discrepancy, the final "official" tally always benefitted Bush. Yet, in counties that used paper ballots, every exit poll was almost a perfect match of the official vote tally. Here are some very revealing charts; and never mind the strange URL title, because the information is still very legitimate.

  Exit polls are so very accurate that Bush even hired the same exit-poll company/companies to monitor the election in the Ukraine. In that country, Bush used the exit poll data to force a second election, because it showed that the challenger had won, while the actual election results showed the incumbent had won. How come we consider the exit polls sacrosanct there, yet they are the objects of scorn here, even though they came up with the very same discrepancies here as were found in the Ukraine?  

So, no, sir, we didn't ask for this president.  

Other links that reveal overwhelming evidence of an environment in which elections have been/could easily be stolen: The United States Goverment Accountability Office Steven Freeman, University of Pennsylvania (pdf) Video documentary of 2000 election in Florida (requires RealPlayer) 

 There are so many others out there. Just Google it in every way you can think of. Suspend your skepticism long enough to read the evidence for yourself. Don't dismiss it because of what you might consider the "lack of credentials" of the initial web sources. In the majority of cases, they are merely relaying information from very reputable sources.

The Enemy of My Enemy...

2006-01-06T23:40:00.000-07:00

Many of you will probably remember the John Birch Society. Founded in 1958, it is one of the oldest and most arch-conservative groups / societies / clubs, what have you, in the United States. On their web site (found via BuzzFlash), they ask, "Should George Bush be impeached and removed from office." I will let you read the results for yourself. Click here and be sure to read the caption above each bar graph. I swear... What is this country coming to? ;-)

Chalk One Up Against Christian "Subversives"

2005-12-31T01:17:00.000-07:00

Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation Magazine, posted an editorial on The Nation web site, listing a few of the year's "sweet victories" for progressives. She made an excellent list, but left out one of my favorites, so I commented on it at the end of her article. That comment, which you will find there, reads as follows:

Katrina, we should also remember the double defeat of the subversive proponents of "intelligent design" in Dover, Pennsylvania. It was incredibly encouraging to learn that voters there kicked out all eight school-board members (not just a few, but ALL OF THEM!) who were in favor of teaching "intelligent design" (aka "religion") as science in the district schools. Then, last week the icing was put on the cake (as if the vote wasn't satisfying enough): A republican, church-going judge, John E. Jones, ruled against the proponents of "intelligent design" in Dover, telling them in no uncertain terms that the concept is nothing more than religion masquerading as science. He "decried the 'breathtaking inanity' of the Dover policy and accused several board members of lying to conceal their true motive, which he said was to promote religion."

The Dover story, therefore, is one of the most encouraging of the year for me.

A final comment: Let the proponents of "intelligent design" preach their totally non-scientifc "science" on the streets or in the incredibly vast number of churches that dot the American landscape (a number that puts the lie to the supposed "siege" on Christianity), where most people (adults, at least) have a choice of listening to them. They have no business trying also to indoctrinate young, captive audiences with their particular view of spiritual reality. Outside of public schools, government institutions and some private businesses, Christians have practically no limitations on their movements or their mouths. They always have and always will pester the hell out of us, at practically every turn, to their heart's content (pun intended). Their true goal in all of this (with "ID science" being merely a false front) is, very simply, to gain access to all those captive, impressionable young minds in our public schools. Sadly, Christians of this sort (even if they believe their intentions are "pure") will never be made to understand that they are working against the intentions of the founding fathers, not for them; and so their efforts to subvert public schools in other parts of the nation will continue for some time to come.

Red State-Blue State... Get a Clue!

2005-10-31T13:19:00.000-07:00

Hey, people! Knock it off, already, with this red-state/blue-state name calling, especially by progressives who live in blue states! I and millions of other red-state progressives are wholeheartedly on your side, even if we do happen to live in red states. We despise the Bush Administration as much as you do. And, no, we are not all blue staters who reluctantly migrated to red states to pursue careers. Most of us (probably) were born and raised here.

Lower Your Noses a Little, Please
Blue-state progressives do not have that much room for self-righteousness. The antiquated, unfair Electoral College (with the help of modern, self-serving conservative strategists) has messed up Americans' perceptions of our nation. Burn these numbers into your brains: George W. Bush received a total of 25,132,439 votes from supposedly enlightened "blue staters." John Kerry received a total of 26,004,540 votes from supposedly backwards "red staters" (there were probably even more red-state Kerry voters than that number indicates, if you take a few stolen state elections into account). The red states are not a vast wasteland populated only by hillbillies, rednecks and evangelical christians. There are a lot of Americans "out here" who are none of those things.

A Few More Sobering Statistics
Kerry won six blue states by five (5) percent or less (actually three percent or less), as follows: New Hampshire 1%, Wisconsin 1%, Pennsylvania 2%, Michigan 3%, Minnesota 3% and Oregon 3%.

Kerry "lost" six red states by five percent or less: Iowa -1%, New Mexico -1%, Nevada -2%, Ohio -2%, Colorado -5% and Florida -5%.

In Other Words
There are six blue states that came very, very close to being labeled as "red states," which would have earned them the stigma of being viewed as states populated only by hillbillies, rednecks and evangelical christians.

On the other hand, there are six red states that came very, very close to being labeled as "blue states," which would have earned them the honor of being viewed as states populated only by progressives, democrats and enlightened peoples.

Furthermore, even those red states that voted overwhelmingly for Bush are inhabited by many millions of people who voted for Kerry.

In Conclusion
Let's stop this talk of wanting to split into two different nations, even if said in sarcastic jest. There are a lot of us in the red states who aren't interested in moving to the "blue states" or to Canada merely because we are outnumbered by incredibly close-minded "anti-liberal" voters (most of whom, at least here in the midwest and west, are very friendly and welcoming, in spite of their political leanings). Besides, I suspect that it won't be too long before Bush/Cheney's bungled policies and criminal acts (aided and abetted by a republican congress) come back to bite conservative voters in their rear ends. Not only will their immature political illusions be shattered (even if temporarily), but their religious illusions (as they relate to "born-again" Bush's manifest destiny) may also receive a few scratches and dents. That's when it's fun to live amongst them.

