Gonzo Word!

The Demise of Sports

2010-01-13T05:48:00.000-08:00

This is hardly news. Many people have recognized that sports went away a long time ago. That is recognizable by the difference between watching the football stars of the sixites score a touchdown as to today. Back then, the guy doing the scoring just dropped the ball and headed to the sideline. No dance, no piling on. Half the team was on the sidelines already. Today, you watch some fool prancing like an idiot before his team mates mob him even though they're still down by 21 points. It's also what you see when some doof makes a tackle and acts like he just won the Superbowl even though his team has three wins all year long. Three events this week have led to further aversion of sports for me.

One was the hiring by the Seattle Seahawks of Pete Carrol, after they fired their head coach after one year. Now perhaps I am missing some details here. But the Seahawks were in a losing season when they announced that their current coach, Mike Holmgren, was retiring. They also announced their next coach, Jim Mora, who would have to wait a year to get to do that job. So Mr. Mora inherited a team that had a losing season. Towards the tail end of the first year of Mr. Mora's job, way down in sunny California, it seems that the situation at University of California, home of the vaunted Trojans, was a little dysfunctional. There seemed to be some improprieties concerning the treatment of some of the football players, which means that victories and bowl wins get stripped from their records, and the program loses scholarships and recruiting privileges, and basically gets a black eye that forces potential athletes to look elsewhere. And the coach during the time in question at USC? Pete Carrol. The same Pete Carrol that the Seattle Seahawks hired after firing Jim Mora after one season. The same Pete Carrol that led the '94 Jets to a 6-10 record. The same Pete Carrol that had a 27 and 21 record after three years with the Patriots. And the first year was his best year with 10 wins. It went downhill after that. So the Seahawks think that a coach with 5 years pro experience and a less than stellar record will save the day. As long as they can play the drama-savior scenario to separate fans from their money, they will. Serious rebuilding seems unnecessary. Fans are grumbling here in Seattle, and when talk of the possibility of Mr. Holmgren returning started trickling through the media pipes, then there was hope. Holmgren ended up in Cleveland, where there are "fewer layers" between President and owner of the team. Now we know why he turned down the Seattle job. So the grumbling in Seattle resumed. The team had record losses. So the management, whose job it is apparently to field better profits, decided that Mora was the problem. Now maybe there wasn't any chemistry between the players and coach. So be it if that's the case. One year though is hardly enough to develop a winning program. So Seattle will pop for the remaining years of Mora's contract which is reported to be about $12 million dollars. Nice layoff huh?

Another event that transpired was the pulling of a gun on a team mate by Gilbert Arenas, a pro player for the Washington Wizards. In a locker room altercation, or jest, he pulled a gun on a team mate. He had four of them on him apparently. For protection. Which I frankly find hard to believe. A guy paid what Arenas makes ($111 million dollar contract), doesn't drive a used car into the seedy parts of DC to go home after a game. He likely drives a very nice car, or someone else he pays to be his "posse," his "entourage," does. And he goes home to a very nice, well patrolled neighborhood of nice homes. Definitely no hookers and crack dealers hanging out there. At least one would think so. He has the money for it. So he gets caught pulling a gun. Says he's sorry to the public, met with law enforcement people, was criticized by civil rights leaders, all that. Claims he understood the gravity of the situation. And then, "It happened last week in Philadelphia. Every team has its pregame rituals: some chant, some dance, some box or high five. With his career and even his freedom hanging in the balance for a misadventure with guns, Arenas stood at the center of his team's huddle, made his hands into pistols, and pretended to shoot his teammates." Sounds like a real nyuk nyuk moment huh? So the NBA Commissioner suspended him. I think he should have outright ended his career. In Tennessee, four of their college basketball players were arrested, caught while drivbing around with not just pot, which is no biggie in my book, but also with fire arms. What I see happening is the transference of the thug mentality into the NBA. Instead of young men like these learning to make better decisions, and avoid those situatiuons where you need a weapon for protection, they seem left to their own devices. And so what started as the donny brook that Indiana and Detroit got into a few years back, has now turned into brining guns into the stadiums. This from some of the richest people in the country, and again, who seem to lack that element of sportsmanship but indeed manifest much of the show boating and swagger.

The third incident involved my favorite sport. Mark McGuire, who famously, and unexplicably hit the single season home run record homer while all of TV land was watching and all sorts of celebrities were on hand, including Hank Aaron, admitted what everyone else already knew: that he used game enhancing drugs, which included during the season in which he broke Aaron's record. He came clean so he could land the job as the Cardinals hitting coach without baggage.

Will MLB pull his records? Will they strip him of anything? Demand that the Cardinals not hire him? Not likely. It will be up to people like me to contact these organizations and say we are done watching. This isn't about sports any more. It's about the money. Has been for years. For McGuire it was about developing stats for a fatter contract. For Pete Carrol it was about breaking the rules to make sure that he could field a winner and in the long run, retain his ability to get a fatter contract. It's why stadiums are now named after corporations. And for all three of these people, it shows that character, sportsmanship, plays a relatively small part in career choices. Breaking the rules, cheating, hey, no big deal. Well, I'm not a fan of that any more. My money and my time will go elsewhere.

So I say good-bye.

Blundering Idiots?

2010-01-01T12:24:00.000-08:00

One person commented that the GOP has become a sorry cult of a party.

Here is a story. There are three links connected to it. I encourage you to read those as well, all short for the most part. What it will reveal is that politics in this country is becoming a circus. This GOP candidate makes comments on the cybersphere. Oops. He doesn't think that this stuff is saved or recorded? Then when people respond to his comments, he tries to delete the remarks. Oops. Overt admission of trying to be something you claim you aren't to save a budding political career.

What all this points out is that as a man thinks, he speaks. This candidate is a confessed Christian. He should know his own Bible teaches that out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. Already this man is at odds with himself and his own religion. As a man speaks, he acts. Then his deeds become habit, and those habits become character. The GOP is truly becoming a circus of immoral fools.

So regasrdless of the party, remember that trying to erase the past is not advisable. The mouth reveals the heart, and so what sort of policies one can expect from the candidate, regardless of party affiliation. It's past time to begin electing those who keep their religion as their own business, who don't take money from big business, and don't have to worrry about erasing their past comments.

Right is Wrong, and The Left Sold Out.

2009-12-24T10:58:00.000-08:00

Here is an interesting story, when sided with this. It reveals how truly deep the lack of understanding is of the right wingers of not only what Americans want, but of Christianity as well. The rank hypocrisy aside, this sort of revelation makes mer wonder at times what level of intelligence conservative voters operate at. It apparently has little to do with issues that matter. It has little to do with fact. In the very season of their alleged Saviors alleged birth, they have no problems lying or misrepresenting the truth.

For example, compare this staement, "Fox News even said that senators voting against reform are doing so because they understand “the true meaning of Christmas,”with, oh, something from another cinematic non-reality, The Christmas Carol. Voting against health care reform sounds like which stage of Scrooge? Ah, but Fox isn't to be slowed down by facts or reality. And of course, the right wingers have the ONLY understanding of Christmas, which is the implied meaning of their statement. Also, let's compare Matthew chapters 4 aqnd 5 with this statement, "Conservatives have been aggressively trying to portray health care reform as an assault on Christmas and Christian values." I think we might find some interesting contradictions.

And what of the instructions in Romans to submit to the governing powers that be, becasue they are established by God? None of the right wing rhetoric sounds submissive to me.

Not that I think this bill is anywhere close to Steele's misrepresentation, "the Senate version is the best Trojan horse possible to hide a true single payer system." If that were the case, then Progressives and liberals would be rather happy. This bill hardly does anything to wrest control from the insurance companies. But Republicans don't care about democracy, or the average voting citizen, as they have amply demonstrated by obstructing this "reform" bill, SCHIPS, EFCA, minimum wage laws, and so forth and so on. Democrats have demonstrated that they are also subservient to the paymaster, and will sacrifice the hundreds of millions of citizens so they can retain their campagin contributrion sources.

Informed in the Age of Information

2009-02-06T05:13:00.000-08:00

Americans must pride themselves as being informed. As we have seen over the last eight years, information isn't as accurate as we might think. Most of those who still believe that Iraq has/have/or had weapons of mass destruction are watchers of Fox News. Already that should tell us something. Watching news? So just what does it mean to be informed in this Age of Information?

First, I will focus on what I think is the foundation for being informed in these times. Let's just look at the word itself. In-formed. What is happening inside of us relative to the talk radio or web sites or television sources we take in on a regular basis? Do we get angry? Sad? Do we rejoice when the other side has it's fanny end handed to it? Do we cringe in fear? These are all formations that are being built in us by this torrent of words. It is the foundation that is being built because there is no other claim on the property of my mind, which includes my emotions. And frankly, if that is happening, it isn't so I can live there. It's so someone else who has an end that may be contrary to mine can live there.

So what should that foundation be? How do we build it? Knowledge on it's own is no guarantee of a good life, or a virtuous one. Look at the well educated people who have not had such moral lives: Ted Haggard, a pastor. Former Representative Mark Foley of Florida. Even on a local level most communities I have lived in have an eccentric or alcoholic that as it turns out was one of the better educated minds in the community. Knowledge, the accumulation of information as facts that resides in memory files has no guarantee that a successful, meaningful live will be lived. The foundation needs to be something else, and the basis of the founding of this country seemed to point at part of what that foundation was to be. It's right there in the Preamble to the Constitution. "We, the people..."

What? "We" is actually a significant word here. It directly implies that "we" are a community, and all that being a community implies. It means that we are living in proximity, and that any disaster that befalls us, affects us all. That any bounty that affects us, affects us all. That if we are going to progress as people we need to do it together. Some of the shared visions of "we the people" are justice, general welfare, defense, all with the idea in mind that we can pass on to our following generations the blessings of liberty: which not only include monetary prosperity, but the sense of safety and protection that justice and welfare generate. And that means that we are inclined towards equanimity and love of our fellow man. And frankly, that seems lacking these days.

Equanimity means that we live capable of balance. In another viewpoint, it means to live beyond ignorance, anger, and hatred. That's the foundation we are after. Being able to live free from ignorance, hatred, and anger. And those three buttons, are indicators to us when we aren't living that way. Ignorance stands at the root of it all, and the common expressions we see these days are hatred and anger. When these expressions emerge in us, it is time to step back and ask what ignorance is driving this? Which is a very courageous step, because you need to be willing to accept that what you believe may not actually be true. However, by dispensing with these obstructions to moral life and beneficial knowledge, we can eventually begin to develop a love for our neighbor.

