Shuster's Shtick

Tax Cuts or Government Spending? Here's The Answer...

2009-02-05T20:13:00.000-05:00

Time and again as I keep my eye on the political scene, Republicans are touting tax cuts as the answer to just about everything ailing our nation. As they deride the Democrats for proposing a 'stimulus' package with government spending to address our economic troubles, the Republicans who call themselves "Conservatives" (read: conserve my money for me), keep saying that tax cuts will fix this.

Tax cuts will not fix this. Republicans keep saying that tax cuts will pump more money into our economy and therefore create jobs. They use buzzwords and evocative language like "… and the taxpayers keep more of their money…". I say that's a fallacy. Everyone hates paying taxes and of course tax cuts will allow people to keep more of their money, but it won't significantly stimulate the economy.

Tax cuts do not directly create jobs

If you're in the top 5% of income earners in this country, chances are you're making enough money to cover all of your living expenses and discretionary spending, so you're probably socking the rest of your earnings away for retirement and other things. If you fall into this category and got a few extra thousand dollars in tax cuts, will you create jobs with that? Will you even spend it? I believe the answer to that is a resounding - NO. People on the upper end of the income spectrum, who by the way have been the beneficiaries of the Bush wealth re-distribution policies of the last 8 years, have enough money to live on and will simply take this extra money and continue to sock it away.

If you're somewhat lower on the income scale and you received some extra money in the form of tax cuts, will you create new jobs with that? Well, let me re-phrase the question… will you create new jobs by paying your mortgage, electric, & telephone bills?

I believe that the vast majority of Americans fall into one of two categories when it comes to tax cuts. Either you don't need the extra money and will probably sock it away, or you've had trouble paying your bills and will probably do so with any extra tax cut money you receive. Either way, you're not going to be creating millions of jobs.

And that's the problem

Pumping money in to the economy in the form of tax cuts does not directly create jobs. It's effect on the economy are dependent on that 'trickle-down' theory to eventually create a scarce amount of jobs, if any at all. Meanwhile, implementing tax cuts DOES directly HURT the economy by ballooning the deficit and bloating the debt.

The question we must ask ourselves is this - Does the damage that tax cuts have on the economy outweigh the benefits that tax cuts will affect the economy? The answer to that is once again, a resounding - NO. After 8 years of Clintonomics this country was in the best economic health ever, with a strong surplus and paying down the national debt. After 8 years of Bush's revitalization of Reaganomics (call it 'trickle-down', 'supply-side', or anything you want), our country faces the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. I don't need to tell you how bad the problem is - you hear it every day in the news.

Stimulate Me!

What WILL directly create new jobs is government spending. In fact it's been government spending that's kept this country afloat all along. Think about it. What brought us out of the Great Depression? The right-wingers will immediately shout out - "World War II"! And I agree - WWII did bring us out of the economic turmoil of the 20's & early 30's. But what was WWII? It was a massive government spending program. Let's take that a step further - isn't our military basically a government spending program of sorts?

So, let's recap. Our politicians, beholden to the military-industrial-complex, initiate conflict and start wars so that they can justify government spending to create jobs and keep our economy moving. They sell it with fear so they're really tickled-pink over 911 (although they won't admit it). And for the past 7 years, they've been bleeding us red to the point of economic catastrophe. Couple that military spending with the Bush tax cuts and deregulation, and you can easily understand why things are so bad.

Through all the military spending, tax cuts, and deregulation obviously a lot of people got rich (or richer) as the national debt piled up. But at the same time, the vast majority of Americans did NOT benefit from Bush's Republican/Conservative/Neo-con policies. In fact, the vast majority of Americans were severely harmed as Bush made his "tough choices" to keep the deficit and debt from bloating even further. Today, more and more Americans, who weren't previously harmed from Bush's "tough choices" are finding themselves out of work as the layoffs pile up.

Can Obama bring us out of this?

One of the elementary problems with military spending is that it doesn't result in infrastructure. When you manufacture a weapon, or pay Halliburton to do a soldier's laundry, you have nothing to show for it when it's over. All the while you still have a laborer in Pennsylvania collecting unemployment, food stamps, and/or welfare. On the other hand, if you built a bridge you'd put hundreds of people to work (who'll then pay taxes and spending money), AND further stimulate the economy with all the materials you'd have to buy. When IT'S over, you'll have a bridge. Perhaps motorists can drive over that bridge instead of using much more gas to get to another bridge 5 miles down the road. Or, perhaps you'll set up a toll and collect fees. Either way, you have a bridge to show for your efforts after putting hundreds (possibly thousands) of people to work.

Infrastructure spending is definitely the way to go, and Obama understands this. The problem is he's having trouble selling it because the Republicans have bigger mouths and keep insisting on tax cuts. That's what makes THEIR constituents happy. That's what got THEM elected. After all... the ignorant, right-wing, sheeple who listen to Rush Limbaugh & Sean Hannity don't care about a bridge in Pennsylvania. All they care about is paying less taxes. That's why they're Republicans, that's why they controlled our government for the past 8 years, and that's why we're in the debacle we're in now.

Obama and the Democrats are going to turn this ship around. You can clearly see the emphasis on diplomacy & peace instead of conflict & war. You can clearly see the emphasis on taking care of Americans instead of killing foreigners. You can clearly see the emphasis on building our infrastructure, lessening our dependence on foreign oil, and addressing climate change, instead of deregulation, denial, and cowboy diplomacy. This is the right way to go. It's not the right-WING way to go, but it's the RIGHT way to go.

My message to you obstructionists in Congress - get on board! This ship is turning around with you or without you, and then it will sail. If you're not on board, you'll be left behind, in more ways than one.

Some Think It's About Issues. Some Think It's About Personalities. I Think It's About Judgment.

2008-09-12T11:18:00.002-05:00

There's been a lot of mud slinging recently between the two presidential candidacies. While John McCain makes all the effort he can to divert the focus from the issues to personalities, Barak Obama keeps trying to bring the focus back to the issues. Meanwhile, there's one thing that keeps evading the analysis of all the talking heads - what's really most important here is the issue of judgment. Of the two candidates, who has demonstrated the most prudent judgment? That's the guy I want running my country.

The Veep

Here's where we come to the issue of the selection of their Vice Presidential running mates. Barak Obama chose a vetted, experienced, United States Senator who can help him govern once he's in office. Obama chose someone whom no one can question whether he's ready to step into the most important job on Earth. No one can question if Joe Biden understands the complexities of our country and foreign policy. He's chairman of the Foreign Relations committee. Granted, he's not the Democrat's first choice, but he's certainly an acceptable selection for second choice. While many of Hillary's supporters were disappointed, the Democrats understand that it was solely Barak Obama's decision to make, and he chose the person with whom he felt most comfortable.

John McCain, on the other hand, chose someone who clearly has no experience in either foreign or domestic policy. He chose a self-described "hockey-mom" who believes in creationism, book-banning, diminishing gun safety laws, abolishing reproductive choice, drilling in ANWR, abstinence-only education, deception & distortion in campaigning, earmarks, stealing from the government, and abusing political power. What she doesn't believe in is global warming/climate change and that humans have any role in it. A former beauty queen and sports reporter, this woman could very-well be shouldering the most awesome responsibility on the planet. This right-wing, religious nut-job would be calling all the shots if/when McCain gets elected and if/when McCain drops dead in the next 4 years (which I understand from actuarial tables is a pretty good possibility).

I'm not going to rail on Sarah Palin in any more detail for her many infractions, deceitfulness, or extremist ideology - there are thousands of journalists doing a fine job of investigating and vetting her as I write this. Instead, I'm railing on John McCain for the judgment he exhibited in selecting this woman. Clearly this was not John McCain's decision. He had a short list from the lengthy search process, and she wasn't on it. He wanted Tom Ridge or Joe Lieberman for his Veep. He would have settled for Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty as his Veep. But instead, after the right-wing extremist faction essentially vetoed those alternatives, John McCain settled on an ill-experienced woman who could energize the right-wing base.

John McCain did not choose someone who could help him govern the country after he got into office. Instead, he chose someone who could "fire up the base" to help him win the election. He didn't choose someone who is even slightly qualified to step into the presidency in the event he is incapacitated. Instead, he chose someone who could help him define his candidacy as that of 'change' (which, of course, is wholly & utterly ridiculous). He didn't choose a running mate that HE wanted. Instead, he chose someone the 'Religious Right' would accept. So much for John McCain's 'Maverick' status.

McCain - The Fighter

As painful as it was, I did watch much of the Republican convention, and all of John McCain's speech. I even watched the introduction video which highlighted his family heritage of military service. His father and grandfather were both highly decorated servicemen. His own service record is well known and his history as a prisoner of war is the stuff legends are made of. How many times did we hear that he can't raise his arms above his shoulders?

In his acceptance speech, John McCain used the word (or some derivative of the word) "fight" 25 times. I couldn't help but notice what a fighter he says he is. Couple that with his military background and his propensity for more war and 'victory' in Iraq, and I see a picture of someone whose inclination is to go to battle instead of exercising diplomacy.

After McCain's many gaffes (Czechoslovakia isn't still a country, Iran is not fueling the Sunni's, and Iraq doesn't border Pakistan), I see an old man who's inclined to senior moments instead of prudent judgment.

And after McCain's dirty, sleazy, slimy low-brow campaign tactics, I see someone who's surrounded himself with Bush's old henchmen (Rove & company, not-to-mention pathetic hacks like Joe Lieberman, Phil Graham, and Lindsey Graham), instead of people with integrity.

Anyone out there who actually believes the McCain/Palin presidential candidacy will bring real change in Washington is clearly not paying attention. Anyone out there who thinks John McCain has demonstrated prudent judgment and is a reforming maverick, must have just awoken from an 8-year sleep. And anyone out there who thinks Sarah Palin is qualified to be President of the United States (yes, I said "President" not "Vice President" because the Veep MUST be qualified for the #1 seat) is obviously intoxicated from the Religious-Right-Wing Kool-aid.

The Bottom Line

Wake up, America!!! Don't vote with your vagina. Don't vote with your penis. Don't even vote with your heart. Use your head and ask yourself which of these two men has demonstrated prudent, solid, and sensible judgment? Which one of these two men has demonstrated superior leadership, insightfulness, vision, and communicative ability? Which one of these two men has demonstrated that they can be trusted? Which one of these two men are driven by extremists & lobbyists, and which one of these two men are driven by social conscience? Which one of these two men was against the war in Iraq from the start and vows to bring the occupation to closure, and which one wants it to continue indefinately?

The contrast between these two men could not be more stark. It's astonishing that this race is so close. John McCain wants you to "stand up". I'm just asking you to WAKE UP!

Message to Barack: "It's not a war, it's an occupation"

2008-07-16T08:00:00.001-05:00

July 16, 2008
Dear Mr. Obama,

I have watched you closely over the last several years since your debut to the world at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. That was an amazing speech and poised you not only your first term as senator from Illinois, but as the presidential candidate you are today. Clearly you have a huge wave of momentum that so many of us hope will catapult you into the White House. Your vision, your ideology, your judgment, and your ability to communicate put you so far above John McCain (and any Republican) in my book.

I too want to see this debacle in Iraq come to closure, and I agree with you on everything you've said about Iraq, with one exception. Please don't refer to the current conflict in Iraq as a "war". This is not a war. We are not at war with Iraq. We were at war with Iraq until Presi-dunce Bush stood on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared major military operations were over and we accomplished our mission. At that juncture, what started out as a war, turned into an occupation. A long, drawn-out, costly, grueling occupation of a foreign country. This is something you foresaw in your speech of 2002 while still in the Illinois Senate.

As long as people like yourself and the media continue to call this a "war", John McCain will continue to frame it as though it can be "won". He will continue to tout his experience & perseverance which will bring "success" and "victory".

You will not end this war. You will end the occupation of Iraq. You will rectify the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of our country.

One more thing...

And while you're at it, I sure hope you'll do something about the multi-national companies which have been raping the Iraqi people of their oil industry. Between the Production Sharing Agreements (PSA's), the looting (something like $12b missing), and the no-bid contracts to American corporations which largely hire contractors instead of Iraqi citizens, we've really screwed over these people - and they know it.

We should give Iraq back to the Iraqis and let them run their own country. We should give Iraq's oil industry back to the Iraqis and let them nationalize it and keep their profits to themselves. They will sub-contract to the multi-national companies if they need to, but there's no reason to have the multi-national companies 'own' the oil industry and take most of the profits out of the country.

When all is said and done, we can buy oil from Iraq at a reasonable price, like we should have been doing all along. At the same time, we can make great strides domestically to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by harvesting cleaner and environmentally friendly alternatives to oil. Fuel efficiency standards should not have been derailed by the Bush Administration. Every new vehicle manufactured or imported into this country should be a hybrid or have some semblance thereof. You certainly will have the power to institute tax advantages to those who make the investment to lower their carbon footprint by installing solar panels, windmills, insulated windows, etc. There are so many things we can do to both lower our demand for foreign oil AND address the global warming problem at the same time.

I believe in you, Mr. Obama. Good luck in this election in November. And if I can give you any advice whatsoever - please stop calling this a war. This conflict in Iraq is not a war, it's an occupation. If you can successfully re-frame it as such, then John McCain will no longer be able to frame it as winnable.

Scott Shuster
American Citizen

Who REALLY supports the troops?

2007-08-10T21:05:00.000-05:00

Ya know... I wish I had a nickel for every time I saw one of those ribbons stuck to some car's ass touting how much they support our troops. I'm sure whoever thought of that is raking in a lot of money. But every time I see one, I know the chances are it's some war-mongering right-wing Republican driving that gas-guzzler. These are the same bastards who criticize us tree-hugging liberals for being soft on national security and appeasing the terrorists.

But, who really does support our troops?

Who wants to end this sensless invasion/occupation of Iraq and bring our troops home, safely out of harm's way? Democrats, of course.

And who wants to continue the cycle of violence, escalating it in fact with a "surge" (i.e. build-up)? Republicans, of course.

Who wants to provide our veterans with proper health benefits and compensation, seeing as they returned from the war theatre having risked their lives to protect us... some of them banged up and hurt? Democrats, of course.

And who has worked tirelessly to deny our veterans health coverage and full combat pay? Republicans, of course.

And then I read this article about how the Democrats (led by Sen. Jim Webb) are trying to provide our veterans with full tuition coverage so they can get the education they need to assimilate back into society... however, the White House is against the bill. I guess it costs too much to treat our veterans with respect and gratitude, but there's plenty of money to wage war and pay military contractors.

Just remember people, when you go to the polls in 2008... Republicans support the war, not the troops. Democrats support the troops, not the war.

John Edwards' Deeper Purpose

2007-05-22T10:33:00.000-05:00

Last week John Edwards published an article in The Huffington Post entitled A Deeper Purpose. It was a thoughtful essay about the deeper meaning behind our upcoming Memorial Day, essentially making sure we honor our living soldiers as well as our fallen, and as a tribute to them, bring them home from this disastrous debacle in Iraq.

What I want to call your attention to is one particular line in his message:

And on Memorial Day, we should honor and remember all those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

The operative segment in this line is "... for our freedom", and to this I must disagree. I know this will not sit well with our men & women in uniform risking their lives day-in and day-out. However they must realize that they are NOT fighting FOR OUR FREEDOM. Even though they joined the armed forces with every intent on protecting our country and everything it stands for, it is a sad, pathetic, and disgusting reality that they're not fighting FOR OUR FREEDOM.

After all we know now about the fabricated intelligence which tricked us into attacking/conquering/occupying Iraq, the tens of billions of dollars mysteriously missing, and the production sharing agreements (PSA's) which rape the Iraqi people, please don't cheapen this Memorial Day moment by parroting the Republican talking points. Those men & women of our armed forces in Iraq are not fighting for our freedom. They are fighting for the greed and profitibility of the big oil companies and the military-industrial-complex. No one in the world with half a brain in their head could actually believe that our freedom is at stake over in Iraq.

I WISH they were fighting for our freedom!

Stuck Between Iraq and a Hard Place

2007-05-11T08:31:00.000-05:00

I didn't bother watching the GOP debate last week. I had better things to do than to watch 10 middle-aged white guys blabber on about what a great president Ronald Reagan was, how they'll govern with their faith, how they'll crack down on illegal immigration, or how THEY'LL finally catch Osama bin Laden.

Of course there're those high-impact issues so crucial to the American people - denying homosexuals equal rights by outlawing same-sex marriages, prolonging debilitating diseases by preventing potential cures which could be discovered with stem-cell research, and - the most important - increasing the volume of illegal abortions by overturning the Supreme Court decision which protects our rights & paves the way for making abortions safe.

What I find truly despicable is that these spineless Republican shills, who shamelessly pander to the conservative base, continue to support Bush and his conquest of Iraq (and theft of their oil), insisting that we cannot re-deploy the troops. They continue to stand by their opinion that the war can be won and the consequences of defeat are worth the lives which have been lost and the future lives which will be lost. They continue to insist on our patience and that we should give Bush's "surge" (i.e. war escalation) time to be effective. They're too stupid to realize that the Bushies are just running out the clock and milking the American taxpayers for all they can get.

The GOP candidates are facing an impossible challenge. The HAVE to stick by Bush in order to garner the conservative support, even though the mood of the country is clearly on the other side of this issue. The American people have lost patience with this administration, and with the Republican lawmakers which enabled it. The election of 2006 was just the start of the avalanche of support shifting from the right to the left.

So, let the idiots have their say...

Let the jackass Republicans espouse patriotism, glory, victory, failure and fear. Let them trash each other. Let them justify their indiscretions. Let them explain their flip-flopping on issues, their dirty business dealings, and their faith against science. Let them pander to the conservative base which is increasingly distancing itself from the mainstream.

In the end, when it comes down to one Democrat against one Republican in November of 2008, the choice will be as clear as it can possibly be. If you want to continue the war in Iraq, continue to conquer Middle East countries, continue to alienate the international community, and continue to mortgage our children's future, then vote Republican. However, if you want to end this senseless arrogance and take our troops out of harm's way, saving hundreds of thousands of lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, vote Democrat. It really is as simple as that.

By the way, has anyone noticed the price of gas skyrocketing to $3+/gal? And then ask yourself - when was gas at its lowest price in the past year? That's right - during the election season last November. You know they say: "Elections have consequences". I say: "Those months between elections have consequences too."

Be Strong, Congress - Tell Bush To "Take It Or Leave It!"

2007-04-27T10:44:00.000-05:00

Here we go again.

Bush, Cheney, and their neo-con shills are out on the campaign trails trashing the evil Democratic Congress for following the will of the American people. How dare they "put strings" on the $100b+ 'Emergency' appropriations bill to force the Bushies to come up with an exit strategy to the worst debacle in American history! How dare they "undercut the troops" by putting the wheels in motion to get them out of harm's way! How dare they even think about bringing this occupation of Iraq to closure and threatening the profits of Halliburton, Blackwater, and all of those other neo-con revenue centers!

Don't buy it, America. I know that Darth & Dubya have the loudest microphones, but don't buy their snake oil. Don't ever forget about how they lied us into this conflict, with fabricated intelligence, manipulated to fit the policy. Don't ever forget how they outed an undercover CIA operative, whose mission was non-proliferation in the Middle East, in order to punish a dissenter. Don't ever forget how they trampled our constitution, tortured prisoners, lied about EVERYTHING, and continue to do so!

The Bushies have NO INTENTION of ending this conflict in Iraq. Even though the people in both countries overwhelmingly want to end it, they have every intention on continuing the U.S. presence. By virtue of the 'enduring bases', they have every intention of staying in Iraq long after the occupation has ended, if it ever does end. Make no mistake - the Bushies have no exit strategy and want an open-ended blank check to keep feeding the military-industrial-complex.

The Standoff

So now we're at a stand off. The Congress and the Executive branches of government pointing their fingers at each other. The Bushies are claiming that the Democrats are undercutting the troops by putting strings (i.e. demands for a withdrawl plan) on the 'emergency' funding. The Democrats are reluctant, but willing to fund the conflict for another year or so, as long as there's SOME light at the end of the tunnel to end this debacle. Who to believe? Who to support?

Here's my take

Although I'm personally in the camp of pulling the troops out immediately and setting in motion parallel processes to ensure order (i.e. United Nations peacekeepers), I do respect the Democratically-controlled congress for the bills they've passed. They've funded the conflict for one more year, but with obligations on the President to end the occupation. It was the only thing they could do. The move essentially sends the message that they support the troops, but not the open-ended, no-exit-strategy occupation.

Why did Bush ask for so much money in an 'Emergency Appropriations' bill? Why didn't he just account for fighting his wars in his regular budget? Did he not know that he was going to need this money when he submitted his annual budget? Of course he did. But then he wouldn't have been able to submit his 'regular' budget with phony rhetoric to prop up a phony perception that he was addressing the deficit. Suuuuuure... aren't the Bushies just the epitome of fiscal responsibility?

What would happen if the stalemate continued? This is what I'm trying to conceptualize. If neither the Congress nor the Bushies capitulate and give in on the withdrawl timetable issue, then the bill doesn't get signed into law, and the funding doesn't go to the war effort in Iraq. Seems to me the only option at that point is for the Pentagon to find funding in their existing budget and bring the troops home. They certainly wouldn't be able to prolong this senseless debacle.

Does that mean defeat? Not in my book. We already declared victory when we toppled Sadaam Hussein and brought democracy to Iraq. Since then we've just been foreign occupiers of this nation. If we left now, in my opinion the worst that could happen is the Shiia and Sunnis would continue to battle each other for territory and power. The only difference would be they'd have one less thing to complain about - being occupied by a foreign government.

So stand strong Harry & Nancy! Don't back down. Don't let the lying, scheming, conniving, back-stabbing, deceitful, evil, war-mongering, money-grubbing, neo-con Bushies get the best of you. The American people are behind you. YOU MAKE THE LAWS, HE EXECUTES THEM! If he chooses to veto your handout to him, so be it. He'll have no choice but to bring the troops home. And if he still chooses not to, if he continues to defy the Congress and the Constitution of The United States of America that he swore to uphold and protect, then it's time to put impeachment back on the table!

John McCain Just Doesn't Get It - II

2007-04-19T08:32:00.000-05:00

As much as I wanted to spread my "... just doesn't get it" series around, for the first time I'm doing a repeat. After what I just read this morning, I truly believe that John McCain just doesn't get it on so many levels.

The article I read this morning, following the worst massacre in American history, was picked up by The Huffington Post from the AP wire. In this article John McCain reiterates how he supports the Second Amendment and remains against gun control:

"I strongly support the Second Amendment and I believe the Second Amendment ought to be preserved _ which means no gun control," McCain said.

The right-wing of this country have been quoting the Second Amendment verbatim and insisting that there be no infringement on the right to bear arms. After all, that's what the amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A Conflicted Constitution

Here's the problem. While the Constitution spells out the crux of our laws in so many words, in so many cases there are variances to the interpretations of the law's intent. And, in so many cases there are implicit or explicit conflicts in the laws and precedents. The founders & framers knew this would happen and thus created the Judicial branch of government. Their charge is solely to interpret the laws and resolve these conflicts.

That said, I want to bring your attention to the preamble of the Constitution, which in this case I believe is quite significant:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The key phrases here are "... insure domestic Tranquility..." and "... promote the general Welfare...". In my opinion these two phrases, directly out of the preamble of the Constitution, are a significant conflict to the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Clearly we cannot allow ALL of the people in this country to bear arms, and anyone who thinks as much is diluting themselves. Would you truly believe that a 12-year-old gang member from inner-city USA should be entitled (has the right) to purchase any gun he can afford to purchase? Obviously not. So clearly, a line has to be drawn somewhere. And once again, as I've said so many times before, it becomes a matter of "Where do you draw the line?". In my opinion, the only significant difference between gun control OPponents and gun control PROponents is where to draw that line.

Here's my premise

Since I'm not an expert on gun laws or even guns in general, I wouldn't begin to debate the intricacies of said regulations. However, as an American citizen concerned with the sanctity of our domestic tranquility and general welfare, I have my opinions:

The right to bear arms MUST be reserved (i.e. regulated) to responsible people, not all the people.
Responsible hunters should be able to enjoy their sport. However, although there's a gray-area regarding the dimensions and specifications of the rifles, I think there needs to be some control on these weapons. We have to draw the line somewhere between rifles used for sport, and assault weapons used for high-volume killing of people. Let's face it - you don't need an Uzi to hunt quail.
Given that only responsible people should be allowed to bear arms, it follows that said right should entail a license, a background check, and a short waiting period.

So, if you're a responsible adult, without a criminal record, you should be able to apply for a gun license, shop for a gun, and receive it after waiting for 7 days. And, if you're a hunter, you should be able to purchase a rifle appropriate for hunting.... the prey you're trying to hunt, that is. I believe that's a fair compromise between the "right to bear arms" and "insuring domestic Tranquility/promoting the general welfare".

And Senator McCain, stop pandering to the right-wing base and hiding behind the verbatim of the Second Amendment. If you were any kind of serious presidential candidate, you'd be looking out for "the general welfare" of the American people.

Don't Let The Neo-cons Frame "The Message"

2007-04-06T14:55:00.000-05:00

I believe that one of the inherent problems for the Democratic party is that they all too often allow the Republicans/Conservatives/Neo-cons to frame "the message".

Case in point - Congress' bills between the House and the Senate to pass the 'emergency' funding legislation for the "wars" in Iraq & Afghanistan. Even the Democrats and the media continue to refer to the debacle in Iraq as "the war".

LISTEN UP PEOPLE, I'M GONNA SAY THIS ONE LAST TIME...

We are NOT at war in, with, or against Iraq! That conflict happened in 2003 and Mr. Bush stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln and proclaimed that we won that war.
We're not at war. IF we were at war, THEN we'd be able to truly have a dialogue about victory & defeat, success & failure, winning & losing. But we are NOT at war and those concepts do NOT apply.

What we have now is an occupation of a foreign country. The United States is occupying the country of Iraq as the Iraqi people are in the midst of a civil war between and within themselves. We should not even allow the White House and the Republican shills to frame the message in terms of winning or losing the war. Instead, the real message 'frame' is whether we continue to occupy this foreign country or do we work to give Iraq back to the Iraqis?

Not just an occupation

Pulling combat troops out of Iraq is only a portion of the problem. There are hundreds of thousands of contractors in Iraq who are simply taking jobs away from the Iraqi people. There are military bases we've established to retain a permanent presence which should also be dismantled. And, there are efforts underway to undermine the control of Iraq's oil industry and literally steal the revenues away from the Iraqi country & people.

These production sharing agreements are a clear example of the rich, multi-national oil companies raping the Iraqi people. It flies in the face of every argument the Bushies made to counter the claim that we were going into war with Iraq to steal their oil. Make no mistake about it - this whole conquest of Bush's was blood-for-oil. Put another way, it was the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people... for profit. The Bushies aren't interested in 'winning' the war. They're interested in prolonging the occupation. In doing so the Military-Industrial-Complex (Bush's friends) continues to rake in the profits.

So from now on, don't call this a war. It can't be won or lost. There is no victory or defeat. There can be no success or failure. This is an occupation, and it needs to end.

Under Oath, On The Record, & In Public

2007-03-22T11:58:00.000-05:00

Believe it or not, for the first time in over six years, George Bush has said something that I agree with. But, I'm not gonna tell you what it is up front. That was just the tease. Read on, and you'll see what I mean.

Of course this all has to do with the confrontation-du-jour between the Executive and Legislative branches of our government - in particular, the scandal involving the dismissals of eight US attorneys. I'm not going to get into the specifics of this scandal, because I've already done that once, and certainly there have been many other bloggers and journalists who've articulated all the points ad nauseum.

My shtick at this juncture is to ask a tough question of the Bush Administration - Why are you insisting on shielding your senior officials from answering questions from Congress UNDER OATH, ON THE RECORD, AND IN PUBLIC? The only possible reason for this is that they have things to hide. Of course they have many things to hide, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. After all, we don't want our enemies finding out things they shouldn't. The Bush Administration has been THE MOST SECRETIVE of any presidential administration ever. The real question we need to answer is - are they hiding some wrongdoing? Or.. Have the Bushies been naughty?

Under Oath

Ab-so-frickin'-lutely! The Bush Administration officials, as well as any and everyone who comes before Congress or any hearing or any courtroom should be giving their testimony under oath! There should be NO room for ambiguity as to whether or not their testimony is honest, and there should be serious consequences for knowingly making false statements (perjury). I'm sick & tired of the White House's consistent & persistent pattern of lying!

We've gone through this before with Dubya and the 9/11 commission. There's no reason whatsoever that ANYONE should be exempt from being honest when testifying.

On The Record

You mean we shouldn't write down what you say? Why bother saying it if you're not going to own up to saying it? Once again - ridicules. This has to do with oversight and checks-&-balances in our government. EVERYONE should be accountable for what they say and do, and there should be NO ambiguity as to what was said simply because it was "off the record".

In Public

Here's where I agree with George. I don't believe these hearings should be in public. In fact, I think they should be closed-door hearings so that NO ONE outside of the Congressional committee (and necessary staffers) and the questionee are in attendance.

In this way, each administration official testifying will not have visibility as to what the others testified. Sure, they can try to coordinate their stories, but if they don't know what each of them said, there's a better chance of catching one or more of them in a lie when their stories don't synch. They'll be even more compelled to tell the truth, and there'll be no objections about national security if it's not broadcasted to the public.

At the pleasure of the President

Jon Stewart had a great sketch on how the right-wing talking points espouse presidential prerogative. The Daily Show put together a montage of clips of each neo-con saying essentially the same thing - "... [so-and-so] serves at the pleasure of the President...".

To that I say "THE PRESIDENT SERVES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!". Somehow Emperor George seems to have forgotten that. We are his boss, yet he continues to thumb his nose at us. Usually that kind of insubordination will get one fired. We should be so lucky.

Scooter & Gonzo - Fall Guys For A Corrupt Presidency

2007-03-16T08:27:00.000-05:00

In all the years I've been following politics it seems the White House has been enveloped in scandal. It doesn't really matter who's living there at the time - there's scandal. And, it appears that there's so much more scandal in each president's second term. That is, if he was lucky enough to be awarded (able to steal) a second term.

In Nixon's second term we were subjected to Watergate. In Reagan's second term we were subjected to Iran-Contra. In the late 1990's we were subjected to a steady diet of Monica & Whitewater. (Yes, the Republican-controlled Congress made it their mission to attack Clinton in every way possible, until they finally nailed him for lying about a blow-job.)

The Bush Administration's second term is no exception when it comes to scandals. In fact, the Bush Administration is nothing but scandal, because they're completely and utterly corrupt. These latest two scandals, the CIA Leak and the US attorney dismissals, are a clear indication of how the neo-cons at the top manipulated and cajoled to hold on to power and attack their enemies. Their political enemies, that is. I'm not talking about terrorists... I'm talking about Democrats.

The US Attorney Dismissals

As I write this Alberto Gonzales is still the Attorney General of the United States. However, the US attorney firings scandal is unfolding and it's likely that he will not survive the Bush tenure. Even Republicans are starting to call for his resignation.

The right-wingers are espousing the argument that previous administrations (Clinton) fired all of the US attorneys when THEY were elected. Sure, the US attorneys, along with everyone else in the administration, serve "... at the pleasure of the president". It is true that Clinton, and every other president, made sweeping changes in the Justice Department when they took office. That's their prerogative because, as they say, "to the victor go the spoils". The difference is that Clinton replaced the US attorneys through the appropriate mechanisms. Each nominated attorney went through a vetting and approval process to satisfy Congressional oversight. Each nominated attorney was qualified. And none of the attorneys in Clinton's tenure were fired for not being political attack dogs on Republican operatives. Bush/Rove/Gonzales, on the other hand, are now firing US attorneys that THEY hired in the first place, specifically because they didn't kowtow to Republican demands to attack Democrats. And they're appointing new attorneys without going through the formal approval process, by exploiting a loophole in the USA Patriot Act. Yes, the Bushies are real big on recess appointments - they hate to be subjected to Congressional scrutiny.

So the core issue of the US attorney dismissals scandal is that these attorneys were being pressured by Alberto Gonzales (i.e. the Bush Administration) to go after Democratic candidates in the run up to the 2004 & 2006 elections. There are a lot more sub-plots here, such as Carol Lam's prosecution of Duke Cunningham which earned her a pink slip, but by-and-large what we're seeing is a concentrated effort by the Bush Administration to attack their political enemies to stay in power. While George, Dick, & Karl were the masterminds, Gonzo will take the heat and be the fall guy.

The firings of the 8 attorneys who didn't capitulate to Republican demands is just the tip of the iceberg. I wish some investigative reporter would do some real research about all the rest of them who did.

The CIA Leak Scandal

We don't have to look back too far to see another instance where the White House was enveloped in scandal - attacking their political enemies. But the boys at the top got off Scot-free while one of their underlings took the heat.

Yes, the CIA Leak scandal showed us how far the Bush Administration will go. Scooter's trial brought out mounds of evidence depicting Rove & Cheney as The Riddler & The Penguin plotting to take down Batman.. er.. Joseph Wilson, who clearly stood for truth and justice. But in the end, while George, Dick, & Karl were the evil masterminds, Scooter took the heat and ended up the fall guy. This time the price paid was our national security, since Valerie Plame was an undercover agent working on non-proliferation of WMD's in the Middle East. The White House sacrificed her, her front company (Brewster Jennings), and all the intelligence assets who were ever associated with them, in an effort to discredit someone who exposed their lies which led us to war.

The Three Stooges (George, Dick & Karl) continue to lie, cheat, &amp; steal their way into the history books, while their underlings pay the price. Then again, even these underlings aren't paying the ultimate price... They're not in Iraq sacrificing their lives for their boss’ profits.