Election statistics interpreted from a November 2004, article in USA Today.

An Experienced Libby Feigns Ignorance?

2005-10-28T16:15:00.000-06:00

This report is aimed mostly at lazy and/or intentionally misleading members of the mainstream media, not at Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald (although I would truly love to hear his uncensored opinion of what I have to say). Reporters keep trumpeting the possibility that Libby may not have realized that Valerie Plame Wilson was a classified (secret) agent with the CIA. In so doing, they seem to be trying to play down Libby's role in "outing" her (as opposed to the other charges filed against him today). Let us see if I can make my point:

Today, Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby was indicted on five counts (two perjury, two making false statements and one obstruction of justice). Regrettably (because neo-conservative hacks may now continue to make pitiful excuses for him), none of those five counts are aimed at the fact that he probably knowingly (illegally) revealed the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

Twenty-Five Years of Ignorance?
Since 1981, Libby has held positions in the State Department, the Department of Defense and as Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. In those nearly 25 years of top-level government experience, he has probably had extensive dealings with the CIA. If average Americans are aware of the operational policies of the CIA with regard to their agents' identities, then one can reasonably assume that Libby was also aware of them. In fact, one year after he entered high-level government service in the Reagan Administration, a law was passed forbidding anyone from knowingly revealing the identity of an undercover CIA agent. There is no way he could not have been aware of this law (at least not without being incompetent).

To clarify, there are two types of CIA employees: undercover and not undercover. It's as simple as that. There is no gray area. Libby, a person with 25 years of high-level government experience (I'm going to continue to repeat this), must certainly have known that Valerie Plame Wilson was either undercover or not undercover. There was no in-between. In preparing for his secret meetings with journalists in 2003, one could justifiably expect such an experienced official as Libby to ask himself, "Is Plame an undercover agent, or is she not an undercover agent? Maybe I should check this out before I open my big, fat mouth to reporters. It is in my best interests, not to mention the nation's best interests, to do so."

Three Scenarios
(In which Libby receives some preliminary, albeit token, benefit of the doubt)

1.) It DID NOT OCCUR to Libby, a 25-year veteran of high-level government service, that the CIA employee he was preparing to identify to journalists MIGHT be undercover, even though the odds of her being undercover are clearly fifty-fifty. There is no way, without his being a slobbering idiot, that he could not have known the odds are fifty-fifty.

So why did he proceed to reveal her name to those journalists, anyway?

2.) It DID OCCUR to Libby, a 25-year veteran of high-level government service, that the CIA employee he was preparing to identify to journalists MIGHT be undercover. This possibility would have occurred to him because the odds of her being undercover are clearly fifty-fifty.

He just didn't care.

3.) It was DEFINITELY KNOWN to Libby, a 25-year veteran of high-level government service, that the CIA employee he was preparing to identify to journalists WAS undercover.

However, her undercover status was completely irrelevant to him and to those for whom he worked.

Conclusion
Why are these fifty-fifty odds never mentioned by members of the media? Are they still trying to placate both the White House and their conservative viewers? Instead of mentioning those even odds, they always act as if it was a one-in-a-million shot that Libby accidentally "outed" an undercover CIA agent. Are members of the press that stupid? Probably. Or do they think all of us are that stupid? Probably.

Double Standards & Hypocrisy

2005-10-23T12:23:00.000-06:00

Think Progress quotes Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, who said the following this morning on the powderpuff program, "Meet the Press," regarding the possible indictments of Rove, Libby, etc.:

"I certainly hope that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation were not a waste of time and dollars."
-----

In Think Progress's comments section, a commenter named "Phoenix Woman" included the following quote (found here) by Senator Hutchison from a few years earlier, when she was talking about President Clinton (the "..." edits are mine):

"The perjury committed...was an attempt to impede, frustrate, and obstruct the judicial system...in order to escape personal responsibility under the law, either civil or criminal. Such would be an impeachable offense. To say otherwise would be to severely lower the moral and legal standards of accountability that are imposed on ordinary citizens every day. The same standard should be imposed on our leaders...

"I will not compromise this simple but high moral principle in order to avoid serious consequences to a successor President who may choose to ignore it."
-----

In the same comments section, immediately after Phoenix Woman, I made the following comment (#40):

My make-believe interview with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (or William Kristol, etc.):

Me: In the end, if the grand jury is only able to indict Libby, Rove, etc., on mere perjury charges, then, in your view, does that imply that there were never any real crimes committed?

Hutchison: "...You are correct..." [Please forgive my literary license in interpreting and abbreviating a politician's usual long-winded answer.]

Me: I see... So..., if there were no real crimes committed, then why on earth would such astute political operatives be so utterly foolish as to perjure themselves before a grand jury?

Hutchison: "What kind of question is that? How did you get a job with the mainstream media?"

Me: I "technically" perjured myself on my resume. I told them I was a partisan republican hack.

Hutchison: "Guards! Have that man arrested!"

Make Sure the Losers Take the Blame

2005-08-22T19:31:00.000-06:00

I think conservative voters will never fully comprehend the mistake of invading Iraq unless we allow the moral and intellectual disasters known as Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice, etc., to complete their deadly mistake there (whatever "complete" means in their withered minds; personally, I think they never intended to leave, as 14 permanent, newly built American bases will attest). Please understand now that I am speaking incredibly sarcastically. I don't want this to be the case.

We cannot win in Iraq if we stay for fifty years, and we cannot win in Iraq if we leave tomorrow. It's a no-win situation. It's the Iraqis' country, and their "liberating" rebels/terrorists are not going anywhere. No matter how "noble" our cause, IT'S THEIR COUNTRY (just the same as it would be our country if someone invaded us). They have nothing better to do than to fight us for as long as we are there, especially since Bush and Cheney gave most of our tax money to Cheney's Haliburton instead of to those Iraqis who were more than willing to use it to rebuild their country and maybe not hate us as much. As a student of history, I can tell you that the Marshall Plan (1948) did more to promote all that is good with the United States than any other thing we ever did (besides helping to defeat the evil tyrants that DECLARED WAR ON US in 1941).