Sometimes it takes a disaster for us to get beyond our partisan beliefs, be they religious or political. Then we realize that we truly need each other. What is sometimes lacking in humans is the sense that they are just a part of an ecosystem, not the rulers of it. We all need each other, like cells that need each other. In essence, what the grass gets from the soil the cow gets from eating the grass which we get from eating the cow, or vegetable. Providing of course we eat grass fed cows. Much of what we consume is erroneously fed corn. Cows haven't evolved to eat corn. The point is that if the earth is poisoned, or stripped of nutrients, then the grass will be empty of those life giving nutrients, as will then be the cow, as will then be us. Despite being the food producers of the world that we are, America's health problems are legion. We have apparently missed something. We are needed by each other, and need to be in balance with the ecosystem in which we live. That sort of moral life is the foundation of being informed beneficially.

Then we can actually get to building on this foundation. The basic in-forming of a life has been laid, and in all actuality, it might happen alongside the intake of facts. We can in-form the mind with those facts that are necessary, and actually be able to discover many of those that are divisive and some that are flat wrong. The source is irrelevant. A radio pundit, or TV pundit that lies on his broadcast program won't hesitate to in a book. Yet pundits aren't experts. And maybe even experts are wrong. I am currently reading through the tome titled Everything You Know About God Is Wrong, edited by Russ Kirk. In the essay by James Haught about skepticism, I found a statement about His Holiness the Dalai Lama that was flat wrong. He claimed that when the Dalai lama dies, his being flies into a baby boy being born somewhere else. Anyone who's seen a documentary about how the Dalai lama is selected, or read anything about reincarnation from the Tibetan Buddhist viewpoint knows that Haught's encapsulation, meant to inspire skepticism, is incorrect. The lesson? Learn to read with an open and questioning mind. Mr. Haught also picked on many other religions in his essay, so how do I know that any of his statements are accurate? Mr. Haught is a news editor and author of five books. And still wrong. There are plenty of excellent sources available, and most of them aren't on the web. They are contained in books. And even so, one needs to remember not only the foundation, of how to stay unattached to information, but one needs to be able to ask questions of any material one reads. For example, I am also reading Micheal Pollan's book, The Omnivoire's Dilemma. It is an excellent book. Yet in the chapter discussing vegetarian issues, a comment is made that death is different fro an animal than a human because we humans imbue it with emotion. I ask the question, "Based on what source?" There is no footnote, no caveat. Just the flat statement that it is different. And that is based on the premise that man is rational, beasts are not. Yet again, based on what. Because Buddhism does not refer to humans as human beings entirely, that are classified as sentient beings. And so are beasts. Which makes them is some ways similar to us. For all we know these beasts do communicate with one another, and to say an animal can suffer, and yet not die like a human seems to me to be arrogant as well as ignorant. So I can reserve that iudea of mine. I admit, of all the book, one statement that I could conflict with. That to me makes for a good author and one I can trust.

Being free from attachment allows one to read conflicting views. I was challenged on this point by a radio head, because he is widely read, including conflicting viewpoints. And as much as I did it out of an ego motivation, I bought and read The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk. And it was informative on a fact level. I have also read Tom Paine's works, and I find that he makes statements that today would be questionable, but again, as in the case of Micheal Pollan, I find little to argue with except tfor minor points, which makes his a trustworthy author.

Let me finish with this. A two pronged approach to informing yourself. First, get outside and know the world that exists around you. Touch it. Know the plants and animals that live where you are. Know your neighbors. This is an expereintail knowledge, and is vital to information. Know the sky above your head. All this inormation is readily available for the self educator. Second, when you do read something, do so with a pen, dictionary, and high lighter at hand. Mark those margins! Ask questions, feel free to doubt, to question, to agree with. Because in this two pronged approach, you will find that you can enlarge your own vocabularly and hence your thoughts. You will also see where the street and Ivory Tower conflict. The resolution may be for you to work out and share with others(back to the foundation), or it may not exist. The end result will be that you are truly in-formed.

The Liars Keep Lying

2009-01-22T05:03:00.000-08:00

I borrowed that title, yes I did. From legally challenged yet now Minnesota Senator Al Franken actually, but it's relevant to today and one of the guys that Franken picked on in his book: Rush Limbaugh. Rush, ever the elitist, oh, you don't think so? Are you aware that last year Limbaugh's bonus was $100 Million? And that he was flown to Britain so he could legally do an interview for Cigar Aficionado and give his opinion on Cuban cigars? Limbaugh is about as regular guy as Limburger cheeses is an orange. Remember that when you listen to him call auto workers stooges. Back to the point though.

Today on CNN they aired a clip about Limbaugh prattling on about wanting Obama to fail. Limbaugh's rant included the statements that he doesn't want government in charge of the banks, medical care, this that and the other thing. And my point is this: The conservative media is still lying. They are still willing to tell lies to deceive people and create division in our country. They are still unwilling to admit that they are wrong in their policies.

Let's parse Limbaugh's statements. For example, Rush is worried that Obama will take over the banks, and they will fail. Here's a classic case of missing the train, because the Republican/conservative administration he so staunchly supported and lied for for 8 years beat Obama to the punch on this one and with the TARP money already took over share of banks and mortgage companies late last year. The Republicans began the socialization of the American investment banking industry. Another factor plays in here. Part of that is Limbaugh's listening audience. it isn't young. It's big, and demographically on the edge closer to leaving this place rather than joining it. It seems he can play fast and loose with the facts because either no one of his audience notices, or they don't care. They overlook the facts to hang onto their ideology.

Now just imagine for a second if the Bushies had privatized Social Security. It would have been wiped out in the deregulated market the Bushies helped create to sell the stupid things they created that were not based on anything tangible. Then think where many seniors would be right now. But Mr. Limbaugh would want it that way. He supports the unregulated free market that has twice crashed under Republican oversight. But never mind that, he gets his bonus for telling his audience otherwise.

Let's look at the amazing success of health care in America. You know, the health care system that had more people uninsured in 2008 than in 2000. You know that system. It's the free market system which is supposed to correct all these problems if we deregulate it and let the free market do it. If you want to hear particular horror stories, well, just start reading some foreign news sources. The Guardian for example tells a story once in a while. For now though, I'll just skip the heart rending stories. Let's just look at some of the facts. Like the fact mentioned above and the one that reveals that our health care cost per capita is the highest on any industrial nation. I suppose industrial is starting to be a bit of a stretch for America. It only makes up about 12% of our economy. But that's for another day. Look at it this way; has your insurance coverage expanded to cover more procedures at a lower cost, or has it reduced coverage at a higher cost? Ours at work has. If nothing else, the coverage doesn't change, but a double digit price jump occurs every year.

Meanwhile, profits in the health care industry, particularly among insurers, have jumped, and CEO pay packages certainly aren't shrinking. But we'll look at capitalism another day. So with all this money coming in, how is it that this free market system has produced such a failure of coverage, let alone health? It's well known that even something like infant mortality, America isn't even in the top ten of the nations of this planet. Childhood obesity is an epidemic. Type 2 diabetes is escalating rapidly. Heart disease isn't slowing down because rescue worker technology is able to catch some of those that would be statistics sooner, and saving their lives. Profit in the health care system is predicated on keeping costs low. Costs are payouts for surgeries, procedures, and recovery. And long term recovery from diseases like cancer are really costly. So how do you keep the costs low? Well, I'll let you imagine how. On the other hand, sickness allows the pharmaceuticals to keep pumping their industry into your bloodstream. So there isn't enough incentive for them to promote your total heath. it's best for them if you are sick enough to require their services and products, but stay away from the catastrophes that really cost them money.

Since we've seen how ineffective the free market system is in providing health care, why not expand on a government program that already exists? It's called Medicare. Every worker, a shrinking pool in this country, pays into it, just like Social Security. Make it a single payer universal care program. Utilize some insurance industry truths to work for Americans. Like the truth that a bigger risk pool reduces premium levels. Imagine a risk pool of 300 million! And take the profit factor out of health care. Under a single payer program, the incentive then would be to promote health as a way to reduce costs. But Rush wouldn't like that. He would probably rather see the free market provide care, as it has allegedly done for many decades. After all Rush would say, it's the best health care system in the world. And I'm sure the million or so laid off last November and December would heartily agree. And under a universal single payer system, they could. But not now.

None of this matters to Rush and the other conservative media pundits. They will continue to misrepresent the truth because they are Machiavellians, admittedly or not. They think the end justifies the means, and that it is better to govern by fear rather than by love. And that is how professed believers in traditional family values and the God that supposedly is the source of them can act so shamelessly contrary to their own morals.

The liars will keep on lying.

More Republican Stupidity

2008-11-14T05:30:00.000-08:00

So, it's okay for the governemnt to buy up the high risk products of the banking sysytem meltdown, and it's okay for the government to buy ownership stakes in those same banks(callled socialism the world over), but it's not okay to bail out the three car companies. My, how un-Reagan like of them.

According to the NY Times, Senator Shelby of Alabama said, “The financial straits that the Big Three find themselves in is not the product of our current economic downturn, but instead is the legacy of the uncompetitive structure of its manufacturing and labor force,” Mr. Shelby said in a statement. “The financial situation facing the Big Three is not a national problem but their problem.”

You see that? The blame is the workers, specifically implying the union workers. Never mind that thirty years ago foreign car makers looked into the future and saw what was coming and started making gas efficient models. Never mind the fact that American auto maker executives decided that gas guzzlers were the future. Oh no. The problem is the line workers. They apparently make too much money. Never mind that compared to the executives, it's a drop in the bucket.

Not to be outdone by a Senator, representative Boehner of Ohio said, “Spending billions of additional federal tax dollars with no promises to reform the root causes crippling automakers’ competitiveness around the world is neither fair to taxpayers nor sound fiscal policy.”

Someone correct me. What are the reforms that the banking industry was held to to receive the bailout funds? Were the products they were selling made illegal? Were the missing regulations re-instated?

So let me submit this. Apparently these Republicans think that the banking industry is a national problem, but the auto industry isn't. But when it comes to calibrating the economy of America, as I recall it from school, the three industries generally used to determine how well we are doing is the auto industry, construction, and big appliances. I guess not anymore. Which is actually true. In case anyone missed it, the Commerce Department now lists financing as roughly 30% of the American economy, and manufacturing at 12%.

And the fault lies with those lousy labor people.