An Open Letter To Our Troops

2007-02-23T09:25:00.000-05:00

February 23, 2007

To the brave men and women serving in our military:

I think I can speak for all Americans when I say that I have the utmost compassion and gratitude for you who have sacrificed so much, including your very own jobs, lives and health, to serve in our armed forces. You have taken the risks that most of us at home could not or would not take. You have endured the hardships that most of us at home couldn't possibly have sustained. And you have represented our country with pride, passion, dignity, and integrity.

Our country should owe you enormously for the service you've performed. But unfortunately our government has let you down in so many ways. We sent you into war’s theatre without adequate equipment or leadership. And when you returned maimed and broken, we didn't take adequate care of you. Those of you who returned in caskets never received proper recognition. Instead you're a statistic - well into the 3000's now. As President Bush implements his "surge" strategy in Iraq, we know that you'll be staying in the theatre longer, and/or returning to battle sooner, and it pains us to see you endure even more hardship.

What bothers me the most is that our government sent you into harm's way under false pretenses. We know that now, with a multitude of evidence, that this invasion of Iraq was wrong in so many ways. It wasn't just wrong in how we did it, it was wrong that we did it in the first place, since the intelligence wasn't just faulty, it was fabricated. It wasn't just wrong that so many lives were lost, it was wrong in that so many people profited. It wasn't just wrong that America's standing in the world stage has diminished, it was wrong that turmoil, tensions, and violence in the Middle East have magnified because of it.

Today I write to you to give you a message from the vast majority of Americans who feel like I do. We want this senselessness to stop. We want you to come home, in one piece, and with all your pieces.

President Bush’s mission in Iraq has been a disastrous failure from the inception, but it's not your fault. You have valiantly and gallantly performed your duties as ordered, but the mission was doomed from the start. You went into a country and successfully overthrew a government and military headed up by the minority party, and installed a democracy which by definition means that the new government is headed up by the majority party. A civil war was inevitable. There was no way you could stop it then, and there’s no way you can stop it now. The Sunnis and Shiia have been battling for centuries, and Bush’s ousting of Sadaam Hussein essentially tore down the barriers to their own conflict. As occupiers of this country, America’s presence is only making this situation worse.

Your Commander-in-Chief treated you with disdain and contempt when he arrogantly misled you into thinking you were protecting America's national security. Instead, you were sent there to protect the interests and profits of our military-industrial-complex. We don't blame you for the failure of his mission. We blame George W. Bush and his neo-con cabal for contriving this imperial conquest in the first place. Please know that our anti-war efforts are directed at our President and his mission. They are not directed at you. We don’t want you to be in harm’s way over greed, arrogance, stupidity, or a personal vendetta.

And when you do return, we want to treat you with respect, dignity, and appreciation for your service. You should have your old jobs back or a reasonable alternative opportunity. You should have access to the finest health care just as our law-makers have. And you should be recognized as the heroes you are.

Scott ShusterAmerican Citizen (and blogger)

Some Tough-Talking Republicans

2007-02-16T12:29:00.000-05:00

I was watching 'Meet The Press' this past Sunday morning and happened to catch this piece of sh*t sitting next to Steny Hoyer trying to tell us how we should support the President and the mission in Iraq. John Boehner (R-Ohio) opened his mouth and all I heard were White House talking points about how we need victory in Iraq, success, the consequences of failure, and the like. Then, on Tuesday I read this article off of Yahoo news quoting Boehner saying:

"We will embolden terrorists in every corner in the world. We will give Iran free access to the Middle East, [snip] And who doesn't believe the terrorists will just follow our troops home?"

I guess when our troops come home, they'll leave a trail of breadcrumbs.

Let me set you straight, Mr. Boehner...

We are not at war with Iraq. There IS a war going on, but it's not OUR war. It's THEIR civil war. Yes, we caused it by overthrowing their existing government which was keeping order, but it's not our war. We are not at war with Iraq, we are at occupation in Iraq. It's unfortunate you're too stupid to understand that occupying a foreign country is not something which can be won or lost. There will be no victory, and there will be no defeat.

The best that we can hope for is to resolve this crisis and save face. Unfortunately, even that hope will have to wait for the next president. THIS president, along with his cronies and arrogance, have made it quite certain that resolution of this conflict will not happen in his tenure.

You Mr. Boehner, are a typical Republican parrot without a compassionate bone in your body. You drank the Kool-aid and bought into all the typical right-wing jive which has damaged this world, killed/maimed countless innocent people, and trampled all over our Constitution to diminish the Democracy we cherish. Our freedoms, rights, liberties, and privacies have one-by-one disappeared into oblivion.

Quoted in that same article is another right-wing dipstick who has no original thoughts of his own - David Dreier (R-Calif). How about these for talking points:

"We go to war to win, we go to war with a mission. [snip] We dishonor the lives of those who have made the ultimate sacrifice if we in fact abandon that mission. .... We have a duty to pursue nothing less than victory."

Gee, where have I heard that before?

The drumbeat of war against Iran

Yes, it's déjà vu all over again. The threatening rhetoric. The kidnapping of foreign nationals. The accusations. The arrogance. We must protect our troops and prevail!!!

This week the Bush Administration, along with their shills and puppets, continued to build their case for conquering Iran. Now they're claiming the Iranians are fueling the Iraqi Shiia who are killing American soldiers. They had some kind of trumped up news conference where the sources were anonymous, the reporters were not allowed to take pictures, and they had their cell phones confiscated. Then, after claiming the Iranian government was involved, they even backed off on that.

Okay. So, some Shiite militias are fueled with Iranian-supplied weapons. What else is new? Is that a reason to attack Iran? Does it matter at all that the bulk of the Sunni munitions are supplied by Saudi Arabia? And that the bulk of attacks on American soldiers are from the Sunni insurgents? Gee, I wonder why Bush isn't talking tough with Saudi Arabia? It can't be because Bush is in bed with the Saudi royal family, could it?

2009 Can’t Come Soon Enough

2007-02-09T00:05:00.000-05:00

Like the majority of people in this country, I was giddy and ecstatic when the Democrats took over the majority in both houses of Congress last November. I thought that finally we’d have some checks-and-balances on the Bush Administration’s executive power grab. I thought that maaaaaybe there would be some common sense back in our government. I thought that the progressive agenda might get a little headway. I thought there was a possibility that Darth & Dubya might be humbled into acknowledging the will of the people, particularly after the Iraq Study Group’s recommendations also encouraged redeployment of troops and political solutions engaging the neighbors. But noooooooo.

If nothing else, this week taught me that even though the Democrats have the majority, they really don’t have enough control in Congress to “Get ‘er done”. The rules of the Senate are such that they protect the voices of the minority. And as such, the Republicans still wield enough power and influence to obstruct democratic progress. While level-headed senators try to send a (non-binding) non-escalation message to the president, the slant-headed senators (i.e. Republicans & Lieberman) are busy pulling parliamentary maneuvers to prevent even debating the issue.

Given all that’s happened, not just this week but over the last two months since the election, I’m ready to make some predictions…

Very little progress, if any, will be made in the next two years. It will take one more election cycle to posture our government for getting positive things accomplished. Not until after the Democrats take over the Executive branch of government will this dark cloud be lifted.
Bush’s agenda for the remaining two years of his presidency will be mixed. Anything he can do (i.e. get away with) that doesn’t require Congressional approval, he’ll move forward with. At the same time, if he can bully Congress into approval, he’ll do that too. You can see that’s already happened with all of the Democrats except Russ Feingold vowing to continue funding the troops already in the theatre. God forbid they get demonized with the tag of not supporting the troops. Any of Bush’s new agenda items will not make it through Congress. THIS Congress will not rubberstamp Cheney’s big-business giveaways.
The Democrat’s agenda will go nowhere. While Bush is in office he’ll veto anything the Democrats send across his desk if it doesn’t jive with HIS agenda. They don’t have enough votes to override a veto, so there will be tons of significant legislation that will have to wait. I’m holding out hope for stem-cell research and minimum wage which might have veto-proof support.
A major incident will take place that the Bush Administration will pin on Iran (true or not) and then they’ll extend the Middle East conflict in that direction. All signs are pointing to Bush wanting to attack Iran, as they’ve goaded them repeatedly with threats, kidnapping (i.e. detaining) their nationals, and economic sanctions. As long as Bush is in office, things can only get worse.

Yes… my fellow Americans, 2009 can’t come soon enough. And until that time, we’ll continue living under a cloud of darkness with middle class people hurting at home and tensions escalating abroad. Bush will get his ‘surge’ so Halliburton & Blackwater will continue to rake it in. However, as the death toll rises and it becomes abundantly clear that the surge idea was imbecilic, all of the Republicans (and Lieberman) who supported it, will burn. Hopefully, the 2008 election will move the Senate & the House even further towards the Democrats.

Just imagine… in 2009, with a Democrat in the White House AND the House & Senate dominantly Democratic, we might actually see some daylight.

Dick Cheney: The Evil Behind The President

2007-02-02T09:06:00.000-05:00

It didn't take 6 years of the George W. Bush presidency for most intelligent people to realize who's calling the shots in the White House. If anyone thought that W himself was really setting White House policy and making the administration's decisions, that fallacy was made abundantly clear when it came time for George to testify to the 9/11 commission - not only did he refuse to testify under oath, but he also insisted on having Dick Cheney present with him.

Who developed the country's energy plan under the strictest secrecy? Why, Dick Cheney of course. Well... maybe it was the energy industry's lobby that developed America's energy plan under the auspices of Dick Cheney, whose history and fortune just happens to be intimately linked to the energy industry. But there's no conflict of interest there!

Enter the conflict in Iraq

The scope of this short article can't possibly cover all of Dick Cheney's lies, or even all of his lies on just Iraq. Sure... he said there was no doubt Saddam had WMD's, that we'd be greeted as liberators, that the war would pay for itself, and after 3 years of fighting that the insurgency was "in its last throes". Even the ignorant in this country and abroad have come to realize that Dick Cheney has absolutely NO credibility whatsoever. (I guess shooting his friend in the face didn't help either).

We know where he's coming from. We know where he's going to. And, there's no reason to believe ANYTHING he says. Here's a quote from a recent article entitled "White House defies Congress, public to push Iraq surge". This would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Cheney] cautioned against the phased withdrawal backed by Democrats, saying Iraq would collapse into chaos and the United States would lose stature in the world.

As I just mentioned, Dick Cheney has absolutely no credibility to tell us what will or would happen in the future, given any course of action. In fact his credibility is further compromised by his complete denial to even realize what has happened in the past. News flash: Iraq IS ALREADY in chaos! Do you actually think the civil war going on there is orderly? And not only is Iraq currently in chaos, but it's Dick Cheney's foreign policy blunders which have caused it.

Here's another news flash for you... the United States HAS ALREADY lost stature in the world, and again it's Dick Cheney's foreign policy decisions which have caused that as well. And it's not just that he invaded Iraq against the recommendations of the United Nations and many other foreign heads of state. Perhaps some of that 'stature' was lost when he started withdrawing the United States from foreign treaties like the Kyoto Accord (global warming), the InterContinental Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the International Criminal Court? Perhaps some of that 'stature' was lost when his company (Halliburton) attained no-bid contracts, plundered billions of dollars, and lied about providing goods and services even as Iraqis were suffering from astronomical unemployment, and critical shortages of potable water, electricity, and other necessities.

And what about Scooter and Valerie?

The trial of Scooter Libby is not getting enough exposure in my opinion. While the mainstream airwaves are filled with talks of troop surge, war escalation, and 2008 presidential politics, this travesty of justice is going largely unnoticed.

To date, the only one who has been indicted for any wrongdoing in the leak of this undercover CIA operative (Valerie Plame) is Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff. And these indictments are only for lying and obstructing the investigation, not the original crime itself.

What's going largely unnoticed however, is that the testimony has started coming out that Dick Cheney was the mastermind of this whole dirty scheme to discredit Joseph Wilson and punish him by outing his wife, which by the way, was a severe national security breach. Clearly, Libby was lying to protect his boss.

Let's not forget that Valerie Plame's mission was that of WMD reconnaissance in both Iraq & Iran. By outing her and her front company (Brewster Jennings, Inc.), the White House compromised intelligence on Iran's WMD program - something Bush continues to carry a torch against. And that doesn't even begin to assess the damage caused by the compromising of an untold number of other operatives who were associated with Valerie Plame or Brewster Jennings, Inc.

So I ask you Mr. Fitzgerald, why isn't Dick Cheney being indicted for treason? Why isn't SOMEONE being charged with the actual, treasonous crime of outing an undercover CIA agent and compromising national security?

Conclusion

So here's my message to you this week, America. Take a good, long look at the man who's really running our country and forging United States' policy. The man who has absolutely NO credibility, clearly linked to the energy industry and big business special interests, with delusions of conquest of the Middle East, is the one who committed treason in many people's opinion.

All of Dick Cheney's actions and decisions are made purely for profit & conquest, and he doesn't care how many people are killed or maimed in the process. In my book, that's the definition of evil.

Underneath The "Surge" Strategy

2007-01-24T13:59:00.000-05:00

In this week's article I contrast my earlier premise that Bush's surge will be a good thing in the long run. As you'll recall, in my previous article of 1/10/07, I articulated my vision of how the Democrats will take the White House in 2009 after this ridiculus strategy is affixed to John McCain's presidential bid. As likely as that may happen, I think there are deeper and more serious ramifications to Bush's strategy that will be globally damaging in the process. The next two years of BushCo may be catastrophically pivotal if Congress doesn't pull in the reigns.

The broader implications

What has become abundantly clear from Bush's speech and subsequent actions is that he is green-lighting his overall strategy, not just to escalate the efforts in Baghdad & Anbar Province, but also to expand the war (i. e. the neo-con's conquest) into Iran & Syria. Here's a pertinent excerpt from his 'surge' speech of January 10th:

"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

For a while now BushCo has been issuing threats & accusations to goad Iran into conflict. With absolutely no evidence whatsoever, the Bush Administration continues to accuse Iran of fostering its "nookular" weapons program, while Iran has steadfastly claimed its nuclear aspirations are for energy purposes only. It remains to be seen which one is lying more.

Over the last few months BushCo has made a number of significant moves to provoke a confrontation with Iran:

They've increased the practice of kidnapping. Yes, BushCo kidnaps foreign nationalists in case you weren't aware. (Some might even call that terrorism, but I guess that all depends on your perspective.) The difference is that BushCo labels the people they kidnap as terrorists and calls the kidnapping "detainment". Saying they've been "detained" doesn't sound quite as bad - kind of like they were held up at the airport but they'll be home soon - right? Not quite. When the U.S. detains someone they're locked away indefinately, stripped of all rights (forget about 'habeas corpus' and due process), and likely tortured.

Anyway, in December U.S. troops arrested a number of Iranians they claimed were suspected of planning attacks on Iraqi security forces, including diplomats who were later turned over to Iraqi authorities.

More recently, after storming the Iranian Consolate in Iraq, U.S. troops "...detained five Iranians and confiscated vast amounts of documents and computer data...".
They recently ordered the deployment of the USS John C. Stennis as a second carrier ship in the Middle East, joining the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. The deployment of carrier ships is clearly posturing for conflict.
They pressured the UN to impose sanctions on Iran for persuing nuclear ambitions.

Which camp are you in?

Some of you are squarely on the right-wing fringe. You're utterly evil because you're profiting from war & conflict and want it to continue as long as possible regardless of the amount of bloodshed. You look at this debacle as a big chess match - our troops are pawns available for sacrafice. You're the neo-cons responsible for the disinformation & propoganda campaign(s) eminating from the White House and all of those decisions which propogate the economic divide in this country. The rich are getting richer WHILE the poor are getting poorer, but you don't care because you're on the 'right' side of that equasion. You people disgust me.
Some of you are ignorants who think this "surge" (i.e. neo-con euphamism for "escalation of the war") is all about gaining the upper hand for victory. Sadly, you've been watching too much Fox (Faux) News or listening to any of the right-wing shills and still think this whole debacle is a matter of winning and losing. You've fallen into the neo-con trap of framing foreign policy with binary thinking. Sure - it's us vs. them. Good vs. evil. You're either with us or you're with the terrorists. You're part of that 30%-40% who still think Saddam had WMD's and attacked us on 9/11. To those of you I say wake up and smell the bullcrap. Start paying attention because our democracy is dependent on you being more intelligent.
Some of you who ARE paying attention (somewhat) may think that this whole escalation is Bush's warped, idiotic, arrogant attempt to leave a legacy. You think he really does want to 'win' in Iraq, but of course you're smarter than him and realize there's no way that's going to happen given the current situation. You know this conflict can only be resolved with political and diplomatic solutions - not military solutions. You also understand that the Iraq invasion was largely blood-for-oil and that BushCo lied us into this conflict with phantom WMD's and links to al Qaeda. To those of you I say you're on the right track -perhaps 80% there - but keep digging because there's much more.
The rest of us understand the deeper evil underneath the neo-con cabal. It's all about profit and conquest. And this "surge" is about BushCo posturing for Iran and Syria, which has been on their list from the very beginning.

The question now is whether or not the new Democratic Congress has the cajones to stop this train wreck. No pressure here, but the future of the world depends on it.

Mr. Bush, Put Your Presidency Where Your Mouth Is

2007-01-12T10:08:00.000-05:00

January 12, 2007

Dear President Bush,

So many politicians, respondents, reporters, pundits, and bloggers have chimed in on your new "Surge" strategy, including yours truly. Just after your speech on Wednesday night I published my blog articulating my vision of what will be happening over the next two years, the culmination of which will be the Democrats taking the White House in 2008 after Sen. John McCain's reputation is further tarnished by being associated with this plan.

Instead of just reaching out to my readers, I'd like to take an opportunity to reach out to you directly. Here's my message.

Mr. Bush, everyone in this country and abroad knows that you've leveraged your presidency on your conquest of Iraq. After nearly 4 years of the initial shock-&-awe and subsequent occupation, after losing over 3,000 American lives, after spending nearly one half trillion dollars we don't have, and after losing countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, you've finally admitted that your strategies thus far have failed. However, you expect us to trust you for yet another ill-advised decision. A decision which will essentially escalate the conflict in Iraq. A decision which has & will most assuredly escalate the conflict in America as well.

What are the benchmarks?

I've heard it said so many times that the mission must have a clearly defined objective. But thus far, all I've really heard of your objective is to succeed, win, obtain victory, and avoid defeat. When asked of your definition of success, you've essentially articulated that success entails:

"...a free Iraq which can defend itself..."

So here's what I don't get. Firstly, how are you working towards a "free Iraq" by essentially declaring Martial Law in Baghdad? Do you really think that after nearly 4 years of this American occupation, the people of Iraq are free?

And secondly, the country of Iraq able to defend itself, by definition, means that if U.S. troops were not there, Iraq's own defense and police could maintain order. How does sending tens of thousands more troops into Iraq lead to that country able to defend itself? Seems to me you're making them more dependent on US.

Mr. Bush, you've hedged your presidency on your conquest of Iraq, and you've hedged your conquest of Iraq on this escalation of the conflict. As Commander-In-Chief you've already started the troop build-up, and I'm sure you'll get the 'surge' you're asking for. At the same time, I'm hoping the Democratic-controlled Congress will deliver a vote of no-confidence. You and your right-wing, neo-con shills will be all alone on this.

Impeachment or Resignation - it's up to you

Let's revisit this in November. Let's take a look then at the frequency of violence, the casualty count, and the ability of Iraq to "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself". Let's take a look at what a difference this 'surge' decision has made over all the other disastrous decisions you've put us through.

If by November this situation has not shown signs of improvement, I expect you to hand in your resignation. Between now and then, I anticipate the Senate and House of Representatives will be holding all sorts of hearings to ferret out the origins of this conflict, as well as many other questionable decisions you've made to subvert the U.S. Constitution.

Some have suggested Congress should cut off funding as a means of ending this senseless conflict. I'd rather see a regime change.

Sincerely,

Scott Shuster
American Citizen

How Bush's Surge Will Be A Good Thing

2007-01-10T22:25:00.000-05:00

The United States' foreign policy in the Middle East is coming to a crossroads. There isn't a person on the planet, including all of the right-wingnut shills on Fox News, who think our strategy in Iraq is going well. We've endured 3+ years of these neo-cons trying to tell us how well things are going, and how the liberal media is overlooking the positive advancements being made. Who should we believe - our lying leaders or our lying eyes?

Over the last few months new milestones have been reached. The war's duration has surpassed that of WWII and the American casualty count has surpassed our losses from the attack on September 11, 2001. Furthermore, the conflict's statistics have not shown any sign of improvement, and in fact have deteriorated. The happy talk neo-cons are pulling their shoes out of their mouths.

But, even as they concede that things are not going well, they continue to espouse rhetoric of winning, victory, defeat, and the need to continue. Even after the Iraq Study Group has recommended re-deployment, even after the generals on the ground have recommended re-deployment (now of course they're being replaced), and even after the November 7, 2006 mid-term election clearly delivered the message for a change in strategy (i.e. re-deployment), George W. Bush has decided to do exactly the opposite. After all we've put up with from this schmuck who stole two presidential elections, Dubya has thumbed his nose at the American people and the rest of the world by ordering a further build-up of troops in Iraq.

That's right... after completely misjudging everything, after utterly screwing up this section of the world, after making the wrong decisions every step of the way, Bush ("The Decider") has decided to throw gasoline on the fire. He says he doesn't listen to public opinion polls, which is just another way of saying that he's ignoring the will of the American people. And with the Democratic majority in Congress squarely against an escalation of this war, he's also ignoring the will of the Legislative branch of our government.

Bait & Blame

Part of me thinks that this whole 'surge' thing is just a ploy to bait the Democrats into taking a stand. He knows he's in for a fight with Congress, he knows the American people disapprove of his handling of the war in Iraq, and he knows support for this troop strength escalation is very unpopular on so many fronts. So, what gives?

Well, if the Democrats win this fight, then Bush has a scapegoat to blame for losing the war, and McCain has fodder for saying he had the right plan to win the war. However, if Bush wins this fight and sends an additional 20K troops to Baghdad, then the Democrats are complicit in f**king this war up even more, and the profiteering by Halliburton continues.

So, let's look at the likely scenario if Bush gets his way.

Here's my vision...

Bush, acting basically on John McCain's advice, will increase troop strength in Baghdad.
Those who expected their tours were finishing will be extended... AGAIN. And, those who thought their tours were a little further in the future will be surprised that they're called up sooner. All-in-all, the US military will be stretched even thinner, and even more distraught & fed up. All along America's military readiness erodes.
An additional 20k+ troops in Baghdad will also require a surge in infrastructure and supply lines (i.e. more targets to be hit by roadside IED's).
More U.S. troops in Iraq will certainly mean more U.S. deaths. Look for an increase.
If U.S. troops do manage to quell the violence in Baghdad, they'll be stuck there indefinitely to keep the peace. Don't believe for one minute any talk of temporariness by the Bush Administration - you know that won't be true even if they really do think it's true.
Meanwhile Anbar Province and other insurgent hot beds will heat up.
Sectarian violence will increase, as well as the incidents of Shiite Militia Death Squad hits. Kidnappings and killings will either maintain or increase.
The situation in Iraq will not remedy under the Bush Administration, and certainly will not improve over this surge of troops. One way or another Bush will find a way to f**k it up because he never gave any credence to win the war over the hearts & minds of the Iraqi people. They see through the lying propoganda just like we do as evidenced by the rise in anti-American sentiment.

(Hold on.... I'll be getting to the 'good' part in a minute...)
Look for more incidents of American atrocities. Abu Ghraib, Haditha & Ishaqi were just the beginning. As we send more & more soldiers who are barely trained and barely equipped into a situation which is heated, explosive, & volatile, tensions will rise over the fog of war.
The cost of maintaining these additional 20K troops will pile up as well, the profits of which will go to Halliburton.
By the end of 2007, after another thousand or so troops are laid to rest, the 2008 presidential election will heat up and John McCain's name will be attached to the surge strategy that failed.

(Okay, here's the 'good' part)
With the Republican frontrunner crippled by this strategy debacle, Democrats will take the White House in January '09.
With a Democratic White House and Congress, the country will be back on track with progressive ideology, constitutional protections, civil rights, and a roadmap for peace in the Middle East.

Things are going to get a lot worse before they get better. If we don't impeach them, we'll be suffering this reign of (BushCo) terror for two more years. But then there's hope this will all turn around in 2009. It's unfortunate that so many more people will have to die.

Update from last week's article

In my article from January 5th "No Progressive Talk Radio? Try Podcasting!", I discussed Podcasting as an alternative to progressive talk radio, since Boston's only progressive talk radio station flipped its format to Latino music. I was pleased to learn that there is a movement to petition Clear Channel to restore progressive talk radio in Boston. For all who are interested, go to http://www.bostonsprogressivetalk.net/ for more information. Many thanks to the folks there who already added me to their blogroll without me even asking.

No Progressive Talk Radio? Try Podcasting!

2007-01-05T11:11:00.000-05:00

A sad day befell the Boston area last month when our only progressive talk radio station flipped its format to Latino music. Where I used to listen to "The Young Turks", Stephanie Miller, Al Franken, Ed Schultz, and Randi Rhodes I can now listen to "Rumba" - Orgullo Latino!

I don't really understand why progressive talk radio could not succeed in the most progressive state in the nation, but it sounds like the vision, plan, and/or management of the station was not driven for success. I can't deny that the commercials were absolutely nauseating and I hit the button on my car stereo every time I heard "Hi, I'm David Oreck" or "Are you losing your hair?". Obviously, running a radio station is a lot more than finding the right sponsors.

The biggest problem I had with "Boston's Progressive Talk" was the quality of the signal. This is the same problem I have with AM radio in general. (Quite frankly, I really don't understand why we even have AM radio anymore in this technologically driven day & age. The powers-at-be should have dumped AM radio years ago in favor of an expanded FM dial.) The stations broadcasting "Boston's Progressive Talk" must have been constrained to low wattage because you couldn't pick them up more than 15 miles away from one of their broadcast antennas. And their signal in the evenings was noticeably weaker than in the mornings. I found myself constantly searching for another station because I couldn't put up with the noise.

Enter Podcasting

When "Boston's Progressive Talk" went bye-bye, I had to scramble for something else to listen to in my car to & from work (I know some of you may be surprised to learn I have a 'real' job in addition to this blogging gig). After checking out some of the other talk radio offerings, I finally took a friend's advice and looked into Podcasting.

I already have an MP3 player where I've been listening to my collection of music all along. And, I've already purchased an MP3 interface for my car, so I can hook my player directly in to my car's stereo system. Podcasting was a natural direction for me to turn. So, let's take a step back...

What is Podcasting?

For the uninitiated, Podcasting is essentially the downloading of content from the Internet, to be played later, on a mobile device. If your mobile device is a phone or PDA such as a Blackberry or Palm Pilot, then you may be able to download content directly from the Internet. However, today most MP3 players such as iPods don't have a direct Internet connection, and instead connect to a computer to download their content.

The merging of MP3's and telecommunications devices will continue to progress over the next generation of handhelds, just as we've already seen in Verizon's Vcast phones. However, there's a cost factor that they need to get over... If I'm already paying for high-speed Internet access at home, why should I pay for it AGAIN for my wireless device?

Podcasting Software

What makes Podcasting particularly easy is the software that's out there. And, along with the content, it's usually free. Through PodcastAlley.com I was able to download some simple software to manage my Podcast 'subscriptions'. Now all I have to do is launch my Podcast software and a few clicks later, I've started the download process to update my subscription content on my computer. It downloads the latest episodes automatically.

Granted this is a little extra work, but it's worth it. Actually, to be honest, there's even more work. Once I've downloaded my new content, I need to move it over to my MP3 player. While I'm moving over new content to my MP3 player, I also need to houseclean the older content I've already listened to. Finally, when I'm in my car and ready to listen, I need to attach my MP3 and navigate over to select the content I want to listen to.

There are several reasons why all this extra work is worth it:

Firstly, there are no commercials in Podcast content that I've seen so far. I've heard an occasional "Sponsored by" message, but not much more than that.
Secondly, like TIVO or DVR (Digital Video Recorder) at home, since everything is stored electronically, I can stop & start the content according to my own needs. That means I won't miss some of the conversation just because I have to stop for gas.
Thirdly, I've discovered a whole new dimension of content that I wouldn't have gotten in commercial radio. And it's not all political. There's so much out there to satisfy virtually anyone's appetite for content.

A rare plug

Speaking of political content, at this point I'd like to take the opportunity to highlight one source in particular. A retired attorney, Jack Clark produces a Podcast called "Blast The Right". On a weekly basis Jack espouses a well-researched and informative dissertation exposing the radical right-wing agenda. As well read as I thought I was, I learned quite a bit from just a few episodes I downloaded from his archives.

So that's my message this week, dear readers. Fret not that progressive talk radio is dead in the Boston area. And no matter what your preferences, orientation, shtick, or passion is, you can probably find some worthwhile content on the Internet. If you already have an MP3 player (and who doesn't), you too can Podcast.

My Birthday Wish List (2006)

2006-12-28T13:32:00.000-05:00

This Saturday is my birthday. Last year at this time my column was all about my birthday wish for 2005. I referenced Jim Carry's "Liar, Liar" movie and wished for honesty from our political leaders. So in that same spirit here's my birthday wish list for 2006.

I wish...

...that the Democratically elected majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate find the cajones to take on the Bush crime family. It's starting to look that way, but I want to give them my extra special birthday wish list support.
...that progressive talk radio returns to the Boston area.
...that Turd-Blossom Rove gets fingered in the Jack Abramoff scandals. Is there anyone else who deserves to be in prison more?
...that Darth Cheney gets shot by one of his own friends on a hunting trip. He could easily be mistaken for a pheasant.
...that Tom Delay becomes Mark Foley's bitch in prison.
...that the new Congress makes sweeping strides in stemming the tide of corruption in Washington. Can you say "Publicy-funded Elections"? How 'bout "Lobbying Reform"?
...that whomever wins the Democratic nomination selects Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconson as their veep. There isn't a person in Washington I trust more. I'd rather see him as our president, but if that can't be, I'll settle for him as our Vice-President and hope that he can have a strong influence on our national policies.
...that the media wakes up from their 6-year slumber to do their jobs. You know... investigate, probe, and research. Some of them don't realize that they're supposed to be our political watchdogs. Take your queues from Keith Olbermann, people - don't just parrot the talking points & press releases. That's what the pundits are for.
...that religious blow-hards like Pat Robertson and the like get struck by lightning and meet their maker a lot sooner. C'mon boys - make your own rapture! And while I'm at it...
...that religion would just stay the f**k away from government. Do your own thing on your own time... believe what you want about God & the afterlife... but keep it out of our politics! We have enough dipsticks in the White House without them using God as an excuse for their misdeeds.
...that one of Mitt Romney's children would 'come out'. Perhaps if someone he loved were gay he might have a little more compassion & understanding for people who are different than him. And if you don't buy the 'compassion & understanding' stuff, how about civil liberties and equal rights? Why is it okay to openly discriminate based on sexual orientation?
...that those ignorant sheeple who continue to support Bush finally learn how to read and get access to the Internet. Anyone who still stands behind the Bush crime family clearly isn't paying attention.
...that George W. Bush is stricken by an illness that could've been cured by stem-cell research. Then we'd see how fast he'd be willing to kill embyos in order to advance science.

Well, that's my birthday wish list for now. Next I'll work on my New Year's resolutions.

Once Again Bush Gets It Wrong. Who'd O' Thunk?

2006-12-22T14:00:00.000-05:00

It is inconceivable to me that our Idiot-in-Chief in the White House is even THINKING about sending MORE troops into this hell-hole in Iraq where we have absolutely no chance of fixing this problem by military means. I guess he really didn't get the message on November 7th that our country is NOT behind this occupation.

But... I'm sure we have plenty more troops to throw at the problem, even though our National Guard forces are already over-extended there and barely able to secure our own homeland (good thing we didn't have another Katrina this year). So, with our all-volunteer military, having been volunteered for many more tours then they signed up for, we're going to send tens of thousands more targets.... er... troops into Baghdad, and stick them right in the heat of this civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis.

That's just brilliant. I'm sure the level of violence won't go up, and the body counts won't go up, and in two to three months we'll win the war on terror! We'll declare victory in Iraq and our girls & boys will come home victorious!

Psssssst. Can I interest you in a bridge?

What's going on...

So let's take a look at what's going on here (by the way, if you haven't read Cenk Uygur's piece on December 18th, this would be a good time to take it in... he puts it in a wonderfully frank and candid perspective). There's a civil war going on in Iraq between the Shiites and the Sunnis, the neighboring countries are taking sides, and the U.S. is sitting smack-dab in the middle of this war getting shot up in the crossfire. Bush and his cabal thought we were simply going to force Democracy down their throats and support the democratically-elected (Shiite-dominated) government as we trained their police & military. But... that has led to Shiite militias carrying out genocide on the Sunnis (euphemism: Sectarian Violence), and the Sunnis carrying out their own form of violence (euphemism: Insurgency).

Meanwhile, George Bush has that deer-in-the-headlights look of "What the f**k do I do at this point now that I've royally f**ked this whole thing up? I know... I'll send in MORE troops to get shot up! Who cares what the American people want. That November 7th mid-term election was just a guideline... I'M THE DECIDER!!!! AND I WANT VICTORY!!!"

So, let's summarize...

The Bush Administration hasn't gotten ANYTHING right in this entire foreign policy debacle. They were wrong at every juncture, and they continue to misjudge EVERYTHING.
Not only has the Bush Administration been wrong, but they've been maliciously wrong. They've lied, fabricated, omitted, cajoled, and intentionally mislead the American people every step of the way. There is absolutely NO reason to trust ANYTHING they say, predict, or promise. "Temporary", my ass!
The Bush Administration has no incentive to end this conflict.