In March 2003, as a student of history, I screamed with wild-eyed sincerity at the stupidity of starting a war that could never be won, even before we invaded Iraq. In fact, I'm sure the neighbors heard me five houses away when I screamed it -- every day for several weeks (even for months and years now).

If we pull out now (which I support fully), and Iraq falls apart (meaning it descends into civil war) or is taken over by the violent Saddam-loving Iraqis -- EITHER OF WHICH IS PROBABLY A FOREGONE CONCLUSION -- then the conservative, loudmouth, ignorant, uneducated, John Wayne-admiring, simpleton American conservatives will have the luxury of blaming the democrats and liberals for the "loss" of Iraq; and they will then feel free to make the same mistake in the future in some other country (when they inevitably fool just barely enough born-again Americans to vote for them), which will cost us even more American lives.

The fact is that Iraq was lost the second the conservative, loudmouth oil-loving, greedy jerks invaded it (using patriotic young Americans to do their dirty work for them); however, the knowledge of that fact will be lost for decades to come because the conservative, loudmouth, oil-loving, greedy jerks aren't allowed to sacrifice more American lives to prove to us that they are wrong.

Any questions?

You know I'm playing devil's advocate here, right? Even though I totally mean it.

Truly Baffling

2005-08-21T22:46:00.000-06:00

Let's say the board of a giant corporation, such as Wal-Mart, hired as their CEO someone who has the brains, business acumen and speaking skills of your average redneck. How long do you think that corporation would stay in business?

Right. Not very long.

Yet the American people (mostly republicans) hired a president based on those very same "qualities." In fact, they hired him precisely because he has those "qualities." With our present CEO, I'm wondering just how long the United States will manage to stay in business.

How come Americans (mostly republicans) treat our nation with less respect than they treat their own businesses? I'm beginning to think that the average redneck American (mostly republicans) should never be allowed to sit on the board of any major corporation.

Well, except for Wal-Mart and all of the oil companies. Then it would be more than OK.

American Oil

2004-11-20T20:50:00.000-07:00

The American oil industry has been promoting outsourcing since long before it became a favorite pastime for American corporations. They have been importing foreign oil for decades because [until recently] it has always been much cheaper to buy than American oil (thus ensuring a higher profit margin for them). In the meantime, we have been led to believe that America's existing oil wells have simply gone dry -- or have been "about to go dry" for 31 years now.

While the earth's oil reserves are not limitless (personally, I wish they would all dry up as soon as possible so we could move on), there is still a lot more oil in the United States than the oil companies would like us to believe. A number of years ago, my father acquired shares of stock in seven tiny oil wells that are situated on his former property in Wyoming. Prior to the war in Iraq, he received royalty checks roughly every month which averaged about $300 each. Between January 2003 and the summer of 2004 (shortly before, during and after the invasion of Iraq), we received only four checks, amounting to about $150 each. No checks have been received in the past year [we still own the royalties]. Strange coincidence, don't you think? One year ago, the oil storage tanks on the property were full, and the wells were far from dry (I lived there for a few months last year, so I know), but the well owners told me that they could not find buyers for their oil. Of course, they also had to stop pumping oil since their storage tanks were full.

If such is the case with "our" wells, then one can imagine that it may not be an isolated incident. With the price of foreign oil at an all-time high [$67 per barrel as of 8/24/05], I find it amazing (and highly suspect) that American oil companies are still uninterested in buying American oil (at least from independent producers). In fact, we are still being told that America has no more oil -- outside of our unspoiled national parks, that is.

Invading a Crack House

2004-11-20T20:49:00.000-07:00

This is the second of two entries on the same topic. The other is entitled "Two Birds - One Stone." Originally, they both comprised a single entry, but they grew apart during development. Each one deals with the same topic using different analogies. I like both equally. How about you?

~~~

As many of you know, in 2003 President Bush requested that Congress approve $87 billion for the war in Iraq. That was just the tip of the iceberg, of course. [Some are now (8/26/05) estimating that the total bill could be $800 billion to $1 trillion, a major portion of it being borrowed money.] However, instead of our throwing that huge sum of money down a bottomless rat hole in a foreign desert with very little return on investment, we could instead have used it to defeat terrorism for real and once and for all. How? The answer is deceptively simple: By funding the MANDATORY research and development (on a grand scale) and mass production of LOW-COST vehicles that run on alternative fuels (such as electricity and hydrogen). Mass production would ensure that there is no shortage of such vehicles in the early stages of our nationwide conversion; and their low cost (thanks to that [$800] billion grant) would ensure that millions of Americans could afford to buy them. Estimates show that a certain amount of hybrid vehicles alone (which run on a combination of both gas and electricity) would completely end our need for Middle Eastern oil.

As even the most conservative of "non-conspiracy theorists" might imagine in their most private moments, President Bush (a former oil man from an oil state who owes his soul to oil buddies, not to God, as he would have us believe) and his wealthy friends in the oil industry (including both Americans and Middle Easterners) probably do not want such a transition to occur. Instead, Bush would rather spend hundreds of billions of middle-class taxpayer dollars and also sacrifice the lives of our soldiers in order to keep us reliant on a source of cheap foreign oil [although his elective war in Iraq is playing havoc with the "cheap" part now] that will eventually run out. [Don't even begin to think that I'm saying we went to war in Iraq specifically for its oil. I have no proof of that yet, although I have my incredibly strong beliefs. We did, however, definitely go to war in the Middle East due to our addiction to oil in general. If America had absolutely no need for foreign oil, the Middle East would be about as important to our government as is the country of Bhutan. What? Never heard of Bhutan? Then you get my point.]

An Apt Analogy
Bush's expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq could be compared to a wealthy, upper-class drug addict using his family's vast wealth (and good loan credit) to invade his favorite drug dealer's crack house and hold the dealer hostage in order to ensure an uninterrupted supply of drugs for himself and his relatives. He cannot see the bigger picture beyond his addiction, for it consumes his every waking moment. Not only would the wealthy addict be in constant danger while holding a drug dealer hostage in a bad part of town, but he would also be wasting his family's vast wealth merely to continue an unhealthy addiction that promises only more misery in the future. An intelligent wealthy addict would see the wisdom of using a small portion of his vast wealth to kick the habit once and for all.

Our government's addiction to foreign oil sounds pretty stupid and short-sighed when thought of in those terms, doesn't it?

Two Birds - One Stone

2004-11-20T20:48:00.000-07:00

This is the first of two entries on the same topic. The other is entitled "Invading a Crack House." Originally, they both comprised a single entry, but they grew apart during development. Each one deals with the same topic using different analogies. I like both equally. How about you?