Now ask yourself this. How many people on Main Street are employed by the auto industry, directly or indirectly, and how many are employed by the banking industry? Maybe I'm way out, but I have one banker. On the other hand, I go to at least two different gas stations, I have one mechanic, then there's the tire shop, and the guys at the parts store with the dirty hands. I'll venture to say that means six of them to help me and my vehicle. In my world, auto related people out number bankers six to one.

These Republicans, so out of touch. After another elctoral butt whooping, they are still stuck on dumb.

"I don't know."

2008-04-16T05:14:00.000-07:00

Well, it was a powerful question actually. How does one go about changing the mindset of the political base of America, particularly the right wingers, to embrace non-violence and disarmament?

"I don't know," was the reply to what we can do for the current politicos that some would say are ruining this country. But the Dalai Lama went on to say that the answer lies in the next couple of generations, with the teens of the day. And considering that there were thousands there listening to him as I was, I had to agree.

And still it is a vexing question. One that could easily be put to the three candidates for president running as I write. McCain has all but promised war. Actually, he uses the apology form of a promise. Hillary Clinton was for the war in Iraq, and just about the time she made the choice to run she stated that she would leave troops in Iraq, and recently she claims she favors a pullout, but seems to do so in vague terms. Barack Obama claims to favor a phased withdrawal. One designed to let the Iraqis know that they need to take their own country seriously. Which does seem the conundrum the war mongers were after to begin with. Just how can we extricate ourselves from a mess we made, with an inept government we installed, in charge? What can we expect of our own leaders that will respond to this need and still embrace non-violence as a way of life?

Essentially politics is a clashing of egos. That even includes who will take the moral high ground, and then using that as leverage to garner political points. McCain doesn't have a foothold here, because he's all for war. He makes a joke about bombing Iran, doesn't know the difference between a Sunni and Shiia, has stated that 100 years in Iraq isn't out of the question, and wants to build up the armed forces. His appeal is to those who think might is right, which is a shrinking group these days. And the clash of the two Democrats has been all but obvious. And over what, and/or why?

What is needed are candidates that have checked their ego at the doors. That won't happen today, and I am beginning to sense that for the immediate future the political choices are going to be the lesser of two evils. Which ego will wreak the least havoc on the lives of the citizens of the United States. Considering approval ratings and polls about the war and economy, I don't see any conservative winning that election. Not without election tampering anyway. And between the two Democrats, I'd say the one leveling the charge of elitist, the same one who made over $100 million in the last decade, the one who caters to rural lobbyists and calls them farmers, the one who depends heavily on corporate donations while her rhetoric slams them, isn't our best choice. That makes the last man standing a crap shoot at best, but may turn out to be a winner. It all depends on how much ego gets in the way.

What do I mean by ego? Well, a lot more than just a sense of vanity. Ego is identification with the mental constructs that we call ourselves, our life, our story, our identity, but are still nothing more than mental constructs. Those constructs also include religious beliefs and political labels. From this identification arises the dualism that is at the heart of all violence and war, because it asserts that one is correct, and hence one is wrong. It asserts one is better, worthy, smarter, while the other is not. You can argue all you want about how liberal viewpoints are more American than conservative viewpoints, and how our current mess in America is the logical outcome of conservative politics, and still you will end up with no more than one side opposing the other, with harsh speech and mockery flowing in both directions. What do we gain by this? Nothing for the common man. Like the Housing Bill before the current "Democratically" controlled Senate, is does precious little for the homeowners, and has billions of tax breaks for those who don't own homes, and within that group the ones who are overpaid so ridiculously that the foreclosure issue doesn't matter to them anyway.

That's a slight glimpse at ego. A better view can be found in Eckhart Tolle's new book, A New Earth. The results of ego will be the same no matter which political party controls the government. And so for the time being, we are left with the challenge of fielding better candidates for the future. In part that requires that we ourselves need to do something about our own egos. Otherwise the cycle of violence and hypocrisy and corruption will continue.

We as humans are more capable than that.

Sayonara! Adios! Ciao! Bye Bye!

2008-03-20T05:27:00.000-07:00

Well I told you it was coming, and so it is. Gonzoword is going to pass off, and reincarnate as a new blog.

You see, it's tiresome to continuously prove that the right wingers are wrong. It's easy to do sure, but not what is needed in this world. One set of egos, the left wing, easily proving that the policies emerging from the right wing egos have done nothing beneficial, may be easy, funny at times, sad, and pathetic, but in the end we are left with exactly what we started with: ego.

So I'm done with it all. I'm more interested in presenting ideas that might actually work, that don't prove anyone wrong, or inferior, un-American, anti-Constitutional, hypocritical, or any of those labels that get tossed around these days. In the end, we all bleed red blood. Which makes us brothers and sisters, despite all the layers of armor and ego that are attached to the consciousness residing within.

What I am interested in seeing is how a raised level of consciousness melds with political dialog. That will eventually happen. There seems to be very little of it at the national level, I have a tendency to think that it is happening at the local level. When at once we begin to drop our labels willingly, and settle in for discussions on how we can establish a planet that co-exists, yes, that is purposely an open ended statement full of implication, then we will move political dialog forward beyond the realm of ego.

So good bye to my belligerence, my being right, better than, more American than, and all the rest of that labeled garbage. I may have had some salient points, but duking it out in the realm of ego is like arguing about whether or not the officiating cost the Seahawks the Superbowl while the ice flow we are on is melting.

It is time to focus on that which we want, not that we don't want. That is the way to marginalize and reduce the things we don't want. True, ignoring a bad tooth does not make it go away. Though it does eventually when the dentist fixes the problem, it is a matter of focusing on what we can do as a country, and as local communities to show our love for one another, our compassion for those that need it, to generate opportunities for all, and not worry about fixing blame or labels on the problem, and then being "anti" this or that, or waging a "war" against this or that.

This approach involves what Scott Peck wrote about in his book, Different Drum. It's called consensus, and it isn't consensus without conflict. Conflict doesn't mean war either. It means that we spend the time getting over our egos because we know that we all want whats best for the common good, and that we have the will and intelligence to come up with a solution that will work.

So the header descriptions will be changing, and the content of what I write. Or maybe I should say the spirit in which I write, as well. I doubt I can avoid issues. I suppose I can detach from it. After all, in the end, it is all meaningless. Look at how many years these debates go on, and rise and fall, and progress emerges slowly. And when we are lying on our deathbed, what really matters? Universal health care? Free market economies? Or love? Will you want to die surrounded by educational ideas, ethics reforms, or your family?

It seems to me that we have the cart in front of the horse. I want to see the American family get in order. Not the American ideology, or dogma. The family. The real humans who are born in this country that need to embrace one another instead of beliefs, platforms, or ego. Then I think we'll start to see real success on issues that affect us all.

Eight Reasons Why

2008-02-28T05:33:00.000-08:00

Where else can you find a woamn and an African American running for president? What am I thinking?! How behind reality we are in America! We have yet, like other countries, to have a woamn executive in the government. In fact, it's maybe rather a sign of late growth that it took this long to finally see in our political realm this possibility occurring.

I hear a lot of talk on the radio that either of the Democratic candidates would make fine Presidents, and I disagree with that. It sounds like what it is, and that's a cover-my-butt comment. With that in mind, here are my eight reasons why I wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

Numbers 1,2, and 3, all deal with behavior. Political behavior. First, there was Hillary mocking the Obama message of hope. Is that either adult or Presidential? She attacked Obama for Rove-like tactics when in Ohio she finally responded to Obama mailers that had appeared in three states before Ohio. And under what category does innacurate implicitory mockery fall? Secondly, there was the campaign blaming the media. Mockery, and whining. People know what that sounds like, despite the facts that might be asserted, and in this case they were generalizations, not facts. But that's what it sounds like. And when these two roll in together in the same week, it starts to sound like desparation. And if anyone believes desparate times call for desparate measures, it begins to show. Thirdly, and following the mockery and whining, Hillary did an interview on the 700 Club, where she decided to talk about her faith. Now I can't recall Ms. Clinton ever attacking the religious right, but they have certainly demonized the liberal policies she stands for for over two decades. So what does this look like? Pandering. Hillary has not even solidified her own base, and yet it appears she is trying to attract those of the far right fringe of the opposite camp that have assaulted her and her beliefs. And I'll throw in a fourth behavior that to me is even far worse. her attitude of inequality. One of her advisers said a while agfo about some states that she skipped to spend her time campaigning elsewhere, that states like Colorado didn't matter. And this past weekend, one of her aides referred to some states as "boutique states", and Obama supporters as the "latte sipping crowd that don't need a President, but a feeling." Marginalizing voters? I cannot see how any of these behviors are beneficial, or demonstrate any qualities I would want to see in a President of this country. If this is the way she behaves on the campaign trail, how will she handle the pressure of the White House?

The next three reasons are ecomnomic in origin. Until Hillary began her recent run for President, she seemed enthralled, or at least supportive of NAFTA. Let's put that aside for now. Back in October of last year, Ms. Clinton wanted a rally for rural Americans. Really reach out to the midalnders, the family farmers, those who keep the bread on our tables, right? Well, you would have thought so. The first clue of what she was really after was based on the locale of the rally. Iowa you think? Oklahoma? Nebraska? Her home state of Missouri?

Nope. Not even close. Head east. All the way to Washington DC.

So what rural Americans would make that trip? Let me fill in more details of the locale. Was it a farm in Virginia? Uh uh. Right in the capital. On K street. In a lobbying firm. Coincidently, the lobbying firm for Monsanto. The same Monsanto her husband borrowed executive staff from to put in the FDA when he was president. So how many rural American votes was she after? Let's get back to that....When Hillary's campaign ran out of money, it was reportedly because she is heavily dependent on corporate donors, which have legal limits on how much they can contribute. So guys like Fox News owner and supporter Rupert Murdoch have to use other means to keep on giving that involve loopholes. But a small sampling of her donors reveals the corporate influnce in her campaign, despite her anti-corporate rhetoric that she trumpeted while stumping in Ohio. So then on to her health care plan. Hillary stated on ABC's Sunday morning news show, This Week, that forced enrollment, a fancy way of saying garnished wages, is one possible mechanism for paying for health care.

Who! Hold on there Nellie! You're telling me, that in your support of a free market economy, that you'd garnish my wages if I chose not to buy health insurance so that for profit health care companies that support your campaign can still make huge profits at my expense?!