This perpetual war fuels the military-industrial-complex (Halliburton's profits contributes to Dick Cheney's wealth).
This perpetual war also keeps the price of oil high, which lines the pockets of George and all of his friends. Thank you red-staters for helping to elect & re-elect an oil man as president.
Ending the conflict would insinuate failure in George's mind, but his pride & arrogance won't settle for anything less than total victory, which is unattainable. Therefore, the only option he has to prevent "defeat" is to keep the conflict going.
The Bush Administration needs the 'war-time' presidency and threats of terrorism in order to carry out its fascist agenda of subverting the Constitution, spying on Americans, torturing whomever they please, and keeping the American people living in fear.

There's no reason whatsoever to believe that sending more troops into Baghdad will help this situation. Colin Powell, the Joint Chiefs, and many experts have said that this strategy will only worsen the already-volatile situation. Even if Baghdad is finally secured by our martial law, we'll be stuck there indefinitely to keep it secure.

What is the U.S. interest?

This is a question I've been asking myself for a long time. We keep hearing that we're there to protect our interests, but what ARE our interests?

Is our interest that of spreading Democracy? Nooooooo. If we were reeeeally interested in spreading Democracy, we wouldn't have ousted a democratically elected president in Iran (who was going to nationalize the oil industry) in favor of installing the Shah of Iran as a dictatorship. If we were reeeeally interested in Democracy perhaps we would've stayed in Vietnam, accepting nothing less than total victory, at the cost of a few more hundred thousand young American soldiers. If we were reeeeally interested in Democracy we'd be taking on Saudi Arabia and China, instead of jumping into bed with them.

Is our interest humanitarian? Nooooooo. If we were reeeeally concerned about people in other countries we'd be doing a lot more to quell the genocide in Darfur, Rwanda, and many, many other genocidal hot-beds around the globe. If we were reeeeally concerned about people in other countries we'd be doing a lot more about slave trading, poverty, tsunami victims, and hunger in third world countries. If we were reeeeally concerned about people in other countries we wouldn't have cut off funding for health clinics just because they involve planned parenthood. You know... those same clinics which provide invaluable treatment for Aids and Breast Cancer prevention & screening.

Our interest is oil, of course. They have oil, and we have gas-guzzling vehicles and homes to heat.

What would happen if we pulled out?

Of course this is one of those $64,000 questions. Why don't we just pull all our troops out of the region? Some say that would throw the region into chaos (or KAOS if you're a 'Get Smart' fan). Civil war would break out! Oh Noooooo!!!!

Let's face it.... The region is ALREADY in chaos, and civil war has ALREADY broken out. The American presence only makes things worse, gets a lot of our children killed, and fuels anti-American hatred.

Our best bet is to pull our troops out of this region and let the dust settle. We could be building our homeland security infrastructure while this civil war is taking its course, the centerpiece of which would be the development of alternative & renewable sources of energy so that we're not so dependent on foreign oil. And with all those troops coming home we could secure our borders and inspect all cargo entering at our ports.

With all the money we'd save by not having to fuel unnecessary wars, we could actually provide healthcare for our veterans, elderly, and children. We could actually fund 'No Child Left Behind', after school programs, and college tuition assistance. With all the money we'd save by not having to fuel unnecessary wars, we could legitimately lower taxes withOUT ballooning the national debt.

And... in the process... we might even STOP pissing off the rest of the world.

Did The Holocaust Really Happen?

2006-12-14T11:44:00.000-05:00

I’m a huge fan of free speech. It’s the very first amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America and for very good reason. When our forefathers were seceding from England in the 1700’s, and laying down a foundation of self-governance, they felt it was paramount to provide protection for dissent. Theoretically, all people should have the right say what they want, without fear of retribution. In reality however, there are always limits and constraints. As they say - “Free speech doesn’t give you the right to yell ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater”. The question is always one of balance… ‘Where do you draw the line?’

Mahmoud mouths off

In this article from CNN, the President of Iran held a conference in his own country, questioning the validity of the Holocaust. Here’s a small tidbit:

“His words received warm applause from delegates at the Holocaust conference… [snip]… who argue the Holocaust was either fabricated or exaggerated.”

Even though Iran is one of the “…worst violators of free speech…”, I’ll still defend his prerogative to make whatever comments he wishes, simply in the spirit of protecting the freedom of speech for ALL mankind, both foreign & domestic. It’s unfortunate & pathetic however, that the leader of a country couldn’t set a better example than to spew hate-filled, provocative, inciting, and destructive rhetoric. Then again, when it comes to setting examples, I guess our own leader pretty much takes the cake.

In that same spirit of free speech, I give myself the prerogative to dissent to his comments…

My take on history

I’ve always believed that ‘truth’ and ‘facts’ are nebulous things. Each of us has our own version of truth & reality, and it really all comes down to beliefs. What do you believe to be real?

When it comes to history we have a number of sources that paint a picture of what really happened, a.k.a. the official account. While many of those accounts take the form of audio & video evidence, all accounts from before the advent of that technology are solely eyewitness depictions, documented as best as possible. Whether it’s from books/articles published or scribbling on cave walls, the bulk of the earth people’s history beyond 100 years is known through other people’s eyes. And don’t forget - each person sees things through their own perspective and hence their own filters.

Let’s take the Bible, for example. I think that the Bible consists of a collection of stories which have to be taken ‘with a grain of salt’ per se. I think it’s possible that some of the stories may have some roots in realism, but I also think that we can’t rely on all of them as absolute fact. Let’s face it – the stories of Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, and Noah & the ark are little more than fairy tales. I’ve always believed that these stories are largely vehicles for teaching our children righteous values.

The persecution of Jews is genuine

On the other hand, there are some things we can genuinely glean from the multitude of Bible scriptures. One of those gleanings is that Jews have been persecuted for generations. And even if you didn’t believe the Bible stories of being enslaved in Egypt (Passover & the book of Exodus) and the like, the persecution of Jews from the Holocaust is thoroughly documented with evidence well beyond eyewitness accounts. And the plethora of eyewitness accounts, some people still alive to this day, is utterly overwhelming.

One such account is the true story by Elie Wiesel entitled ‘Night’, a non-fiction account of his survival of the German concentration camps. And if that doesn’t completely affect you, then this will… As a child in religious school I saw a very disturbing documentary called ‘Night And Fog’, which depicted actual accounts of the Auschwitz concentration camp. The film was in black & white with actual footage. Seeing the thousands of bodies being bulldozed into mass graves is scarier than any horror film. When you’re watching Freddy, Jason, or Chucky mutilate some teenager, you can convince yourself it’s only a movie. This film was made in 1955 and it’s very, very real.

Jews aren’t the only ones persecuted

I don’t want to diminish or belittle the persecution of other races & cultures. In fact I’d go so far as to say that Jews, in this day & age, are not nearly as persecuted as some other peoples. While Jews continue to experience some measure of Anti-Semitism, I think the Jews and Israel have at least reached the point of being defensible. The Israeli military is widely respected as one of the most skilled and capable in the world. Much to Ahmadinejad’s delirious prediction, Israel isn’t going anywhere and the “Zionist regime” will never be “wiped out”.

On the other hand there are complete races/cultures of peoples who continue to suffer the hatefulness of genocide. My heart goes out to the people of Darfur. Over two years ago I remember (then Secretary of State) Colin Powell saying that there was genocide going on in Sudan. Two years later the Bush Administration continues to ignore the problem. Not everyone has, however. Yes, it’s the American Jewish World Service which founded the “Save Darfur Coalition” as a measure of “…coordinating like-minded humanitarian & advocacy organizations”. I urge my readers to follow the link above and see what American Jews are doing in this effort. Here's one snippet from that web page:

“As Jews, we have a particular moral responsibility to speak out and take action against genocide. We must respond and save as many lives as we can.”

So, what have we learned?

Well, first of all we’ve learned that the President of Iran - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in typical Iranian fashion, is ignorantly hateful of Israel. He’s clearly delirious to think that Israel, with or without the support of the US, wouldn’t be able to defend itself.

We learned that the Holocaust isn’t a myth – it really did happen – and there are literally millions of descendants with millions of dead ancestors to prove it.

We learned that there continues to be genocidal killing going on in various parts of the world.

And, we also learned that American Jews are taking the lead in addressing the genocide in Darfur.

Will Bush Listen? Do Pigs Fly?

2006-12-08T16:37:00.000-05:00

So here we are closing out 2006 after two glorious years into George W. Bush's second term as President & Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America. Kudos to those red states and Republican strongholds who worked tirelessly to defame that tyrant John Kerry attempting to unseat our beloved leader. "Thank God we have George Bush as president" Rudy Giuliani said at the RNC convention, recalling the days immediately following 9/11/01. Yes, we have a leader who's resolute and unwavering! We have a leader who stands on principle! We have a leader who will continue to believe on Thursday, the same thing he believed on Tuesday, no matter what happened on Wednesday (thank you, Stephen Colbert).

Okay... enough of that crap...

Newsweek’s Question

Newsweek posed the question, “Will Bush Listen?” in their latest issue. After maliciously, ignorantly, and arrogantly attacking a sovereign nation on fabricated premises, the Bush neo-con cabal has been "resolute" on "staying the course" in Iraq, thus keeping our troops in harm's way with targets on their backs, caught in the middle between warring ethnic, cultural, & religious factions. Our foreign policy has been so misguided, and so errant, and so out of step with mainstream American values, that it took a mid-term election to send our president a clear message for a change-of-direction. Along with that referendum from the majority in this country are a number of other sources with a similar message of course correction, not the least of which is the Iraq Study Group headed up by daddy’s man – James Baker.

But when the Democrats take control of Congress on January 4th, the President, until & unless he's impeached, will continue to set America's foreign policy. Will George W. Bush listen to these urges for tweaking foreign policy? Or, will he ignore them and continue to "stay the course"? Or, perhaps he'll listen to John McCain & Lindsey Graham and make the situation worse by throwing more fuel on the fire (i.e. sending in thousands more troops)?

Victory for the Legacy

Is Dubya so concerned about his legacy that he needs to “stay the course” so he can declare victory and not be blamed for a(nother) failure? After all, changing the course would effectively be an admission that he made a mistake. Since he keeps talking about “victory” I can only assume he hasn’t listened to everyone in the world telling him that any chance for “victory” vanished with the WMD’s.

George W. Bush still thinks our mission in Iraq is to train the Iraqi military & police to protect & secure the country. I guess he hasn't been reading the blogs, and he certainly doesn't listen to Air America. If he did he might realize there's a horrific civil war going on in Iraq and that our troops are caught in the middle of it. He might also realize that we've just been training one faction of Iraqis to kill another. He might also realize that everything we've done, every decision we've made, and every action we've taken in Iraq has been wrong, has irritated the situation, and has caused more death & destruction then Sadaam ever could. But the Iraqi people can take solace that freedom and democracy are on the march! Gee, I can't wait to liberate Iran.

So, to answer your question Newsweek…

No, George W. Bush will not listen. He doesn't have the mental capacity to listen. He doesn't have the wherewithal to accept feedback, criticism, or competing ideas. He doesn't have the aptitude to analyze conflicting alternatives and make intelligent decisions. He doesn't possess the intellectual prowess to understand the history, complexities, issues, & personalities. He doesn't have the patience & fortitude to use diplomacy and negotiate with foreign leaders who AREN'T kissing his ass for aid & recognition. Instead, his policy is to simply overthrow unfriendly regimes. He is pure arrogance. He might SAY he'll listen, but we can't just take him at his word. We need to watch his actions, because we already know he's a pathological liar.

Even though everyone in the world is talking re-deployment (with the exception of McCain & Graham), my guess is that George has no intention of withdrawing our children from the heat of the crossfire. He still thinks Iraq will become a haven for terrorists from which they will attack America. As if there weren't already enough hot spots in the Middle East for recruiting and training America-hating mercenaries.

Yes, this is the 'leader' who we allowed to steal the 2004 election to extend this dark period for 4 more looooong years. This is the 'leader' who bankrupted our treasury, demolished our constitution, and allowed big business to write all its own toothless legislation. This is the 'leader' who abandoned Afghanistan to attack & occupy Iraq under false pretenses, and now both countries are in peril more so than ever.

The Epitome of 'The Peter Principle'

George W. Bush has managed to fail his way through every endeavor he's undertaken, yet he's continued to ascend to larger, and certainly more critical, roles & responsibilities. After failing at each of his business ventures (and then getting bailed out by daddy's friends), and after screwing everything up in Texas as governor (I highly recommend Molly Ivin's astonishing account in 'Bushwhacked'), he's spent the last 6 years dragging not just our country, but the entire world, down the toilet. ‘Listening’ to the Baker-Hamilton commission (the Iraq Study Group) would basically insinuate that daddy’s friends are bailing him out again.

Sure George - don't bother listening to the experts or the American people. Just keep on sending our children into harm’s way, escalating the ‘nookular’ arms race, and provoking foreign dictators. Just keep on contributing to global warming, ignoring presidential daily briefings, and ballooning the national debt. Surround yourself with 'Yes Men' who tell you what you want to hear, validate the decisions you and your neo-con cabal have already made, and then fix the intelligence around your policy.

George W. Bush is “The Decider”. He’s not “The Listener”.

John McCain Just Doesn't Get It

2006-12-01T09:38:00.000-05:00

Now that we've made it through the mid-term election cycle it's time to start thinking about the 2008 presidential election. Over the next two months, and particularly after the New Year, you're going to see a flurry of activity in this area. Whether it's prospective candidates declaring their intentions, or just pundits speculating, everyone's words and actions will be under the microscope if they have any inclination of seeking the top office. On the Republican side there is already a frontrunner who deserves special mention - Sen. John McCain.

He Knows War

Having spent upwards of 5 years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, John McCain has earned special attention. While his voice in matters of war and torture carry a special weight, lately I've found his perspective disturbing.

John McCain initially stood up to President Bush on the use of torture. He championed against the use of torture and breaking from the Geneva Convention, until it finally came before the US Congress. Then, in a surprising move, he succumbed to Executive pressure and settled for something well below his principled stand. The 'Military Commissions Act' was subsequently enacted, effectively negating the bulk of what McCain stood for. Did John McCain sell his soul to the devil (GOP base) to get his ass into the White House in '09?

He Knows Smear

In the run up to the 2000 election, Bush & Rove threw John McCain under the bus with their patented dirty trickery. Karl Rove perfected the 'Push Poll' technique of calling voters under the guise of a survey and asking how they felt about McCain if they knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child. Of course the object was not to collect data, but to smear a war hero. Rove continued to employ various smear techniques on other war heroes as well (Sen. Max Cleland and Sen. John Kerry).

What I find truly astonishing is that even after Bush & Rove utterly decimated McCain in 2000, he came back in the 2004 election and supported Bush for reelection, even after turning down an opportunity to run with Kerry as Vice President on what would've been an historic bi-partisan ticket. A Kerry-McCain team would've defeated Bush-Cheney handily and poised McCain for his own presidential bid in 2012. Instead, he chose to toe the party line in an effort to posture himself for 2008.

He Knows MORE War

Even more disturbing is John McCain's posture on the conflict in Iraq. It seems that just about everyone in the country got the message from the 2006 election - that we need to redeploy our troops, instead of continuing to be caught in the middle of this civil war. Just about everyone in the country knows that we shouldn't have precipitated this conflict in the first place, and our being there as an occupying force continues to deteriorate the situation. Just about everyone has the common sense to realize that we're not going to fix this problem on a military basis. Just about everyone knows there are complexities and intricacies way beyond the scope & handling by military might. Just about everyone knows about the deceit, pilfering, & squandering of the Iraq reconstruction projects which have added to Iraqis animosity of the United States.

Just about everyone except for two people... George W. Bush, who arrogantly insists on "staying the course" because he won't admit he made a mistake, and John McCain who thinks that the answer lies in sending in MORE troops. I'm assuming that he feels the U.S. can control the region under Martial Law with a massive force of strength. And once the country is stabilized, then law & order & Democracy can simply take its course. Just like that. And if I believed that, I'd probably also believe that Britney Spears will win Mother-of-the-Year, Wife-of-the-Year, AND Entertainer-of-the-Year all in the same year!

Clearly, Mr. McCain just doesn’t get it. He thinks (just like Bush) that setting a deadline (i.e. timetable) sends a ‘wait-it-out’ message to our enemies. This is the argument that Bush has been using to keep us in Iraq... indefinately. However, the message a deadline/timetable would REALLY send to the Iraqi people is that we don't intend to forever occupy THEIR country. As long as we're there, we're targets.

If we elect John McCain in ’08, it’ll be more of the same – staying the course and perpetuating the conflict. To some short-sighted / arrogant politicians it doesn’t really matter how many innocent people die from our mistakes, as long as the military-industrial-complex continues to thrive.

A Taste of Right-Wing Hate Mail

2006-11-20T21:49:00.000-05:00

After one of my previous articles - "More Lies: Bush Finally Comes Clean On Secret CIA Prisons" - I received some very interesting hate mail from a few readers who felt they needed to give me a piece of their minds. While almost all of the feedback I've received over the years has been from fellow progressives encouraging me to continue to voice their same ideas and concerns, for some reason this article in particular seemed to trigger a variety of right-wingnut backlash. In the spirit of Al Franken's "Hate Mail" segment on Air America, I thought it would be interesting to share this feedback with my readers, and even respond to their criticism...

#1:

Nice reporting, sport. I guess you don't do any writing for Fox News, huh?

Can you offer any valid reasons WHY the general public would have benefited from knowing about "secret" prisons? There IS something to be said for what you don't know, won't hurt you.

Maybe you should try a new writing style; one with a little tact and grace, you might get through to more intelligent people. As it is, the only idiots who believe what you have to say are the blind sheep who remain loyal to the losing party, just because they know no better.

My response:

You're right about one thing - I don't do any writing for Fox News. FNC is clearly recognized as a right-wing, conservative, Bush Administration lapdog. Their motto of "Fair & Balanced" is the biggest joke/lie in the mainstream media, as they produce a format with Bill O'Reilly & Sean Hannity slinging garbage which is rarely accurate, uniformly conservative, and almost always pro-Bush.

My issue with the secret prisons is not the fact that he kept them secret, as you seem to suggest. I'm not okay with these prisons now that they're no longer secret. The fact of the matter is that the United States has been torturing prisoners, and proudly continues to do so. I'm not okay with torturing prisoners. I don't believe that the information gleaned from tortured prisoners is necessarily accurate (one of the false justifications for the war in Iraq came from a tortured prisoner who gave them what they wanted to hear just to stop the torture), and I believe that our mistreatment of prisoners puts our own soldiers at greater risk.

As for my writing style being untactful and ungraceful - Thank You! This is exactly what I hope to hear from right-wing sheeple like yourself. Tact is for negotiators, and gracefulness is for figure-skaters. I tell it like I see it, and I pull no punches. If it hurts - too bad. Get over it.

You may not choose to believe this, but you have the intelligent people and the idiots mixed up. The intelligent people know that Sadaam Hussein and Iraq did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, and had NO connection to al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the attacks on 9/11 (perhaps you'd like to download the Senate Intelligence Committee report - 7mb pdf). It's idiots like yourself (the minority, btw) who watch Fox News and still think Sadaam Hussein was the one who attacked us on 9/11 and that the war in Iraq is justified.

#2 (copied-and-pasted unedited):

Who gives a shit if we torure a few terrorists. I dont think any real person in this country objects and for those that do, they need to be deported to Afghanistan. Stop hammering Bush and go on your merry faggot ways and get some other folks killed by the terrorists. Personally as a Verteran I find your writings disgusting, uneducated and you are obviously morally confused. Just my opinion of course. I am a network engineer with two masters degrees and have seen much of the world. Apparently you didnt pick up the body parts of a loved one on Sep 11th. And if ou did and still have the veiws you do , Check yourself in to the nearest State hospital.

My Response:

I think one of the biggest differences between you and me is that I DO give a shit. (btw.. for a guy with two masters degrees, I'm surprised you never learned how to use a spellchecker.)

How can we be sure that the people renditioned to secret 'black site' prisons, for extraordinary torture, are all terrorists? Isn't this type of brutality the same reason we labeled Sadaam a vicious dictator? You assume & accept that the Bush Administration is telling the truth, and you trust them. I, on the other hand, have watched the Bush Administration very closely over the last 6 years, and have seen them lie to us repeatedly and consistently. I don't trust them... at all. That's why I'm a big fan of oversight, transparency, and checks-&-balances in our government. These are the things that the Bush Administration has mutilated. These are the unspoken casualties of war.

But there's a lot more to it than that. I care very deeply about how people are treated. I care very strongly about our Constitution and how our country was built on a foundation of rights, protections, and tolerance for diversity. And, I care unequivocally about the truth, and that the people who we elect to positions of responsibility, tell us the truth with unmitigated honesty. The Bush Administration has rarely been honest with the American people, as evidenced by the 6-year disparity between what they've said and what they've done, not to mention the multitude of documentation & evidence that has surfaced over the years debunking their claims.
Since you're a veteran, I certainly owe you a debt of gratitude. I have the utmost respect and thankfulness for our men & women in uniform who have given of themselves and put themselves at risk to protect us. Granted, I have criticized the rare occurrence of soldiers who have abused their authority (i.e. the atrocities of Haditha & Ishtaqi). However, I have also been extremely supportive of our troops while criticizing the Bush Administration and the mission.

I think it's deplorable that your fellow soldiers were sent into harm's way under fraudulent circumstances and without proper protections. I think it's deplorable that so many of your fellow soldiers have been killed and/or maimed in an effort to fuel the military-industrial-complex's greed. And, I think it's deplorable that your fellow soldiers have returned only to find that their benefits have been cut.

#3:

You are such a know it all. Why don't you join the muslim fascists and kiss up to those you love?

My Response:

I am not a Muslim, and I'm certainly no fan of fascism. In fact, I believe that the Bush Administration has brought our country perilously close to a fascist state. Yet, they've managed to label "our enemies" as "Islamic Fascists", in their patently hypocritical and paradoxical 'doublespeak'. Before you start throwing around the word 'fascist', I suggest you do a little research. I have.

As for kissing up to those I love, I hope my wife appreciates all the kissing up I can muster.

Put Impeachment Back On The Table

2006-11-16T14:25:00.000-05:00

As much as I've despised the Bush neo-conservative cabal in the White House over the past six years, I was truly taking the 'wait-and-see' approach in terms of President Bush's behavior in the post-11/7 world. I was right there with Speaker-Elect Pelosi that the new Democratic-controlled Congress should progress forward with initiatives that will help the American people, rather than bog Congress down with non-stop impeachment hearings that might make the Democrats look vindictive and possibly even risk the chances of capturing the White House in '08.

Even in my last article I was advocating a cautious approach. I was willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt - a chance to re-align himself to the mandate of the American people. I was willing to wait and see what he did when the Democrats put legislation in front of him to sign that he's habitually opposed, such as raising the minimum wage or federal spending on embryonic stem-cell research. Would he finally sharpen his veto pencil, or concede to the will of the American people?

One last big push

In the last 9 days since the election, President Bush's behavior has made it such that I must advocate for Impeachment as soon as possible. This "Special Iraq Report" from the UK's Guardian is clearly the straw that broke my camel's back (for the umpteenth time). The American people have clearly spoken that we are not in favor continuing to fuel this disgrace in Iraq, yet President Bush is now preparing to send in up to 20,000 more troops for "one last big push". The last time President Bush increased troop strength in Iraq the level of violence and the body counts all rose. Duh!!! All he did was give them more targets!

If George W. Bush had any common sense (which we know he doesn't) he would listen to all of the experts telling him that the solution to this crisis is political, not military. The solution to this crisis is to resolve the problems, not wait it out until you can declare victory, all the while laying down a blanket of divisiveness with rhetoric of "evil", "enemies", and "winning". Clearly, George W. Bush is not the man to resolve this problem. His arrogance will not allow him to change his strategy because, in his mind, that would be defeat.

No more Mr. Nice Guy for me. I say impeach this bastard (and his evil Veep) so that this world can move on! We cannot wait another 2 years.

"It was a thumpin' "

2006-11-13T09:30:00.000-05:00

President Bush's attitude at his news conference the day after a disastrous election for the Republican party was conciliatory. After six looooong years of Republican (lack of) leadership in Congress under this presidency, the people of the United States have decided to replace the rubber-stamp, echo chamber that Congress has been, with a real Congress which reflects the nation's true opinion. Here are a couple more gems from that news conference. See if you pick up on a theme...

I told my party's leaders that it is now our duty to put the elections behind us and work together with the Democrats and independents on the great issues facing this country.
{snip}
I told Congresswoman Pelosi that I look forward to working with her and her colleagues to find common ground in the next two years.
{snip}
I believe that the leaders of both political parties must try to work through our differences. And I believe we will be able to work through differences. I reassured the House and Senate leaders that I intend to work with the new Congress in a bipartisan way to address issues confronting this country.
{snip}
What's changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won. And now we're going to work together for two years to accomplish big objectives for the country.

Did you pick up on the theme? After six years in office, all of the sudden, NOOOOOOOW, the President is ready to "work together" with the Democrats in Congress. When the Democrats were in the minority, Bush couldn't care less what they thought. He basically likened them to terrorists and terrorist appeasers. The Democrats were the gum that stuck to his shoe. But NOOOOOOOW that the Democrats have a majority, he'll work with them.

Clearly George W. Bush doesn't do anything outside of his own self-interest, or the self-interest of his neo-con cabal, until he's forced to do so. And I can't thank the American people enough for restoring true oversight (checks-and-balances) back into our federal government.

A new era of oversight

I can't express enough the importance of oversight. I've written reams and volumes about this rubber-stamp Congress and Bush's unchecked power, but please indulge me in one last metaphor. Some children might recognize the saying: "You cut and I'll choose". When one last piece of pie had to be shared between two children, and there was no adult around to make sure the slice was even, that's how we handled it - "You cut, and I'll choose". This was a sure-fire way to make sure the one who sliced the pie, did so evenly. Fairly. Justly.

Perhaps the next person Bush nominates for the Supreme Court won't be a right-wing extremist. Perhaps he'll think twice about taking us into ANOTHER unjustified war (Iran or North Korea). And perhaps the decisions the Bush Administration makes over the next two years will be peppered with whether or not those decisions will prevail over the Democrat-controlled Congress. I know some things we WON'T be hearing in the next two years - "... an up-or-down vote!" and "... the Nuclear Option...".

A referendum against conservative politics

The media and the pundits are all analyzing what this election has meant to our country, our politics, and our mainstream values. Clearly this election was a referendum against the 'stay-the-course' strategy in Iraq, but I think there's a lot more behind the voting results. I believe this election proves that our values, beliefs, and opinions are more progressive & moderate than conservative. I believe this election proves that the Republican party has shifted too far to the 'right'. I believe this election proves that the Bush Administration's policies and all their happy talk are not cutting it for middle class. And I believe that the people in this country are fed up with the corruption in our government. This election has been a cleansing exercise. The lawmakers associated with Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, and the culture of corruption are not invited back to the table.

Hurry up and get it done

As a sign of how much disdain George W. Bush has for the new Democratic majority, take note on his actions in the immediate aftermath of the election. Notice how he said that the next few weeks are going to be very busy. Notice how he's trying to steamroll through the initiatives he knows won't pass in the next Congress such as making his tax cuts permanent. Notice how he ALREADY steamrolled through the Torture Bill... er... The Military Commissions Act. Notice how he's trying to re-nominate John Bolton AGAIN for Ambassador to the United Nations. This is a sign of someone who clearly is not poised to 'work with' the Democrats.

The I-word

The blogoshpere is now abuzz with talk about impeachment. Even though Nancy Pelosi profoundly took impeachment "off the table", there're already discussions about investigations, hearings, and subpoenas. Believe me, no one would like to see George W. Bush booted out of office more than me. However, I wouldn't want to have Bush impeached only to be left with President Cheney. Talk about jumping from the frying pan to the fire!

The Democratic leadership is astutely proceeding in a very careful way so as to ensure the appearance that they're trying to progress. They're trying to move forward. They're trying to do their jobs, work for the benefit of the American people, and not be perceived as vindictive. They're not trying to settle a score with the man (the team) who's (mis)lead our country into an unjustified war and literally bankrupted our treasury. I commend the Democratic leadership team for their insight, their foresight, their poise and their patience.

Now that the Democrats have the majority in both houses of Congress, chair the committees, and control the legislative agenda, we'll see how President Bush reacts to the initiatives that are put in front of him to sign. I have every confidence that the Democratic-controlled Congress will be putting forth legislation to the betterment of the American people, such as raising the minimum wage, implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, lowering the interest rates on student loans, actually funding the 'No Child Left Behind' mandates, and allowing the government to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for pricing for Medicare.

If Mr. Bush now becomes the obstructionist, then I say we move forward with the Impeachment process, for both him and Vice-President Cheney. Let's see how much he's REALLY willing to 'work with' the Democratic majority. He talks a good game, but he's lied about everything else, so I have no confidence in his sincerity. Let's see if he's REALLY willing to start the troop re-deployment process from Iraq. Let's see if he's REALLY willing to submit to oversight and scrutiny. Let's see if he's REALLY willing to get warrants before wiretapping American's telephones. Let's see if he's REALLY willing to sign bills withOUT signing statements.

These next two years are gonna be fun!

And The People Have Spoken...

2006-11-08T12:04:00.000-05:00

First of all let me take the opportunity to thank everyone in the country who answered my last plea for a change in direction for the United States of America. I'm sure it was my groveling that put the Democrats over the top in Congress, so I'll take full credit for that.

Oh, who am I kidding... I had nothing to do with it. But, at least I can feel like I've spoken in the majority. The people in this country want a change in ideology, direction, and eventually leadership in the executive branch as well. The people in this country want accountability in our elected officials and real answers to the difficult questions that the Republican Congress refused to ask over the last six years. The people in this country want true checks-and-balances and Congressional oversight in our government. The people in this country are truly concerned about our economy, our environment, our veterans, our elderly, and our children. The people in this country have seen the gap between the wealthy and the middle class widen. The people in this country have paid through the nose in gasoline prices at the pump, while seeing the oil companies announce record (mind-boggling) profits. The people in this country have seen our sons & daughters getting slaughtered in Iraq for a cause that is not just. The people in this country have spoken, and we've sent a very clear message to the Bush Administration - "NO MORE!".

It's Time To Call For Election Reform

I started out on election day very, very nervous. I had heard about some of the problems leading up to election day, and then I read Greg Palast's column of "How They Stole the Mid-term Election" describing in detail about the voter fraud, voter intimidation, and the like. Keep in mind - this article was published at the beginning of election day. I thought "Great, there goes ANOTHER stolen election for the Republicans". But... I spent the whole day in denial praying that the Democratic turnout would overcome the Republican vote suppression. And that's exactly what happened.

At this juncture, even though the Democrats successfully overcame the Rovian tactics and election fraud, I'm still calling for election reform. I think it would be hypocritical to "cut-and-run" from this issue which is so important to our democracy. Sure - Democrats out-voted the Republicans PLUS their dirty election trickery this time, but that doesn't excuse the dirty election trickery. So, here's my proposal for election reform:

NO election official should have a partisan affiliation. Some of my most satisfying moments in Tuesday night's election were seeing BOTH Kenneth Blackwell AND Katherine Harris go down in embarrassing defeat. There's a clear message here - that the people of this country want a fair electoral process, and even the appearance or perception of partisanship by an election official is unacceptable.
Same-day registration should be a Federal law. This is a carry-over from the last three elections where a multitude of evidence suggests (albeit 'proves') that there was a massive effort to suppress votes by deliberately mishandling the registrations. If the voter can prove citizenship & residence, they should be able to register and vote all in one fell swoop.
Election day should be a federal holiday. Along with that, let's take it a few steps further. I would advocate for more standardization in election mechanisms and infrastructure. For example, the allocation of voting machines based on the quantity of registered voters should be uniform to prevent long lines in less-affluent districts, etc.
There should be NO tolerance for dirty election trickery. The examples that come to mind are the massive reports of robo-calling to annoy voters, phone bank jamming, and the distribution of messages that the election was on a different day or different location, or that the voter would be arrested at the polls because they were supposedly registered in a different state, or that they didn't have to vote because they voted in the primaries. Will the people responsible for these slimy election tactics ever be brought to justice? Yeah, right.
ALL voting machines MUST be verifiable. NO voting machine should exist that records the vote and doesn't provide a paper receipt. All paper receipts should be retained as an audit trail to verify that machine's votes, should the totals be vastly different from the exit poll results in a close race.
REAL Campaign Finance Reform. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act didn't even scratch the surface of how corrupt this system was and still is. Elections need to be publicly financed in order to ensure fairness and remove obligations between lawmakers and special interests.

My hope

My point is that we should not turn our backs on election reform now that we happen to win one election. The problem exists and will continue to exist in 2008 if we don't do something about it. My hope is that the Democrats in control don't fall into that majority party pitfall of corruption, fixing elections, and dirty tactics. My hope is that the Democrats in control will work to unite our country to progress forward for the betterment of all, instead of constantly dividing us against each other. My hope is that the Democrats in control will reach out to our international allies with an outstretched arm of cooperation and partnership, instead of a folded arms posture of arrogance and imperialism. My hope is that the Democrats in control will reign in the unbridled war-profiteering and privatization of our military.

I'm absolutely giddy with excitement after last night's election results. But the fight is not over. It's just gone into high gear.

One Last Plea For Change

2006-11-06T00:21:00.000-05:00

On the eve of this mid-term election, I’m getting on my knees and begging all my readers (and then some) to go to the polls tomorrow and vote to change the direction of this country. Yes, that’s what it ultimately comes down to – either your support the direction and policies of the Bush Administration, or you don’t. If you don’t, you MUST cast your vote for the Democrat on your ballot.