~~~

Two birds: 1.) President Bush and 2.) wealthy oil businessmen (both American and Middle Eastern).

One stone: 1.) alternative fuels.

We are an extremely advanced, highly technological nation. I find it simply amazing that we have been unable (and completely unwilling, in the case of our government) to come up with completely reliable alternative fuels long before now. We have gotten close in recent years (no thanks to our government), but the automobile industry is receiving practically no incentive to mass produce such vehicles. Imagine that. And it has only gotten worse since we now have an oil executive as president.

If every one of my readers (especially those who aren't too keen on either of the two aforementioned birds) would make a pledge to buy a hybrid or hydrogen-powered vehicle at some point in the next four years, we could begin to put an end to our addiction to Middle Eastern oil much sooner than Bush and the oil industry would prefer. If you are incapable of making such a purchase at this time (I am certainly incapable right now), then maybe those of you with some spare dimes might make small contributions to colleges, universities and/or any other non-profit research organizations that are experimenting with vehicles that run on alternative fuels. I don't know how this is done; I've never done it myself, but there is almost certainly a way.

Petty Gratification, Too
Supporting America's conversion to alternative-fuel powered vehicles would eventually cut off all profits to a region of the world (the Middle East) that desperately deserves to face the consequences of biting the hands that have fed it for so many decades now (not that we didn't horribly mistreat that dog to begin with and turn it into what it has become). The Middle East would eventually become the irrelevant backwater that it so richly deserves (and desires) to be. Wouldn't it be extremely gratifying to watch Middle Easterners (both the despotic leaders and the terrorists) living with profound regrets a year or five down the road? "Hmmm," says Abdul Doe, "so overcharging/killing the infidel customers that bought our product wasn't too swift after all? Who came up with that stupid plan?"

No, I am not holding the citizens of the Middle East accountable, just the leaders and the terrorists. There are effective ways to protest without becoming evil. Those of limited vision and intelligence chose the path of evil.

And Another
Supporting America's conversion to vehicles that run on alternative fuels would eventually provide us with two other gratifying results also:

1.) George W. Bush and his accomplices at the top of the oil industry would get to watch their profit margins dry up significantly -- and maybe even permanently in some cases. I would definitely enjoy watching that sort of documentary on the History Channel five years from now.

2.) Bush would have fewer excuses to take his favorite Hollywood-cowboy/white knight approach to problem solving. You know the one I mean: Just leap heroically, yet blindly, into the fray -- all alone -- with fists flying, even if that is the worst possible solution to an extremely complicated problem. George W. Bush believes (thanks to his religious beliefs) that good should attack evil, no matter how dire the consequences to the attacker. Just be thankful that he wasn't in power when we were fighting the cold war with the Soviet Union.

I Would Vote Republican - Again

2004-11-16T10:47:00.000-07:00

[In the time since I wrote this editorial in November 2004, I have grown so totally disgusted with the republican party that even the most outstanding and capable republican presidential candidate would would not inspire me to take a chance on him, that is as long as republicans still control both houses of Congress. Even if democrats were to gain control of both houses in 2006 or 2008, it is possible that I would still not trust even the most honest republican due to their collective criminal record in the last few years. That's a sad commentary on the present state of affairs in our American "democracy," isn't it?]

At least one reader is under the false impression that I am both a sore loser and a liberal democrat. I am neither one; however, I can see how Bush lovers would get that impression of me. I was going to set the record straight several days ago, before that reader [over at my original blog] made her comment, but then I got lazy. Now I am once again inspired to get my rear in gear.

Five-Time Election Loser
I have voted for the losing presidential candidate in four elections prior to 2004, but I never lost a moment's sleep in any of those elections simply because the other guy won (I did briefly debate the possibility of losing some sleep in 2000, but then, not yet fully grasping the extent of the disaster that is Bush, I quickly fell asleep anyway). Such behavior doesn't describe someone who has a history of being a sore loser. Let's look at it in a different way: What if Americans had elected David Duke, the former head of the KKK (and a neo-Nazi) as president? Would those of us who mourned his victory and had contempt for those who voted for him be considered sore losers? I don't think so.

[NO, I am NOT comparing Bush to Duke. I am merely using Duke for the sake of my "sore-loser" scenario.]

As for my being a liberal democrat, I'm not. I'm an independent. In fact, the first time I ever voted for a president, I voted republican. I later voted for Clinton in 1992, and then against him in 1996, choosing an independent candidate instead. In 2000, I voted for an independent candidate again because Gore was a completely uninspiring, pro-special-interests, career politician; while, his chief opponent, Bush, was (still is) supremely unqualified to hold such high office (and extremely pro-special interests, too).

Any Republican
I can define my present political values as follows: For the year leading up to the recent election, I dreamed of Americans getting a chance to vote for almost any republican presidential candidate except Bush. I even imagined (briefly) a scenario in which I would actually vote for the ultra-fanatical, dark-ages conservative Pat Buchanan over President Bush (like me, Buchanan has been [now seemingly was, since Bush won reelection] extremely critical of Bush's Iraq policy, not because he is bleeding-heart, liberal dreamer, but because the invasion was a world-class strategic mistake, and even an extremist like Buchanan could see it). If I absolutely had to choose between them, I would choose Buchanan. And that, my readers, is the true, down-and-dirty, absolutely ultimate definition of the phrase: ANYBODY... BUT BUSH!

For a person such as myself to contemplate voting for a radical nut like Buchanan shows just how terrible I believe Bush and his cabinet advisors/puppet masters are.

Two Favorite Republicans
My favorite candidate in either party in 2000 was republican Senator John McCain of Arizona. I have admired him greatly for the past ten or fifteen years, and I've wanted him to run for president ever since. I was extremely disappointed when he lost in the primaries (thanks in part to dishonest and unethical attacks by the Bush campaign and also in part due to the vultures in the media).