So let's connect the dots: the rally in October was a money rally from corporate donors. She really supports NAFTA because of those same donors and since she won't release her tax records, possible investments made on the advantages of NAFTA, and she's willing to further strap working Americans to further corporate welfare and make sure they get their profits and pay out huge CEO pay packages. How will any of this make our middle class and economy grow?

No thanks Hillary.

Then there's the famous charge that Mr. Obama doesn't have the foreign policy experience necessary to be President, and she does. To me, that's hardly an issue at all. What experience did her own husband have before coming president? And did she tell her own husband she didn't think he had enough foreign policy experience to be president? Isn't that a bit like saying a person doesn't have enough parenting experience to become one? Yes, it is.

Being the President is far different than being First Lady. And as we have seen in recent days, it seems Hillary has stretched her stories of her First Lady experience to the point of lies. But the point is that at the end of the day, the weight of the office of President falls on the President, not the First Lady.

And just because she was First lady doesn't mean she would make a good President.

The last reason I wouldn't vote for Hillary is her stance on the fighting in the Middle East. She got it wrong when it came to authorizing invading Iraq. Wrong. One third of Congress knew it was wrong, and she missed the truth on an incredibly important decision. One that has cost this country dearly. Then, to add to her lack of credibility, she then sided with the war-mongering Republicans when it came time to declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. Ah yes, that was a wonderful foreign policy decision wasn't it? That'll be sure to generate peace won't it?

Now of course that most of the country says we should be out of Iraq, Hillary is all for being out of Iraq. At least that's what she says. I'm not so certain that's what she would do. This begins to sound a bit like her anti-corporatism rhetoric that only found voice in certain campaign areas of the United States, particularly those areas crushed by NAFTA policies she supported that have drained those areas of jobs.

All in all, I have no good reason to vote for Hillary. Her behavior and her policies make her an untenable candidate in my mind. Granted, she would be better than media darling and GOP hopeful McCain. But McCain wouldn't change anything for the better.

So despite the enormous and historically significant reality that there are viable presidential candidates from two former disenfranchised groups, notably on the Democratic platform, I cannot in good conscience vote for one of them.

So I support Barack Obama as President of these United States.

Republicans like 2x4s

2008-02-16T09:11:00.000-08:00

Besides flip-flopping on torture recently, McCain reveals the usual double standard of today's conservatism. It would seem they like the hard style of learning as they meander off into political irrelevance.

On Monday, according to Reuters, McCain has "rejected" public funding and it's spending limits.

Yet, he then contradicts himself in Oshkosh, and claims his opponent should take public financing and it's limits.

Not only is that business as usual for the righties, it's also a sign of fear on the right. Without those spending limits, McCain doesn't stand a chance.

In many of the primaries so far, votes for all of the Republican nominees which until recently was four candidates, barely made up or exceeded just what the ususal second place Hillary got for votes. And Hillary has been outvoted almost 2 to 1 for the last 8 contests. Which means that if you take out Romney, Paul, and Huckabee supporter votes from the Republican tallies, McCain would be out voted on a primary and/or general election scale by a 5 to 1 margin, speaking conservatively. In the state of Washington for example, McCain pulled roughly 3300 votes despite the irregularities reported among the GOP there, and Obama almost 22,000 votes. That's close to a 7 to 1 margin. In Louisiana McCain did better. There he only got whipped by a 4 to 1 margin.

So I can see why the Republicans are stooping to their usual dirty politics. They haven't got an issue leg to stand on. Unless of course you consider 4 more years of war and continued economic policies that have landed us in the mess we are in right now something desirable.

Apparently, they do, and they think they can sell it to the American public, along with more fear. According to the recent primary and caucus numbers, that just isn't so.

Another 2x4 to the head anyone?

More Of The same!

2008-01-30T05:30:00.000-08:00

If anyone has been following the Republican primary race, even as loosely as I have, then one must wonder just what level Republicans think at.

McCain has jumped into the lead delegate wise. Of course, Super Tuesday could alter all that, but it may reinforce that. Two things about the Republican primaries stand out: First, it shows just how divided the camp really is. With nothing but a bunch of white guys running, there is complete disarray among the leader, and what that leader will represent to America. Huckabee won Iowa. Romney won Michigan, and McCain won Florida. The only consistent signal there is the religious one represented by Romney and Huckabee, and likely Huckabee considers Romney a cult member, as most fundamentalists do, though he would not answer that question directly if ever asked. The second thing about the Republican primaries is that the numbers are considerably lower in two regards. In Iowa, the numbers were lower than the last contested primary, and that was true in South Carolina as well. And in all the primaries, the Republicans are not fielding as many voters as Democrats are. Consider Iowa, where the Dems outnumbered the Cons two to one. In this mostly white, comfortably believing, middle of the country farmland, Democrats showed up two to one over Republicans and seated Obama. I understand that in Michigan, the number of "undecided" votes for the non-binding Democratic primary was larger than the number of votes for the winner of the Republican race. And even in red state South Carolina, Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans by 20%.

And what have these Republican voters said in their choices? That they want more of the same in Washington come this November. They want a guy who stated to Michigan voters, the ones who make cars in a beleaguered industry, "I've got to give you some straight talk: Some of the jobs that have left the state of Michigan are not coming back," he said. "They are not. And I am sorry to tell you that."

Some of the jobs? Seems like he was saying something heavier than the "some" would indicate, because it's followed by an apology. Where's the American spirit in that statement? Where's the pioneer? The leader? This was a wholesale sell-out to global corporatism if ever there was one. No wonder he lost Michigan.

Secondly, here's a guy who promises more wars. This is the same guy who thought signing "Bomb, bomb Iran" to a Beach Boys melody was cute.

So consider that we are rapidly approaching an official recession, and the best thing the Republicans can put forward is "more of the same" for four more years. No concern about recapturing American jobs, make the tax cuts for the top 1% permanent (because they are doing such wonders for the economy doncha know?), and more war to pay for.

Unless your goal is to bankrupt a nation and bring forth an aristocratic oligarchy, then there appears to be no thinking at all on the part of the Republicans. At least not beyond themselves. It gives one second thoughts about their crazy fantasies of a permanent Republican majority.

When it comes to thinking and the republican vision for the future, the question seems to be, how low can you go?

Where Is Our Country Headed?

2008-01-17T18:11:00.000-08:00

More right wing-nut absurdity

2007-12-29T07:11:00.000-08:00

I'm going to have too check out Jonah Goldberg's new piece of trash. It's titled, Liberal Fascism. In it he attempts to argue that 20th century liberals are fascists. It is obvious from the title alone that Goldberg has no clue what he is talking about.

Let's just take the historical perspective: Quick, which culturally liberal society was fascist in the 30s! You know, the ones that burned books, and thought it best to separate the races. The one so liberal that the leading scientists fled the country. Better yet, which ally to the south actually coined the phrase as corporations were allowed to rule the country.

Then lets step forward to today. Since 1980 we've had one Democratically controlled Congress and one Democrat for president, not counting our current Congress. Twenty eight years of Republican rule, and look at the results: a Republican candidate for President saying soft fascism is on our doorstep.

And one would think that Goldberg has no clue what the definition of fascism is. But wait! Maybe that's the trick here. We've all seen how the right wing of this country likes to flip-flop not only policies but definitions of words as well. Take for example an escalation of an occupation, which they label as a "surge" in a "war." They like to label dissenters as "traitors," despite the legislation proceeding from their own kind that actually contradicts our own Constitution. Think Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act here.

So that is possibly Goldberg's game here. Completely alter the definition of the word, "A system of government marked by centralization of authority(check out job additions largest benefactor lately, think HSD) under a dictator(Bush said this path would be easier, see HJ RES 24), stringent socioeconomic controls,(that benefit a minority) suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship(media conglomeration), and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism(support our troops) and racism.(Listen to Mike savage or Ann Coulter talk about Middle Easterners.)"

And let's not forget, "a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism) ."

So Mr. Golberg, care to compare Presidential candidates for 2008? Hmmm, I see a similarity on the Republican side. All the viable candidates are white guys. Mr. Keyes hardly counts as he barely made the one debate in Iowa. And listen to what he said! Could this be just an example of institutionalized racism? Or look at the smear attempts by the right with Obama's name.

Goldberg's book won't make it into a high place on my reading list. I'm sure that nut jobs like O'Reilly will , and Hannity, mostly so they can continue to count on someone else's words for them to try and look original with. But any seriously educated person knows that Goldberg, who if he is has forgotten his education, is simply a right wing shill and smoke screen on this issue.

Just ask Ron Paul, the Republican candidate for president who happens to be raising the most money.

Got Him By The Balls.

2007-11-07T05:13:00.000-08:00

The question now is whether or not they get squeezed....

I'm going to tell you a story, a Sicko story, about a friend of mine named Chuck. He lives out on the West Coast. Your basic guy really. Works construction, married, two grown boys, he's just doing his life like everyone else.

A couple of years ago as I recall, Chuck was coming home feeling not just tired, but wiped out. Seemed he was feeling that way much of the day. So right after dinner he'd drop off to sleep. He wrote it off to aging.

Well, another problem Chuck was having was that his libido flew south with the birds. So being the regular guy that Chuck is, he didn't notice these changes for a while, and it took his wife, who was fed up with the lack of romance, to finally get him to see something was wrong.

So Chuck called a doctor. He had to leave a message, and so the doctor called back, and basically ran off the symptoms Chuck was experiencing. Ah, the light went on. Salvation was at hand. So in Chuck went for some tests.

As it turns out, Chuck has a problem called hypogonadism. It looks like ED, but in Chuck's case there are no underlying problems with the prostate gland. He just isn't making any testosterone any more. The family jewels as it were have lost their value.

Well, the tests confirmed the prostate health and the low level of testosterone in his blood. And now Chuck is on the path of recovery. Part of that requires Chuck to make some life style choices as well as taking his daily dose of testosterone. Sounds like it's no big deal.

Well, the wife still isn't as satisfied as she would like to be. neither is Chuck. So when he brought it up, the doc gave him some samples of Viagra and Levitra, to see if Chuck preferred one over the other.

As it turns out, Chuck preferred the Levitra, and it was helping the romance department. So the doc wrote a prescription. From what I gleamed on the Net, at a couple medical sights, that testosterone is required not only for a man to get an erection, but to keep it as well. So until Chuck got to a level of testosterone in his blood sufficient for both, he needed the help of the secondary medication.

The problem was the cost. One of those little pills cost just under $15. So for sex ten times a month for Chuck, that's about $150. That runs to close to $1800 a year. So he decided to find out why insurance wouldn't cover it. After all, in Chuck's mind and body, it was a temporary necessity if he wanted any kind of a marriage.

