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.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Saving Our Constitution
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.
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.
Saturday, January 28, 2006
Sacrificing to Preserve the Constitution
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?"
-----
"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?"
Thursday, January 26, 2006
My Comment to Craig Crawford
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.
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.
Friday, January 06, 2006
The Enemy of My Enemy...
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? ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)