In the 2008 election (depending on how the present republican congress has handled the economy in the meantime), I would consider voting for either Sen. McCain or Sen. Chuck Hagel (R) of Nebraska -- if either one should decide to run. Neither one plays that insane game of supporting their party 100 percent of the time with blind and reckless abandon, a procedure which is so popular these days, especially amongst repulicans. As far as I can tell, they are both ethical politicians, too (as ethical as politicians can be). With them leading the country and the republican party, I would not be as worried about the self-serving influence of the religious right as I am now (among other things).

[Update: 8/26/2005: Senator McCain appears to have "sold out" on a number of isses in the past year (supporting Bush's reelection, "Intelligent Design," etc.), seemingly in an effort to appease the man with all the power. I lose a lot of respect for people who compromise their ethics on serious issues.]

Only One Favorite Democrat
Former three-term governor from New York, Mario Cuomo, is the only democratic politician that I have ever admired without any reservations -- at least among those candidates that were still active after I reached voting age. No other politician, from either party, can compare to him in terms of common sense and intellect. Why he refused seemingly endless requests to run for president, I'll never know; but I will always sincerely regret his decision not to run. You might read his new book Why Lincoln Matters: Today More Than Ever. It is actually a commentary on today's politicians (in both parties) rather than merely a biography of Lincoln.

Unproductive Insults
Americans should keep in mind that no president is perfect, no matter what party he (or she) is from. Some presidents are worse than others. In America today, supporters of presidents from both parties hide their candidate's mistakes behind partisan bickering. In other words, any criticism of any president, NO MATTER HOW VALID, is condemned as being nothing more than the selfish whinings of "sore losers" from the other party. Not only is that an insult to thoughtful critics everywhere, it is also one heck of a convenient way for any president to be a walking disaster area without having to face the consequences of his actions. It is not wise to dismiss the criticisms of a president just because that president is from your favorite political party.

P.S.
One of the benefits of being an historian (which I am) is the fact that one can see when a president should or should not cause history to repeat itself. Bush, who is anti-intellectual and plainly proud of it, clearly doesn't know his history (a bachelor's degree in history should definitely be a pre-requisite for any presidential candidate). If he had known his history, he would have realized that Iraq was a disaster waiting to happen (and on a much larger strategic scale than just being "stuck there," although that, too, will eventually become an even worse nightmare than it already is). You don't need the CIA to tell you such a thing. That's just common sense. But let us say, for the sake of argument, that Bush really did know his history, yet he was still determined to engage our military forces in that disaster anyway (practically alone, as we are now). If that were the case, then he should have at least known the best way to try to win the peace once we were there (and there were a number of ways to do that, all of which would have been far better than the way he has handled it so far). But he was completely stubborn and completely clueless on that account also. The fact that he had only one cabinet advisor (Powell) who knew the real consequences of invasion also shows that he doesn't know how to surround himself with qualified advisors.

Conservative Media, The True Danger

2004-11-13T13:57:00.000-07:00

According to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, as well as other self-serving conservative media machines, there is a vast ultra-liberal conspiracy that is (in spite of 11/02/04) still threatening to corrupt America from shore to shore. The actual size, makeup and membership of this liberal threat is really quite vague (it is much more ominous and threatening that way). In fact, there are only three places where it has been "exposed" by Fox, etc., to public scrutiny:

1.) the liberal media (consisting of the TV news and Hollywood)
2.) far-left minority groups, and
3.) a few ultra-liberal democratic politicians (mostly those from California and Massachusetts) whose names are regularly mentioned by Fox News personalities and Rush Limbaugh.

No matter whether they are right or wrong, at least they are being honest on the few occasions that they name actual names.

Their dishonesty and truly anti-American behavior lies in their implied accusations against a fourth group: the vast majority of politicians in the democratic party. Fox News and Limbaugh have been blatantly advancing the conservative, evangelical agenda (and their own profit margins) by strongly implying that all remaining democratic politicians (who come from all over this great nation, including even the most blood-red states) are guilty of ultra-liberalism merely by association with the above three groups. If you think about it, guilt by association is the way things worked in the former Soviet Union and other repressive dictatorships (as well as in the U.S. during the "communist scare" of the early 1950s). It amazes me that half of the American population has either been fooled by or approves of such tactics. I expect the religious right to behave this way, because they will allow nothing, not even democracy, to stand in the way of their interpretation of the Bible (at least the parts of It that they approve of) because the Bible is their only law (except those parts that preach to us to give assistance to the poor).

The Demon Slayers
But Limbaugh and the personalities at Fox don't really care about the democratic process. They need demons to slay every night in front of millions of conservative viewers who are more than eager to have their preexisting beliefs stoked to a red-hot level (this is the true definition of brainwashing). And those demons are Fox's "liberal" competitors in the media market (my, how convenient for Fox).

In essence (this is a broad "in essence"), Fox, Limbaugh and others would have us believe that the "liberal" media and Hollywood (in their desire to legitimize far-left groups) are the real brains behind the democratic party, and that all democratic politicians (who were elected by voters all over this nation) are just their puppets. The subtly stated message to their conservative viewers is: Fox will defeat the puppet masters (if viewers help by tuning in to Fox and watching the commercials), while conservative viewers defeat their democratic "puppets" by voting them out of office and replacing them with conservative republicans who are pro corporate greed and/or evangelical Christianity.

Of course, conservatives could also say that the liberal media and the democratic party are two equal partners in the same conspiracy (instead of masters and puppets). It matters not, for Fox's method of getting rid of them both, as stated above, still applies.

The problem with Fox's and Limbaugh's self-serving logic is that most of our democratic politicians grew up in "traditional" America. They know their constituents' wishes just as well as republican politicians do (whether both sides respect those wishes or not is a completely separate issue). Democratic politicians weren't born yesterday. They can tell the difference between losing the next election because they voted for an ultra-liberal cause and winning the next election because they opposed it. Voting consistently for radical, far-left bills is a lot more difficult to hide from the voters than secretly receiving hefty campaign contributions from giant corporations (the latter being a favorite pastime of members of both parties).