The initial response from insurance was that Chuck was taking a recreational drug. Chuck explained that the drug was prescribed according to his diagnosis. So the insurance carrier said they could send some paperwork to the doc, and they would review it and make their judgment from there.

In other words, they grabbed Chuck by the balls.

Now, I'm no doctor. But I've never been under the impression that a prescription is a request. It's usually considered a doctors order based on his judgment of the diagnosis to which it is being applied. And on it are not recommendations, but his orders realtive to how the medication should be taken.

Well, Chuck read the letter he got from the insurance company after they had contacted his doctor. What was once a prescription was now considered a request. It wasn't as if the doctor simply said this is what I ordered and why; now it was a request. An authorization request.

An authorization for payment. Not totally mind you. Chuck would still pay about a third of it. That's his co-pay level. But essentially two things happened. First, what the doctor ordered was no longer seen as the final determination. Second, and this is the crux of the matter, it became about money.

It's not about the fact that Chuck pays the premium, or that his boss pays it as a benefit. The insurance company is getting their part of the contract. It isn't about the fact that this medication is relative to a diagnosis for what is hoped to be a short term situation. Once Chuck can get his testosterone level where he wants it, and learn to manage it, he apparently won't need drugs like Levitra or Viagra. And it isn't about the fact that the secondary medication is helping keep his marriage in a somewhat healthier state by assuring that they can have satisfying sex on a regular basis. isn't that a family value everyone would support?

It's about money.

And so the insurance company is now the ones to make the determination as to what is best for Chuck. No one at his insurance carrier has examined him, and nor do they have the same confidentiality agreement that Chuck has with his doctor. At least that's what he surmises. Nor is the person making the immediate judgment medically qualified to do so. Again, Chuck's judgment.

So if they squeeze, it becomes a huge burden financially for Chuck. One you would think that insurance premiums are good for. Especially when you look at the insurance industry profits even after Katrina. Perhaps though they won't. He's still waiting.

Either way, Chuck's feeling is that his balls are the business of three pair of hands only: once a year by his doctor who says turn your head and cough, his wife's, and his own.

To Be Angry Or Not To Be

2007-11-02T05:59:00.000-07:00

It is quite easy to be angry these days. The Right cares little for anything except corporate profits. The environment doesn't matter, jobs don't matter, wages even less, but the war does, and immunity. And protecting big business from taxes.

The Democrats, who hold Congress, have done precious little about any of those issues. They keep supporting the war. Bad choice. And people are pissed off.

Which may lead some to become disheartened and give up. Why bother? It's the same no matter what party is in power. I'm in that boat. I think the Dems in power now are mostly turn coats. That they would actually consider as an AG a man who supports warrant-less eavesdropping and can't bring himself to admit that water-boarding is torture is beyond acceptance. Yet there they sit, trying to make out like they are doing something important for the country.

I do find that I am better off if I don't read the news every day. I can just plug in my iPod and drop out as it were. I suppose that an alternative is to keep posting this that and the other thing as if it mattered, and maybe it does.

I guess I'm in that delicate spot of learning to be engaged but not overly angry. It's not easy. There's a lot to be angry about. A lot of work to be done to make America what it can be for everyone. And a lot of obstacles to be torn down that prevent America from being great.

As an emotion, anger is important. it means that something has happened that requires a response to correct. It's a matter than of seeing what that response is, and whether or not I can be involved in the response.

Well, I'll leave this here for now. I don't want us to be angry. Anger isn't pretty. It leads to much negative response, hurt feelings, and destruction when it isn't appropriately managed. I would much prefer a world of less anger, and more joy.

Another Conservative Trifecta

2007-10-12T05:17:00.000-07:00

An amazing track record from these Republicans in office these days huh? Let's look at three shorts I leave to you to research:

1. The Reverend Gary Aldridge. Good Baptist Pastor in Montgomery Alabama, and graduate of one of the bastions of moral virtue, was found dead in his home. Dressed in scuba gear, it has all the signs of auto-erotic asphyxiation. The coroner is being quiet about it, and one web site I linked to had a "report" that looked scanned and hence possibly doctored, stated he had a dildo in his rectum. Leaving out the dildo part, he's still dead, and was still dressed in scuba gear. What is up with these folk? Privette, Latham, Haggard, Barnes, and Aldridge. The list keeps getting longer.

2. The right wing smear of Graeme Frost. I was encouraged to see in the New Republic that they actually took apart the right wing blogs and Michelle Malkin's distortions of the facts to make their cases in spreading lies to propagate their agendas. In a section of the New Republic web site called The Plank you can read all about the distortions,lies, and lack of responsibility.

3. But the big one is the story of the current administrations usage of drugs to fund war. Have you ever wondered what is becoming of the ever-increasing poppy fields of Afghanistan? I often wondered if the pharmas were getting some of it, but then remembered that back in Viet Nam the US learned a lesson from France in using drug money to further an agenda. The US also used that tactic in Central America during the Reagan administration, which we know today as the Iran-contra affair. Well, it seems it might be happening again. It would certainly explain why nothing is being dome about the poppy harvests that former Defense nutjob Rumsfeld stated would be eliminated. The late Gary Webb wrote about this issue, and there is a series called Dark Alliance that one can read about to discover more of how it worked during the Reagan administration.

I have complete faith that the Republicans will successfully be eliminated as a viable political party for decades by the small minority in office. I don't have much faith in the Democrats though. There is a growing number of progressives that I like, and hopefully that trend will continue. It would be refreshing to see a government not under the spell of corporate money.

Some day it would be nice to not have any material for stories like these.

Full of Crap on Iran

2007-10-07T13:35:00.000-07:00

General Betray Us is full of crap. Anything that emerges from his mouth should be viewed as a talking point from a potential presidential candidate, and being a Bushie, hence untrustworthy.

On the other hand, Iran fueling the war in Iraq? No duh! Only the idiots like Bush, Petraus and the other coneheads that started this war with the wrong country would have missed that point. But there you have it.

More war mongering from the fools who still don't get the significant difference between Shiia and Sunni.

Any Democrat that supports this idiocy, and resolutions against advertisements that were factually accurate, should be voted out of office, along with 90% of the dumber than dumb unAmerican Republicans.

But on the other hand, if they start another conflict, it will result in no one trusting Republicans for the next half century! The destruction to the Middle East as well as Israel and America will guarantee a single party state excluding Republicans for decades to come. At least until the independents and progressives can muster enough to overthrow the likes of Reid, Clinton, and the other DLC turncoats. Remember, by the people, of the people, for the people. We the people.

Vigilance!

Lets Change The Debate!

2007-08-19T20:14:00.001-07:00

Debates?! It's a joke. A candidate gets a whopping two minutes to declare how he'll fix a problem. Or a 30 second rebuttal. Which means someone wasted part of their two minutes to ride down someone else's idea.

Wow.

Nobody wins these debates. America loses in all regards because they don't inform us. What they do is identify with an emotion. And that's the real problem.

Not that I believe we shouldn't be emotional. I partly agree with the bumper sticker that says that if you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention. When it comes time to debate the merit of a so called solution to a problem though, the rage needs to be checked at the door.

In Roger Osborne's book, Civilization, he makes this observation: "The Reformation, an apparently simple act of rebellion against the Catholic Church, was in reality a complex series of events that appear to contradict the rules of historical cause and effect. The most obvious legacy of the Reformation was a period of intolerance, bitterness, and religious conflict...."

He concludes that chapter with this: " We have returned to the paradoxes set out at the beginning of the chapter, and the historical story may have shown us that we have been making the wrong kinds of connections. Perhaps the key to the Reformation does not lie in our own rationalization of the motives of the principle actors and meanings of the events, but in the emotional lives and spiritual needs of the people of Western Christianity. If the Reformation tells us anything, it is that humans live through their emotional needs, not through rational consistency."

This is so much the case that Drew Westen has written a book all about it called the Political Brain. I have not yet read it, but I get the point. These two dots connect, and so I respond.

What marks the political debate in this country is not rational consistency, it is emotion. And that is why we have such partisan feelings. Such bickering, such name calling. A Vice President sinking to gutter level language on the Senate floor in public to a colleague. Radio hosts that call people "feminazis" and the like. I myself am guilty of using the phrase the Religious Reich. It may be truly my opinion, and I may be able to substantiate that opinion with fact. But I also have the choice to view them that way and not voice it that way. So my own tongue rebukes me. And that's okay.

What we need in this country is to alter the debate. We finally need to actually enter into an age of reason, as Tom Paine wrote about. For it is reason that will get us the answers we need. For those that won't debate, they then forfeit the right to participate. And there are those that see only their dogmatic ideology as being the right way to solve all problems. Neither is that wise or American. Especially for America of the 21st century.

Ed Schultz offered a great idea on his radio program. he said he would be willing to open his show, actually give up a whole three hour show, one per candidate, to any who wished to air their ideas about solving this country's problems. In response to that, I wrote to the Edwards and Kucinich campaigns, encouraging them to jump on this offer and start making the change.

I am sad to say that I got canned sound bite, or the e-mail version of it (e-rhet?), in response. So I am asking any readers to do two things. Start contacting the different candidates and asking them to contact any and all radio hosts for time slots to explain in detail how they would solve our major problems. Then contact the radio hosts to offer up their slots.

Do I think this will eliminate the emotional partisanship that fuels the vitriol from the political extremes? No I don't. But it will start if we start to make noise, and request of our candidates and radio shows what it is we the people, we the consumers, want of those who serve us. The Customer is still the King folks. It's our money they want. Let's tell them what we want in exchange for it.

And let's learn to shelf our emotions when we talk to our fellow citizens. Problems usually have facts that explain what the problem is. And well thought out solutions to those facts can be applied. Not everything the conservatives believe in is right. Not everything the liberals believe in are wrong. Maybe in our discussions we can arrive at a solution that includes a little of both camps. It's worth trying.

As William Martin wrote: "In America, we wake up in the morning, we go to work, and we solve our problems."

We, we we. and I say this to myself as well as you, "We the people."

Free market - Part 3

2007-08-17T05:26:00.000-07:00

As you may recall, the inflation numbers the Feds post are stripped of the "volatile" numbers of food and energy prices. You may recall the secret energy meetings that Dick Cheney chaired back in the early part of the century, from which came our domestic energy policy; another secret.