Just in case you’re ambivalent about the direction the Bush Administration has taken our country, let’s have with a short review, shall we...

Iraq

Clearly, this is one of the Bush Administrations biggest failures, in every sense of the word. From the very beginning, well before the initial attack in March of 2003, right up until present day, this venture/project/conquest/invasion/debacle/quagmire has been screwed up in every way imaginable. Volumes have been written on just this subject alone, so I won’t even attempt to speak from authority or experience. However, those who do have the knowledge and experience have clearly spoken their minds with clarity and consistency.

Worse than the way the post-invasion was handled, in my opinion, was the justification for going to war in the first place. The Bush minions sold us on the danger of Sadaam Hussein & his infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction, and scared us into believing that “… the smoking gun [might be a] mushroom cloud…”. The operative question in this is whether the Bush Administration was provided faulty intelligence or they fabricated the faulty intelligence. Those of us who’ve been paying attention know that the myriad of evidence turned up since the post-invasion period, have pointed to the very real fact, that the Bush Administration deliberately fabricated the intelligence to draw us into this disaster of disasters.

Hurricane Katrina

What started out as a natural disaster turned into a very unnatural catastrophe as Bush and his government’s response to this disaster was utterly catastrophic. In the process much was learned by the ignorant among us. Those of us paying attention over the last 6 years have been keen to the loyalty-based, conflict-of-interest, under-qualified appoints Bush made to positions of responsibility in his administration (though Brownie did a heckuva job). We’ve been keen to Bush's disdain for the middle class and working class Americans in this country. We’ve been keen to Bush's leadership style of do-nothing, ignore, deny and avert accepting responsibility. And, we’ve been keen to George W. Bush’s hypocrisy, lying, arrogance, and lack of sound judgment. Bush’s reaction to this difficult period in American history was a classic revelation of his character. But like I said – those of us who HAVE been paying attention were not surprised.

The United States Constitution & Bill of Rights

This was the last straw for me. It was bad enough that Bush was deregulating every industry and letting big business write its own legislation. It was bad enough that Bush pulled the US out of every significant treaty and pissed off so many international leaders so as to single-handedly escalate the nuclear arms race. It was bad enough that Bush gave outrageous tax breaks to rich people and unruly corporations so as to balloon the deficit and national debt and literally bankrupt our treasury. But, when he started f**king with the Constitution and knowingly breaking the law, I just lost it.

Between the torturing of detainees, the warrant-less wiretapping of phone calls & electronic communication, the decimation of Habeas Corpus, the No-fly list, the USA Patriot Act, and the theft of both the 2000 & 2004 elections, we truly live in fear in this country. However, the ones we fear are not the terrorists. It’s not Osama or al Qaeda. No. We fear our own government. We fear for our children’s future in a country which will be forever re-paying for the greed of this administration. We fear about paying for our children’s education, filling our gas tanks, trying to make ends meet, and honoring our obligations. We fear about breathing clean air, climate change, and the future of our planet. We fear about our jobs, our careers, and staying gainfully employed in the wake of the devastating recession of 2001/2. We fear about traveling abroad knowing that so many people in so many countries despise us. We fear that our sons & daughters in the military may not come home to us because our government carelessly put them into harm’s way out of greed & arrogance, and without sufficient equipment, training, preparation, planning, & justification.

The United States Constitution is THE most important thing in our country. It’s more important then any of the people or artifacts. It’s more important then any of the buildings or monuments. It’s more important then any of the religious icons. Simply put, the Constitution is absolutely paramount because it defines our way of life. It’s what our ancestors and predecessors have been fighting and dying for for hundreds of years. It’s the reason that we SHOULDN’T live in fear, because it provides us rights & protections from our government.

I certainly don’t mean to belittle the tragedy of September 11, 2001. Without a doubt the loss of nearly 3000 people and the subsequent damage to the property and health of those involved in the aftermath is not to be taken lightly. Furthermore, it is certainly important that we as a country act on this vicious attack and punish those responsible. And, it’s important that we protect ourselves from future & further attacks by those who would want to harm us.

However, none of that is as important as our Constitution. No action should be taken (or should have been taken), in the wake or aftermath of September 11, 2001, to undermine or roll back any rights or protections afforded to our citizens by the Constitution of the United States. Too many people have died for it, and we’ve worked too hard to evolve it to where it is now, or at least where it was before the Bush regime declared war on it.

In conclusion

As my mother-in-law always used to say - "So there you have it". There you have your choice. Either we stay the course, not just in Iraq, but in the way this country has been run (into the gutter), OR we send the message that we want a different direction for our country. Either we're happy with the decisions this decider has been making, OR we put checks-&-balances back into the Federal government. Either we continue to give Bush and his cabal of neo-conservative extremists a blank check to rape our country (and several others), or we pull in the reigns of oversight.

Binary Thinking – Another Reason To Oust The Republican Majority

2006-11-01T15:15:00.000-05:00

As I was listening to The Young Turks interview with Ari Melber of 'The Nation' Tuesday morning, there was one phrase that really jumped out at me. He referred to Bush's "binary thinking" as one of the major reasons why his own base has abandoned him.

At the same time I was recalling Monday night's episode of "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart - not the scripted content, but the finale of clips as the show ended just before transitioning to "The Colbert Report". There were 3 very brief clips from Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Bill O'Reilly, and Lynne Cheney, all parroting the exact same Republican talking point:

"Don't you want to win the war on terror?"

And then I thought back to the myriad of President Bush's speeches over the last five years talking about winning and losing the "War on Terror".

This ideological method of 'binary thinking' is precisely what's wrong with the neo-conservatives in Washington today. These asinine hacks think of our national defense in terms of winning and losing, and have NO idea how to behave in the global arena. Why does everything have to be so black-&-white? "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists!" Bush declared days after September 11, 2001.

Of course... I'm not 'with' the terrorists, but I'm certainly not 'with' George W. Bush either. He manipulated/fabricated intelligence and maliciously lied our country into an unprovoked, pre-emptive war against a small defenseless nation. In the 3 1/2 years following that war, as he's occupied that nation, he's botched every facet of the project to make his military-industrial-complex friends rich, and the United States of America bankrupt. In the process he's made us much less safe, and "our enemies" much more emboldened. He has destroyed our international reputation, and our constitutional rights. And that's just for starters.

The world is not all black-&-white, Mr. Bush. A true leader must look at problems with vision, selflessness, and long-term outlook. A true leader must approach issues with insight and openness. A true leader must listen to arguments on all sides and make decisions that actually resolve the problems. A true leader communicates in such a way that factions aren't offended, embarrassed, angered, ashamed, scorned, or betrayed. A true leader resolves conflicts so that all sides feel like winners. A true leader has integrity. You Mr. Bush, are the farthest thing from a true leader.

It's a tool

The neo-con catch-phrase of "winning the war on terror" is simply a tool. It's nothing but propaganda. It's a tool used for baiting Democrats into agreeing with it so they don't come off as soft on national security. (How else would perfectly good Democrats vote against our own constitution and kill Habeas Corpus.) It's a tool used for keeping the people in our country living in fear in order to fuel the military-industrial-complex. It's a tool used for instituting new laws which go directly against our constitutional mandates and make the executive branch all powerful. It's a tool used for giving George W. Bush and his neo-con cabal a blank check to decimate our environment and alienate our allies.

Shades of Gray

This is the reason we can no longer allow George W. Bush to have a rubber-stamp Congress. It's much too dangerous, and downright psychopathic, to think of the world in black-&-white terms. This is the reason we're still occupying Iraq and we'll continue to occupy Iraq for the foreseeable future – because George W. Bush can't exit Iraq without 'winning'. He has hung his presidency and his legacy on it. The problem is - there's no way to 'win' an occupation. Yet, George W. Bush arrogantly thinks of our occupation of Iraq as a matter of winning or losing. Occupations are not that kind of game. You can't just run out the clock and declare victory because we have more points. No country likes to be occupied by another, and the Iraqi people will fight 'till their last dying breath to defend their country, just as we would (just as we DID in the 1770's). The sooner our leaders in Washington realize this, the sooner we can bring our troops home and give Iraq back to the Iraqis.

Peace is not about winning and losing. Peace is not a 'black-&-white' issue. It's all shades of gray. Peace is about diplomacy, leadership, partnership, trust, and alliances. This world is no place for binary thinkers.

Bush Changes His Rhetoric, But Continues To Ignore The Genocide

2006-10-27T10:33:00.000-05:00

As I sat down to write my column for the week, I looked back at what the big news stories were this week. Sure, there were more Republican sex scandals & corruption that surfaced, as well as Michael J. Fox's plug for candidates supporting stem-cell research along with Rush Limbaugh's asinine reaction, but it wasn’t enough to tickle me to write. Then, on Wednesday October 25th, I had the opportunity to catch President Bush’s entire press conference. This was the “We’re getting away from the ‘stay-the-course’ rhetoric” news conference.

So here we are less than two weeks before the mid-term election, and Bush is finally talking about his plan for Iraq. We all knew that ‘stay-the-course’ was not a plan – it was an excuse for not having a plan. But now the president has a plan. And what’s the plan? Victory! Winning! Defeating the enemy! Essentially Bush’s big plan for victory is to make adjustments because that’s what the enemy has done.

A lesson in project management

I’ve done my share of project management over the course of my career. One of the basics of PM is to have a timeline with milestones. Milestones act as goals that need to be achieved within a specific timeframe. Milestones act as metrics for measuring progress. Milestones act as motivators for the resources (workers) to meet their goals.

This week’s big Bush story is that the President is finally using the rhetoric of “benchmarks & timelines”. His previous ‘stay-the-course’ rhetoric was unspecific as his tagline was “when they stand up, we’ll stand down”. And without specific benchmarks (another term for milestones) all he had to do was say there was progress and spit out some numbers of Iraqi troop readiness. Of course we all know that his statistics of Iraqi troop readiness in the past were pure fabrications as his own generals debunked them almost immediately. But now he’s going to define and look for specific benchmarks of progress. Right. I'll believe that when I see it.

The wrong rhetoric

So, it’s no longer “stay-the-course”. Instead it’s “adapt to win with benchmarks & timelines”. Either way this is not the rhetoric that needed to change. What needs to change is Bush’s use of the words “Victory”, “Winning”, “Prevailing”, “Killers”, “Evil”, “Defeat”, “Enemy”, etc.

These are the words of someone who thinks in black-and-white terms. Bush thinks that all he needs to do is "win" this war, and everything will be fine. But this war is NOT about winning or losing. This war is about fixing a problem that WE created. These people are NOT our enemies. They’re people who live in the country that WE invaded and now occupy. The sooner Bush stops thinking of this problem in terms of winning & losing, and stops thinking of Iraqis as enemies & adversaries, the sooner this conflict can move on to diplomacy, negotiation, treaties, and peace.

What is actually happening?

Granted, I’m not directly in touch with the “generals on the ground” in Iraq like the President is. I don’t have debriefings with General Casey and hear second-hand about what’s happening. But, I can still see what’s happening. And what I see happening is that many of the very same Iraqi troops we’ve trained are now acting as rogue Shiite militias and killing as many Sunni’s as they can find. So, let’s think about this. We have one religious/ethnic faction brutally killing another, strictly because of their religiousness/ethnicity. Gee, that sounds like genocide to me.

And speaking of genocide, what has President Bush done about Darfur? If I recall, it was at least two years ago that then Secretary of State Powell said that there was genocide going on there. We’re talking numbers in the hundreds of thousands, either killed or displaced from their homes. Has the Bush Administration even lifted a finger to do anything about this? Nooooooo! But they’re awfully quick to blame President Clinton about Kosovo. Why aren’t we blaming Bush for his inaction in Darfur?

Conclusion

And there you have it. Today in the 21st century, right under our very noses, genocide is happening. Entire races of peoples are under attack, and one of those attacks is happening in the very same country George invaded & now occupies, by the very same troops he’s trained.

After nearly six years Bush still hasn’t learned that he’s not part of the solution – he’s part of the problem.

Iraq for Sale - Another Referendum Against Republican Control

2006-10-19T08:08:00.000-05:00

I had the opportunity to catch this new documentary this week. Like "Fahrenheit 911" and "An Inconvenient Truth", this is another film that every American should see. It's an exposé on the egregious and gratuitous privatization of America's effort in Iraq, collating the hypocrisy, fraud, waste, corruption, & mismanagement under the Bush Military-Industrial-Complex ... er... Administration.

What I COULD talk about...

There has been plenty written about this documentary already, so I'm not going to simply give a review. Arianna Huffington's blog has a particularly good synopsis. My readers know that when it comes to a particular issue/scandal/story, I like to attack a specific angle.

I could talk about how the private contractors in Iraq are earning far greater wages and living far more lavishly than our own troops. This is a microcosm proving the relationship between accountability and benefits in the Bush Administration is inversely proportionate.
I could talk about Halliburton's KBR subsidiary grossly overcharging for their services, coupled with their failure to provide them sufficiently (some of these accounts are astonishing).
I could talk about the animosity built up by the Iraqi people because the jobs and contracts are going to American companies instead of Iraq companies, leaving them with unemployment rates in the 30's. Gee... what's an out-of-work Iraqi to do?
I could talk about the conflict-of-interest in Dick Cheney's Halliburton (yes, he's still receiving compensation) and the fact that Halliburton received no-bid, multi-billion dollar contracts. Why let pesky competition get in the way of free enterprise?

But I don't want to talk about those... heh, heh, heh

And now for MY angle

Quite frankly, the war profiteering in Iraq is not news. It's been going on since the conquest started in March of 2003. Nothing is new. Nothing has changed. And those of us who HAVE been paying attention were not surprised by this film's content. Those of us who have been paying attention know that this same profiteering is also going on in the Gulf coast following Hurricane Katrina. Those of us who have been paying attention know that this same profiteering has been going on from the moment George W. Bush stepped into the White House and handed the keys over to the big business interests by deregulating every industry, nominating lobbyists from the industries to positions of oversight of those industries, and de-funding the teeth out of governmental protection agencies.

What I really wanted to call attention to is the fact that it's the rubber-stamp, Republican-controlled Congress which has allowed the Bush Administration to get away with all of this. Not only have they completely backed Bush in almost every dirty, sleazy, slimy, power-grabbing move he's made (except privatizing Social Security, of course), but they've also thwarted every effort the Democrats have attempted to add oversight to the process.

This is the two minutes of "Iraq for Sale" that bothered me the most - footage of Democrats raising amendments to the war appropriations bill to investigate the profiteering & oversee the contract bidding process, and they were shot down by the Republican majority, largely along party lines. SIX YEARS - NO ACCOUNTABILITY. This is the message that really needs to get out.

My soapbox moment

Ladies & gentlemen, this is the reason to vote Democratic on November 7th. This is the best reason to shift Congress over to the Democratic Party: to restore checks-&-balances in our government. The first six years of this Bush Administration have been unchecked and unbalanced. There has been NO legislative oversight and there is so much evidence and reason to believe that our world is so much more damaged under the Bush Administration and Republican control.

We live in fear. We live in fear from terrorists. Terrorists - both foreign and domestic. Terrorists - both Muslim and American. Terrorists - both Middle Eastern and Washingtonian. After falling asleep at the wheel and allowing 9/11 to happen, the Bush Administration has gone on a campaign to alienate our allies, escalate the arms race, and deteriorate the very fabric of our democracy - the freedoms, liberties, & rights afforded to us by our Constitution & Bill of Rights. And through it all, the rubber-stamp Republican-controlled Congress has allowed it to happen, because of the lack of balance in our government.

Our only chance to fix this problem is on November 7th. Otherwise, it's two more years of the same.

Trying to Understand the North Korean Nookular Crisis

2006-10-12T22:32:00.000-05:00

This whole North Korean thing puzzles me. I'm watching the news, reading the blogs, and trying to follow along with what's been going on, but some things just don't make sense. So, let me try to reset things with a bulleted timeline:

During the 8 years of peace & prosperity of the Clinton Administration, there were direct talks & negotiations with North Korea. Although prominent Republicans such as John McCain tried to blame Clinton, this Slate article clearly debunks those typical Republican-blame-Clinton-for-everything lies.
December, 2000 - George W. Bush is appointed to the US presidency by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.
January to September, 2001 - President George W. Bush does everything he can to negate any progress Clinton had made on terrorism and international ally-building. He completely ignores mounting evidence of an impending terrorist attack, and goes on vacation for the entire month of August.
September 11, 2001 - The United States is attacked. President George W. Bush continues to read "My Pet Goat" with a class of schoolchildren for 7 minutes after being informed of the 2nd plane flying into the World Trade Center. Then, he cuts-and-runs for some shelter until the coast is clear.
Fall & Winter of 2001/2 - President George W. Bush wakes up from his deep sleep of ignoring national security and starts espousing patriotic & retaliatory rhetoric. In the process he offends North Korea by lumping them with Iran & Iraq as the "Axis of Evil".
(Timeline unclear) - President George W. Bush refuses to hold direct talks with North Korea. Instead, he decides to put all his marbles in the 6-nation strategy, trying to get Russia, China, Japan, & South Korea to do the hard work. He also decides not to honor the agreed framework that was negotiated between the US and North Korea. I thought this snippet from the Slate article was particularly interesting:
"...when President George W. Bush entered the White House in January 2001, he made it clear, right off, that the Agreed Framework was dead and that he had no interest in further talks with the North Korean regime; his view was that you don't negotiate with evil, you defeat it or wait for it to crumble...."
(Continued) - Kim Jong Il is offended. He kicks the noocular inspectors out of his country, and proceeds with his noocular defense program.
(Continued) - George W. Bush is offended. He starts imposing sanctions against North Korea. For some reason Bush thinks that pissing off countries is the way to get them to kowtow to his will. Call it Bush's usual cowboy diplomacy.
March, 2003 - President George W. Bush launches a pre-emptive attack on Iraq, supposedly because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction (some noocular). Later, after WMD's were not found, he changed his rationale to, amongst many things, that of spreading Democracy.
(Continued) - Kim Jong Il, the dictator of a communist nation in the process of nurturing a noocular weapons program, plows right ahead with that program for fear of Bush invading HIS country too.

Does that pretty-much tell the story in a nutshell? Gee... it sounds to me like George W. Bush is the one who screwed this whole thing up. It sounds to me like it's George W. Bush's heavy-handed, imperialistic, arrogant foreign policy that has escalated this arms race. It seems to me like George W. Bush's complete disdain for foreign leaders and cultures has brought us to where we are now - in a world that is utterly less safe and more volatile - then when he took over the presidency of the United States. Yet he and his cohorts never pass up an opportunity to blame Clinton, when time and time again it's just not Clinton's fault.

And what about the latest test?

All I've heard in the media is the whole world's harsh reaction to North Korea's test of their noocular program. So, I'll play "the devil's advocate" for a minute. Let's approach this from a purely logical perspective. Like a Vulcan (call me Spock), purely logical with NO emotion:

The test was underground and no one was harmed as far as we know
Seven or eight other countries in the world possess noocular weapons, including US. Is it not hypocritical of us to say to North Korea they can't have them? Didn't we just give a green light and a whole lot of technology to India?
Seems to me that the bigger issue is that of trust. We don't really trust Kim Jong Il with noocular weapons. However, when it comes to trust, it's George W. Bush whom I trust the least. After all, he's never been honest, he's completely screwed up everything he's ever touched, and he's made every attempt to undermine the United States Constitution and every international treaty.
Does not North Korea's prospective possession of noocular weapons act successfully as a deterrent to US attacking them? Clearly, George wouldn't attack North Korea and risk an all out noocular war. Or would he? I suppose that would bring the Rapture that much closer - yet another reason not to trust George W. Bush.

I'm not saying that I'm comfortable with rogue nations possessing 'the bomb'. What I am saying however, is that I'm a big believer in a balance of power. Following the end of 'the Cold War' there was a huge IMbalance of power in this world, and certain power-hungry assholes in the conservative movement (the Project for the New American Century) saw that void as an opportunity to seize world-wide dominance (i.e. American Imperialism).

And that brings us to where we are today - arguably a world wide mess. I believe that if Iraq truly possessed noocular weapons in 2003, and if George W. Bush truly believed that, then he would not have risked the pre-emptive attack and a potential noocular war. That would've been many times more catastrophic then what we have now. And with North Korea sitting on the 4th largest military in the world and the potential of noocular armament, perhaps George will think twice before 'liberating' that country too. Then again, there's no oil there, so that was never really a consideration. Too bad Kim Jong Il doesn't realize that.

The next step - Sanctions

What our dear leaders fail to understand is that sanctions against rogue nations do not succeed in manipulating that nation. What it succeeds in accomplishing is denigrating that nation and making their citizens even more impoverished then they were before the sanctions. Bush's ignore-and-slap approach, as it has in the past 6 years, will only raise tensions and escalate the arms race. It will not solve this crisis.

Foleygate Analyzed - The Conservative Response & Reaction

2006-10-06T12:24:00.000-05:00

I so much wanted to talk about Bob Woodward's new book and the continued exposure of BushCo's lies and deception around 9/11. But nooooooo.... yet ANOTHER Republican scandal surfaced and dominated the headlines over the last week which is even more repulsive & disgusting. Can you imagine that? More revelations about how the Bush Administration deceived us into an unnecessary war which has cost over 2700 American lives, over 100,000 Iraqi lives, and over 15,000 American injuries, and that's NOT the biggest story in the news this week.

Nope. It's another Washington SEX scandal. Of course SEX always gets people's attention more than death and war. This past week it was publicly revealed that Republican Congressman Mark Foley from Florida was engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior with an under aged male congressional page. So much of the blogosphere has already chimed in on nearly every aspect of this story, so of course I will too.

Where to focus?

I'm not going to focus on the fact that he carried on sexually explicit dialogue over the Internet with a minor.

I'm not going to focus on the fact that he's a homosexual.

I'm not going to focus on the irony that he chaired the Caucus for Missing & Exploited Children.

I'm not going to focus on the fact that he was carrying on a sexually explicit instant messaging conversation WHILE WAITING FOR A HOUSE VOTE.

Instead, my focus today is on the Republican/GOP/Conservative response & reaction to the surfacing of this scandal. This is where the slime really hits the fan. Here are just a few tidbits:

Linda Harvey, WorldNetDaily: "...Open or suspected homosexuals should never be elected..." {snip} "...sex with youth are built into the 'gay' sub-culture..."
Fox News, during "The O'Reilly Factor", thrice displayed Mark Foley's image with the graphic of his name connected to "D-FL". One can only imagine why they did this. Either it was complete incompetence on the part of Fox News, OR they intentionally tried to mislead this SEX scandal towards the Democratic party.
Several conservative talking heads compared this scandal to Bill Clinton's Monica Lewinsky, or homosexual Democratic scandals of the past including Gerry Studds and Barney Frank.
Several conservative talking heads and GOP Congressmen have blamed the Democrats for politicizing this scandal and arranging the leaking of it in an election season. For the record, this was NOT leaked by the Democrats.
Several conservative talking heads have blamed the pages themselves for seducing the congressmen.
Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House on the hot seat for not acting on this much earlier (yes, he's been aware of Foley's abhorrent behavior for a long time) blamed "...ABC News and Democratic operatives for the mushrooming scandal...". Clearly the Republican House leadership was well aware of Mark Foley's inappropriate behavior and did not act on that knowledge.
Ann Coulter, never one to keep her rabid thoughts to herself, of course turned this into a Democrat-bashing opportunity: "WHO KNEW CONGRESSMAN FOLEY WAS A CLOSETED DEMOCRAT?" {snip} "The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy."

This is only a small sample of conservative reaction to the latest scandal to rock the Republican party. The party of bringing accountability, responsibility & dignity to Washington spent quite a bit of effort doing exactly the opposite.

On the other hand, there were a number of Republicans actually doing the right thing. They called for an investigation, even issuing a multitude of subpoenas, to ferret out the facts and get to the bottom of who knew what and when. This was also the Democratic reaction as well, although you wouldn't know that if you actually listened to the conservatives blaming the Democrats for politicizing this scandal.

Here's where I start asking questions...

Where were these Republicans with their subpoenas when evidence surfaced that Bush DELIBERATELY lied to take us into war in Iraq (the Downing Street memos). You remember... that whole pre-war intelligence thing? Where was the investigation? Where were these Republicans with their subpoenas when evidence surfaced that Bush was DELIBERATELY wiretapping Americans withOUT a warrant, against the edict of the FISA laws? Where was the investigation? Where were these Republicans with their subpoenas when a wealth of evidence surfaced of election fraud and anomalies in 2004? Where was the investigation?

These were egregious offenses that were borderline treasonous and impeachable and there were no investigations and no subpoenas. The theft of the 2004 election put the United States democracy and foreign credibility in shambles. How many subpoenas were issued to get to the bottom of these scandals? How much effort was made by the Republicans to get to the truth? Nada. Zilch. Zippo. Nyet. One Congressman sends inappropriate emails and instant messages to an under aged boy, and all-of-the-sudden the subpoenas start flying.

And here's my point...

If I was a Republican, I'd be ashamed, disgusted and embarrassed for my party right now. The party which said they stood for accountability & dignity now stands for scandal, cover-up, corruption, deceit, hypocrisy, division, torture, destroying constitutional rights, warrant-less wiretapping, gay-bashing, swiftboat-politicing, record deficits & debt (i.e. fiscal mismanagement), no-bid contracts, media-consolidation, etc. I could go on-and-on, but you get the point. The party that stands for all those things should NOT be the party in power.

Would the Capture of Osama bin Laden Mean Victory in the War on Terror?

2006-09-28T13:16:00.000-05:00

Tuesday evening on CNN I was watching "The Situation Room" and I couldn't help but notice that there were a significant number of minutes dedicated to the hunt for Osama bin Laden. First there was Wolf Blitzer's interview with the president of Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf, the entire interview was about capturing OBL), then there was a story about the newer technologies being used along with an alleged sighting of OBL within the last month. Hmmm... I wonder why there's all this talk of Osama bin Laden now?

It's election season

Following the emotional surge of the 5-year anniversary of the biggest tragedy on American soil since Pearl Harbor, our country is now headed into an election season. This is the most significant mid-term election of my lifetime. This election will determine whether or not our Congress continues to rubber-stamp the incompetent, unchecked, arrogant, imperialistic agenda of the Bush Administration, OR impose true oversight and checks-&-balances on BushCo's grab for power and hegemony. Should we stay the course in Iraq and continue to throw bodies into the fire while inciting global anti-American sentiment? OR, should we give Iraq back to the Iraqis and stop raping their country?

Over the last month or so there's been a lot of talk & controversy about which presidency (Clinton or Bush 43) is more responsible for 9/11 and for not capturing Osama bin Laden. I've already chimed in on that question, so I'm not going to address it this time. Instead, I pose a different question. What if Osama bin Laden is captured now? Think about it. There's a crucial election around the corner, and we're all expecting/anticipating some kind of sleazy "October Surprise" from Karl Rove & Co. Then, mysteriously on CNN, I start seeing news footage about the hunt for bin Laden that eerily seems like his capture is imminent. Clearly, the Republicans need some kind of major event to make themselves look tough (and successful) in the 'War on Terror'. Barring that, it's quite conceivable that the Democrats will take control of one or both houses of Congress (that is, IF the polls ring true and the Republicans don't steal the election again).

If we capture or kill Osama bin Laden have we won the 'War on Terror'? Is this the same thing as cutting the head off the snake? Is this like destroying the central computer in "I, Robot" or "Star Wars II" and all the rest of the robots (i.e. the rest of the Islamic militant population) will simply wander aimlessly?

I don't think so.

First of all I think it's questionable at best if OBL is still a leader in the al Qaeda organization, even if he IS still alive.
Secondly, we already know that not only is al Qaeda highly decentralized and volatile, but there are a myriad of factions, armies and organizations with 'charters' to hate & attack Western (i.e. American) interests.
Thirdly, let's reverse the scenario and assume for a minute that al Qaeda captures or kills George W. Bush. Does that mean THEY'VE won the "War on United States' Aggression"? Obviously not. Our beloved Vice President would step into the president's office (God help us).

Miracles can happen

If by some miracle our military just happens to capture or kill OBL in the next 6 weeks, don't for one minute think that our 'War on Terror' is over or even lessened. Almost every expert on this subject has repeatedly stated that our actions in the Middle East have aggravated & agitated the Islamic community and "...fueled the spread of the jihadist movement..." to quote the recent National Intelligence Estimate. George W. Bush has stirred up the jihadist's hornet's nest and this 'War on Terror' can only worsen. Furthermore, the 'War on Terror' can only be won after we've killed all the terrorists. Nice strateegery, George!

To all you right-wingnuts out there who keep saying "...we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here..." I say "Suuuuuure... now send YOUR son over there to fight that fight and keep us safe here at home." And when he's tragically killed over Bush's senseless / arrogant / unethical / imperialistic / hegemonic / conquest, on his tombstone write:

"He died for a comma"

Keith Olbermann - An Honest American

2006-09-26T09:59:00.000-05:00

I am so thankful to have Keith Olbermann on MSNBC as one of the lone voices of truth in television-based politics. While Faux News inevitably 'spins' the truth with programming such as "The O'Reilly Factor" and "Hannity & Colmes", Keith Olbermann continues to tell it like it is. Honest, eloquent, and ruthlessly direct, Olbermann is one of the few media personalities, along with Air America Radio and Bill Maher, who call a spade a spade and point out the elephant in the living room.

Over the past few weeks the vast right-wing conspiracy has been attempting to re-write history, trying to blame President Clinton for 9/11. First we were barraged with the Disney/ABC piece of garbage known as "The Path to 9/11" which was admittedly fiction yet just realistic-looking enough to sway ignorants. Then, we saw an interview of President Clinton by Faux News' Chris Wallace attempting to sandbag him for not getting bin Laden when he had the chance.

If you haven't seen Keith Olbermann's "A Textbook Definition of Cowardice", I urge you to watch it now. It's amazing, it's powerful, it's truthful, and I certainly could not have said it any better myself.

Mr. Olbermann, thank you so much for giving us truthfulness in television media. If you ever decide to run for president, you've got my vote!

War Or Not War?

2006-09-22T15:49:00.000-05:00

Just this past Wednesday (September 20th) I was watching this video posted on CrooksAndLiars.com which showed Wolf Blitzer interviewing President Bush, insisting that Iraq is NOT is the throes of a civil war. Of course the balance of the video was clear evidence to the contrary, including the fact that the people Bush is talking to, are completely insulated and “… divorced from reality…”. So today I pose the obvious question…

Is there or isn’t there a civil war going on in Iraq?

Of course there’s a civil war going on in Iraq. If there were any doubt, then this AP article highlighting the record civilian deaths certainly puts that question to rest. Here’s a small snippet:

According to the U.N., which releases the figures every two months, violent civilian deaths in July reached an unprecedented high of 3,590, an average of more than 100 a day. The August toll was 3,009, the report said.

When more than 100 people a day are being slaughtered in violent killing sprees, how can anyone in their right minds say there isn’t a war going on? Sure… there’s no “war” going on… it’s just a little “Sectarian violence”. Riiiiiight.

Denial or Deception?

Clearly the Bush Administration is way off base, as they inevitably always are. Either they’re in complete denial, which would mean they’re utterly and profusely incompetent because everyone else in the world can see it, OR they’re just trying to deceive and mislead us into believing there isn’t a war going on. After all, it was THEIR trumped-up decision to start this whole thing by invading Iraq in the first place. Suuuure… the world’s better off with Sadaam Hussein out of power. However, now 3000 people (mostly civilians) are dying each month in Iraq, and you can’t blame that on Sadaam.

Bush and his cronies are absolutely trying to deceive us about the horrible state of conditions in Iraq. Here’s another snippet from that article:

The U.S. military had initially claimed a drastic drop in the death toll for August, but the estimate was revised upward after the United States revealed it had not counted people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets or other mass attacks.

This is yet another example of how the Bush Administration manipulates the truth (of course, we know ‘the truth’ is always the first casualty of war). Here we see our illustrious government trying desperately to make it look like things are going well in Iraq… by not counting all the bodies. Gee, isn’t that kind o’ like fixing elections by not counting all the votes?

The Irony

Every day we hear about the “War on Terror”. Terror. Yes, we’re at war… against… an emotion. A faceless, abstract, enemy. But over in Iraq, where literally hundreds of people are killed each day, that’s not a war. That’s just a little “Sectarian violence”. After all, we’re not seeing all the good things going on over there! Yeah… we’re spreading Democracy! Freedom’s on the march!

The Torture

This is something I find particularly disturbing. In our country we’ve been going through tremendous internal strife around the level of torture we can apply to our prisoners. While the Bushies would love to torture as much as they feel is necessary, most of us are bending over backwards to show that we’re a nation of laws, rights & protections. Most of us believe in the humane treatment of prisoners because that’s how we would expect our own men & women to be treated should they fall prisoner to our enemies.

That doesn’t mean we advocate for the pampered treatment of dangerous terrorists we’ve captured. What it does mean is that our laws SHOULD guarantee prisoners of due process. Our laws SHOULD ALSO guarantee oversight and checks-&-balances to ensure that the government doesn’t get out of control. Without oversight, how do we know the government isn’t detaining progressive bloggers and dissidents?

As much as I despise the Bush Administration, I wouldn’t think for a second that they’d brutally torture any detainee for entertainment value. I’d like to believe that any ‘brutal’ torture they’ve carried out was in the interest of obtaining information, while any torture for the sake of entertainment (not condoning it, mind you) was somewhat less than brutal. They may have piled the detainees up naked or put undies on their heads, but that torture was largely psychological.