What's in It for Fox?
Does Fox News Corporation really feel a driving moral need to protect America from the "liberal" media elite and other democratic "evildoers"? Is that the only reason they went into business? If so, that was a very selfless act on their part. Or are they just using a deviously clever tactic designed to win the ratings war? Hmmm.... Just think about it: Fox is a giant, profit-driven corporation run by a multi-millionaire foreigner who certainly didn't come to the United States all those years ago just to save us from our liberal half (he probably didn't know a liberal from a Whig when he first arrived here). Could profit be the real goal behind Fox's conservative agenda? That would be an interesting irony. Conservatives preying on the fears (nay, delirium tremors) of other conservatives in order to get rich. It would be downright humorous if it wasn't so dangerous to our democratic, two-party system.

Fox's Reckless Endangerment
Agenda- and profit-driven media outlets, like Fox, are recklessly and selfishly guiding America toward a one-party system (a system that will be populated solely by "red" republicans and "blue" republicans, the latter formerly being known as democrats) by convincing us that the liberal media elite and the democratic party are one and the same. This is pure crap (please forgive the vernacular), and they should be censured and humiliated, just as communist-hunting Joe McCarthy was eventually censured and humiliated in the 1950s.

In Conclusion
I confess that I agree, to some extent, that there are a number of liberal media personalities in this country who feature politically correct issues almost every time they go on the air, and this may influence (or coincide with the beliefs of) some moderate democratic politicians (and even some moderate republican politicians) to the extent that they are caught between a politically-correct rock and a politically-incorrect hard place. I despise those journalists as much as conservatives do (I despise political correctness, in general); however, the self-righteous conservative approach to dealing with the issue makes me sick, so I rebel against them. I am also a moral and spiritual person, but the moral and spiritual approach to life espoused by evangelical and born-again types makes me sick to a degree that is off the charts (I am surrounded by them, so don't tell me I don't understand them). Finally, I am angered almost beyond words by the methods used by the conservative media in its efforts to convince us that the liberal media and democratic politicians are really one and the same. That is a corruption of the electoral process that is going to cost us dearly down the road, if we don't wise up soon.

® All rights reserved.

Bush and Moral "Values"; Inseparable?

2004-11-11T15:23:00.000-07:00

There is yet another conservative journalist who will simply not stop spouting the same self-serving, yet faulty, logic as to why President Bush won reelection (talk about people who love to rub someone's nose in something). And I simply cannot resist arguing with people who have self-serving agendas (as you read all of my future entries, I suspect you will conclude that I don't have any self-serving agendas; if you see some indication that I am wrong about this, you are welcome to enlighten me; if you're right, I will concede and then make really good excuses for myself; if you're wrong, you will have inspired a rant to end all rants :-).

Shades of Gray
For those of you who are able (or willing) to see the vast and varying shades of gray between pure black and pure white, here's a novel approach to the issue of voting for "moral values" and voting for President Bush. No, I don't mean general "moral values," but rather only those moral values held in highest esteem by conservative Christians. Do not confuse theirs with the apparently illegitimate moral values of everyone else in America. Self-serving conservative journalists are still excitedly and self-righteously telling us that we cannot have the one (moral values) without the other (Bush). If you listen to them without thinking too hard (in other words, only in terms of black or white), you might -- very reluctantly -- admit that they have a point. But don't to that. Instead, think hard. Be brave. Dive into that vast, uncharted gray area between the two extremes -- in between the twin worlds of Either and Or.

Voters Prove the Strength of States' Rights
Legislation banning gay marriage was on the ballot in eleven states in November 2004, and in every case but one, that legislation was approved by roughly 70 to 80 percent of the voters (and in the one exception, Oregon, it was also approved, but by a smaller percentage). Now, tell me: Did we really need to reelect President Bush at the same time in order to send democrats the message that we don't approve of gay marriage? Nah, we didn't need to vote for both at the same time. The voters in those states sent an extremely clear and concise message to democratic candidates everywhere (most of whom had never threatened to try to legalize gay marriage, anyway). Even John Kerry had the same position on the issue as President Bush -- they both approved of civil unions only.

But They're Still Not Satisfied
The voters' extremely clear and concise message to politicians and gays is that the people of this nation do have the power at the state level to prevent gay marriage. Nonetheless, beating a dead horse has always been a popular sport in some circles of society. In spite of their overwhelming victory, these voters still want Bush and other born-again conservatives to create a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage nationwide (phrased differently, of course). Please forgive me for descending briefly into the vernacular once again, but I must ask: What in the hell for!? (I shall now quickly re-ascend from the vernacular before I resort to name calling). Are conservative voters so incredibly blind to their own power that they still need their trembling little hands to be held by our big, moral government ("big" being the kind of government that conservatives -- and I, for that matter --, despise)?

That Document for Self-Serving Conservatives
If I am never known for anything else for the rest of my life, I want to be known as a defender of the original and traditional spirit of the United States Constitution. With only one short-lived exception that I know of (prohibition), that spirit has always been as a guarantor of a long list of freedoms, NOT OF RESTRICTIONS! If petrified religious people, who don't know (or don't want to recognize) the extent of their own local power, allow passage of even a single RESTRICTION into the Constitution to protect themselves from harmless people with biologically abnormal lifestyles, then they will have set a trend that will be impossible to stop forever after. If the original and traditional intent of the Constitution is corrupted even once, especially for something that is succeeding overwhelmingly without such help, then it will show future generations of Americans that they, too, can corrupt the Constitution in order to get what they want. And then the point of the Constitution (and, thus, of our "American experiment") is lost.

P.S.
I'm sure some of you are also thinking that there are other moral values on the table, such as abortion and stem-cell research. As the majority spoke with regard to gay marriage, so the majority has spoken with regard to their right to choose (for over 30 years now). The majority of Americans do not want abortion made illegal. Just as Americans are bound to respect the will of the majority that voted against gay marriage, they are equally bound to respect the will of the majority that supports legalized abortion.