However, what isn't secret is that gas was about $1.50 a gallon when Bush took office. Not too many months ago it was $4 a gallon in some parts of the country and has since dropped. In that time of course Exxon posted huge profit numbers. What impacts the consumer though is that our gas prices alone have inflated a little less than 20% per year since Bush took office. This is one of those pocketbook numbers that they don't like to report in the official numbers, but greatly impacts any who drive themselves to work, and those who need commercial air flights to travel to work.

In an August 16 Seattle Times article, there is a detailed report of the cost of food just in the last year. According to the labor Department, food prices rose 4.1% in the last year alone. Eggs, a nice cheap easy to fix meal, went up 33.7%. Milk 21.1%. Pasta 7%. Potatoes 5%. This is the stuff that poorer people eat, mainly because they are at the cheaper and easier to fix end of the food chain. Considering that the number of those living in poverty has grown since Bush took office, this number not only greatly impacts them, it has a less but also serious impact on those living in that area between poverty and the median wage.

Here's the upshot. Unless your wages matched inflation alone, which has been right around 6% per year when you factor in the food and gas (let's just leave out health, heat and air conditioning costs for now, you can extrapolate those numbers in mentally), you lost money for that year. To quote the article, ""...which may go a long way to explain why, despite healthy job statistics, Americans remain glum about the economy."

Healthy job statistics?

Considering that to maintain Adam Smiths ideas of capitalism, which the neo-cons embrace, wages must remain low. Hence they fight living wage legislation everywhere. It also reveals why Americans are glum. Wages during a capitalist loving administration are apt to be forced lower. That can be done by allowing illegal immigrants to cross the border, regardless of how many terrorists may cross at the same time. It can be done by out sourcing jobs to foreign lands, thereby eliminating competition for high wage manufacturing jobs. It can be done by lobbying efforts that resist minimum wage and living wage laws. So in the face of stagnant wages, inflation then has a negative impact on the wealth of most Americans. it costs too much to live, and so nothing gets saved.

I can hear the outcry already: If Americans lived less on credit cards used to buy toys, then everything would be better. And part of that is true. Yet part of the reason credit is so easily available is because the rulers that be want to separate you from as much of your money as they can. Hence they allow credit card companies to draft legislation for bankruptcies which makes rules that allow those credit companies to charge huge interest rates, make credit available to anyone(just listen to recent mortgage and re-fi ads), and then make it impossible for them to get out of it when they get in over their heads as they are encouraged to do. Remember, it was Bush that stated that the sacrifice Americans needed to make after 9.11 was to go shopping. Get in your car which uses gas, go to the mall and buy more products made overseas with cheap labor. Not even all the parts in your GM car are made in America, and increasingly the labor used to build the mall is illegal and low wage. It all works out beautifully for the wealthy owners.

And go shopping for what? Computers? Cameras, or cell phones? Yes, the prices on these things have gone down. But when you hear that, you must remember your own budget. How many cell phones do you buy every week? How many computers? Gadgets are getting cheaper as technology gets better, but they aren't your basic budget items. Food is, on a much larger percentage basis than gadgets. So is gas, and electricity for heat and air conditioning. Those pocket book items which are left out of official numbers.

So how free has our economy become? Well, if you're losing money every year because your wages aren't keeping up with true inflation, then it isn't free. If Americans were in a position where they could put aside a three to six month nest egg for emergencies, and save regularly for retirement over and above the cost of living, then we would have a good economy. One that would hum right along. Think what that would take for you to live like that. Just think what the American dream of a house, emergency fund, retirement fund, let's say one car despite the need for two salary families any more, and the necessary evils of health insurance, homeowners insurance, car insurance, and the utility bills that would go along with that house. How much per hour would you need to make? Then add kids, and future college costs....

I'll make that my next post, based on median numbers. But I think you get the picture. if it's more than you make, consider rethinking capitalism. Consider protecting the workers of America. And remember that the power is still in our hands.

This Market Isn't Free Redux

2007-08-15T06:45:00.000-07:00

I was just reading a CNN report about stocks dipping lower this morning. No surprise there. The dismal housing market will continue to do that for a while.

What makes me shake my head though is the inflation figure that the government reports that strips out "volatile" food and energy costs to consumers. What sense does that make?

Consider that the problems in the housing market are based on the inability of consumers to pay off their debt. Where does then the rest of the money these consumers make go? Would anyone care to venture that a good portion of the average American(a country with a known obesity problem) goes into the food budget? And energy costs? What do you think is covering the costs of air conditioning, heating, running appliances, computers, lights, and making their gas guzzlers move along the highways? A mere 1% of their budgets?

This is where "economists" of the governmental variety miss the mark. These inflation numbers aren't close at all to reality. Add the "volatile", and never going down food prices and the up-and-down fuel costs and inflation will look much worse than the numbers reflect. Add to that the ever escalating cost of health care (remember the maladies associated with obesity) and suddenly it's a different world. An inflated world that the Feds will make worse as the dump more money into the banking system, thereby contradicting the free market theory and creating inflation(too many dollars chasing too few goods and services).

This market is the result of unregulated greed and poor fiscal practices. It reflects spending what you don't have, robbing the Treasury, and priorities that do not reflect the Americans these politicians represent.

The cons have been boasting boom economy forever, and the lefties have been saying the bubble will bust. Seems the cons are wrong, and not for the first time. Nor the last. But their days in power and their return to power are slipping away with every point the market slips, and every bit of news that uncovers these unregulated and risky financial operations that line the pockets of the few at the expense of the many.

This Market Isn't Free

2007-08-11T06:55:00.000-07:00

Not by a long shot!

Just so you know, I'm an average working guy. Well, actually a lucky working guy; my employer provides a decent wage and insurance on top of that. So my understanding of the nuances of this American economy are questionable. But the big picture is understandable by most folk.

The cons like to tell us they believe in the free market, meaning of course free from the intrusion of government actions. However, this weeks end at Wall Street proved otherwise. On the basis of the now glaring failure of the housing market, and the evidence the bubble is about to burst and effect markets world wide, it tumbled quite a bit over the last two weeks.

Thursday saw a sell off based on the actions of the French banking system. Friday started into a freefall again, and the government intruded and saved the day. The Feds said they would "infuse" tens of billions into the economy to shore it up. But that's government action. So where were all the conservative voices to cry out against interference in the free market? The fed action will only help things for a little while because the problem exists at the "we the people" level. Not the banking system level, and not clueless Wall Street.

So long as the wealth of the wealthiest is protected by government actions, these hypocrites will cry about a free market all day. But the cost of this "free" market is staggering. Just remember the savings and loan debacle of the eighties. Which incidentally had a Bush family member as a major player in that fiasco.

This market isn't free because the housing bubble is going to burst and there will be a loss of assets and homes at a rate we haven't seen for a long time. The three worst areas facing foreclosures right now are Las Vegas, Detroit, and Newark. And mind you, these problems are just starting to make themselves felt. This market affects two of the three hallmarks of what used to be the economic benchmarks. Those three used to be automobiles, housing, and appliances to go in those houses. We all know now the sad shape of American automobile markets. Sad unless you're the CEO of Ford that is. He gets a 28 million dollar bonus for a third of a year while others are laid off, and then they recall 3.6 million defective vehicles.

So if housing slumps, so will the big appliance makers. Which most likely will affect Chinese workers for the most part. I'm not certain anymore just how many appliances are still built in the US. However, if orders drop off in the US, then profits drop off accordingly. That's the sort of news Wall Street doesn't like. And with Rupert Murdoch in charge, maybe we won't even hear it!

Moving on now to another costly expenditure that has been long ignored; infrastructure. With the explosion of the steam pipe in underground New York city, and the collapse of 35W in Minneapolis, it has been brought to our attention that our infrastructure is not in the best condition. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers(ASCE), Americas infrastructure is in extremely poor condition. If you were a foreign or domestic investor, would you have the infrastructure needed to support your business? How many foreign assets were affected by 35W falling into the Mississippi? How significant will the domestic economy be impacted by the collapse? And the ASCE claims that our energy grid, water systems, dams, bridges, schools, roads and aviation systems all across the country need significant investment to come up to "good" condition.

How free will this be?

And lets look at another category of the booming economy the cons love to talk about. The savings rate. That's right, the rate that Americans save money. Back in the eighties I decided to try my hand at insurance and securities sales. People in this country had a bad habit of buying expensive life insurance policies that had poor rates of return, and charged you for "borrowing" your own money. They called them whole life or universal life policies. And back then, the savings rate for Americans was less than 5%. Today, for the first time since the Great Depression, Americans are actually saving at a negative rate. In other words, they are spending more than they make and save combined.

Now, seeing how companies that go bankrupt are wiping out pension plans while providing golden parachutes to executives, it's had a huge impact on saved money. What many don't realize is that saved money is the resource that government used to use, as well as the commercial market, to fund itself to grow. But as savings declines, than Uncle Sam has to go off shores to borrow from countries like Japan and China. And the national debt climbs into the ionosphere.

How free is that market?

And why do we have the debacles we have now? Partly because of the Reagan administration beginning the rollback of government market regulations designed to protect the citizens and prevent greed and stupidity like that which happened at Bear Stearns from happening.

So next time a con blurbs out the advantages of a free market, educate them to the real market of the real people.

Our "market" isn't free at all.

Righties Running From Debate?!

2007-07-31T16:37:00.000-07:00

It has happened that Bill O'Reilly's web site doesn't like having the anti-liberal violence and hatred posted their brought into question. So even paying subscribers that point it out are having their accounts closed. Apparently Bill really doesn't like "fair and balanced" viewpoints.

I usually post at Townhall.com. At least up until today. I decided to see what the comments were on an article, and I was told the service was not available. Not the posting aspect, but even accessing the article.And no matter what article I clicked on, I got the same message. So I'll be interested to see if the service interruption is temporary or not. I would think so. But it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was so far as my account was concerned.

And according to Lowes customer service department e-mail to me today, they have pulled their advertising from Bill O'Reilly's programs. Bravo Lowes! Let's put the pressure on other advertisers as well, and let them know our business goes elsewhere.

In my query to Lowes, I pointed out the opportunity for them to help shape the debate in this country. Hopefully this will help. Considering that the right wing shill machine isn't interested in debate, I doubt it.

2007-07-22T07:23:00.000-07:00

I think it's time that Americans invaded red blogs and hosting sites like TownHall.com, and started refuting the nonsense they can find there. I am seeing more of it as I go there regularly. It's basically the same shill noise they have always promoted.

But I think that perhaps a course of self education is necessary to really challenge the political rhetoric of the right wing extremists.