The aforementioned AP article refers to a report from the U.N.’s Assistance Mission in Iraq’s Human Rights office. Here’s one more snippet:

"Bodies found at the Medico-legal Institute often bear signs of severe torture including acid-induced injuries and burns caused by chemical substances, missing skin, broken bones (back, hands and legs), missing eyes, missing teeth and wounds caused by power drills or nails," the report said.

First of all, I don’t think our torture methods are nearly this brutal (although I’ll gladly admit I’m wrong if someone proves otherwise). Secondly, whether this is a civil war or sectarian violence, how much information can either side expect to obtain from captured civilian prisoners? Probably not much. Unfortunately, I think it’s more likely the case that it’s their culture to capture, mutilate for maximum pain, and then kill. I don’t know if it’s more sad or pathetic.

So there you have it…. Iraqis committing horrendous and unspeakable atrocities on other Iraqis. And WE started it all because… well… we all know why…. because Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

The Big Lie - "Our Economy Is Strong"

2006-09-18T11:42:00.000-05:00

Here's another one of those disgusting Bush / neo-con / GOP lies that they keep repeating to the point where the ignorant people in this country actually believe it. Here's a quote from a recent article in Yahoo news about Bush touting our "strong" economy as an accomplishment:

In Washington, the economist in chief encourages GOP candidates to embrace the economy as a stellar accomplishment. "I'd say 'Look at what the economy has done. It's strong. We've created a lot of jobs,'" Bush said recently.

Of course the balance of the article goes on to pick apart the 'strength' of our economy. I believe every word of this article, but that's not the point of my message today. The fact that they can even claim that the economy is strong and cite specific statistics & metrics is completely absurd.

My Home Metaphor

Humor me for a minute. I like to think of the government's budget as kind of like my family's budget. We have income just like the government (tax revenues), and we spend money just like the government (appropriations). Let's make a comparison, shall we?

My wife and I try not to spend more money than we take home. We understand that too much debt is going to haunt us in the future, so we try to keep the debt down to a minimum. But if we didn't understand that, we could take out a loan at a bank (perhaps it's a Chinese or Saudi bank) for... say... $1,000,000. Gee, with a million dollars there's lots we could do...

We could hire a full time cook, housekeeper, gardener, trainer, AND tutor for our kids. Yes, unemployment would go down as we just put 5 more people to work for a year!

Next, we would upgrade our vehicles, upgrade our appliances, upgrade our house, send our kids to private schools, and join that expensive golf course we couldn't have otherwise afforded.

Then, I would hire a bunch of thugs to kick the crap out of some brown people who live across town and take over their house too. After all, they have a lot more sunlight on their property... and I want it!

And, since we're afraid of evil-doers out there who hate our way of life, we'll have to hire a team of round-the-clock security guards. They won't be standing around our house, though. Nooooo... Instead, they'll be out-and-about town, looking into other people's houses, listening in on their phone calls, intercepting their email, and finding out what library books they've checked out. If they see anyone who looks even remotely suspicious, my boys will beat the crap out of them until they tell us what we want to hear, whether it's true or not.

Finally, I would go to my boss and ask for a huge cut in pay!

Sounds realistic, doesn't it?

No. It doesn't. It's not realistic at all, but that's what I see going on in our government. Anyone can pump an EXTRA $450b into our economy (deficit) to bring unemployment down, bring GDP up, and make our economy appear artificially strong.

But all they're really doing is piling on the debt for the next administration, and generations to come. Sure.... the Democrats will be the bad guys having to reign in the Republican's overspending and tow the line on fiscal conservatism. Just like Clinton did, after 12 years of Reagan & Bush (41), overspending to fuel the military-industrial-complex. They'll have to raise taxes to bring the budget & deficit under control.

Ladies & gentlemen, please don't buy it. This is the same, neo-conservative, misleading bullcrap they've been selling us for 6 years. Our economic condition is dire, though not necessarily immediate. Our national debt is fast approaching ten TRILLION dollars (pinky on upper lip). And our president is running our country into the ground, just like he ran his private business ventures into the ground before he sleazed the Texas governorship away from Ann Richards. And he continues to use the Saudis, Chinese, and other rich nations & families to bail him out.

This time, it's U.S. who needs to be bailed out.

Brace Yourself for Swift Boat Season

2006-09-12T11:02:00.000-05:00

Autumn is such a lovely time of year. The kids are back in school, the trees are starting to turn, and the sights & sounds of football fill the air. I love autumn. The holidays are around the corner, the pennant race is heating up (although not for the Red Sox), and harvests are everywhere.

However, this autumn will be a little different because it's an election year. On November 7th many of us will be going to the polls to vote for who will be representing us in this bastion of freedom and liberty we call 'Democracy'. We'll be (s)electing the individuals who will be advocating for us, making decisions in our proxy, and communicating on our behalf to the rest of the world. Although we're not voting for president this year, we are voting for a good portion of the Congress (both Senate & House of Representatives) and this has every bearing on how effectively the president can execute his agenda.

As you know, for the entire George W. Bush presidency, both houses of Congress have been a Republican majority, giving George the green light to follow through with much of his neo-conservative ideals. You know - tax cuts for rich people; big-business / anti-regulation / anti-union / anti-environmental / anti-protection / anti-gay legislation; stacking the courts with ultra conservative judges; and all the rest of those things which have ballooned our deficit & debt, eaten away at the fabric of our Constitution, and reverberated anti-American sentiment worldwide.

Yes, it's the rubber stamp, Republican-controlled Congress that has given George (and his neo-con cabal) the green light to rev up the military-industrial-complex, unencumbered by pesky oversight, accountability, or competition (remember no-bid contracts?).

Yes, it's the lapdog, Republican-controlled Congress that sets the agenda, chairs the committees, and has the subpoena power. This is why the Downing Street Memos - clear and decisive evidence that Bush (and the neo-con cabal) lied us into war in Iraq with fabricated intelligence - didn't go anywhere. John Conyers tried to hold some hearings in the basement of the capital building, but that was it.

Oh, but I digress....

The point of my article today is to warn you. For those of you who haven't seen this Washington Post article, the next two months will be rather unpleasant if you watch any television or listen to any radio. I thank Jim Vandehei & Chris Cillizza for bringing this to our attention. Here's a small snippet:

The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.

And that says it all. Our airwaves will be filled with personal attack ads by Republicans in a desperate effort to retain control of Congress. Just as they did with the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" - a trumped-up, Republican-backed organization which lied profusely to discredit John Kerry (a veteran with 3 purple hearts) in the 2004 election. This was so blatant and disgusting that "Swift-boating" has become an adverb.

My message

Ladies & gentlemen, please don't get caught up in this right-wing, neo-conservative, Republican spin cycle. When you see and/or hear a personal attack on a Democratic candidate this fall, think not of that Democrat's ability to represent you in the light of their personal baggage. Instead, think of the slimy Republicans who drained special interest coffers to try to discredit their opponents in a desperate attempt to save their jobs, because they couldn't stand by their own merits to get (re)elected.

More Lies - Bush Finally Comes Clean On Secret CIA Prisons

2006-09-08T09:27:00.000-05:00

For months now, possibly years, I've been reading various accounts of secret CIA prisons, 'rendition', and the torturing of detainees. All along the Bush Administration and their mouthpieces have been elusive about the existence of these secret prisons and categorically denying that our detainees have been tortured.

This week the chimp finally admitted that the secret prisons existed, only because he wanted to use the information for political gain. He had to admit to the existence of these prisons in order to move some of the prisoners to Guantanamo and publicize the fact that the US has these "terrorists" in custody and have gleaned valuable information from them (all a secret of course). This was, of course, all designed for painting himself and the Republicans as strong on terra, and the Democrats soft on terra. There's an election on the horizon, ya know!

So let's take a step back and analyze what just happened.

First of all, Bush instantly pissed off what few European allies he had left, because he told them that the secret prisons didn't exist.
Bush once again painted himself as a liar. He might as well be wearing a sign reading "I cannot be trusted".
Not only did he lie about the existence of the secret prisons, but he must have also lied about the torturing of detainees. He has denied all along that "we don't torture", but the only reason for shipping them off to non-US territories is to have them out of the bounds of US laws & protections. Bottom line - of course they're being tortured.
In the process of admitting to secret "black-site" prisons, and having 'renditioned' these detainees for 'special interrogation', Bush is also pushing for congressional action to allow for a change in the Geneva Conventions and military tribunals. The Supreme Court has already ruled against this, but now Bush is trying to change the laws... right now... in a hurry... in time for the November election. Gee, could it be that Bush is politicizing his tough-on-terrorism rhetoric for GOP advantage?

Ladies & Gentlemen, please do not fall into this trap again. Stay focused. You've been doing so well this last year and a half. Keep these important points in mind as you go forward, and particularly as you go to the polls in November:

George W. Bush (and his neo-con cabal) has/have repeatedly and consistently proven that they cannot be trusted. Their lies and deceitfulness have been a hallmark of this administration and tenure as President of the United States.
Despite what you may see in this weekend's ABC 'docudrama' - "The Road to 9/11", the attacks on September 11th happened on George W. Bush's watch! There were over 50 blatant warning signs, and he chose to ignore them. When the attacks did occur, he froze. And after the attacks he obstructed the investigation and (ab)used the attacks to carry out a fascist agenda of American imperialism abroad, and constitutional decimation at home. (btw... Don't buy the implication that it's all Clinton's fault because he didn't kill bin-Laden when he had the chance. That's another blatant right-wing lie.)
George W. Bush (and his neo-con cabal) lied us into the conflict/occupation/quagmire in Iraq, which has drained our military, our treasury, and our economy, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, since we simply MUST "stay the course".
The Republican-controlled Congress (both the Senate & House of Representatives) has acted as a rubber stamp allowing Bush (and his neo-con cabal) to get away with illegal & murderous crimes, all under the (dis)guise of "protecting America". For the entire Bush presidency there has NOT been a balance of power in the United States government. There has been a gross IMbalance, and that has resulted in disaster.
The Republican-controlled, rubber-stamp Congress has also allowed Bush (and his neo-con cabal) to carry out a domestic agenda which has ballooned our deficit & debt, rewarded companies which ship jobs overseas & invest in gas-guzzling vehicles, decimated environmental, constitutional, and worker's rights & protections, and driven a much bigger wedge between the wealthy and the non-wealthy in our country. Virtually all of the legislation over the last 6 years has been to the advantage of big business.

These are just the tip-of-the-iceberg of the many important things I want you to walk away with. Now go vote! And when you do vote... vote with your heart... vote with your head... and vote with your conscience. But please, DON'T vote with your fear.

From A Glass House, Rummy Throws Stones

2006-09-01T12:34:00.000-05:00

Once again the leadership of our country has shown us the very definition of the word - 'chutzpah'. On Tuesday August 29th, the Washington Post ran a story about Donald Rumsfeld's speech to an audience of Navy personnel. Apparently our beloved and so-very-competent Secretary of Defense is frustrated with the cleverness of "... our enemy...".

Here are a few jewels from that speech (quoted in this article):

"They [the enemy] are actively manipulating the media in this country..."
"The enemy lies constantly - almost totally without penalty..."
"The enemy is so much better at communicating...{snip}... I wish we were better at countering that because the constant drumbeat of things they say - all of which are not true - is harmful. It's cumulative. And it does weaken people's will and lessen their determination, and raise questions in their minds as to whether the cost is worth it..."

First of all Donny, if you had read my last blog entry, you'd know that continuously calling them "...the enemy..." is part & parcel of the problem. You've never made the effort to take a step back and even attempt to figure out WHY these people are our adversaries. Instead, you just keep labeling them "... the enemy..." and that just keeps perpetuating the cycle of hate. But let's face it - that's been your objective all along, hasn't it? Fuel perpetual, permanent conflict and keep the Military-Industrial-Complex fat, dumb & happy?

Oy, The Hypocrisy!

What really disgusts me in your speech is the blatant & utter hypocrisy in your comments. Has not the Bush Administration manipulated the media to the fullest extent? How many of those MSM (Mainstream Media) outlets covered in detail the theft of the 2004 election? Or the Downing Street Memos and subsequent John Murtha hearings?

Have you read "The Book on Bush: How George W. (Mis)leads America" or "Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush" or "Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You" or "All the President's Spin: George W. Bush, the Media, and the Truth"? How can you stand there, in good conscience, point your finger at other people, and accuse THEM of not telling the truth? Didn't you say:

"We know where they [WMD's] are. They're right up here in the area around Tikrit."

That one was a whopper, Rummy. You helped Darth & Dubya launch the most costly & catastrophic blunder in the history of the United States. So, If you reeeeelllly want to point your finger at a liar, you need only look in a mirror.

Attention diverted

Finally, your pathetic attempt to divert attention away from your own incompetence, is beyond reproach. Was it really "our enemies" who tortured our detainees in Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo Bay? Was it really "our enemies" who slaughtered innocent civilians in Haditha and Ishaqi? Was it really our enemies who raped and killed a young woman and her family in Mahmoudiya?

I could go on endlessly about the atrocities alleged by our military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. But, that's not the purpose of my message today. Nor is the purpose of my message a condemnation of our men & women in uniform. I have no doubt that these atrocities are the exception and not the norm, and that the vast majority of our soldiers behave within the 'rules of engagement' (a great movie, btw).

I do however take issue with your claim that it's "the enemy's" manipulation of the media and their lies which have shaped American's public opinion against your war effort. While it is true that the American public is squarely against your campaign in Iraq, is it really "the enemy's" lies that have caused that? I don't think so. In fact, can you tell me anything at all "the enemy" has lied about? Did Sadaam lie about not having weapons of mass destruction?

Better yet - can you even tell me WHO "our enemies" are? Is it the "Islamo Fascists"? Is it anyone with brown skin and a lot of consonants in their name? Or, perhaps it's anyone who has the chutzpah to resist as we rape & pillage their people & homeland?

And the chutzpah continues...

Ya know... if I had an extra $20m sitting around that needed a home, I could probably find some worthy causes. Perhaps I'm security conscious and I want to put a little extra into strengthening our borders. Or perhaps I'm sensitive to the millions of Americans without adequate health care, homes to live in, or access to quality education. Or perhaps I'm concerned about climate change and want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions or alternative, renewable energy sources. Or perhaps I use it to help prevent the spread of cancer or other debilitating diseases.

One thing I WOULDN'T waste my money on is ensuring positive press coverage for our debacle/quagmire in Iraq. Once again we're shown the difference between the unconscionable Republicans and the rest of us. See.... us Michael-Moore-loving, Cindy-Sheehan-supporting, mainstream liberals would rather see $20m put to good use providing help where help is needed, instead of fueling the Bush crime family's propaganda machine.

But then again, "the enemy" manipulates the media with lies so cleverly, why shouldn't we?

The Neo-cons Just Don't Get It

2006-08-25T12:50:00.000-05:00

I've heard more than I've ever wanted to hear about "Terrorists", "Enemies", & "Victory". Recalling a few recent right-wing callers to Air America hosts who've parroted the RNC/neo-con talking points:

We live in a different world since 9/11
You can't appease terrorists
How are you liberals gonna keep me safe from our enemies?

This rhetoric is exactly the problem that we face in our world today. Not only has our conservative/imperialistic/religious/fascist government drilled into us hateful brainwashing (not unlike they do in the Islamic countries), but they have actually initiated, perpetuated and agitated much of the conflict with their rhetoric and actions. Clearly our military-industrial-complex (MIC) of a government has NO desire for peace in this world. After all, that would cut into profits! Can I hear a "Goooooo Capitalism?!?!?!?"

Bush and his minions have repeatedly said that we're going to "... win the War on Terror...", and that "... the United States of America will prevail...". And of course, we "...won't bring our troops home until the mission has succeeded...". However, they have never successfully defined what success really is. They've never successfully defined who our enemies really are. And, most importantly, they've never successfully defined WHY these people (whoever they are) are our enemies. Instead, they just refer to them as "our enemies" and "terrorists", and kept it vague enough to maintain the conflict. Permanent, perpetual war means profits for Dick and the MIC.

Take a step back

A fundamental technique in solving any problem is to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Ask the "WHY" questions. Analyze the situation and history to try to get at the root of the problem.

Terrorism is not our enemy

First of all, as mature, level-headed adults (and it's debatable that many of these right-wingnuts are level-headed at all, let alone mature), we need to acknowledge that 'terrorism' itself is not our enemy. Terrorism is a mechanism. It's an action. It's a tactic that induces fear. Terrorism itself is not our enemy. If it was, George W. Bush would be our #1 enemy. Certainly he has instilled more fear in the American people than any "Islamic Fascist".

So right up front, this "War on Terror" is nothing but a farce. It's an evil scheme to incite perpetual conflict, and hence fuel the MIC and the power-grabbing executive branch of government.

By the way, when we think about the various mechanisms the Bushites have employed to grab power (Patriot Act, NSA warrant-less wiretapping, torturing detainees, etc.) here's one of the best reasons to object (aside from that little matter of being unconstitutional)... If the Democrats ever win back the White House, would you want THEM to have that power? Oh, but I digress...

Here's the problem

No one (in a position of leadership, that is) has actually taken that step back and adequately answered the question - "Why are they our enemies?" Of course the answer to that question is very long & complex, but I believe that these people are our enemies because we've made them our enemies. Not only have we labeled them as such, thereby perpetuating the self-fulfilling prophecy, but we've bullied the Arab/Islamic/Muslim people so much that they have no choice but to distrust us and ultimately hate us:

We've repeatedly bullied them into customs which go directly against their culture, religion, & governance
We've bullied them into hosting our military bases (don't forget the neo-con's imperialistic PNAC agenda)
We've slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their brethren
We've occupied their land
We've tortured their friends & relatives
We've disbanded their military (basically laid them off and created unprecedented unemployment)
We've stolen their reconstruction contracts
We've used the United Nations to impose sanctions on them for doing things that we routinely do
We've repeatedly left them high-and-dry (Did I heard the heroin industry in Afghanistan is now 90% of their GDP? Geez, didn't we invade, er 'liberate' that country too and oust the Taliban?)
And to top it off, we egged Israel into battling them in Lebanon (this was basically a test of military power for when we're ready to take on Iran)

This list is certainly not complete. I'm sure with a little more thought and discussion it could go on and on.

Right about now the basic right-wingnut is calling me an unpatriotic, terrorist-sympathizer. I suppose that's their prerogative since we live in a land where the freedom of speech is so highly valued. In the US, people are entitled to their opinions, no matter how whacked-out they are.

So, here's my point

Short & simple. If we had not done all those things, and simply treated these countries & people like partners or neighbors instead of adversaries & conquests, would we be in the mess we're in today?

Neo-con, right-wingnut response: "What mess?"

And that's the problem.

It's Time To Start Thinking About Elections

2006-08-14T13:13:00.000-05:00

My Fellow Americans,

I'm not trying to sound like the president, but I am trying to send a message to the American people. Even though the next major election isn't until November 7th, it's time for us to start preparing for this most critical of events.

At least 3 elections over the past 6 years have taught us one very crucial lesson - that the neo-conservative hacks in Washington (and beyond) are well capable of stealing elections through a multitude of devious methods and schemes. The specifics of those schemes and dirty tricks are way beyond the scope of this message, but they are well documented in a variety of publications. The point is that we must prepare for a fight of fights to take our country back from the war-mongering, self-serving, military-industrial-complex known as the Bush Administration.

Verify your voter registration

The first thing that every American should do, upon reading this message, is to contact your local voter registration authorities (city hall, perhaps) and verify your voter registration information. I know this may sound stupid, particularly if you've voted in the past, but believe me it's a necessary step.

One of the dirtiest of dirty tricks the Republicans used in the 2004 election was to phantomly accept registrations in their voter registration drives, and discard registrations which were for the Democratic Party. This caused a countless number of voters to go the polls only to discover that they weren't really registered. Even if they were lucky enough to be provided provisional ballots, their votes would not be accepted.

The point is that every American who registered in the last 6 years should verify that they are truly registered properly. Don't wait until November 7th to vote, only to find out that your registration was never recorded.

Take an active role in the election

Black Box voting has published a 'tool kit' for Americans to step up in our democratic process and help ensure a fair election. You can download the pdf here:

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/toolkit.pdf

This document will give you a variety of ideas, suggestions, and guidelines for taking part in our democracy. This is not a specifically Democrat vs. Republican divisive thing. This is for ALL Americans. It should be a concern to every citizen of the United States that our elections are fair and honest. Let's face it - over the last 3 elections, it has been anything but fair and honest as many of us believe that Bush & the Neo-cons stole the presidency in BOTH 2000 and 2004.

Ladies & gentlemen, we must take an active role in the 2006 election. We must do everything we can do ensure the election is fair & honest. And we must spread the message, to as large an audience as possible, that status quo in Washington is NOT acceptable. "Stay the course" is not a strategy - it's empty Republican rhetoric born out of failed policies. It's time for a change. A change in leadership. A change in direction. And a change in how the United States of America behaves in this world.

Thank you,

Scott Shuster
American Citizen

Why Lieberman Lost

2006-08-09T08:13:00.000-05:00

Several weeks ago I wrote an article that explained why Joe Lieberman just doesn't get it. In it I explained how Joe Lieberman was essentially going against the Democratic party & values:

So why (pray tell), would any Democrat, especially one who was altogether screwed over by the lying, scheming, dirty, sleazy, scummy actions of the Bush crime family, be not only supportive of the unjustified war which we all know Bush rushed into with fabricated intelligence, but also supportive of Bush himself?

Not a one-issue referendum

Some out there would like to make you think that this election was all about the war... er... conflict in Iraq. Clearly that was a major factor as Joe Lieberman had been adamantly supportive of Bush's unpopular (not "war" but) conquest-of-a-sovereign-nation that most Americans believe was unjustified. However, I believe it was much more than just the conflict in Iraq that swung a majority of Democrats in Connecticut against their own incumbent Democratic Senator.

Over the last few years Joe Lieberman had not only supported the Iraq conflict, but he supported George W. Bush and the neo-con agenda. He even sounded like a right-winger on many occasions when his rhetoric resembled Republican talking points. Just this past week, as Joe was fighting for his political life, he appeared on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show hoping that Sean Hannity would boost his approval rating. And once again, I have to say, Joe - you just don't get it. If the kiss of death from Dubya wasn't bad enough, what made you think that a Sean Hannity endorsement would endear you to Democrats?

Has the Democratic party been hijacked by the radical left wing?

This is the spin that the Republicans will be putting on this particular election race - that the Democratic party has been hijacked by the Michael Moore-loving, liberal, McGovernite radicals who hate America. And unfortunately, some ignorant Rush Limbaugh/Bill O'Reilly listeners might actually believe that and leave it at that.

I wish that were the case. If only the Democratic party could be taken over and lead by progressives who have a more peaceful & cooperative vision of America & the world. If only the Democratic party could be directed by sane & sound judgment instead of trying to appear moderate for the sake of appeasing conservatives. If only the Democratic party could be influenced by realists who will admit that Dubya/Darth/Rummy's experiment in Iraq is a mistake, and bring our troops home.

The truth is that this election is a referendum against the neo-con agenda. I hope the other incumbents in Washington take note. Don't tell me I'm unpatriotic and hate America when I speak out against my government. Don't tell me in a time of war I have to rally behind my president when I believe (along with the vast majority of the country) that he's making the absolute wrong decisions and leading us in the absolute wrong direction. And don't tell me to live in fear and that the neo-cons are keeping me safe, while I can plainly see violence & conflict escalating all over the world.

Neo-cons take note. It's time YOU live in fear!

Dick Cheney – Stumping or Stumbling for the GOP?

2006-07-24T16:05:00.000-05:00

chutzpah - (Yiddish) unbelievable gall; insolence; audacity

When I heard Rachael Maddow mention this on her Air America show I almost couldn’t believe my ears. But then I found the story on Yahoo News... There it was in black-and-white... Dick Cheney, at a GOP fundraiser in Tampa, telling people to keep Republicans in office in this election BECAUSE of the violence in the Middle East. I figured this has to be the definition of ‘Chutzpah’... I had to look it up in the dictionary... Perhaps I’d see Dick Cheney’s face!

Dick Cheney has to be one of the biggest embarrassments in the Republican Party. Everyone in the world knows he’s a fascist neo-conservative who hasn’t gotten anything right with respect to Middle East politics. We weren't greeted as liberators, Iraq’s oil isn’t paying for its own liberation, and the insurgency certainly isn’t in its “last throes”. And Dick Cheney's most notable event over the past year is shooting a hunting buddy in the face.

This man is a disgrace in every sense of the word. He bailed out of every opportunity to serve in the military when he had the chance (was it 5 deferments or 6, Dick?). And after 9/11, he help engineer the most catastrophic foreign policy blunder of all time for the United States of America.

No need to go after Osama bin Laden - the one who actually engineered the attack of September the 11th (or so we're told). Instead, let's redirect our resources and military might to attack/conquer a small sovereign nation which was no threat to us at all. Sounds like a great idea, huh? Just package together a bunch of lies, sell it to the nation, and voila - a green light to kick the hornet's nest in the Middle East.

Never mind that Dick Cheney is personally profiting from all this war as a major player in the Military Industrial Complex. Sure, he's no longer the CEO of Halliburton, but he's still receiving compensation. And I suppose it's just a coincidence that Halliburton has been receiving multi-billion dollar, NO-BID contracts for work in Iraq. And if that wasn't bad enough, we've heard so much about the fraud, waste, mismanagement, and missing billions of dollars.

Dick Cheney has a hell of a lot of chutzpah trying to convince anyone that voting Republican now is the best course after the Republicans (and he) completely and utterly f**ked up this entire region of the planet. But keep stumpin' for the GOP'ers Dick. In fact, keep your profile as high as possible (your subterranean approval ratings are the subject of folklore). That's the best way to help the Democrats get back in power!

'Enemy of the State'... But, Who's Really The Enemy?

2006-07-17T14:35:00.000-05:00

All this talk about the NSA spying on US citizens had me yearning to see one of my favorite movies of all time - "Enemy of the State". If you haven't seen this film, I urge you to go down to your nearest video store and rent it. It is well worth viewing.

The Plot...

... is about the NSA's domestic spying program. Oddly enough, there's legislation in the works to expand the NSA's spying scope and authority... all under the guise of protecting America and 'National Security', of course. It starts out with Jon Voight, who is a big honcho in the NSA, trying to negotiate with a Congressman (Jason Robards). At the end of the conversation Voight's henchmen kill the Congressman , but it's all caught on tape by an environmental engineer who just happened to have a stationary, motion-activated camcorder pointed towards the crime scene (he was studying the migratory patterns of geese). Anyway, as the story continues, the NSA uses all its resources to retrieve the evidence, which happens to fall into the possession of Will Smith (unknowingly). As a side note, Jack Black ('School of Rock') and Seth Green ("SCOTT!!!!!") play interesting roles on the NSA spy team.

I don't want to give too much more of the plot away (although I will say that Gene Hackman has an awesome role as an ex-NSA agent), but the crux of this movie is around the technology that the NSA employs & deploys to monitor, track, research, and altogether harass Will Smith, in the process of attempting to retrieve the evidence. Real-time satellite imagery, electronic & video surveillance, and the very latest, cutting-edge, state-of-the-art technology is displayed and highlighted. Granted this movie is fiction, but I sincerely doubt that very much, if any, of this technology is fiction.

No Oversight

Did they get any stinkin' warrants to tap phones? What do you think? Well, it might have been done in one of the deleted scenes that didn't make the final cut for the movie, but I doubt that too. My guess is that NSA does, in fact, have all this technology and capability. And without oversight, either Congressional or Judicial, there's literally nothing stopping them from using this technology in very unscrupulous ways that were not intended.

How do we know that the National Security Agency, which is essentially an extension of the US President (a Republican, neo-conservative, right-wing, born-again, evangelical, secretive, lying, hypocritical, evil, war-mongering, politically-motivated excuse of a Commander-in-Chief), isn't using this technology to spy on Democrats & other political enemies? Without proper oversight, we don't. We're just supposed to trust them. And by the way... don't think for one minute that 'proper oversight' is simply a matter of informing a couple of rubber-stamping Congressmen that the program exists.

'Enemy of the State' is an eye-opener, and every American should see it. Then, come back here and try convincing me that privacy isn't important. Bullcrap!

Joe Lieberman Just Doesn't Get It

2006-07-07T08:11:00.000-05:00

Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. The reason I know that is because I remember seeing his name underneath Al Gore's back in the 2000 election. Plus, most times I see his name in print in the news, there's a "D" next to it. Otherwise, what is there about Joe Lieberman that would reveal that he's a Democrat?

To be honest, before the 2000 election when Gore selected him as his running mate, I had never heard of Joe Lieberman. I wasn't politically astute for most of my adult life, so I wasn't keeping track of each politician in each state. Then, in 2000, I was an instant Joe Lieberman fan because I'm a Democrat and he was on the ticket. However, in the years since Bush stole the election, I have been paying attention, and Joe Lieberman's true colors have emerged in my eyes. The truth is, Joe Lieberman is a Democrat in name only (DINO). Like Zell Miller (and your perverbial wolf in sheep's clothing), he's really a Republican.

Joe has constantly and consistently supported George W. Bush and the neo-conservative rush to war. In the years since, he's been a vocal supporter of the occupation of Iraq, insistent on 'staying the course', resistant of any kind of exit strategy, and altogether parroting the Republican talking points at every juncture. Joe Lieberman is not really a Democrat. Don't let that "D" next to his name fool you.

What Joe fails to understand...

... is that a vast majority of our country - (upwards of 62% depending on which poll you look at) of both Democrats AND Republican voters - are vehemently against this war in/occupation of Iraq. Those poll numbers are much higher when considering just Democrats. So why (pray tell), would any Democrat, especially one who was altogether screwed over by the lying, scheming, dirty, sleazy, scummy actions of the Bush crime family, be not only supportive of the unjustified war which we all know Bush rushed into with fabricated intelligence, but also supportive of Bush himself? George even kissed him on national television on the floor of the House following the State Of The Union speech.

Joe, what makes you think you could possibly win as a Democrat in a Democratic primary when you've actively campaigned against Democratic values and the Democratic platform, especially against another Democrat who does espouse the Democratic values? What have you been smoking?

The 'Ralph Nader' Factor

Seeing his poll numbers dwindling, Joe decided to fight to the end. He won't go away quietly when he loses his primary. He won't lose graciously. Noooooo. He's going to continue his quest for re-election as an Independent even after he loses the Democratic primary? Now, what could he possibly gain by continuing to campaign as an Independent after losing the Democratic primary?

There are two major parties in the United States political system. With only the rarest of exceptions, all of the elected officials will emanate from either of those two parties. Therefore, it is clear that anyone running for office who isn't from one of those two parties, is doing so for purely symbolic or egotistical reasons. Clearly they have no chance of winning an election, but they can get their word out, and they can get their face into the public eye. Is this Joe Lieberman's mettle - symbolic or egotistical?

There's one other reason Joe might be continuing his campaign as an Independent. Flashback for a minute to the 2000 election. While Democrats and Republicans can debate endlessly about whether or not Bush or Gore would've won given any change in the recount, the butterfly ballot, the sleazy voter disenfranchisement, and the like, there can be NO DEBATE that had Ralph Nader's name not been on the ballot, Gore would've won the election handily. Bush's 537 winning vote margin in Florida would've been easily overcome by the overwhelming majority of Nader votes which would've gone to Gore instead of Bush.

So, here's my question to you Joe. Are you trying to 'Ralph Nader' Ned Lamont? Clearly, since there's no chance you could win in November after losing the Democratic primary in August, I can't see that you would have anything else to gain in the November election if you ran as an Independent, other than to help the Republican candidate by taking votes away from the Democratic candidate.

You should just switch over to the Republican Party where you belong. Or, perhaps you feel you can help the GOP more by staying in the Democratic Party and just acting like a Republican. It worked for Zell.

If the Democrats lose this Senate seat after you basically act like a stinker, we'll be watching to see where you land. Maybe Georgie promised you an ambassadorship or some other plum job to help steer our country further down the sewer pipes. Just take discomfort in knowing that you'll have left your respect and integrity behind.

Ann Coulter Just Doesn't Get It

2006-07-05T09:28:00.000-05:00

I haven't read Ann Coulter's new book - "Godless". I don't intend to. I have no intention of spending my hard-earned money on a hateful piece of garbage that would effectively help a right-wing hate-monger to profit. Even though I haven't read it, I did catch Ann Coulter on "The Tonight Show", and I've read many OpEd articles on it, so I have a pretty good idea what the content is about. And as such, I do have an opinion (of course I always have an opinion).

The premise of Ann's new book is that 'Liberalism' is 'Godless'. She writes that "...liberalism is the opposition party to God..." and "...the liberal hostility to God-based religions...".

What Coulter fails to understand...

...is that many Liberals DO believe in God. In fact, the likelihood of people believing in God has nothing to do with political ideology. The difference is that Liberals believe that religion should not be part and parcel to our government. We liberals believe in the separation of church and state as is established in our Constitution. We live in a diverse society, and understand that our religions are diverse, just as our cultures, our heritages, and our ancestries.

Whether you're liberal or conservative, you may or may not believe in God. In our country, the beauty is, you're entitled and encouraged to believe what you want, and the government may not interfere with your beliefs (beyond the point of public safety). Liberals believe that the government should not promote a specific religion. And since the government should not promote a specific religion, it should not promote any religion.

That's all there is to it. We liberals believe in God just as much as you conservatives. We just don't want Uncle Sam telling us what to believe.

My Own Beliefs

Over the years my beliefs about God and religion have evolved. As a young child in religious school I learned about the bible, creation, and many of the stories emanating from my heritage. However, in my childhood, I could never completely distinguish biblical stories from fairy tales. Who's to say there's any difference in reality between Noah and his ark with two animals of every kind, and Humpty Dumpty who sat on a wall? What is real and what isn't? What is true and what isn't?