As for stem-cell research, I believe the vast majority of voters on both sides are still not well informed on this relatively new matter, including me. From what I've heard of both sides, though, I suspect that conservative Christians may be slightly less well informed than proponents of research (call it instinct). As it is with children, so it seems to be with religious people: They absolutely love to anthropomorphize non-sentient matter, even going so far as to ascribe to it conscious human thoughts and emotions, two conditions which are impossible to achieve without having had actual worldly human experience. They also attribute a soul to this non-sentient matter. This is, without a doubt, a religious view, not a political one. If abortion is banned on the presumption that a fetus (or even a recently fertilized cell) has a soul, then we are truly bending democracy to the will of theocracy. Never mind the will of those who may have a different religious view on this matter. Only the conservative Christian view is valid according to conservative Christians, as well as the self-serving conservative media and now (probably) the ratings-driving mainstream media.

® All rights reserved.

Facing Exinction? Hogwash.

2004-11-10T14:51:00.000-07:00

The "WordNet X" dictionary defines the word egotistical as: having an exaggerated sense of self-importance; "an attitude of self-conceited arrogance..."; "so swollen by victory that he was unfit for normal duty..." (among other things).

Conservatives, as a group, have an exaggerated sense of self-importance these days.

Long-Term Memory Loss
Many conservative commentators have been saying (in essence) that democrats must connect with the nation's mainstream or face extinction. I beg to differ (or, in the vernacular, "Hogwash!"). There must not be that much of a disconnect, since the republicans won the presidency by a margin of three measly percent of the popular vote! Yes, they also gained a few extra seats in congress, but fewer seats, I might add, than the democrats have controlled at various times since 1932. Using their ridiculously wishful logic, the same thing (possible extinction) could have been said of the republicans in 1992, 1976 (especially 1976), 1964 (especially 1964), 1944, 1940, 1936 and 1932 (especially 1932). For that matter, the democrats should have become extinct in 1980, 1984 and 1988, when republicans won convincingly -- but they didn't.

I guess shortsighted logic and long-term memory loss are the results when giddy conservatives are "swollen by victory."

History of a Smear Campaign
In 1980, or shortly before, conservative republicans began a campaign of slander against the democrats that soon took on a life of its own and has continued unabated to this day. Somehow, they managed to convince a large portion of the American public that all democrats are closet liberals and that, in turn, to be "liberal" is to be evil. In fact, they implied that all liberals were really communists (not the Soviet kind, but the wimpy, "bleeding-heart" American kind) who were hell bent on imposing their evil socialist, morals-free agenda on the United States. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, it is no longer practical to imply the communist label when referring to liberals, but the residue of that evil is still overtly implied from pulpits and radio studios all over America.

Inexplicably, democrats never fought back against this slander, which only allowed it to become deeply entrenched in the American psyche, especially after the advent of conservative-rant-and-froth-at-the-mouth radio. Democrats, at least those living in conservative areas, have spent two decades feeling intimidated and have frequently remained silent, while conservatives have become more and more convinced of their own infallibility with regard to every opinion they have (we'll see just how flawless they are during these next four years). Even worse, they have been engaged in this campaign of deceit for so many years now that many of them have actually begun to believe their own propaganda, right along with that portion of the electorate that they've actually fooled (or whose beliefs they've only reinforced).

Results of the Smear Campaign
For now (but not forever), thanks to this deceitful propaganda, it is nearly impossible for traditional democrats to be elected in certain portions of this country if their platforms are ever so slightly less conservative than those of their republican colleagues. It is now said, at least by the self-serving conservative media and the ratings-driven mainstream media, that if democrats don't adopt and prominently display their opponents' born-again religion on their own sleeves and believe in exactly the same version of God and exactly the same set of "moral values," then they will be labeled as "liberals" (shiver visibly as you read that word) and thrown into a virtual dungeon with other evil bogeymen, such as communists, socialists and far-left radicals (the latter being the true troublemakers -- a quick note: Radical far-left groups in this country, in their never-ending zeal to rub America's collective noses in their causes -- because two decades of peaceful coexistence just isn't enough for them --, have contributed greatly to the conservative smear tacticians' successful efforts to demonize all democrats).

But...
As you can see by the elections listed above, politics works in cycles. Always has, always will. Keep that fact in mind while you consider the following two reasons that democrats are probably not doomed to extinction just yet: 1.) By far, the largest group of people to vote for Bush and his republican allies in congress in 2004 (according to the media) consists of people over the age of 60. They and their voting tendencies won't be around forever (yes, I know; the baby-boomers will be reaching 60 soon -- and for a long time to come --, but most of them grew up in a somewhat less conservative era). As for the near future (meaning 2008 or 2012), today's seniors may soon be severely disillusioned if the Social Security system has been broken due to neglect or due to ill-advised tampering by Bush and other conservative, free-market ideologues. Also, the negative consequences of that prescription-drug bill may start to hit home in the not-too-distant future. 2.) As I wrote in my first editorial, the republicans, now led by ultra conservatives, have control of the presidency and congress. Keep in mind that they are politicians, and most politicians eventually bungle something or other up. The conservatives now have four years in which to do just that (and they've already proven themselves to be somewhat imperfect in the past two/four years). Excepting the anomalous reelection of the biggest bungler in presidential history in 2004 (other than possibly Ulysses Grant), the voters generally do not like reelecting bunglers.

In Conclusion
Whether there ever was (or is) any merit to the republicans' claim that democrats/liberals are of questionable character, doesn't matter in the end. Such methods of demonizing the other side in a democracy that runs predominantly on a two-party system is extremely counterproductive to the efficient workings of democracy. When one side succeeds in demonizing the other side to the extent that conservatives have demonized all democrats, then democracy is in jeopardy; and the conservative media, drunk with self-righteous glee, refuses to see it. We are now, thanks to those conservative propagandists, much closer to a one-party system than was ever the case when democrats and republicans received equal respect in every state in this nation.

Such are the opinions of an independent voter.
---
® All rights reserved.

There Is a Bright Side

2004-11-06T23:46:00.000-07:00

[Dear readers: I think I am starting to see some of my predictions in this editorial already starting to come true. What do you think?]