I would recommend the following:

Acquaint yourself with the writings of Tom Paine. Particularly Common Sense, The Rights of Man, and The Age of Reason. Then move on to Thomas Jefferson. The Library of America has wonderful volumes that contain Paine's writings, and a collection of Jefferson's most popular. They also have James Madison's writings, which is the trifecta of the founders writings one should know.

Then I would recommend America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar to deepen your knowledge of that text. Alon side that, have yourself a pocket version of the Constitution, such as the American Bar Association sells for a couple bucks. Read them together.

I would also suggest you read The Conservative Mind by Russel Kirk. He wrote what has been the bible of conservatism. In it you will find the essential principles that make up conservatism, and you will see where the neoconservatism of today has drifted from it. You will also note that it draws heavily on British Tory loyalist, parliament member, and resister to American independence, Edmund Burke. The foreword was written by the head of Regnery Publishing, and contains some juvenile comments that otherwise betray the level of intelligence the conservatives aspire to.

Susan Jacoby's Freethought is also highly recommended to round out the history portion.

George Lakoff's works Don't Think Of An Elephant and Moral Politics, which deal with the rhetorical framing that the Republicans use, as well as humans in general. The Frameshop website is a good resource as well. And finish up with a text on critical thinking.

That may take some time, but play as you go! You will find stuff that is blatantly easy to refute. This morning, TownHall posted an article by John Boehner about making America safer. Many of the posts were about how ridiculous such a claim is in light of republican management of that issue. It was a no brainer to post to. You'll also find articles about our alleged Christian heritage. That might require regular visits to talk2action.org and Americans United The Wall of Separation blog.

You'll discover a few major things along the way here. First is that there is no historical basis for the idea that America is or ever was meant to be a christian nation. You will also discover that the historical references and roots of today's conservatism don't extend beyond 1980. So their idea of conservatism being an American idea is relatively new. You'll also find that there is no inherent logic in conservative ideas. That will account for many of the contradictions that appear in today's news surrounding healthcare, immigration, and the occupation of Iraq for example. You will also find a lot of fear mongering and bigotry. That obviously isn't a clear use of reason to finding solutions to problems.

John Stuart Mill stated that not all conservatives are stupid, but that most stupid people are conservative. I would alter that to say ignorant(unlearned) as opposed to stupid(unable to learn). However, there are many cases where stupid is the appropriate word. But you will occasionally find that there are some intelligent conservatives with viable solutions with whom you can have reasoned debate. And that is what makes America what it is.

Conservatism actually has a small base. I would venture to say that most Americans are more likely existing on a libertarian continuum to some degree, with most of that still left leaning. Liberalism is the value on which America was founded, and isn't defined by what the right wing extremists say it is. It's defined by the Preamble of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

So jump into it!

Republican Confusion

2007-07-18T05:38:00.000-07:00

Maybe the cons on the Hill are still filibustering a vote on an issue at this hour. An issue there is much confusion on.

Yesterday, going into the debate, Mitch McConnell stated that the war in Iraq is the most important issue facing the country. However, David Vitter, his colleague from Louisiana, who thinks it okay for others to resign because of being caught in immorality but not he himself, thinks that gay marriage is the biggest issue facing the nation. And he made that declaration a year after Hurricane Katrina destroyed the major city of his home state! So I wonder how that debate will pan out between the two of them, and just how Vitter would vote.

Then we have a report I saw on CNN about the "sea-change" of security in Baghdad. Yessiree, the Iraqis are ready to take it on themselves. Which is surely what Maliki meant when he said the US could leave any time. But wait, as usual, the number of ready divisions to ensure that security is once again a yo-yo number.

And, to make for more confusion, there are now reports stating that we may need even another escalation of troops. Wha?

Is it any wonder that the only constant here is dying US soldiers? I don't think these Republicans could manage a fight between two year olds in a sand box.

It does point out though that Bush had no idea what he would create when he invaded Iraq. Not only did he not pursue the real enemy; which according to recent reports is back to nearly full strength, what ever that means, he upset the balance of power that existed between the Shiia and Sunni, and our presence or lack thereof in Iraq will do nothing to appease the strife between these two branches of Islamic believers.

So the fear mongering has begun with reports of more attacks imminent in America (that will make Arkansas GOP chair Dennis Milligan proud) from an enemy we have spent years ignoring because the Bush administration was more focused on Iraqi oil than justice. In fact, the lack of concern of justice in the Bush administration has become so evident that even this fear mongering will only become food for the talking heads that try to convince the faithful to vote Republican for more of the same lack of commitment and attention to not only justice but national security as well. The other 71% of the American population uses it's common sense to see that the Republican ideas of justice, national security, and just plain old governing are a complete failure. And an expensive one at that.

Just to add to the confusion, the Vice President states he doesn't belong to the executive or legislative branch of the government. No wonder there's confusion. I'd like to hear the talking heads explain the Constitutionality of that claim!

Pixilated Math and Values

2007-07-17T05:37:00.000-07:00

Mr. Ho Bang (aka David Vitter) is saying he will stay in public office. Not only will he deny his own advice to others that immorality is grounds for resignation, , his wife flip-flopped on her statement that she would "Loreena Bobbit" instead of forgive David is he ever did anything immoral. I guess she likes that national health care she gets too much to let it go. Her and her husband will of course deny anyone else that benefit, so long as they get it. Fuzzy conservative values at their best!

And the fuzzy math? Ah yes, the evidence the military is growing. People just can't wait to get in. Take for example the HUGE re-enlistment ceremony that occurred in Baghdad on July 4. See? There's your proof, and of course the righties are all over that news in their continued efforts to promote this continued occupation. What they don't tell you is that re-enlistments were put off for months so they could stage this ceremony. And if there is such growth in the military, how is it that service terms are extended in length by 25%, and that several units are returning to Iraq for their fourth and fifth rotations? Mostly with the same soldiers. And what of the stories of wounded being shipped back to Iraq? And what of the whispers now of another troop escaltion? This is a fine example of conservative fuzzy math.

Another example of fuzzy math exploited by politicians is that of the stock market. It's running wild. See how well everyone in America is doing? Yet they fail to tell you that 75% of the stock market, well, actually almost that much of all the assets in America, are owned by less than 10% of the people. Which means that roughly 297,000,000 people, yes that's 297 million, split the remaining 25% of the wealth in America. Remember this scenario: 10 guys in a bar after work on Friday enjoying a cool one. Two laborers, 6 journeymen of various professions and length of service in their fields, and two office collars. Their wages when averaged out, is roughly the median wage in America which can be found at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In walks Bill Gates, and suddenly the median wage in the room jumps into the stratosphere. See how well everyone is doing? They haven't finished their beer, and they are suddenly all multi-millionaires. That's how economic numbers are being dished around the news. It ignores the realities of lack or loss of health care, either stagnant or declining wages, definitely loss of manufacturing jobs, the slowing housing market, the huge rise in foreclosures in places like Newark, Detroit, and Las Vegas, and the continued flood of immigrants that take low paying, no benefit jobs which are then added into the totals to show how well everyone is doing because look! Jobs are being created! They love to count them in as proof of a growing economy yet love to pound the pulpit about the rule of law these illegals ignore, and for six years under President Bush's careful commitment to national security, they didn't even address the southern border until last year.

Of course, if you read the speeches and testimony of Alan Greenspan before the Federal Reserve Board and the Senate, you'd see that making the labor pool grow is what was being promoted. And the basic tenet of capitalism that benefits the few at the expense of the many, according to Adam Smith, is low wages. Problem solved!

Maybe fuzzy isn't the right word. Fuzzy could be construed as cuddly and cute, like a bunny. maybe pixilated is a better idea. You know when a video shot wants to protect an identity, they pixilate the face of the person? That's what we have here.

A political party that loves to self righteously proclaim itself champions of traditional family values and prosperity has an identity crisis. They are discovering that they can't pixilate the picture despite what words emanate from their mouths.

Hiding Their Light

2007-07-15T06:58:00.000-07:00

It simply amazes me that these right wing fanatics still have the audacity to claim anything of a moral compass.

Harriet Miers is refusing to respond to a subpoena. Good little Christian Monica Goodling had to actually plead the fith amendment. The White House has issued statements saying that aides won't repsond to subpoenas.

Where is the obedience to the rule of law in all this? Where is the rendering unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's? If they are acting in accordance with truth in their actions, and you would suppose that an administration that likes to open their meetings in prayer would be, then what have they to hide? Strangely, I've heard that justification for illeagal eavessdropping: if you have done nothing wrong, what's to fear? When it comes to immigrants, these same righties and their radio talking heads love to pound the pulpit with the rule of law.

The Bible states that believers, like Monica Goodling, and allegedly President Bush, aren't supposed to hide their light under a bushel. Yet they are doing that very thing. Unless of course, their light is really darkness.

Which is of course what Americans are coming to believe. This attempt to evade the law, the questions that will reveal their actions, the offered meetings with no oath taken, no witnesses and no transcripts is seen for what it really is:

A cover-up of corruption. All in the name of the God they pray to when they start their meetings.

But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness! - Mark 6:23

Do They Ever Learn?

2007-07-11T05:53:00.000-07:00

I posted earlier about Republican Representative Vitter's talk not matching his walk. His comments are absurd. And yet he has been outdone by the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, Dennis Milligan.

"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001]," Milligan said to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country."

Apart from the audacity of such stupidity, does any one else see the contradictions in this statement?

I see one! "...men and women to protect this country." Hmmm. I recall, and I'm no chess master, that a defensive posture means you have your army around you, not across the board. It seems to some that defending the country is best done by sending them overseas to the point that the military is so strained that they have to quietly try to lower the security clearance so they can utilize "ex-convicts, drug addicts and the mentally incompetent." And in case you missed this whopper, due to Bush's commitment in this global war on terror which has justified the occupation of Iraq for how many years now, Congress set up a front company to see if they could obtain material for a dirty bomb. Within a month, they had a license to but enough material for a dirty bomb. There was no face-to-face meeting, and no visit to the "company" by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. And; yes, there is an and to this unbelievable proof of Bush's commitment to out security, according to the BBC, those same agents crossed the borders into America from both Canada and Mexico, despite alarms sounding the presence of radioactive materials, on the basis of phony paperwork. Oh, and Micheal Chertoff has a "gut feeling" that this summer is a period of increased risk.

That makes me feel safer already.