I think 'truth' and 'reality' are relative concepts. We all have our own conceptions of what is true, and what is real, especially when it comes to historical/biblical events. There was no video technology at the time. All we have are words written down and passed down. Written down by whom? Witnesses? Haven't you seen enough courtroom dramas to know that witnesses have their own connotation of truth and reality? Everyone sees what they think they saw. Everyone has their own perspective. And now, everyone has their own beliefs. When it comes to biblical events, how can anyone today be absolutely certain about what is the truth, or what really happened thousands of years ago?

Religion hit home for me when my mother once took me aside and taught me 'The Golden Rule'. It was displayed on a plaque and hung on a wall in our house. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." In the bible the words are slightly different - "Love thy neighbor as thyself" - but the meaning is quite clear. To me, religion is about values. It's about how we treat other people. It's about love, brotherhood, and mercy. It's about peace, community, and family. It's about learning how to be a positive, contributing member of society. That's what righteous values are about.

Religion is not about stopping homosexuality, abortions, or pre-marital sex. Religion isn't about keeping brain-dead people on life-support, pledging your allegiance to God, or displaying the 10 commandments in government buildings.

You're free to believe (in this country) that Jesus is the son of God. You're free to believe (in this country) in the afterlife. You're free to believe (in this country) that Buddha or Allah is your God. You're even free to believe (in this country) in more than one God, or no God at all. The operative words here are "... free to believe (in this country)..." because 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;'.

So Ann, here's my message to you. Liberals are not particularly 'Godless'. We just respect our Constitution and don't want religion in our government.

Bush Admin. - Shoot The Messenger / Shoot Own Foot

2006-06-30T09:10:00.000-05:00

One of the top stories this week involves the New York Times (NYT), as well as several other major media outlets, having published a story about the Bush Administration's 'secret' banking surveillance program. Of course... they're only snooping for terrorist's banking transactions... or so we're led to believe.

When I first heard the story, I was a little concerned about whether the government was obtaining warrants and implementing this terrorist surveillance program within the law. After all, we've heard plenty about the government's eavesdropping on our phone conversations & email withOUT obtaining warrants (the burden of exhibiting 'probable cause', as the Bill of Rights dictates), and we've heard about their data-banking of phone records. Now, here's yet another 'secret' surveillance program we're led to believe is keeping us save from terrorism.

But then the story morphed into an attack on the media as the Bush Administration (and their lock-step Hound Dogs*) went after the New York Times for 'leaking' the story of this 'secret' terrorist surveillance program. How dare the NYT compromise national security and inform the public! So, here's my take on this issue....

Wasn't So Secret

The Bush Administration never hid the fact that they were fighting the 'war on terrorism' in many different ways, and Bush himself said publicly many times that he would use "...every means necessary..." to wage this 'war on terrorism', including the attack on terrorist funding & banking. This footage from Keith Olberman's Countdown certainly gets that point across. So, where's the breach in national security when the NYT published what everyone already knew? Did NYT let-the-cat-out-of-the-bag that Bush was monitoring specifically SWIFT transactions? Did the terrorists NOT know that Bush was monitoring specifically SWIFT transactions?

Gimme a break. This was no secret revelation, this was not 'classified' information, and the terrorists didn't learn anything new that would be considered endangering our national security. Who am I to determine what's classified, and what's not? I'm certainly not qualified to determine that. But Victor Comras is. He's a retired diplomat and a consultant on terrorism financing:

"I can understand why people are upset when any classified information is leaked, but I wouldn't call this a major damage to our national security or to the war on terror.... A terrorist would have to be pretty dumb not to know that this was happening."

And speaking of what's classified and what's not...

Again, I'm no expert on what is or isn't classified. But 'splain me this... Why is it that many of Reagan's and George Herbert Walker Bush's presidency's records are classified? And why are many of George W. Bush's records from before he was Governor of Texas classified? Why are Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force records all classified?

There's no secret that this Administration is THE most secretive in history. I think that the litmus test of 'classified' is more a matter of whether it will embarrass the Bush Administration, rather than whether it will endanger national security.

And speaking of leaks that compromise our national security...

Oh yes.... you knew I was going to get to Valerie Plame, didn't you? If you reeeeeeealy want to indict those who leaked classified information that compromised our national security, you HAVE to go after the Bush Administration for the outing of Valerie Plame. Ms. Plame was a deep cover CIA agent (a NOC in Mission Impossible terms) who was working on WMD's. As we all know, the Bush Administration leaked her undercover identity as a retaliatory action against her husband - Joseph Wilson - for his OpEd publication exposing the administration's pre-war intelligence fabrications.

This, ladies & gentlemen, is a true compromise of our national security. Please feel free to read my article of July 15, 2005 which articulates that in detail. The Bush Administration compromised Valerie Plame, every agent ever associated with Valerie Plame, her under-cover front company - Brewster Jennings, every agent ever associated with Brewster Jennings, AND most importantly, the mission she was on, which involved WMD's in the Middle East. Talk about a breach in national security - this one's the Whopper!

So, go ahead Bushies... keep shooting the messenger. Continue to attack the New York Times for exercising the First Amendment's freedom of the press. We didn't notice that you've been decimating the Constitution, breaking all sorts of laws, and turning our country into a fascist state. We didn't notice that you've been invading our privacy, draining our treasury, and destroying our democracy. We didn't notice the utter hypocrisy in how you blamed the New York Times for 'leaking' something that wasn't a classified secret or anywhere's near a compromise in national security, long after you leaked something that certainly was a classified secret and certainly did compromise our national security.

Well... maybe some people didn't notice.

But I did.

* My apologies to Hound Dogs everywhere. I didn't mean to insult you by comparing you to vermin the likes of O'Reilly, Hannity, Carlson, Limbaugh, & Coulter.

Al "Inconvenient Truth" Gore.... For President!

2006-06-26T22:09:00.000-05:00

This past weekend I had the pleasure of catching Al Gore's new documentary - "An Inconvenient Truth". Actually, the 'truth' is, it certainly was NOT a pleasure. It was unnerving and very concerning. I've heard many stories about the impact of global warming and climate change, but haven't really grasped the magnitude of the looming catastrophe until now.

Mr. Gore presents a plethora of compelling scientific evidence which clearly concludes that global warming is real and deadly on so many levels. Every American, every European, every Asian, every African, every Australian, EVERYONE should see this film. Global warming affects everyone, and in so many ways. Last year (2005) was the warmest on record, and it's no coincidence that 2005 was also the most catastrophic, flanked by the tsunami in southeast Asia and hurricane Katrina out of the Gulf of Mexico.

As I was watching the documentary, there was one thing that sickened me the most - knowing that the one person who needs to get this message the most, arrogantly refuses to watch it. Yes, when President Bush was asked whether or not he would see Gore's film, his response was "Doubt it". He further went on to clarify...

"...in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects..."

And that, ladies & gentlemen, says it all. The President of the United States - the one person in the world who has both the power and the responsibility to forge change that would address the impact of the pollution we cause - just doesn't get it. He's so intent on pacifying his big-business base, that he's willing to risk the future of our planet. But hey... what's a few million lives as long as the energy companies can continue to make record profits.

My Plea

Mr. Gore, your presentation is undeniable and your message is getting out. When I saw you interviewed on 'The Tonight Show' you said that you wanted to continue to communicate your message and do all you can do for your causes. Well, let me recommend to you the best way to affect your causes - Run for president in 2008.

More than half of this country recognizes that you not only won the popular vote in 2000, and you not only would've won Florida had the recount been allowed to continue, but that the presidency was stolen from you by the Republican's dirty trickery. In the time since, we've seen 5 1/2 years of tragedy, fear, recession, divisiveness and extremist policies which have driven our country in the wrong direction, bankrupted our treasury, and killed or maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Mr. Gore, you are the most electable figure in the Democratic Party. Even though Hillary Clinton may be the frontrunner, I don't think she is electable given her negativity factor. You, on the other hand, have continued to perpetuate a very favorable presence with the American people, as well as with the international community. Your common sense, articulate manner, and progressive ideology have always been right on the money. But above all that, the American people trust you. Your name has always been synonymous with integrity & character, despite the Republican's sleazy tactics to try to 'SwiftBoat' you with that "... invented the Internet..." smear.

Mr. Gore, if you really want to do the most you can do to forge change to reverse the global warming/climate change problem, you must be President of the United States. Only then will you be in the position to make the decisions, instead of cheerleading from the fringe. Only then can you lead our country in the 'right' direction and reverse not only the causes of global warming, but the loss of America's respect, dignity & integrity.

I believe that our country would not have been attacked on 9/11 had you been our president at the time. I believe that you have the vision to lead us from this terrible period of darkness. And, I believe you have the unique power to win the election in 2008, far above any other figure in the Democratic Party.

Mr. Gore, I urge you to run for president in 2008. I further urge you to select Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold as your running mate. Pleeeeeease save us!

Presidential Pardons (i.e. How the President Becomes Superman)

2006-06-19T12:47:00.001-05:00

This article in Newsday.com literally defines corruption and the reason why our Constitution has to be amended.

"Pardon Me..."

As talk about President Bush pardoning "Scooter" Libby starts to emerge, one has to ask one's self "Where are the checks and balances in our government?" How could it be that the president is totally free to excuse from scrutiny those who would be potentially damaging to himself/herself, thereby covering up his/her own wrongdoings?

What To Do

The answer to this one is easy. Every potential Presidential pardon should be ratified by the Supreme Court, whose criteria should include whether or not the pardon might suppress damaging information on the President. It is utterly ridicules that the President could commit high crimes and treason (as many of us feel he has) and cover it all up by pardoning the underlings who could finger him/her.

This is essentially the definition of 'Unchecked Power', and it goes against the essence & spirit of our Constitution, our democracy, and everything we stand for in terms of truth, justice, & the American way.

Then again, after reading that article, sadly I'm thinking - maybe this IS the American way.

Good Riddance, Tom Delay

2006-06-13T08:27:00.000-05:00

"Tom Delay's name is synonymous with corruption in the Republican Congress."

As most of you are probably aware, Friday (June 9, 2006) was Tom Delay's last day in Congress.

Why was this Tom Delay's last day in Congress?

Because he resigned.

Why did Tom Delay resign?

Because he needs to use his campaign war-chest for his legal defense.

Why does Tom Delay need a legal defense?

Well, that's a good question. It's a long, long story, but I'll try to summarize so as not to bore the crap out of you...

Tom Delay's name is synonymous with corruption in the Republican Congress. His long and illustrious career of kickbacks, money-laundering, redistricting, and a multitude of unethical actions have finally caught up with him. Now he must face the music, and if we're just a little bit lucky, he'll end up with Duke Cunningham, Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby, and many other inherently corrupt politicians & lobbyists - in prison. So, let’s take a brief look at why Tom Delay is one of the most corrupt politicians of the last two decades…

1) Illegal Redistricting. Tom Delay was instrumental in altering the boundaries of Congressional districts in Texas to the advantage of the Republican Party. He used his influence (you know, they call him “The Hammer”) to shove his redistricting schemes through the Texas legislature, even in an off-census year. By ‘gerrymandering’ large numbers of Republican voters from districts considered ‘strongholds’ to districts with weaker representation, he was able to turn more districts into Republican majorities, and hence send more Republicans to Congress and control The House of Representatives. This redistricting practice is equivilent to stuffing ballot boxes.

2) Money-Laundering. There is a law in the Texas state legislature that forbids campaign contributions from outside corporations. However, it permits financing from the Republican National Committee (RNC). So, Tom saw an opportunity to subvert the legal system and kill two birds with one stone. He arranged for out-of-state corporate campaign donations to go straight to the RNC, and then arranged for the RNC to donate that same amount to the Texas state political races.

3) Bribes, Kickbacks, & Paid-for Politics. Even if our system of government & democracy and all its checks-and-balances, were working ideally to evenly distribute the power and provide sufficient oversight, we’d still have the situation where our lawmakers are essentially governing themselves. That’s right, our legislature, which makes the laws we all must abide to, makes their own laws as well. That’s why they can vote themselves pay raises, and that’s why they can choose to accept campaign contributions from special interests.

And they have.

Time after time, over and over, they have chosen NOT to (truly) reform the campaign finance laws. Instead, they've chosen to accept gifts from lobbyists and perpetuate the cycle of corruption. Tom Delay’s association with Jack Abramoff is well documented. His lobbyist-paid-for vacations are well documented. And his resultant legislative initiatives are also well documented. It’s corruption, pure and simple, and don’t let them complicate the issue. He accepted gifts & money, and he returned political favors.

4) Hypocrisy. Of course, hypocrisy itself is not a crime. Politicians are constantly telling the public (and I suppose you could say parents have been telling their children) to “Do as I say, not as I do”. The scandal involving Saipan, the capital of the U.S. Territory of the Northern Mariana Islands, could easily have been added to my “Bribes, Kickbacks…” section, but I’ve chosen to include it under “Hypocrisy” because of what it represents. Sure, Tom accepted free vacations involving lavish accommodations & golfing in return for favorable legislation, but that’s only part of the story. It’s the nature of that ‘favorable legislation’ that will make you hurl.

Classified as a ‘U.S. territory’, clothing and products manufactured in the Mariana Islands are entitled to carry the “Made In U.S.A” label, as well as avoid import tarrifs & duties. However, US labor laws do not apply, and the labor practices that go on there are utterly stomach-wrenching. The terms 'sweat shops' and 'labor camps' don't even begin to describe the conditions, as accounts of forced abortions & sex slavery have emerged. While Tom Delay & Co. would profess religious fervor against American women's abortions, apparently they have no problem with Saipan women's abortions. That my friends is hypocrisy, and unfortunately, it's not even the worst part of this story... When certain Congressmen stepped in to extend the US labor laws and protections to the Mariana Islands to stop the human trafficking, sweat-shop conditions, & involuntary servitude, Tom Delay openly obstructed it.

There are so many, many more instances of back-door, back-room, back-stabbing, strong-armed, under-handed, sleazy, slimy, scummy, shadowy, dealings involving Tom Delay. If you want to learn more, and I certainly suggest that you do, simply Google “Tom Delay scandal” (finding results with ALL THREE WORDS) and you’ll get over 4.4m hits. Just imagine… you could start reading about Tom Delay’s scandals and never ever finish.

Good riddance Tom, and here's my advice for the next phase of your career... don't bend over in the shower.

Does the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi mean success in the US War on Terror?

2006-06-08T08:49:00.000-05:00

It's Getting Foggy Out There!

2006-06-05T09:01:00.000-05:00

You might think from the title that I was driving through one of those weather anomalies where a cloud broke ranks with its brethren and came down to earth.

Not exactly.

I'm thinking more along the lines of that old reference - "The Fog of War". Some may think of 'The Fog of War' as the lack of visibility which inadvertently causes 'friendly-fire' casualties. And that's absolutely true, but I'm thinking more along the lines of the atrocities of war, which emerge out of bitterness, anger, hatred, frustration, and revenge.

I didn't serve in any military capacity so I wouldn't begin to pretend to be any kind of expert on the mental state of our soldiers. However, I've read, heard, & seen enough to know that our soldiers fighting in conflicts, for extended periods, are certainly over stressed. They are very likely in a fragile mental & emotional state having to do their jobs in a foreign land, all the while fearing that they could be wounded or killed at any moment. I praise their courage to serve our country by risking their lives.

There may or may not be a 'full investigation' about the tragedy of Haditha from last November. I'd venture to assume however, that the 'full' investigation will find the American soldiers completely absolved of any wrongdoing, much like the soldiers involved in the Ishaqi incident from last March. Either way, the trust of the Iraqi people has long since been dissolved if there ever was any in the first place. But the trust of the American people may now be in doubt.

I'm not going to wait for this 'full investigation' to complete before assuming fault in the American soldiers in either of these incidents (Haditha & Ishaqi). Quite frankly, I don't trust the American government (our military, which is lead by our liar-in-chief, George W. Bush) to 'fully' investigate anything. They'll say they're doing an investigation, but in the end, come up with their own pre-determined results. They may throw a few pawns under the bus, but never lay any blame on the king, queen, bishops, castles, knights, or anyone of real responsibility.

So let me direct the blame...

The people who should really take responsibility for these disasters are the neo-cons who got us into this mess in the first place (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc.) These chickenhawks didn't take into consideration the atrocities and fog of war that would ensue when they rolled out their evil, imperialistic agenda. These dipshits didn't read the pre-war analyses that clearly said Iraq would deteriorate into a bastion of civil war after destabilization. This asshole didn't even listen to his own father when George Herbert told junior why HE didn't try to conquer Iraq. Does anyone seriously believe that these putzes cared for one minute how many innocent people would die or be maimed?

Noooooooo.... Dubya, Darth & Company went ahead and cooked up fake intelligence about the threat of WMD's, and linkage to our 'real' enemies, and then attacked not just Sadaam Hussein, but his whole country!!!! They screwed it up every step of the way, and now we're stuck with this mess the next president will have to deal with.

But before that next president tries to clean up Dubya's mess, we've got 2 1/2 more years of this asshole's arrogance to endure. We've got 2 1/2 more years of listening to this chimpanzee telling us how he's fighting the war over there so we don't have to fight it here. We've got 2 1/2 more years of watching the world-wide level of violence and terrorism incidents skyrocket. We've got 2 1/2 more years of watching our treasury systematically drained to support this never-ending, nonsensical conflict. We've got 2 1/2 more years of lies, deception, and psychological warfare trying to convince us about how well things are going both here and abroad. We've got 2 1/2 more years of having our civil rights taken away and our privacy invaded. We've got 2 1/2 more years of living in fear.... not from Osama or Sadaam, but from George.

But ya know what's reeeeeeally threatening the almighty United States of America?

Gay marriage.

One More Sign Our Government Is Moving Towards Fascism

2006-06-02T11:09:00.000-05:00

In the spring of 2003 Dr. Lawrence Britt, a noted political scientist, published an article which the blogosphere found astoundingly compelling. He studied historical fascist governments such as Germany (under Hitler), Italy (under Mussolini), Spain (under Franco), and several others, and published his findings of 14 characteristics of fascism.

If you haven't read this article I stongly urge you to take a few minutes to do so. It is an absolute must, because it clearly shows how the United States government, in the 21st century, under neo-conservative, Republican rule, is certainly moving in a fascist direction.

At this point I'd like to draw your attention to item #6 on his list:

A controlled mass media.
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses

Over the past several weeks we've learned of two stories which I find utterly and completely dispicable, and very reminiscent of Dr. Britt's fascism point #6. First we learned that the NSA is spying on domestic news organizations to find out who's leaking to them. Then, we learned that Attorney General Alberto Gonzalas (I love how Rachael Maddow refers to him as "The Torture Guy") has threatened to prosecute media individuals and organizations who leak (i.e. 'Report') on the illegal activities of the NSA.

As Randi Rhodes would say... "This is just amazing to me". Make no mistake, Ladies & Gentlemen... the Bush regime....er.. Administration, in their evil attempt to 'shoot the messenger', have gone on the offensive to suppress the publication of, and effectively the public's knowledge of, their illegal activities. We live in a fascist state!

A Message to the Right Wingers

Here's a message to all you right-wingnuts out there who are now calling me a Michael-Moore-loving-liberal. No one has said that the National Security Agency should not be able to conduct surviellence in order to protect America from terrorists. It's about Oversight. It's about checks and balances in our government and our society. Listening to people's conversations, without their knowledge, is a clear-cut invasion of privacy and a violation of the United States Constitution. NO ONE, not even the President of the United States, is entitled to violate these laws without judicial and/or congressional oversight. All we're saying is GET A WARRANT, so that at least one judge knows who you're wiretapping.

The President not only continues to violate the Constitution (he swore to protect & defend), he tries to suppress the leaking of these violations by intimidating the press. I can just see those National Guards troops goose-stepping their way to the Mexican border.

'Progress' In Bush's War On Terrorism

2006-05-24T19:32:00.000-05:00

The Brookings Institute recently published its latest "Iraq Index" which I found particularly interesting. The subtitle of this publication is "Tracking Variables of Reconstruction & Security in Post-Sadaam Iraq", and it's jam-packed with information about the so-called 'progress' that Bush and his apologists lie about on a daily basis. The full report can be viewed here.

There are a multitude of graphs, charts, and tables which detail everything broken out over various categories and circumstances. What I wanted to draw your attention to was page #19. The first table on this page is entitled "Insurgency Indicators", and it breaks down terrorism attacks between 2004 and 2005. Immediately following that table is another table which depicts the level of terrorism activity both in Iraq and worldwide. These statistics are astonishing:

INSURGENCY INDICATORS

	2004	2005
Insurgent attacks (total)	26,496	34,131
Car bombs	420	873
Suicide car bombs	133	411
Roadside bombs	5,607	10,953
US Soldiers Killed	848	846
US Soldiers Wounded	7989	5939

TERRORISM AND IRAQ

	2004	2005
Number of Terrorist Attacks Worldwide	2,800	11,111
Number of Fatalities Worldwide due to Terrorist Attacks	N/A	14,600
Number of Terrorist Attacks in Iraq	1,800	3,474 (~30% of total)
Number of Fatalities in Iraq due to Terrorist Attacks	4,000	8,300 (~55% of total)

Take a good look at these tables. Take a good long look at the 'progress' in our big "War on Terrorism". Take a look at how much safer we are now. The way I read this second chart, the level of terrorism has doubled in Iraq between 2004 & 2005, while the worldwide level of terrorism has skyrocketed four-fold over that same period.

Thank you, Georgie. You're doin' a heckuva job!

My interview on Boston's Progressive Talk

2006-05-21T19:29:00.000-05:00

Hello Readers,

All this time you've been loyal readers of my blog, and I sincerely appreciate your support and words of warmth.

Recently I had my blog listed on a progressive radio station in the Boston area, called "Boston's Progressive Talk". If you live in the Boston area, please tune in 1200 or 1430 on the AM dial for a great connection to Air America and the Jones Radio network.

After listing my blog, the station contacted me and asked if I would be interested in being interviewed. So now, instead of just being a reader, you can be a listener too!

Click here to listen to my interview, which aired Sunday, May 21st 2006.

Enjoy,

Scott Shuster

Here We Go Again - Republicans Whoring Themsleves With Tax Cuts

2006-05-19T09:29:00.000-05:00

I suppose I should expect this from the Republicans in our government. It happens with each election cycle, and I probably should be used to it by now, but I'm not. I can't accept in all good conscience, politicians who cut taxes for rich people, at the expense of our economy and our future, in an underhanded, backdoor, sleazy effort to get re-elected.

I turn on the news and hear it all the time from the right-wingnuts.... that tax cuts have bolstered our economy! Yes, our economic recovery... it's all due to tax cuts! I guess it doesn't matter that our deficit is measured in hundreds of billions of dollars. I guess it doesn't matter that our debt is measured in trillions of dollars (soon to be measured in tens of trillions of dollars).

This is the lie that we're continually being sold... that tax cuts (which is basically the act of giving donations to rich people) are directly or indirectly causing our economy to be strong. In fact, the first lie is that our economy actually IS strong. Unfortunately, many millions of people actually believe that bullcrap, and that's why they blindly vote Republican. Sure, everyone hates to pay taxes, and they ignorantly think that under Republican rule, they'll be able to keep more of their hard-earned money.

So let's revisit (i.e. Let's not let the Conservatives re-write history)...

Following the devastating recession of 2001-2002, after George W. Bush took office and started deregulating every industry, paving the way for an unprecedented plethora of corporate corruption & scandal, our economy had no where to go but up. The US economy, and all its economic indicators are cyclical in nature. It's going to have its 'ups' and 'downs' and tax breaks for rich people is not the best 'stimulus' to bringing the economy up. That's not to say that tax cuts don't have any effect whatsoever. ANY action which pumps money into the economy will stimulate it somewhat, but at what long-term cost given the size of our deficit & debt?

By the way, is there any doubt that the top 1% of the wealthiest people are the real beneficiaries of tax cuts? Obviously, they pay more taxes, so they're going to benefit more from tax cuts. Don't forget though... much of the Bush tax cut initiatives are centric on ownership income, as opposed to wage income. Working people do not sincerely benefit from tax cuts...

Capital Gains tax cuts benefit those who own (and sell) capital, such as stocks. Working people, who live paycheck-to-paycheck, who have to tighten their belts because they're getting squeezed by the price of gas, don't sincerely benefit from Capital Gains tax cuts.
Estate tax cuts benefit those who stand to inherit many millions of dollars from dead relatives. Working people, who don't come from a long bloodline of wealth, don't sincerely benefit from Estate tax cuts.

If you're going to pump money into our economy to stimulate it, certainly pumping it into the bottom or middle would stimulate it faster and healthier than pumping it into the top. Rich people simply don't need the money nearly as much as those who are less wealthy. Therefore, it only stands to reason that if the money were pumped into the bottom and middle, it would be spent faster.

Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not advocating that we should give tax cuts to poor people instead of rich people. What I AM advocating however, is that programs which help the needier populace become productive, thriving, and contributing members of society, yield a far better return than giving donations to rich people. Programs such as job training to help unemployed and lower-skilled workers get back into the workplace. Programs like child care subsidies for single mothers so they can... yes... get back into the workplace. Programs like a Universal Health Care system, which would help everyone live healthier lives, so they can... you got it... stay in the workplace.

But we must also not forget our obligations to care for people, even if they're not able to be productive workers in our society (and don't get me started on Bush's "Compassionate Conservatism" bullcrap). Some people are never going to return to the workplace, such as the (very) elderly and disabled.

What effects does tax cuts have?

The Republican's "Trickle-Down" economic theory (thank you, Ronald Reagan) assumes that cutting rich people's taxes will spur investment, which will create jobs. Then they look at the job creation/unemployment statistics and think that their tax cutting initiatives are working. This is an absolute farce.

First of all, you can't look at the quantity of jobs being created in the United States if you totally ignore the quality of those jobs. In-depth analysis of jobs creation statistics have consistently found that new jobs are overwhelmingly service oriented and not manufacturing. That means we're not creating and exporting products, which has a significant impact on our trade-deficit.

At the same time, the higher-paying jobs continue to be exported to countries where businesses can pay considerably less wages. There is NO effort by our government to help keep the jobs domestically or even 'level the playing field' to help American businesses compete in the global market.
Secondly, the unemployment rates never reflect those who have lopped off the other side of the unemployment grid and can no longer collect benefits. Nor do those numbers reflect the masses who have gone back into the workforce at lower paying (c'est moi), and often career-changing (and not for the better) opportunities. Through the bulk of the George W. Bush presidency, we've been working harder, earning less, and paying more (and don't even think about blaming that on Clinton).
Thirdly, tax cuts directly add to our already overblown deficit, and therefore balloon our debt, the burden of which will have to be shouldered by future generations. Try to imagine a pie chart of our national budget in the years to come. You see that huuuuge chunk that dwarfs the other slices? That's called 'Debt Servicing'. We have to pay that back, ya know! And the interest!
Fourthly, the cutting of taxes, which theoretically reduces the national budget, must be accompanied by a reduction in spending. Otherwise, the deficit would be even larger than it already is. Who suffers when budgets are cut? We all do. Sure, I could go on-and-on about the various categories of needy like the poor, elderly, veterans, hurricane-stricken, underprivileged, sick, out-of-work, etc. But, what about the rest of us? Did it ever occur to you that the reason you're paying more & higher fees for various things, all starts from tax breaks for rich people? By the way, whatever happened to that after-school arts (or sports) program?

Summary

Tax cuts for rich people, at a time of war, at a time of gargantuan deficits & debt, is completely, absolutely, and utterly irresponsible. These people are looking at minute short-term economic gains (if any) as well as re-election rewards, at the expense of long-term solvency (i.e. our future).

Any politicians who vote for tax cuts should be thrown out on their asses. They certainly do not have our country's best interests at heart.

Is America Moving Towards Martial Law?

2006-05-15T09:47:00.000-05:00

As I was driving into work this morning, I was listening to Air America as I always do, and enjoying Rachel Maddow's rendition of what she calls "The Underbelly". By the way, if you're not listening to Air America talk radio in your car, you should be. Find a local station that carries it and reserve a button on your radio dial. It's far & away the best method of staying informed and the only place you'll find truth & honesty in non-Internet media.

Anyway, back to Rachel Maddow's 'Underbelly'... This segment is all about exposing right-wing political tactics ("...poking a sharp stick at the soft white underbelly of the right-wing scheme machine, giving you a little peak at their political playbook..."). Today's 'Underbelly' was entitled "Plan B", where she spent several minutes espousing on the failures of George W. Bush to govern our country, and how he turns to 'Plan B' with each failure.

What's 'Plan B'?

'Plan B' involves calling in the man who is essentially the one running our country - Donald Rumsfeld. Sure, he's the Secretary of Defense and as such the one running the war, but what about all these other things?

What happened after George W. Bush thumbed his nose at New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and essentially 'hung it out to dry' (or 'soak' to correct the metaphor)? The National Guard was brought in to pick up the pieces (all under the guise of Donald Rumsfeld, of course).

As I write this, George W. Bush is preparing for his presidential address this evening at which time he's expected to recommend the stationing of National Guard troops on the Mexican border to address the illegal immigration 'problem'.

At the same time, in the wake of Porter Goss' resignation from the top job of the CIA, Bush has nominated a military general to replace Goss. Even some Republican Congressmen have denounced the placement of a military figure as the head of the last bastion of US civilian intelligence gathering.

So, where are we going with this?

Let's think about it...

We're living in fear, not really from terrorists, but from our government relentlessly barraging us with all derivatives of the word 'terror'.
Our government, which is the most secretive in history, expects our citizens to be more open & less private so they can tap our phones, read our email, and track our every movement.
Our government, through a hastily composed, middle-of-the-night, backdoor tactic, passed a law (the USAPATRIOT act) which essentially decimated our civil liberties and constitutional rights.
And now, our government is using the military to handle just about every problem that they can't control through proper governance.

Gee, I wonder why the poll numbers suggest that our country is MOVING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!

Kenneth "Conflict-of-Interest" Blackwell

2006-05-12T14:56:00.000-05:00

If you're not familiar with Kenneth Blackwell by now, you should be. This man is one of the vilest pieces of garbage in public office today, in my opinion. And that's quite a distinction considering the garbage we now have in the White House.

Kenneth Blackwell is currently the Secretary of State in the State of Ohio. Like Katherine Harris in the 2000 Florida election debacle, Mr. Blackwell (ab)used his position as the state's top election official and openly served as co-chair of the Bush presidential re-election campaign in 2004. He was the one responsible for the systematic disenfranchisement of (largely Democratic) voters. He was the one responsible for the inequities in voting machine allocations causing huge waiting lines and effectively suppressing an incalculable number of (largely Democratic) votes. He was the one who thwarted and stonewalled all attempts to obtain a fair recount. He is the one responsible for delivering Ohio to Bush in such a corrupt and crooked way, and essentially delivering Bush to the Nation for a second 4-year term of evil, fear, darkness, and despair. (Or, perhaps you choose to believe the right-wingnuts in some of the media who say the economy is strong and everything is rosey).

A New Election Cycle

Mr. Blackwell is at it again... He's running for Governor in Ohio to replace Bob Taft, who as a sitting Governor, is a convicted criminal for state ethics violations. As Blackwell stacks the election deck to ensure an all-electronic election in the state of Ohio, he awarded bids to the infamous Diebold company for voting equipment. Oh, and did I forget to mention that he invested in Diebold stock (by accident, he claims)? Couldn't possibly be a conflict-of-interest there, now could it?

Don't forget that these Diebold voting machines are paper-less and audit-less and easily hackable. We know that from the extensive research that was conducted in and around the November 2004 election. We know that there have been many hundreds of election irregularities specifically involving these machines.

And now, with an election investigation underway in Ohio, what do you think Mr. Blackwell did to ensure a thorough and impartial investigation? Do you think he recused himself and allowed a truly independent investigation to take place? Noooooooooo. Kenneth Blackwell has decided to head up the investigation himself..... the investigation on himself! Well, that's one way to ensure that you're not found guilty of any wrongdoing!

Does This Sound Familiar?

It should. This is a very typical political tactic that the Bush Administration and Republicans in the Senate & House have employed. Did they appoint an independent counsel to investigate the post-Katrina debacle when Hillary Clinton proposed it? Noooooooo. Did they appoint an independent counsel to investigate the Downing Street Memos and the Bush Administration's flagrant misuse and fabrication of pre-war intelligence? Nooooooo. Did they appoint an independent counsel to investigate the misuse of power in wiretapping Americans without warrants? Noooooooo. Did they appoint an independent counsel to investigate the abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay? Noooooooo.

This is the way they operate. With a majority in both the Senate & House, they have all the power to control the investigations... of themselves. I think the only reason some of these scandals have scored (Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Scooter Libby, Tom Delay) is because their offenses are so numerous and egregious that the public won't allow them to get away with them anymore. Plus, the Republicans in Congress need to start wiping their noses clean with an election coming up in November.

But, I'll tell you... if the Democrats really do take back Congress in November, there will be a massive, rude-awakening in Washington. And we can only hope it goes all the way to the top.

What Really Happened on September 11, 2001?

2006-05-10T09:02:00.000-05:00

Although I consider myself an avid Bush-hater, and have long since distrusted everything spewing from the mouths of these facist, neo-conservative, war-mongering bastards, I've never really considered myself to be a conspiracy theorist.

Even though I never really bought the story of how a lone gunman (Lee Harvey Oswald) shot John F. Kennedy, I've never considered myself one who believes the Government is behind just about everything that has happened. Still, as more and more lies from the Bush Administration are debunked, I have a natural (okay, 'burning') curiosity to explore these theories. After all, I want to be well read and hear all perspectives.