If this editorial makes me seem excessively angry, keep in mind that it's nothing compared to how I felt in the two or three days after the 2004 election, not to mention the previous year and a half. I reserve my truly angry language for those times that I am alone and shouting at the TV news (most of the time).

No Sympathy
I have no sympathy for voters who make incredibly unintelligent and/or self-righteous decisions when there is extremely compelling evidence warning them not to do so. On November 2, 2004, half of my fellow Americans voted to reelect a pyromaniac as CEO of this giant fireworks factory that we live in. I am very happy to say that I will not feel even the slightest bit of sympathy for them when their decision blows up in their faces (and their simple-minded illusions are shattered). Of course, their decision will blow up in my face too, but I cannot help that.

Even though Bush (the aforementioned pyromaniac) will definitely be out of office by January 2009 (at the very latest), his meddling with the environment, the Supreme Court and the Constitution will be felt for decades (or even centuries?) to come. Sadly, those are disasters that cannot be fixed as soon as he leaves office (and will endure even longer if one of his evil clones replaces him in office).

However...
For those of us who recognize insanity, incompetence and deceitfulness when we see them, there are several bright sides to this nightmare -- if you can bring yourself to look at it in certain ways. I know it isn't easy, but it is better than total doom and gloom. Consider them for yourselves:

Certain Way 1; The Scene of the Crime
If a criminal remains at the scene of the crime for too long, there is a much greater likelihood that he is going to get caught "in the act" (take your pick of "acts"). Eight years is one heck of a long time for such a deceitful and incompetent president and his accomplices to remain at the scene of this particular crime without bungling at least once and getting caught in a way that leaves no doubt as to their guilt, a guilt that cannot be covered up or ignored by a republican congress and a lazy, petrified/complicit mainstream media. I don't know about the rest of you, but thoughts like that are better than motivational tapes for me (actually, I hate motivational tapes).

Unrealistic, you say? Maybe. But remember that President Nixon was reelected in a landslide in 1972, carrying 49 of 50 states. Less than two years later, he was forced to resign in disgrace. Bush was barely reelected in 2004 with (as many validly believe) the help of Diebold and some dishonest Ohio republicans.

Oh yeah... Luckily, Vice President Agnew was forced to resign a year before President Nixon. History would definitely have to repeat itself here too; otherwise, none of these bright sides will be worth the powder to blow them up.

Certain Way 2; Living With His Own Disasters
Bush now has four more years in which to face the consequences of the disasters he has wrought in Iraq, in taxation, in the budget and trade deficits, in supporting outsourcing, etc. If Kerry had won the election, then those consequences would have been blamed on him. Evangelical "hill folk" and other self-righteous conservatives would have shouted, "If Bush hadn't been defeated, everything would have worked according to plan!!" As a result, in 2008, they would have caused history to repeat itself again by electing another Bush-like conservative (maybe even Bush himself again, since the Constitution has been rendered meaningless) to replace Kerry; and democrats would have been in even greater disfavor than they are now. In short, we need to let those people who voted for Bush (especially those seemingly amoral moderates who probably helped to put him over the top) experience him to full effect, so that they can get him out of their systems, once and for all. Taking him away from them before they have grown disillusioned with him would only have made them want him (or someone like him) even more than they do now.

An analogy: All of us know at least one young person who has fallen in love with the most worthless person that he or she could ever have found. No amount of parental reasoning will convince him or her not to marry that worthless person. At some point, those parents realize that their child is going to have to learn the truth the hard way, by living it; so they back off, painful as that may be, and let fate run its course. And, true to form, their child almost always wises up, but only after having survived under the most trying of circumstances.

I strongly hope that in 2008 (and well beyond), the majority of those moderate Bush voters (those amoral people who rewarded this self-righteous, incompetent person with a second term) will think a lot harder and longer before they ever trust another Bush-like republican again. I, for one, will revel in their disillusionment, even as I rub their noses in it (yes, I believe in civil, courteous behavior -- far more than most people -- but not with people who gave the green light to such a terrible president).

Wishful thinking? I have no idea; but that's what looking on the bright side is all about.

Certain Way 3; Conservative Utopians Unchecked
As stated above, there is now an even greater republican majority in congress. For the past two years, the combination of a republican president and a republican congress has resulted in unchecked spending, combined with big tax breaks for the wealthy and insignificant tax breaks for the middle class (the government is spending more, even though it is earning less). Can you imagine what all those greedy republican "kids" are going to do in the government candy store now that they have received "a mandate" from the American people? In addition, they will now get a rare opportunity to put their conservative, utopian economic theories to the test. Those theories will most likely leave tens of millions of Americans (especially the seniors, who voted for Bush in the greatest numbers) without adequate social-security and medical benefits, and the rest of us with a severely weakened infrastructure. The Bush administration, contrary to popular thought, has already weakened our military infrastructure by privatizing large portions of it (Haliburton is doing what would originally have been done by the military itself, and doing it with less-than-stellar results; but Cheney's company is sure getting rich, eh?).

If the government's bills come due in the next four years, and there is no money left to pay them off, our fearless leader will have to consider either bankrupting the government or else taxing low- and middle-income Americans to death (he will never tax his wealthy friends, since he owes his political soul, as well as that giant federal debt, to them).

Some of the evangelical "hill folk" might ask, "Where are those 'liberal, overspending' democrats in all of this? I'll bet they're to blame."

Clearer minds will reply to them, "Why, they're sitting safely on the sidelines, watching the liberal-bashing conservatives spending borrowed money like there is no tomorrow! Can you believe that? And, what's more, you and your wealthy, conservative allies cannot blame them for any of this mess you voted for! Congratulations."

And the conservatives' economic utopian theory will finally be disproven, once and for all (or at least for one or two generations). We may have to suffer in the meantime, but it will be worth it.

In Conclusion
See? There you have at least three different bright sides to this nightmare. And to think that people have always told me I'm a pessimist (actually, I am a pessimist -- in some ways --, but I think it's genetic, not voluntary).

Will any or all of my predictions come to pass? I don't know, but I do know that I accurately predicted all of the mistakes made by Bush in his first four years in office (no, that's not bragging, since predicting his mistakes doesn't require a degree in rocket science).
---
® All rights reserved.