Introducing: "Loose Change 9/11, 2nd Edtion"

My son brought this documentary to my attention... Every American should watch this film. It's free and can be downloaded from 'YouTube.com' in 3 parts: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3. If you choose to believe everything in this documentary, it appears that the Government was behind everything that happened on 9/11 and Osama bin Laden & al Qaeda had nothing to do with it. The documentary poses a number of questions and raises a number of unanswered issues.

Why has the government been so secretive in respect to all facts and facets of 9/11? Why has the government stonewalled every attempt to determine the truth about the events of 9/11? This film collated as much evidence as it could find and purports very compelling arguments that contradict the 'truth' (or should I say the 'official account') as we know it concerning the events of September 11, 2001. You may or may not believe some or all of its content, but at the very least, you really should watch it. It's nothing short of astonishing.

The Republican Mantra: Privatization of Government

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

The original Republican mantra was selling the guise that Government was too big and should be much smaller. They think that if Government were smaller, then taxes would be lower. Republicans selfishly think that if the liberal deadbeats were taken off the welfare roles, then they'd be able to keep more of their hard-earned money. So, let's take a closer look at that strategy (i.e. illusion, diversion, & deception) of "smaller government = lower taxes".

Reality: Republican control = Larger Government

Under Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II the size of government has grown astronomically. Only under the Clinton Administration did the actual size of government decrease slightly. But the 'size' of government is only part of the story. The 'privatization' of the government is the real story.

Obviously, the government cannot expect to be expert in all things. So, it's natural to assume that the government will contract private industry to fill in the gaps where that expertise is needed. But where do you draw the line? This is a question I've raised many times. I believe that in so many cases, our government has drawn that line in the wrong place. Now we have private industry making unconscionably huge profits off of our tax dollars.

The excesses and overcharges in Iraq are well documented, particularly with regard to Halliburton's KBR subsidiary 'supplying' our troops or putting out oil well fires. Then there's the Custer Battles fiasco. All I know is that billions of dollars are missing. That's all I need to know to know that in many cases privatization of government is a farce.

Privatization of government means that my tax dollars aren't just providing necessary governmental services. My tax dollars are also providing gads and gads of profit for the right-wing companies which secure these (sometimes no-bid) contracts with the government. Why? 'Cuz that's the American way! That's "Free Enterprise"!

The Operative Question

We have to ask ourselves one basic question... Is it better to increase the size of government enough to perform necessary governmental tasks, or is it better to outsource the tasks to private industry? There's no 'right' or 'wrong' answer to this question, nor is there a single answer to this question because it must be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the task.

Republicans believe that the government should outsource (i.e. "Privatize") just about everything because they believe the government is hopelessly buracratic, mismanaged, and inefficient. Or, perhaps privatization affords corrupt politicians the opportunity to scam tax money from the taxpayers. I wouldn't begin to debate the incompetence and inefficiency of the US government in accomplishing any given task. After all, we all remember the $600 toilet seats. However, my contention is that by outsourcing the tasks to private industry, we introduce more complications and fail to solve the initial problems.

We failed to solve the initial problems because we're still paying exorbitantly for the governmental services such that our taxes couldn't possibly be lowered. In fact, from what I've read, it appears we're over-paying for services we're not receiving; we're housing contractors in high-cost luxury settings while our soldiers are in tents; we're paying contractors much more then we pay our soldiers; and day-in and day-out money seems to be missing.

We introduce a myriad of corruption and (lack of) accountability issues by attempting to accomplish tasks with private contractors. Such outsourcers are not subjected to the same rigorous standards & ethics that are required of our soldiers. And if they do something wrong, we can only blame & fire them, while our soldiers are court-marshaled and imprisoned for the same misconduct.

Our Democracy Privatized

This one takes the cake. It's bad enough that we're outsourcing/privatizing huge chunks of our war effort, we're also outsourcing/privatizing our democracy by contracting private companies to provide equipment and management of our election processes. This alone cuts to the very core of our democracy because it puts into question the legitimacy of our elected officials.

These private companies are openly Republican, and manufacture, distribute, & operate equipment that is secretive, unaccountable, and unverifiable. They not only provide paper-less, audit-less voting machines that have a history of malfunctions and questionable results, but they often also perform the ballot counting function which effectively shields & protects the lack of sanctity of the machines. Not only is the fox guarding the hen house, but that same fox is reporting on how many hens there are. No oversight. No checks-and-balances. No legitimacy to our democracy. This is how George W. Bush 'won' the 2004 election and this is why we're stuck with him for another 2 1/2 years. This is also why the Democrats will not win back the House or Senate or any semblance of control in Congress, despite overwhelming poll results which would support such a change.

I predict that this November will deliver results similar to the last election in 2004. Republicans will win the ballot boxes, while the Democrats win the exit polls. That is, unless our leaders in government do something about the illegitimacy of this privatization farce.

Some Names Have Changed, But The Song's The Same

2006-04-28T08:02:00.000-05:00

Over the last few months we've all noticed a slight metamorphosis going on in the White House. Dubya swapped out Chief-of-Staff Andy Card for Joshua Bolton. More recently he swapped out Presidential Spokesliar Scott McClellan for Tony Snow, a former Fox News contributor. As we ask ourselves why these changes (and I'm sure there are more to come) are taking place, we also have to ask ourselves if the strategy is going to work?

Obviously the Bush Administration saw its popularity and polling numbers deep in the crapper, and thought a few cosmetic changes will fix this problem. However, what George & Dick are too thick to realize, is that this problem is so much deeper than a few ancillary, relatively insignificant players. Let's face it - Andy Card really never had any true power in the White House, and Scott McClellan never had any credibility in articulating what was going on in the White House, mainly because the White House itself has no credibility.

What the American people are seeing is that the Bush Administration is made up of a bunch of evil, deceitful, manipulative, money-grubbing bastards who don't care one bit about the people in this country or any other. They don't care one bit about the economic climate in this country or any other. They don't care one bit about the environmental climate in this country or any other. They care about making profit for themselves and their friends, and about grabbing power and control.

The Reverse Robin Hood

The whole basis of the Bush administration's strategy has been to shift the wealth from those who don't already have much, to those who already have most of it. Really. They're stealing from the poor (and middle class) and giving to the rich! They're doing this by shifting the tax burden from the rich to the middle class by instituting huge tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthier populace. (By the way, not only does the middle class bear the brunt of that burden, but so will our children, and our children's children, and our children's, children's children).

Now with gas prices in the $3.00+ / gal range, I see yet another Reverse Robin Hood. Let's face it - the working people are paying for the profits of the money-grubbing oil companies. And who benefits? Bush & Cheney's friends in the oil industry, of course. I'll just call them "Their base".

The Bushies continue to say that "... there's no magic wand that will bring down gas prices....", but I disagree. There are certainly some things that our government could do to bring down the price of gas:

The Bush Administration could threaten the oil industry with Windfall Profits taxes if they don't adjust their gas prices to voluntarily limit their gargantuan profits.
Many experts believe that the price of oil is very much a function of the turmoil in the Middle East. Well... isn't our government the cause of so much of that turmoil? I say "Pull Out!". Leave the Middle East to the Middle East'ers and get rid of that American Imperialistic mentality. If we pulled out of that region and stopped pissing off the Islamic community, maybe the turmoil will dissipate and we can move on to a relationship of economic cooperation.
When we had the chance to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, what did we do? Just the opposite - we increased our dependence on foreign oil? Tell me George, why did you roll back the very achievable fuel-efficiency standards that were established in the Clinton Administration? Why did you give tax incentives for gas-guzzeling Hummers?

The Rot Starts At The Root

The American people have begun to realize that our country is headed in the wrong direction because our government is corrupt, self-serving, and deceitful. Changing a few ancillary players will not fix this because the problem goes right to the top, with George & Dick.

If you want to fix this America, vote Democratic in the next election. If you want to fix this, give the House & Senate back to the Democrats so we can get impeachment proceedings underway for both of these clowns.

America can't wait for 2008.

Presidential TV Show Round-Up

2006-04-21T13:24:00.000-05:00

As my readers well know - I'm a huge fan of two TV shows in particular which are centered around the American Presidency. Even though they're fiction, I'm particularly intrigued by their content and perspective which invariably hit home-runs in my book.

A "Commander-In-Chief" Veto

This week the ABC series "Commander-In-Chief" resumed after a 6-week hiatus. Those of you who've read my blog in the past know that I'm a big fan of this program, not just because the president is a woman, and not just because she's an Independent, but because she governs with her head and her heart instead of using a coalition of political contributors to formulate all of her policies & decisions. In this week's episode she's sponsoring a bill to address the homeless problem in our country.

And then there're the evil Republicans

As we know, President MacKenzie Allen's nemesis is the Speaker of the House - Nathan Templeton (Donald Sutherland) who is jockeying & posturing for a run for the oval office himself. He pressures a political colleague/lackey to attach an amendment to her 'Homeless Initiative Bill' that increases prison space in his home district. It's an obvious pork-barrel political move, but President Allen (Geena Davis) is ultimately forced to veto her own bill in order to block the amendment (which, by the way, cost more than the initial bill for the homeless initiative).

What did we learn from this episode? We learned that a president with a strong heart and a solid footing in common sense can make a difficult decision when s/he knows an injustice was done. We learned that a president doesn't have to succumb to the manipulation of lobbyists or political power-brokers. And we learned that a president can do the right thing, which isn't necessarily the 'right' thing.

Lawmaking & Swift-boating

At the risk of getting a little off track, this episode also shines a light on how lawmaking works in Washington. After a well-intentioned bill is sponsored by a legislator (or several), it undergoes a metamorphesis through a barrage of attachments from self-serving, lobbyist-influenced Congressmen/women & Senators until the bill is nothing like what was originally introduced. We've seen this a zillion times such as when Tsunami or Hurricane Katrina relief was attached to a Defense appropriations bill. What does one have to do with the other? Nothing. Or, how about when a multi-million dollar attachment is added to an energy bill to build a bridge in Alaska? Or, as an example in reverse, when an well-meaning attachment is derailed, like reducing tax-cuts for the wealthy to help pay for war-time Defense spending.

The problem arises when a lawmaker votes against a bill in protest to one or more of those undeserving and/or costly pork-barrel attachments. When it comes down to a final vote, after all the attachments have been afixed, the lawmakers can only vote yea or ney on the bill as a whole. Invariably a lawmaker may vote against a bill even though s/he agrees with parts of it in principle. However, that won't stop political enemies from using a lawmaker's voting record for smearing (or "swift-boating") purposes, making it look like they're for-or-against a particular issue because of a vote on a bill 'package', even though that stand on the issue is far from the truth.

Revisiting John Kerry the "Flip-Flopper"

Think of how many ignorant sheeple actually believed John Kerry, a decorated war veteran, was against supporting our troops after being exposed to the Republican's (i.e. Roveian) misleading message. No - he was against a pork-laden, bloated, Defense supplement that didn't include a moritorium on tax cuts for the wealthy to help pay for it, didn't include healthcare coverage for returning veterans, and did include cutting combat pay for active soldiers. But the neo-cons controlled 'the message', and all the ignorant sheeple heard was that John Kerry was a flip-flopper who voted for the war and against the troops.

By the way, not only did John Kerry NOT vote AGAINST the troops, but John Kerry did NOT vote FOR the war either, although so many Republican pundits and media talking heads purported & reported as such. If you're not sure what I'm talking about, then I invite you to read Kerry's speech on the Senate floor leading up to the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. After Bush's statement a month before - "If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force... It's a chance for Congress to say, 'we support the administration's ability to keep the peace.' That's what this is all about.'' - and Bush's cooked-up/cherry-picked/coerced/fabricated intelligence on Sadaam's WMD's, John Kerry voted for the resolution as a show of support for the President, but only as an absolute last resort, and only with overwhelming international support. He did not endorse the war.

Oh, but I digress. Back to the fiction...

The West Wing's "Requiem"

The euphoria was subdued after Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits, Democratic presidential candidate) won the election on the heels of the election-day death of his Vice-presidential running mate - Leo McGarry. Of course this wasn't the original story-line, but the actual death of actor John Spencer necessitated a re-direction in the plot. There were a number of sub-plots in this episode, not the least of which was a myriad of 'hook-ups' between the various players, but what I wanted to focus on was what President-elect Matt Santos was pushing as his first priority in proposed legislation having just won the presidential election.

Even as he's interviewing potential leaders in the House and negotiating with all the people looking for jobs in his new administration, his highest priority was legislation on lobbying reform. He wanted to eliminate the flow of money between lobbyists and lawmakers. How radical is that! This is something I've been preaching for a long time, and here on The West Wing, the president-elect is hell-bent on pushing it through as his highest priority. And why is it such a high priority? Because lobbying reform is the predecessor for all of the other legislation that will follow. In order for the president to move his agenda forward, he wanted prevent the dirty, scummy, slimey, money-grubbing lobbyists from buying their own legislation (or obstructionism) which would derail his agenda. Instead, he believes that lobbyists should argue for their legislation on the merits of their legislation. Novel idea, don'tcha think?

The other thing I thought was interesting in this episode was that President-elect Santos argued several times in favor of appointing a Republican to one of his cabinet posts (I believe he had a specific individual in mind for Secretary of Defense). Another novel idea? Well, not really. As we recall, President Clinton appointed a Republican - William Cohen - as his Secretary of Defense. Has Dubya crossed party lines to appoint the most competent person possible for any position in his administration? Not that I can recall. In fact, not only has he NOT crossed party lines despite his "I'm a uniter, not a divider" rhetoric, but he has consistently appointed people in his administration based on loyalty and political payback, instead of competence and ability.

In Summary

Again, I know it's fiction, but I can't help but draw the comparisons. Here are two separate leaders (one a President, one a President-elect), making the correct decisions and leading with vision, heart, and common sense. They're acting in the best interests of the country, not in the best interests of the lobbyists and political contributors. But unfortunately, this is fiction and Geena Davis & Jimmy Smits really are only 'acting', while the reality we're stuck with, is the opposite end of the spectrum.

If I Were President - Part 4 - Ethical Conduct

2006-04-14T16:00:00.000-05:00

"The people running our government are liars and cannot be trusted."

One of the key things I've learned as a blogger and political activist, having been astute and aware of the goings on in Washington, and incessantly craving any and all news & opinion from both progressive and conservative sources, is that corruption is utterly rampant in our government. I've addressed it in several other articles in my blog, particularly under the guise of campaign finance. But there's more, much more to bring to light.

There's more to bring to light, because unethical behavior is much more than just corruption. Corruption implies some flow of money for political favors, but ethical behavior, particularly in our elected representatives, is paramount to a working democracy. Ethical behavior is a requirement for trust & integrity. Ethical behavior in our elected officials implies that they're making decisions and advocating for the betterment of their constituency, not themselves.

The Lying

At the root of ethical behavior is that of telling the truth. This is where I have a huge problem with the current administration. Every day, more and more, the reality is reinforced, that the people in the Bush Administration (and I do mean ALL of them) simply do not tell the truth... at all. Sometimes it's proven immediately, and sometimes it takes a while, but by and large, EVERYTHING spewing out of the pie-holes of these assholes is false. And I don't just mean un-true... I mean KNOWINGLY false.

Just this week, after hearing reinforcement of the fact that Bush himself was an integral player in the classified intelligence leaks of 2003 (i.e. the attacks on Joseph Wilson & Valerie Plame), we're hearing that the WMD's the Bushies were claiming to have found in Iraq, weren't even close to being weapons of any kind. Let's revisit....

Yes, we know that there were no WMD's found in Iraq, even though many ignorant sheeple still think there were. They did find however, some trucks that the Bush Administration was claiming to be mobile weapons labs. The fact is, even AFTER these trucks were discovered to be anything but weaponry, the Bush Administration continued to purport that they were mobile weapons labs and that we finally found the WMDs!

This is just one more straw in an already broken camel's back to remind us that the people running our government are liars and cannot be trusted. There are whole volumes dedicated to the subject such as Al Franken's "The Truth (with Jokes)" & "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them", David Corn's "The Lies of George W. Bush", and Eric Alterman & Mark J. Green's "The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis)leads America". I have read all of these and highly, highly recommend each of them.

In my opinion, nothing said by any of these neo-cons can be accepted as either true or honest. In fact, I would go so far as to say that with anything they claim, we should assume the opposite.

So Here's My Point...

The people we (s)elect to govern us must be held accountable to the highest ethical standards. These are the people who will make so many critical decisions in our proxy. These are the people who allocate our tax dollars for the betterment of our country, our environment, and everything in between. These are the people who speak for us to neighboring and far-away nations. These are the people whose actions today will shape our future.

These people should be a model of ethical behavior. As our leaders they should be setting an example. They should be epitome of integrity. But they're not. Instead, they are lying, conniving, reckless, selfish, evil, manipulative, imperialistic bastards. The poll numbers tell a very interesting story... the people see right through them.

If I were president, I would hold the highest regard for integrity & ethical behavior. I would demand honesty. I would tell the truth and expect nothing less than that from EVERYONE in my administration.

If I Were President - Part 3 - Finance Reform

2006-04-07T08:23:00.000-05:00

Just under a year ago I published an article about corruption in government. Now, as I talk about what I would do "If I Were President", I'd like to draw from that article because I feel the content is still fresh and meaningful, particularly as scandals continue to engulf Washington.

One of the biggest problems with our political system is that our politicians are so utterly corrupt. And the reason they're so utterly corrupt is twofold. Firstly, there is a tremendous requirement for money to finance their campaigns. All of the staffing, promotion & advertising, office supplies, and vote-purchasing doesn't come cheap ya know. Secondly, there is a tremendous amount of money being waved in front of them by lobbyists who represent business interests. These two forces create a vicious & relentless cycle of corruption in our political system. More notably, our 'elected' politicians clearly do not represent the interests of their constituencies, or even the country. They represent, advocate, legislate, and wheedle for the interests of their contributors - big & powerful businesses & industries.

Follow The Money

Now think about the flow of money... You as a consumer overpay for many of the products you consume, because some of that cost goes to finance the product's manufacturer's operations & strategic direction. That manufacturer in turn funnels umpteen thousands (or perhaps millions) of dollars into the coffers of politicians who are on the hook to legislate favorably for them. The politicians, as a way of scratching the backs of the lobbyists & industries who finance them, promote legislation which rolls back regulations and protections, that come back to hurt us. In the end, we as consumers have virtually financed global warming, increased pollution, lower wages, lower standards of living, increased instances of worker fatalities & injuries, increased outsourcing of American jobs, increased deficit & debt, increased war-mongering and violence internationally, etc. I could go on and on.

The point is that the people in Washington, who we've elected (or selected) to represent us, have absolutely no desire, will, or impetus to do so. Their only desire is to create a perception that they represent us, while they really represent their contributors. That's the way Washington works.

Corruption is starting to surface

Over the last few months we've seen a number of political figures disgraced over corruption. Each of them have been Republicans whose thirst for power and money have overtaken their purpose and calling for why they were either elected (or selected) for their position. The most prominent names (Tom Delay, Scooter Libby, Randall "Duke" Cunningham, Jack Abramoff) fill our airwaves with the sweet sounds of Republican/Conservative downfall. However, we know (and hope) that there are many more shoes to drop. We know that Karl Rove had everything to do with the outing of Valerie Plame. We know that Dick Cheney had everything to do with the fabrication & manipulation of intelligence to justify and sell the war in Iraq. We know that Donald Rumsfeld had everything to do with the torturing & mistreatment of detainees in all of our prisons, as well as the complete and utter bungling of every facet of the wars in both Iraq & Afghanistan. We know that Condoleezza Rice had everything to do with the Bush Administration's failure to recognize and prevent 9/11. Again, I could go on and on. And those are just the scandals. But for a deeper look into the Bush Administration's corruption...

A Plug for "Bushit!"

Right now I'm currently reading this publication from Jack Huberman. The long title is: "Bushit! An A-Z Guide to the Bush Attack on Truth, Justice, Equality, and the American Way". Every American must read this book. It's a clear, concise, and cataloged accounting of corruption in the Bush administration. It goes far beyond the scandals and deep into the legislation, appointments, decisions, and policies which were spawned by lobbyist and industry contributions, and resulted in damaging, harmful, and destructive deregulation.

I've also read Huberman's earlier publication - "The Bush-Hater's Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency in the Past 100 Years". This book literally changed my life and set me on a course of political activism. This was published in December of 2003 however, so it's a little dated. "Bushit!" is Huberman's follow-up published in January of 2006. It's nothing short of amazing.

So, what to do...

Before we do anything else, we absolutely must take strides to eliminate, or at least reduce, the corruption in our government. The only way to do that is to eliminate (yes, completely eliminate) the flow of money from lobbies/business/industry to politicians. The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act took some small strides to reduce and regulate campaign contributions, but it didn't go nearly far enough.

Political campaigns need to be publicly financed with tax dollars. I know this sounds radical. On the surface it may even sound offensive if one stops to think that their tax dollars may go to finance the campaign of 'so-and-so' whom they don't want to support. Americans however, need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture, and realize that either way, we pay for it. Whether it's through the taxes we pay or the products we purchase, we pay for these political campaigns. There are some basic questions each American needs to ask themselves:

Do I want my Senators and Representatives with or withOUT corruption?
Do I want my Senators and Representatives to represent my interests or the interests of their contributors?
Do I want my Senators and Representatives to be constantly trolling for money or doing their jobs?
Do I want my Senators and Representatives and President to steer my country down a dangerous path of pollution, oil-dependency, deficits, deceipt, war-mongering/profiteering, economic disaster, big-brother government, fear, media manipulation, inequality, and American imperialism & arrogance? Or, do I want them to steer our country down a path of world peace, media independence, environmental protection, consumer protection, fiscal sanity, domestic tranquility, civil & human rights, truth, justice and equality?

If you stop and think about it in these terms, it's a no-brainer.

If I Were President - Part 2 - Illegal Immigration

2006-03-31T14:18:00.000-05:00

This is the current hot button issue in American politics. Illegal immigration has become the new Republican/Conservative mantra, finally overthrowing Gay Marriage on their list of battle cries. I of course, have my own opinions, so I might as well get on my soap box. First some background…

Who are the Immigrants?

First of all, let’s take a step back and look at immigration in general. The way I look at it, if you’re not a Native American, you’re either an immigrant or a descendant of an immigrant. That means pretty much all of us (who aren't getting rich in casinos).

So, for anyone of us to say that people should not be allowed to immigrate into our country, in my opinion, is just plain hypocritical. America is a melting pot of immigrants, and there’s no way we can just put a huge fence up around the country to keep them out. They’re going to come in, one way or another, so why don’t we address the root of the problem instead of trying to lock down our borders and exhaust our energies to return them from whence they came.

The Smoke Screen

Conservatives like to rant & rave that the illegal immigrants are stealing American jobs and draining the economy. The truth is that American businesses have been outsourcing American jobs for years. By and large our jobs have been shipped overseas because the labor is cheaper and free trade agreements have unleveled the playing field by withdrawing import tariffs. So, if you’re really concerned about the loss of American jobs, you should be rallying for import tariffs and against free trade agreements (CAFTA, NAFTA, etc.). If you’re really concerned about the loss of American jobs, you should be buying products which are strictly made in America. If you're really concerned about the loss of American jobs, lobby your Senator, Representative, and President for Universal Health Care, which will help to 'level the playing field'.

However, big business, which we know manages, controls, & operates our government, is not at all concerned with the loss of American jobs. They’re concerned with making profit and they can do that better with cheaper labor. The labor is cheaper outside of this country (as well as with illegal immigrants whom they pay very low wages and often no taxes). The 'playing field' is not level.

If anyone should be concerned with illegal immigration, it's the American worker. S/he's the one whose payrate is as low as it is because s/he has to compete with people who'll accept payrates that are bottom-of-the-barrel because they're desparate.

The Real Reason

Illegal immigrants, as well as everyone else in this country, consume the benefits that our country provides. They are protected by our defense, they ride on our roads, and they’re arrested by our police. They learn 'the system' and scam it for free education, emergency health care, welfare, and a whole host of tax-payer funded services. The real reason illegal immigration is a problem is that they don’t substantially contribute to the commonwealth of our community. Simply put - they don't pay their fair share of taxes (if any at all).

Now, if you’re really concerned about people paying their fair share of taxes, there are many, many, many other people and entities you should be directing your attention to… namingly the umpteen thousands of companies which maintain Post Office boxes in the Cayman Islands, to funnel their profits through, in order to avoid paying US taxes. Ask George & Dick about that sleazy scam - they’re very familiar with it. If you’re really concerned about people paying their fair share of taxes, take a good long look at the Bush tax cut initiatives and how their strategic plan is to shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. And if you’re really concerned about people paying their taxes, take a good look in the mirror and think about the last time you hired someone to clean your house, cut your lawn, or baby-sit your children. Did Uncle Sam get his cut?

My New Illegal Immigration Plan

Instead of exhausting so much energy trying to keep these people out of our country, I would crack down on businesses to ensure that if they employ them, they’re doing it ‘on the table’ and paying appropriate taxes on the services provided. In fact, if these people don’t have Social Security numbers and aren't paying their own taxes, I would enact legislation to make sure that businesses pay both the payroll taxes and the income taxes of these guest workers. I would level the playing field. You can't just target and blame the illegal immigrants for this 'problem'. American businesses have created this problem by providing the market that attracts them.

Furthermore, I would enact a multitude of legislation to close the loopholes which enable businesses to get away without paying their fair share of taxes. This Cayman Islands shit has got to stop. As well, businesses should not be awarded with tax breaks after shipping jobs out of the country. My understanding of the Republican's "Trickle Down" economic plan is that helping businesses be more profitable and giving them tax breaks is supposedly good for the economic health of the county. However, that only works if those businesses keep the jobs domestic. If they're going to continue to outsource jobs, either overseas or to illegal immigrants, then it's America's workers and the American economy that suffers.

Finally, I would work with the Mexican government to seek out new and inovative ideas for building the Mexican economy. That's really the root of the problem - you don't see an illegal immgration problem involving Canadians, do you?

My point is that solving the 'illegal immigration problem' is not about cracking down on them or people who aid them. As I've preached before, you have to look beyond the effects of the problem and get to the root casue(s). The root of the problem is that Mexico's economy sucks, their government is corrupt, and their poverty & unemployment levels are high, while at the same time American businesses love to hire cheap labor to keep their costs down and their profits high. That formula is a recipe for immigration (legal or illegal).

If I Were President – Part 1 – Foreign Policy

2006-03-24T10:34:00.000-05:00

Anyone can sit back in their easy chair and criticize the President or the Administration or any of the politicians for their decisions or their policies or their actions. Anyone like me with a big mouth and a lot of attitude, can second-guess those who’ve made the decisions, with 20/20 hindsight. But how many of us can step up and propose new ideas? That’s been the Republican mantra all along – that the Democrats don’t have any ideas of their own, they just criticize the Republican’s ideas. Of course we know that’s not true – the Democrats have plenty of ideas, they just don’t have any of the power. For example, Universal Health Care is a widely popular Democratic idea, but the Health-Care-and-Pharmaceutical-industries-backed Republicans saw to it that that great idea fell by the wayside. Oh, but I digress…

In today’s “Shtick”, I want to express what I would do with foreign policy if I were president. I, of course, don’t have the gumption, background, or chutzpah to run for president, but if I did and won, I have plenty of ideas about what I’d do. By the way, this is a fair question that every American should ask of themselves, particularly if they have the wherewithal to criticize the President, as I do.

The War on Terrorism

I believe we’re going about this ‘War on Terrorism’ all wrong. Our illustrious government has exhausted soooo much energy fighting this ‘war’ on what is essentially a tactic, rather than trying to get to the root of the problem. Terrorism isn’t an entity you can identify. Terrorism isn’t our enemy. Terrorism is the act of our enemies attacking us. So, instead of blindly waging war on a tactic, we should instead identify not only who our real enemies are, but more importantly, why they’re our enemies in the first place. The only true way to address ‘terrorism’ is to ask ourselves the question… “Why do we have these enemies who want to hurt us?” Or more succinctly, "Why do they hate us?" First, lets lay some groundwork by taking a look at the basic reasons for global conflict.

The Reasons for Conflict

#1 - Territory

Over the years and over the centuries, after scores of wars and countless casualties, there have been but a handful of true reasons for conflict. I believe the single most prevalent reason for conflict has been over territory. (btw… I find it utterly ironic that the word ‘territory’ sounds so much like the word ‘terrorism’.) But, that’s what it’s all about – territory. Over the years the divisions of people have been exasperated by the claiming of land that they believe belongs to them. The conflict starts of course, when multiple factions claim the same land.

#2 – Hatred & Fear

As tensions mount between disparate factions around the world, a perverse mixture of cultural, societal, and religious brainwashing ensues, teaching their people to hate & fear those who are different. Yes, it’s brainwashing when children are taught to hate & fear ‘our enemies’ (who of course are defined by our government). It’s brainwashing when our government and media consistently bombard us with threats and 'intelligence' that "our enemies" want to hurt us. And it’s pure brainwashing when an ignorant teenager is coerced into killing him or herself, along with a bunch of other people, in a misguided effort to be with their God and a boatload of virgins. (Someone needs to 'splain me the lure of killing myself, and others, to be with a bunch of people who've never had sex... long after I'm dead.)

#3 – The Grab for Power

This is the one that pisses me off the most. I can understand that territorial issues can cause wars. Sad as it is, it makes perfect sense that different factions would fight for the same property, both claiming that it’s theirs. I can even understand (although I don’t agree with it) the hatred that’s built up over time as an effect or ramification of the conflict. But, what I what I just can't phathom is the grab for power. The grab for power is essentially a world leader saying that “I’m not satisfied with just my own territory, I want yours too!”

This has basically been United States policy since the end of WWII – American Imperialism. We’ve been building up the American presence all over the globe, installing military bases in over 160 countries, and pushing our weight & power around in a strategy to dominate the world. Instead of adhering to Gene Roddenberry’s brilliant concept of “The Prime Directive”, we’re constantly interfering in other country’s processes to govern themselves***.

Even worse, some dipshits in the Bush Administration heard that old adage that “The Best Defense is a Good Offense” and decided to go on the offensive. So, instead of just protecting our country, now we preemptively strike and provoke wars in far-away nations. And to sell it to the American people, they fabricate the 'intelligence' and brainwash us with hate & fear

The Root of Terrorism

And this all comes back to us in the answer to that question “Why do they hate us?” Let me tell you why they hate us. They hate us because of our arrogance. They hate us because our grab for power has essentially been terrorism to them. Look around sheeple. Anyone who thinks Americans are loved around the world is simply not paying attention.

My New Foreign Policy

So here’s my new foreign policy if I were president. I would maintain & protect our embassies around the world, but redirect our energies into commerce and humanitarian initiatives, and turn all the military bases over to the hosting countries. I would bring 2/3 of our troops home to protect, defend, and serve our own homeland (you know, like shoring up the levees in New Orleans and strengthening our ports & borders).

I would apologize to the international community for our decades of arrogance and plead for forgiveness and a new beginning of peace and cooperation.

I would work with the United Nations as a partner and contributor, instead of as an arrogant manipulator.

I would negotiate with world leaders as a neighbor, without telling them how to run their governments. However, I would insist on adherence to a universal standard of human rights as a condition for partnership with America and the rest of the world.

The ‘War on Terrorism’ shouldn’t be about killing all the terrorists. It should be about understanding why they hate us. It should be about being partners in this world instead of trying to take over the world.

###

***By the way, as we're pushing our weight & might around in all these countries, don't think for one minute that our interest has been the proliferation of Democracy. I know Dubya said "Democracy is on the march!", but Democracy has never been our objective. Oil has never been our objective either. Nor has human rights, or even national security. All of that is just a smoke screen, as we've historically used those as tools. We've overthrown democracies for dictatorships (remember the Shah of Iran?). We've put up with Saudi Arabia, another dictatorship with a deplorable record on human rights, and the origin of 16 of the September 11th 'terrorists'.

Nope. Our objective has always been friendly governments who help to serve our business interests. Sure, we want their oil. But, have we ever been unwilling to pay for it? Have they ever been unwilling to sell it to us? Noooooooo. The only questions have been "who profits?" and by "how much?".

“Baby Killers” by Mike Whitney

2006-03-20T13:13:00.000-05:00

As if the carnage and bloodshed we hear about daily in Iraq wasn’t bad enough, this one will make you lose your lunch.

I had heard about this incident in bits-and-pieces last week, but I was still trying to piece together the facts. This is truly disturbing. It hasn’t really made it into the mainstream media, but as you know, I keep my ears close to the blogosphere. Mike Whitney articulates the story very well, in this article I found on the Smirking Chimp.

Executive Summary

From what I can gather, apparently, in an attempt to crack down on those terrorist evil-doers in Iraq, American (yes, AMERICAN) soldiers, whom we support so much, managed to decimate a house and its 11 occupants. The kicker? Five children… four women… two men… shot execution style in the head. No al Qaeda or terrorists, just innocent civilians.

I invite you to read the article below… if you have the stomach.

Mike Whitney: 'Baby killers'
Monday, March 20 @ 10:19:56 EST

What goes through George Bush's mind when he sees the dead bodies of Iraqi women and children loaded on the back of a pickup truck like garbage?

Is there ever a flicker of remorse; a split-second when he fully grasps the magnitude of the horror he has created?

March 15 was another defining moment in America's downward moral-spiral in Iraq. Eleven members of an Iraqi family were killed in a wanton act of slaughter executed by the American occupiers. Photos taken at the scene show the lifeless bodies of young children, barely old enough to walk, lying motionless in the back of a flatbed truck while their fathers moan inconsolably at their side.

What parent can look at these photographs and not be consumed with rage?

The US military openly admits it attacked the house in Ishaqi where the incident took place. Reuters reports that, "Major Ali Ahmed of the Ishaqi police said US forces landed on the roof of the house in the early hours and shot the 11 occupants, including five children."

"After they left the house they blew it up", he said. "The bodies, their hands bound, had been dumped in one room before the house was destroyed," (policeman) Hussein said. Police had found spent American issue cartridges in the rubble." (Reuters)

The autopsy report at the Tikrit hospital said, "All the victims had gunshot wounds to the head".

Iraqi policeman Farouq Hussein noted, "It is a clear and perfect crime without any doubt".

The evidence provided by Reuters suggests that we have entered the "My Lai phase" of the Iraq war, where the pretensions about democracy and liberation are stripped-away and replaced with the gratuitous butchery of women and children. The carnage in Ishaqi illustrates the growing recklessness and desperation of Washington's failed crusade.

Military spokesman Major Tim O' Keefe justified the attack saying they were searching for "a foreign fighter facilitator" for Al Qaida in Iraq. He added, "Troops were engaged by enemy fire as they approached the building. Coalition Forces returned fire utilizing both air and ground assets....Two women and one child were killed. The building was destroyed."

In fact, 11 women and children were killed and there's no evidence to verify that the house was being used as an Al Qaida safe-house.

The US military made similar claims after bombing raids in January and December when a total of 17 family members were killed.

The grim fact is that is that the lives of Iraqi women and children are of no real consequence to US officials. As General Tommy Franks boasted, "We don't do body counts". The victims of American aggression are simply dismissed as collateral damage undeserving of any further acknowledgement.

The story has received scant attention in the establishment media, which prefers to highlight the stumbling oratory of our Dear Leader as he reaffirms our commitment to western "pro-life" values.

In truth, George Bush is as responsible for the deaths of those children as if he had put a gun to their heads himself and shot them one by one.

At present, we have no way of knowing how frequently these attacks on civilians are taking place. The Pentagon strategy of removing independent journalists from the battlefield has created a news-vacuum that makes it impossible to know with confidence the extent of the casualties or the level of the devastation. The few incidents like this that find their way into the mainstream create a troubling picture of military adventurism and brutality that is no longer anchored to any identifiable moral principle or vision of resolution. It is simply violence randomly dispersed on a massive scale; traumatizing the Iraqi people and bringing the United States into greater disrepute.

There were no Al Qaida fighters in the home in Ishaqi. The attack was just another lethal blunder by a blinkered military fighting an invisible enemy.

"The killed family was not part of the resistance; they were women and children," said Ahmed Khalaf. "The Americans promised us a better life, but we only get death."

“What Kind of Message Does It Send…?”

2006-03-17T10:24:00.000-05:00

In the aftermath of 9/11 mostly everyone rallied behind the President. It was the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor, and we were thrust into our biggest conflict in decades. Not since Vietnam have we had so many troops deployed in active fighting, being killed and maimed on a daily basis.

Back in 2001 I wasn’t as politically astute as I am now. I wasn’t paying attention enough to comprehend the corruption of the political machine known as the Bush Administration. I recall The Dixie Chicks were the first to openly criticize the President, voicing their shame having emanated from the same state. They were harshly criticized for not rallying behind the President in time of war. After all… “What kind of message does it send to our enemies when our country isn’t fully behind the President in time of war?”

I’ll tell you what kind of message it sends. It sends a message that our country puts the very highest value on freedom. In particular - the freedom of speech, the very first amendment of our Constitution. Our forefathers had the foresight to understand that dissent and debate is not only allowed, but encouraged. Only through exhaustive internal struggle would we have policy and decisions that are the very highest quality.

Iraq and the 2004 Presidential Campaign

Flash forward a few years and George is up for re-selection. Let’s not forget that we already knew there were no weapons of mass destruction, no connection between Osama bin Laden/al Qaeda and Sadaam Hussein/Iraq, and no real justification for his preemptive war on Iraq. Most progressives already knew Bush lied us into this war, but the Downing Street memos hadn’t come out yet. Some level-headed Democrats were calling for an end to the war and to bring our troops home. “What kind of message does it send to our troops?” I heard Mr. Bush say as he debated Senator Kerry.

I’ll tell you what kind of message it sends. It sends a message that we care about our troops. We value their lives enough to not have them in harms way for foolishly contrived, arrogant, selfish, greedy reasons. What kind of message did YOU send our troops Mr. Bush, when you sent them into harms way without the proper preparation, intelligence, planning, and equipment? What kind of message did YOU send our troops when you slashed their benefits and combat pay?

The Arab People

What kind of message did you send to the Arab people around the world when you bombed the shit out of a sovereign Arab nation and killed tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of their innocent civilians? What kind of message did you send the Arab people when it was revealed that you tortured thousands of their brethren, refused to accept responsibility for any wrong-doing, and refused to discontinue the internationally-condemned practice? What kind of message did you send the Arab people when you occupied Iraq and gave the plum reconstruction contracts to your buddy’s (American) companies instead of first-and-foremost allowing Iraqis to rebuild their own country? What kind of message did you send the Arab people when you gave India the “nucular” green light while threatening Iran about their nuclear program?

The Katrina Debacle

What kind of message did you send the American people when you heard the warnings, you knew the Gulf coast was being flooded, and you still flew off to photo-ops and fundraisers for four days while poor people either drowned or saw their lives washed away. AND THEN you had the tenacity to say that no one anticipated the breach of the levees.

The Dubai Debacle

Most recently, Dubya again dug his heels in and threatened to veto any contrary legislation to the Dubai Ports deal. Fortunately, Republicans in an election year trying to distance themselves from an unpopular president, finally had the cajones to stand up to the Bush Administration and forge a veto-proof block. But, not before George got in his signature dissent-squashing rhetoric… “What kind of message does it send to the world when we’re willing to do business with one country and not another?”

Well George… since we know you’re a pathological liar, since we know you’ve never had the interests of the American people in your heart, and since we know you couldn’t care less about what our international allies think, we know you’re not at all concerned with what kind of message you’re sending.

Essay Question - How Might History Rate George W. Bush?

2006-03-10T12:44:00.000-05:00

My oldest son is a freshman in college where he’s currently taking a course in Government. On a recent exam, he had a take-home essay question which I found particularly provocative:

Q) Two standards in evaluating effectiveness in the presidency are the President’s performance as Commander-In-Chief and his handling of the economy. With the nation dealing with two wars and an economy still in recovery, how might history rate George W. Bush?

Firstly, I wouldn't rate George W. Bush as "... one of the worst presidents...", I would rate him as "…the absolute worst president ever...". No president has ever had such a magnitude of negative impact on not only our country, but the entire planet. I’d like to break up the question into two separate parts… One, his performance as Commander-in-Chief, and two his handling of the economy. So, let's look at the two parts individually:

1. Performance as Commander-in-Chief

George W. Bush has been an utter failure as Commander-in-Chief of the United States of America. Having been asleep on the job on September 11, 2001 (there were no fewer than 50 intelligence indications of the impending attack) and then using that terrorist incident as justification for pre-emptive war on sovereign Middle Eastern nations, he has inflamed the entire, world-wide Islamic community. This has not made America safer as he and his Administration suggests. Instead, he has fueled & incited a new generation of America-haters.

In addition to George W. Bush killing literally hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Iraq by attacking & occupying that country and torturing their citizens, he has continually thumbed his nose at the international community in general by withdrawing from every major treaty, dissembling decades of diplomatic strides. The Kyoto Accord, the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile treaty, and the International Criminal Court are just a sampling of the arrogance & hypocrisy he has shown, which continues to agitate the world against us. With an agenda of world domination, clearly articulated in the Project for the New American Century’s mission statement, the Bush Administration continues its imperialism scheme by provoking Iran, Syria, and North Korea into confrontations.

As civil war continues to break out in Iraq, the American community is squarely against the President in every aspect. A multitude of evidence has surfaced since the election of 2004 which clearly shows the President’s incompetence and preponderance for deceit. All this has led to a well-deserved approval rating in the low 30’s, and literally no confidence or respect, both domestically and abroad. Bush squandered support following 9/11, and now has none.

Bush was again asleep on the job in the summer of 2005 as a devastating hurricane demolished the Gulf coast. While tens of thousands of poor (and largely black) people were washed out of their homes, the hypocrisy & deceit of George W. Bush was clearly evident as he continued to stroll through photo-ops & fund-raisers, ignoring the devastation and dying Americans. He denied he was aware of the tragedy, but video evidence surfaced that showed he was clearly made aware of the impending disaster. Once again, he lied, deceived, misled, and cajoled. But, we’ve now grown to expect that.

2. Handling of the Economy

On the economic front there have been very few signs that the country has benefited from the Bush Administration. In the 5+ years since Bush took office, there has been a net loss in jobs created. A devastating recession started in March of 2001, soon after Bush originally assumed the presidency, which took an immense toll on the country. Only after reaching 'rock-bottom' has the economy started to slowly turn around, not because of Bush's economic policies, but because it had no place else to go.

Bush’s answer to virtually all economic woes has been tax cuts which largely benefit the wealthier populace - a holdover from the Reagan Administration’s “Trickle-Down” economic theory. As 45 million Americans suffer without health insurance, as a wedge continues to expand the divide between the upper class and the middle & lower classes, and as the deficit & debt of this country continues to balloon to unprecedented proportions, history will record Bush’s economic policies as disastrous. Instead of lifting Americans out of poverty and getting them to work, he’s increased the number of Americans in poverty and helped export jobs.

Bush’s pro-business / anti-regulatory policies have had a profoundly negative impact on our environment, our civil rights, and labor, while the Military Industrial Complex has flourished. Our dependence on foreign oil has increased exponentially, and his response is to open up the Artic National Wildlife Refuge for oil exploration. At the same time he relaxed achievable fuel-efficiency standards originally implemented during the Bush I & Clinton presidencies, which would have had a huge impact on consumption.

Summary

In the end, if George W. Bush isn’t impeached over one or more of his many scandals, he will finish out his presidency as a lame-duck, excuse of a president... ineffectual, disrespected, and largely hated both domestically & abroad. He (and his truth-challenged neo-conservative henchmen) will attempt to ‘spin’ everything to be positive or Clinton’s fault, forever failing to accept responsibility for their myriad of disasters.

Our descendants will inherit the mess this Administration has left them with burdens they don’t deserve. And level-headed, fiscally-responsible Democrats will take the heat for raising taxes to put the country back on the right track.

Son, I hope this gets you an A+

8^)

Balance & Tradeoffs - Where Do You Draw The Line?

2006-03-03T09:27:00.000-05:00

Everything in this world has some kind of delicate balance, and everything we do has some kind of tradeoff which affects that balance.

There’s been a lot of noise made about this latest Bush Scandal – the Dubai Ports World deal, buying a British company (Peninsular & Oriental Steam) which has been operating 21 ports in 6 major cities along the eastern seaboard and Gulf of Mexico.

This is yet another egg-on-the-face moment for the Bush Administration. We know that there was some back-room deal made for Dubai to purchase this company, probably brokered by the Carlyle Group where Dubya’s daddy is a big honcho. So I don’t doubt that there are a lot of sleazebag, Republican, neo-cons who stand to get richer over this deal. The negotiation and investigation was all done in secret (as is most of the Bush Administration’s sleazy cronyism), and it was only after news hit the airwaves that the chimp came out and said there was no security risk and he would veto any attempt to stop the deal. Then the uproar ensued.

Soon after that veto threat, a number of interesting tidbits started trickling out:

Bush himself was unaware of the deal until after it was already decided by his own administration, yet he still dug his heels in and pissed off Congress with his veto threat, even before Congress had an opportunity to review it.
Donald Rumsfeld was also unaware of the deal until after it was already decided on, even though he is on the committee to make that decision (by the way, it was a ‘unanimous’ decision).
Support for this deal is few and far between, while opposition is squarely bipartisan. Even many Republican leaders are opposed to the deal, or at least raising some red flags to slow down the process for rightful oversight.
The extreme right-wing (you know – assholes like O’Reilly & Hannity), who support Bush in all his corrupt & crony endeavors, started chastising the ‘liberals’ for being hypocritical racists (although note in the previous bullet that opposition to the deal is abundantly bipartisan). Of course ‘liberals’ are against racial profiling in airport security screening, but now anti-Arab when it comes to an Arab country taking over our vital port operations.
Both the Coast Guard AND Homeland Security have been raising red flags about this deal.
At the Governors conference, five of the six governors in the involved states voiced objections to the deal. The only governor who did not object was from Florida. Yes, Jeb Bush – the president’s little brother.
I probably don’t need to go into the United Arab Emirates as a country… about how two of the 9/11 hijackers emanated from this country… about how this country was used for funneling terrorism finances… about how this country was one of only three to recognize the Taliban regime… about how this country does not recognize Israel and honors an Arab boycott of Israel… about how this country is a dictatorship with a deplorable record on human rights.
Dubai Ports World greased the Bush Administration palms with heavy donations to the Bush Presidential Library and to a Katrina relief fund.

20/20 Foresight

My take on this Dubai Ports deal is this – Where do you draw the line? So, let’s say the deal goes through and a ‘now friendly’ United Arab Emirates is controlling ports in six major cities. (btw… I chose the phrase ‘now friendly’ for very good reason. It is not unusual for Arab nations in the Middle East to toggle between friendly and unfriendly, depending on the political climate of the current regime, events that occur, and many intricate factors. Remember, BOTH Sadaam Hussein AND Osama bin Laden were friendly Arab leaders at some point in history. If you saw “Fahrenheit 9/11”, you’ll remember a scene with Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Sadaam Hussein - yes, we were the ones who gave him all those WMDs back in the 80’s. Osama too used to be one of our best friends when we were fueling his fight in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.)

Looking forward, in a couple of months or years, the UAE then takes over ports and airport operations in another dozen major cities. Then… of course… since Saudi Arabia is a ‘now-friendly’ country to the US, and they have lots of money and ties to the Bush Administration, and the precedent is already set with UAE, they start taking over ports and airport operations in another dozen or so major US cities. And then Pakistan wants a piece of the action. Do you see where I’m going with this?

Balance & Tradeoffs

This has been a major fault in the Bush Administration in my opinion – knowing where to draw the line. I believe that the Bush Administration does not understand the delicateness and intricacies of ‘balance’. And they surely do not understand the impact and ramifications of tradeoffs. They’ve long since traded off environmental protections for profit, lives for power, peace for war, honesty for deceit, civil rights for security, democracy for theocracy, intelligence for arrogance, and long-term economic stability for short-term tax (cut) ‘relief’. Do you see where I’m going with this?

Where do you draw the line, George? In every case, and on every level, you’ve consistently drawn the line in the absolute worst place. That’s called bad judgment. And we are the ones who will pay for your tradeoffs.

Extreme Makeover, Government Edition; Part II - Election Reform

2006-02-24T10:21:00.000-05:00

I was recently invited to speak at a local college on the subject of the 2000 and 2004 elections… particularly how they were stolen. I wouldn’t call myself an expert on election rigging, but I am a flaming liberal, and I suppose that makes me an expert in most things anti-Bush.

I’ve been reading about the election anomalies and irregularities all along, and I had no doubt that the Busheviks stole both elections, but I hadn’t taken the time to meticulously compile all of the evidence and findings for a speech. So, for the past few weeks I’ve been researching. Rep. John Conyers’ document “Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio” is one of the definitive reports on the subject. This amazing piece of literature speaks to the corruption of the 2004 election, particularly in Ohio - the operative state that swung the presidency to Bush. Another critical reading is “Fooled Again” by Mark Crispin Miller, which goes deep into the 2004 election fraud and corruption, before during, and after November 2nd, on many aspects, not just Ohio. Then of course, there are a myriad of articles on the subject, too numerous to mention.

The election anomalies & irregularities in November of 2004 were abundant and just about every one of them favored Bush and the Republicans. The statistical evidence is overwhelming, not just because the ‘actual’ voting results differed so much from BOTH the exit polls AND the pre-election telephone polls, but because the discrepancies were only flagrant in the states and counties where the paperless, audit-less voting machines were deployed. Even if you ignore statistics, probability, and likelihood, simple common sense would conclude that election anomalies, if pure & innocent, would occur in BOTH directions. But nooooooooo… literally tens of thousands of election irregularities and they all benefited W. It simply isn’t possible. Make no mistake – this election was stolen!

My message in this article however, is not to document and prove that the elections were stolen. So many people have already done that, and I urge you to do your own research just as I have done. My message today is that the current electoral environment and processes in the United States are inherently flawed and need to be changed – radically changed. So here are a few ideas for radical change in our electoral process…

Conflicts of Interest

This goes back to Part 1 of my “Extreme Makeover” series, which was all about corruption. Essentially, no election official should ever have an affiliation with a candidacy. It’s nothing short of unconscionable that both Katherine Harris and Kenneth Blackwell were the top election officials in their respective states, while at the same time chairing the Bush campaign in the 2000 & 2004 elections in their respective states. That conflict-of-interest is just as blatant as the Vice President of the United States receiving compensation from a company that the government hands out no-bid, billion-dollar contracts to. Were they just coincidences that in both elections the tiebreaker came down to those states?

Clearly, in Ohio in the 2004 election, Kenneth Blackwell as Ohio’s Secretary of State (responsible for the election) AND chairperson of the Bush campaign, did everything in his power to swing Ohio over to Bush. Well before Election Day he was thwarting registrations and provisional & absentee ballots. On Election Day he allocated voting machines to the benefit of the more affluent Republican precincts while the lesser affluent Democratic precincts were shorted causing impossible waiting lines. After Election Day he did all he could do to obstruct the recount processes. This man’s actions are nothing short of treasonous as he intentionally impeded the United States democracy.

Verifiable Machines

Talk about infuriating… after the 2000 election debacle, our wonderful Republican-controlled congress passed an election reform law (the Help America Vote Act – HAVA) that actually made the election process worse. HAVA essentially corrupted the electoral process even more then it already was by paving the way for paperless, audit-less electronic voting machines, manufactured AND operated by blatantly partisan companies (Diebold, ES&S, Triad, etc.).

Every electronic balloting machine MUST have a paper trail to back up its tally, but HAVA does not require it. All machines should also produce a hard-copy receipt for the voter to verify and validate that the machine accurately recorded their vote. The electronic tally and the paper-trail tally must synchronize. Every electronic balloting machine must be open for random inspection, oversight, and verification to ensure the sanctity of the equipment.

Given the statistical discrepancies between the polling and ‘actual’ results, particularly in states & counties deploying these unverifiable machines, I am absolutely certain they were hacked. In the software industry, there are extremely stringent standards for quality assurance and auditing of transactions (i.e. ‘votes’). If you think that those voting machines without paper trails are just fine, just imagine one of those machines as your ATM, and the votes as deposits in your bank account. However, you never get a receipt for your transactions, and never receive monthly statements to reconcile your account. Would you trust your bank account to an electronic machine with no audit trail, no paper trail, no oversight, and manufactured & operated by an organized crime syndicate? (Not that I’m equating the Republicans to organized crime, although I certainly could, the point is that whether you’re a Democrat OR a Republican, you wouldn’t trust your money to organized crime).

Revise the Electoral College

This never made any sense at all to me. If one candidate receives just 1 vote more than the other in a given state, they get ALL of that state’s electoral votes. Why? What sense does that make? I can buy the concept of electoral votes, which are the equivalent of the total number of the members of Congress, but I think that within each state, the electoral votes should be divided according to the votes tallied for that state. The winner-gets-all rule on a state-by-state basis is not fair by any stretch of the imagination.

Media Coverage

Clearly, the media has a magnanimous influence over the public. The media has shaped public opinion in so many ways, and that is why it is so critical for the media to be politically independent. Unfortunately, that is not the case anymore. Media consolidation over the last 5 to 10 years has put the shaping of public opinion into the hands of a handful of people. One could argue that Rupert Murdoch had every bit of influence in selecting George W. Bush for president in 2000 as did the Supreme Court. The conservative bias in the Fox News Channel (FNC) is well documented in the exposé – Outfoxed. (By the way, if you have not had a chance to see this documentary I strongly urge you to rent the DVD. It’s truly astonishing when you hear about some of the stuff that occurred behind the scenes at FNC. Having seen that documentary, I will never watch FNC again, nor will I ever trust any news from FNC.)

I would never advocate for governmental influence over the media. However, in the case of elections, I do believe there are some guidelines that the media should observe in the interest of preserving fairness. First of all, no media outlet should ever be predicting any winners before all of the polls are closed. I know that if I lived out on the west coast and one of the networks called the race before I had a chance to vote, I probably wouldn’t bother voting.

Make Election Day a holiday

It would not cause economic harm to have a special holiday once every couple of years to aid in the election process. Citizens shouldn’t have to fit voting into their work schedule, along with picking up their kids from day care. If you really want to Help America Vote (HAVA), make Election Day a holiday. That will help them get to the polls.

In the end…

Having faith in the electoral process has everything to do with the credibility of the President, his/her ability to govern, the plausibility of his/her agenda, and his/her mandate for change. In every respect I have no faith in this President.

The Heat Is On – Scandal Updates

2006-02-17T10:53:00.000-05:00

Yes, the heat was turned up one notch this week with so much activity in the scandals surrounding the Bush Administration. If that weren’t enough, Vice President Dick Cheney drops another scandal right in our laps (I loved the image of Jon Stewart looking up and mouthing the words “Thank You”). So, let’s get an update on some of our White House scandals, shall we…

Dick Cheney – A Weapon of Imbecilic Destruction

Much of the focus of this scandal has been around the delay that occurred before the news of this incident reached the public, along with the method – leaked by Katharine Armstrong, the owner of the ranch where this occurred, who is a private citizen. While it’s all well & good to criticize the Vice President for the delay & method, there are so many other facets to this story that bear scrutiny…

Why was Dick Cheney hunting farm-raised quail… from his car? Is there really any sport in that? Why was Cheney hunting without the proper certifications (he was absent of a special stamp to engage in hunting upland game)? Why was the Vice President drinking beer shortly before hunting? Was he intoxicated?

Why was the statement from Katharine Armstrong basically blaming the victim? Is it Harry Whittington’s fault that he looks like a bird?

Why did Dick Cheney, who is known to be in ill health with a bad ticker, gout, and circulatory problems in his legs, make a 180 degree turn and fire his weapon haphazardly? It appears that Cheney broke many of the cardinal rules of hunting. Then again, breaking the rules is par-for-the-course for Dick Cheney who essentially has always played by his own rules.

Why did Cheney originally misrepresent the facts of the incident to the President? First reports to President Bush were that there was a shooting involving the Vice President’s entourage while hunting – they didn’t originally inform the President, Chief of Staff Card, or Press Secretary McClellan that it was the Vice President who did the shooting.

Yes, this scandal is a microcosm of all that is evil in the Cheney Administration – lies, secrecy, spin, rich lobbyists who contributed heavily to Republican coffers, smearing the victim, blaming the liberal media – and that’s just for starters. As tidbits continue to leak out I think there are going to be more twists to this story.

Drove My Chevy To The Levee

The Katrina hurricane tragedy took another twist this week as a report was published announcing that all branches of government were at fault. As Gomer Pyle would say: “Surprise, Surprise!!” …like we didn’t know that before!

The difference now is that evidence shows the Bush Administration and Homeland security were informed of the breach of the levees very shortly after it happened, not a day later as they originally claimed. What does that matter you ask? Well, it unveils for certain that while Bush and Chertoff were attending conferences, birthday parties, and photo-ops, people were dying in the Gulf coast AND THEY KNEW IT! They knew the levees would breach on a hurricane greater than a category 3, they knew the result would be catastrophic, and they went along their business as if there were nothing pressing or urgent to bother with.

Yup, that’s leadership in a crisis... kind of like reading a children’s book for 20 minutes while the country is under attack.

More Abu Ghraib Pictures

I don’t want to beat this dead horse too much, but it’s worth mentioning. Brand new pictures surfaced this week about the abuses from Abu Ghraib, not long after the President and Secretary of State professed that we don’t torture. These same news agencies (Washington Post, etc.) have also said they have even more pictures that are too graphic to release. In addition, the Pentagon has already said that they’re not releasing a number of pictures because they didn’t want to incite more Islamic uprising.

Tell us again Mr. Bush, why is Iraq better off now than when Saddam was oppressing them?

You Don’t Know Jack?

Shortly after Jack Abramoff was indicted for all his wrong-doings, numerous as they may be, the White House started distancing themselves from Jack and his myriad of scandals. President Bush, ever the liar, said in so many words that he doesn’t even know Jack Abramoff.

No sooner did those words leave his lying lips did Jack Abramoff himself profess that he’s met with Bush on a dozen occasions. Pictures of them together have started to emerge, and the White House even said in so many words that they’re refusing to publish additional pictures of them together. I guess those pictures are classified because they’re a matter of national security.

We know that Jack Abramoff was using access to the President as leverage for manipulating Indian leaders. We know that Jack Abramoff was part of Bush’s 2000 transition team. We know that Jack Abramoff has contributed heavily to Bush’s candidacies – enough to be categorized as a ‘Pioneer’. And, we know that Jack Abramoff and Karl Rove’s relationship goes back at least 20 years to their college days.

I’m sorry Mr. Bush, but you DO know Jack!

Scooter Sings

This week saw the start of Scooter Libby testifying to the special prosecutor. This is what we’ve been waiting for. After all the investigations, all the hearings & testimonies, all the blogs, all the pictures, all the emails, all the media focus, and all the hype, the best Patrick Fitzgerald could come up with (thus far) was an indictment on the Vice President’s Chief of Staff for perjury. So far he hasn’t actually nailed anyone for actually outing an undercover CIA agent. He’s only managed to nail Scooter for lying ‘under oath’.

So, now Libby is in the hot seat, literally, and pointing his finger directly at the Vice President. Mr. Libby testified that he was (in so many words) “…ordered by ‘my superiors’ to disclose classified information…”. Although the media has been so wrapped up in CheneyGate, they haven’t latched on to the fact that Dick Cheney (Scooter’s Superior) was the one who ordered the outing of Valerie Plame. This is big. This is really big, because I read this as the Vice President of the United States has committed treason! Perhaps Dick shot his hunting pal just to divert attention away from the real heat. Either way, the heat is on, and it’s only going to get hotter.

What The Republicans Learned From Clinton

2006-02-10T11:08:00.000-05:00

In the twilight of Bill Clinton’s presidency, as we all know, he spent a lot of time in the hot seat, literally, as he responded to the scandal of his extra-marital affair with Monica Lewinsky. Yes, he cheated on his wife by engaging in oral sex with a young intern. By the very nature and definition of ‘cheating’, he lied about it as well. However, the actual crime he committed, the reason the Republicans impeached him in the House, was because he lied about it ‘under oath’. Yes, Bill Clinton committed perjury… not by cheating on his wife, but by lying about it ‘under oath’. Cheating on his wife, alone, isn’t even a crime. In fact… lying, alone, isn’t a crime. The crime was lying ‘under oath’.

Flash forward a few years…

Consider the following three actual events:

When the 9/11 commission was holding hearings, they very much wanted George W. Bush to testify. He, of course, was an integral player in the decisions that were made and the actions that were taken in the months following the most devastating attack on US soil in decades.Bush stonewalled the 9/11 commission for months until finally agreeing to address their questions. However, he refused to testify in front of cameras (he did it privately in the White House), he insisted on having Dick Cheney present during the questioning, AND he refused to testify ‘under oath’.We know that a substantial amount of Bush’s testimony must have been lies because we know that he lied to the American people about the reasons for taking us to war in Iraq.
Last November the CEO’s of the 5 major oil companies testified before a congressional committee about the sudden and seemingly unsubstantiated rise in gas prices. Senator Ted Stevens (R, Alaska) presided over the hearing and refused to swear in the oil execs as they commenced the hearing. Even after requesting that they be sworn in by other members of the committee, Senator Stevens refused, even to the point of making a public spectacle of it (Thank You, Jon Stewart).We know that these men lied when they were questioned about speaking with Administration officials about the country’s energy needs and policies. In fact, these very same individuals were part & parcel to the formulation of the Bush Administration’s Energy Policy by meeting with Dick Cheney in that secret Energy Task Force in 2001. However, since they weren’t sworn in, they didn’t lie ‘under oath’.
Just this week Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the Bush Administration’s controversial surveillance policy of warrant-less wiretapping. As he danced around most of the (very direct) questions, he lied-through-his-teeth… repeatedly. Citing precedent, Gonzales even testified that President George Washington also conducted electronic surveillance on his enemies (somehow miraculously before electricity had even been invented). However, once again, Chairman Arlen Specter (R, Pennsylvania) refused to have Gonzales sworn in, and therefore be held accountable for making false statements ‘under oath’.

Why is it that some of these Republicans refuse to be sworn in and therefore be on the hook for telling the truth? Perhaps it’s because they’re not telling the truth and they don’t want to be held accountable for lying ‘under oath’. That’s perjury, ya know! We all learned about perjury from Bill Clinton. Perhaps the Republicans (with the exception of Scooter) learned that all too well.

Health Care – Privatize or Nationalize?

2006-02-03T11:19:00.000-05:00

If you listened closely to the State of the Union speech this week, you might have heard the President talking about “Private Health Care Accounts”. Once again, this is yet another scheme of the Bush Administration to help their rich friends get richer and screw over the middle and poorer classes in this country. Let’s take a look, shall we?

When W came out of his 2005 SOTU address he was revving up his scheme to privatize Social Security. He went on tour trying to sell his ploy, but the people in this country didn’t buy it. Let’s face it – we’ve already been duped so many times by this snake-oil salesman, there’s absolutely no reason to believe the fears he’s trying to scare us with now. Sure, we all felt that Social Security might have some financial turmoil in 50 years, but we also knew it was due to Bush’s over-spending & tax cuts for the wealthy. Why should Social Security take the hit? And even if Social Security was in trouble, privatization was not the answer. In fact, it would’ve made the situation worse… much worse. Let’s face it – the transition costs alone would’ve ballooned the debt upwards of a trillion dollars. It would have put billions into the pockets of Republican Wall Street buddies and put our country deeper into the hole.

Now W is trying to sell another brand of snake oil. He couldn’t privatize Social Security, so now he’s trying to privatize Health Care (if it wasn’t already privatized enough). He hasn’t actually put any real proposals down, so it’s hard to figure what his scheme entails, but he did mention it in the SOTU speech, so we know something’s cookin’. I’m guessing that he wants to attack Medicare & Medicaid - our only government-run health care programs. They’re holdovers (along with Social Security) from the ‘New Deal’ that the Republicans have been trying to gut. So, I’m guessing that Bush is cooking up a scheme to turn Medicare & Medicaid into private health care savings accounts. Let’s look at what that will mean…

Don’t Get Sick!

First off it means that the money you’d be paying into a private savings account would go to cover your health care costs if you become ill. That means if you want to get to that money, you’d better not become ill. That means that people would be much less apt to seek medical attention when they need it because it will eat into their savings. Sure, that’ll keep us healthy!

Someone Gets Rich

Don’t those savings accounts have to be invested somewhere? Of course they do. So, the real benefactors of this plan are the Wall Street honchos who’ll rake in the service fees.

What problem does it solve?

Even if there were some benefits to Bush’s scheme, exactly what problem does this solve? Will this help the 45 million Americans who don’t have health insurance? I don’t see how. Is this going to control the costs of health care? I don’t see how. Is this going to help American companies be more competitive in the global marketplace? I don’t see how.

Nationalization is the answer

The true answer to the American health care problem is Nationalization. This is an idea that is long overdue. But as long as money-grubbing Republicans are in power, it will never happen. God forbid any HMO’s or Pharmaceutical companies have any constraints on their profits.

The United States is the only industrialized country withOUT nationalized health care. Because of this, the cost of health care is a huge burden. Here’s just one simple comparison with our neighbors to the North… According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, the per capita cost of health care in the US is $4,631 compared to $2,535 per capita cost in Canada. At the same time, the United States ranks 47th on a scale of Life Expectancy at 77.71 years of age, while Canada ranks 12th at 80.1 years of age.

And what of the 45 million without Heath Care coverage?

Every hospital has an obligation to treat any person in dire & immediate need of care, whether they have health coverage or not. If for no other reason other then fear of liability lawsuits, the hospital will provide treatment to a certain extent. However, without health insurance, that level of treatment essentially ends when the need for care is no longer dire & immediate. Therefore, those without health insurance coverage will not receive preventative care, medications, and a whole host of medical services necessary for healthy living. And without preventative care and medications, these people are more likely to need dire & immediate care, the cost of which is eaten by you-know-who… us!

The cost of providing health insurance to employees is a huge burden

Companies of even small sizes are obliged to provide partial health insurance coverage as an employment benefit. This means that any hiring decision has the added consideration of the cost of the ‘headcount’. If an employee or family member requires catastrophic health coverage, the company often incurs those costs as well.

These health care costs are a significant burden on the part of American companies. These costs have an impact on American company’s ability & capacity to produce their products and provide their services, and that burden makes American companies less competitive to their foreign counterparts. So the next time you hear about American companies not playing on a level field, this is one of the most significant reasons.

We pay for it either way

This is the bottom line. Whether or not the United States privatizes or nationalizes health care - we’ll pay for it. Those of us who work have deductions taken right out of our paychecks. What would be the difference if the deduction was a tax, instead? Would the deduction be significantly higher? I doubt it. If it was a requirement just like Social Security taxes, then EVERYONE who receives taxable income, would pay into it. That’s not the case now since health insurance is essentially optional, and since it’s so expensive, so many people can’t afford it. Would the choices of providers be different? Possibly different and possibly better. If we’re all on the same health care system, then the restrictions wouldn’t apply.

National health care makes sense. ‘Private health savings accounts’ is nothing more than an evil profiteering scheme. Don’t buy this snake oil either, America!