I see another one! "...on American soil...." And then our intrepid federal government can make yet another location ring with the victory strains of governmental competence like those heard in New Orleans. Of course, maybe Mr. Milligan thinks like Dave Vitter that gay marriage is more important than the reconstruction of New Orleans, as I pointed out in a previous post. Oh wait, I get it! Then President Bush can attack someone else!

And the grand daddy of them all, "...need some attacks...." Mind you, not just one. But more than one. Now I think this way. If an attack were successful, than that would mean that the defender wasn't doing his job. More than one would mean that the defender-in-Chief is incapable of doing his job at all. And that would surely reveal the real commitment of President Bush. Yessiree, several attacks would surely show us just how effective President Bush has been at solving the southern border issue when he said nary a peep about it for six years. And that would surely show us just how capable our government is of detecting the actions of our enemies. All that illegal eavesdropping would really pay off. And having all our military people over in the Middle East would definitely be a big help if American soil were attacked again.

Can I pass this off as just some dumb southern hick blathering at the mouth? Maybe, if it was Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel. But this man is the head of the GOP at the state level. I would think that type of position would be filled by someone who is intelligent, has somewhat a command of the English language, and would at least love his country enough to not actually think that attacks would be a good way to shine a spotlight on their beloved idol.

This sort of statement reveals the level of depravity to which at least this political party has sunk. That the GOP didn't fire him immediately is beyond me. There is no love of his fellow man or his country in this statement. This is pure ideological idolatry.

I can surmise that Mr. Milligan has less of a love of country than political partisanship at heart. I can also surmise that even after 6 years in office, of absolutely incredulous comments being made by a broad swath of administration officials and right wing supporters (eg Pat Robertson), that he hasn't learned a damn thing about turning the brain on before engaging the mouth. Which I as well as anyone knows is quite easy. However, given the subject matter, and his position, one would think that they would have learned by now.

Their own Bible states that out of the mouth the heart speaks. Scary isn't it? And it's true of course, according to them. This is something we need to consider when we vote in elections. Because these Republicans love to talk the talk, but certainly don't seem capable of walking the walk.

It isn't something they have learned how to do yet.

A True Lack of Integrity

2007-07-11T04:58:00.000-07:00

David Vitter. His name is now in the news. He's the Republican representative from Louisiana that stated on June 7 of 2006 that the most important issue is gay marriage. Not the wars in the Middle East which are costing America hundreds of lives $12 billion a month, and not his own states embarrassingly third world condition of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

This is the same guy that was solidly behind the federal marriage protection act. And since he has had to apologize for his name being on the "DC Madame's" list of clients, apparently that's not all he was behind.

So what leads to such rank hypocrisy? How does someone come up so short of being out of touch with reality? Mind you, he's done the political acts of saying he confessed this to his wife and God. Yes, those were political acts, designed to save his political career. Vitter stated in reaction to his predecessor and President Clinton's sexcapades by saying, “I think Livingston’s stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess.” [Atlanta Journal and Constitution, 12/20/98] So will Vitter follow his only advice?

And apparently, this isn't the first time accusations of hooking have attached themselves to Vitter. So just what is the problem?

The problem is that Vitter, like so many people, is out of touch with himself. He does not know himself, or live at peace with himself.

Let me explain, based on the supposition that Vitter considers himself a Christian. After all, he did say he confessed this to his God. If Vitter believes the Bible, and attends church sitting next to his wife, even while whoring, he has likely heard many times that all the prurient stuff that is inherent in humans is the work of the devil. it's the evil part of sinful man, and in Christ, there is a new man. So David I'm sure had struggles. In Christianity they like to call this "spiritual warfare." He probably was fighting like the dickens to rid himself of these demonic thoughts, and later, the guilt that came along with enjoying the services of a woman who would do things his wife wouldn't. So I imagine Dave here is sitting in a pew, just sweating bullets, because he's got this history and memories of the naked bodies of other women dancing in his head, and all this stuff isn't really him, so how can he get rid of it, and what happens if this becomes public knowledge? How pathetic and weak am I?

It then cuts to the reaction stage, where he doubles up his prayer life, and gets vocal on things like protecting marriage. He's riding the high of forgiveness, and shortly after that, he's riding a whore. What to do!? Just what are his values?

His values, like his confession statement, are simply facades. They aren't reality. He doesn't live them from the inside out, because David has never sat down to really learn what is inside him. David doesn't look in. To him there's nothing good there. You look in, and all that's there is the devil or the evil part of him, and Christ, which you see much better by looking up. So in essence, there is no David.

By looking in, he would learn what drives this need to be behind phony morality and hookers at the same time. And that means taking the time to quietly look at himself, all by himself. And to the extent that he fails to do that, the chances are he will repeat this kind of folly.

And this same problem cuts across party lines and issues. So a William Jefferson taking bribes is not all that very different than David Vitter taking hookers.

In some regards, I laugh at this because I know the arrogant part of me likes to point the finger at these ridiculous family values Republicans who don't walk their talk. But I know it's the arrogance I have, the pain of having seen my country hijacked by these liars and sold down the river. Another part of me though is sad and hopeful. Sad because Mr. Vitter is in a painful place, whether he acknowledges it or not. He betrayed a lot of people, including himself. He is struggling with his inner man. Hopeful though because this is another opportunity for David to become more human.

And he'll go back to Washington, where another "escort" service will be plying the corridors of power looking for clients. And they will find David Vitter. And he will once again have the opportunity to say "no."

Unless of course, he follows his own advice and steps down. That would be a real step of integrity.

Sicko is right!

2007-07-09T05:32:00.000-07:00

Over at this link you can read the Blue Cross/Blue Shield response to the new documentary by Micheal Moore. Included is the text of an internal memo that got leaked. At the end of the article are stories that further confirm how backward our system is.

My own is rather simple: My employer pays mine. Our Blue Shield product wanted to charge more (a double digit increase) for less services. I lifted the comment below from the BCBS memo.

1) The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) and the 39 Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies are committed to improving the U.S. health care system for our nearly 100 million members through continuous innovation that reflects the ever-changing health care landscape and the needs of the consumer.

How is less coverage for more money an improvement? So now I'm on a new plan, and who knows what the details will prove out. As for BCBS claims that they are non-profit, the obvious solution to that argument is what I experienced: more money for less coverage.
Considering that America doesn't lead any industrialized country in health categories, it amazes me that these insurance companies have the gall to try and pretend that the per capita expense leading the same industrialized world isn't ending up in someones pocket.

ANOTHER "Crusade"

2007-07-09T05:16:00.000-07:00

Ah yes, as if it weren't already evident, here is the new brand of "evangelism" for the crowd that sold it's soul for 30 pieces of politcal silver.

Sad to say that this is what Christianity is turning into. I have to question just how much their God is really behind this direction of theirs. And I wonder what Scriptures they use to justify it. I wonder what they'll do when they find out their God isn't behind their efforts....

Low Brow Ignorance in the White House

2007-07-05T06:25:00.000-07:00

Despite an Ivy League degree (in, what, basket weaving, or maybe cheerleading?) it seems that ignorance has found a home in the White House.

I would be hard pressed to find any corollaries between the American Revolution and the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But somehow, in a very real revelation of administration grandiosity and it's natural setting of dysfunction, the President of the United States did just that.

Let's look over a couple of details. Our Revolution was based on throwing off the occupiers. A country developed beneath the occupiers who originally settled here a couple hundred years before, and those people born here were no longer satisfied with arbitrary justice and being a colony of the big corporations. Which is nothing like what happened in Iraq.

Our Revolution developed a national Constitution written by men who knew how to think, and is clearly a set of ideals we are still a long way from reaching. Again, this was done at the behest and effort of the natural inhabitants. And again, completely different than the situation in Iraq. Just read and compare the two Constitutions. Or for fun, the levels of intelligence between the two sets of deliberators who created them.

Our Revolution wasn't based on a lie. It was based on the principles laid out in the Preamble of the aforementioned Constitution: establish Justice, insure the domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for everyone. Basically, the only thing that has happened in Iraq has been the insuring, establishing, and providing for of billions of dollars for private contractors that heavily finance the Republican party. The millions that are fleeing Iraq are testament to the reality that the domestic situation is both undesirable and unsafe. Because it all started on a lie about some sort of cloud, what was that, oh yea, a mushroom cloud, and all kinds other weapons they have now determined didn't exist. Oh yea, and terrorism....

So what level of intelligence could see any kind of comparison? If you responded with a "duh!" you may well feel insulted by any attempt to compare the founding of this country with the invasion and occupation of another. And particularly on the day we celebrate our collective birthday.

I think we deserve better in the White House.

The End of Faith

2007-06-11T21:03:00.000-07:00

That of course is the title of a Sam Harris book, and I borrow it for this post.

I was listening to Adrian Rogers, on channel 20 here in Seattle. This man actually stated that the foundation of faith is fear.

Whoa Nellie! He then went on to cite other scriptures that referred to the fear of God, which is not what he said initially. And as I recall from my days as a believer, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. ONLY. Which happens to be what Hebrews 11:6 says.

So what is Rogers saying? He is saying that fearing a wrathful, punishing God should be the foundation of believing in him. I don't know about you, but I surely don't want that kind of faith, or god.

Relatedly, in the Sunday, May 20 edition of the Seattle Times, is a story about guest ministers in Ohio violating the rules of the Ohio Congress. That sounds pretty inocuous, but when you take this story apart, a pattern emerges.

To violate the rules, one would either need to be ignorant of them, or clearly not care. I have a hard time believing that those who invite ministers to the Ohio Congress aren't giving them the upshot on the rules. Particualrly rules concerning prayers which need to be submitted three days in advance. I do suppose though that even those extending invitations are ignorant of the rules. Either case, ignorance or lack of care, it reveals a lot about the state of Christianity.

You see, the foundation of faith shouldn't be fear. According to the Bible, it isn't. So what's with the fear mongering? Well, fear mongering has become a favorite from the pulpit. Just listen to John Hagee preach about the dangers of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, as I have. Or listen to your basic right wing politician, who will state that war isn't a matter of if, but where, like Fred Thompson did. In other words, learn to LIVE in a state of fear and war.

That way, you have an excuse to violate rules, and laws, because you are constantly "under attack," and there is a great need to enjoin the spiritual warfare and throw down the homosexual agenda (I just got my copy of it. I like the Mimosas at 10 AM.), Bill O'Reilly's favorite progressive secular agenda(wha?), which are probably all summed up under the umbrella of Satan's agenda. Ah, the reason-for-all-the-fear straw boogie man. I'm still waiting to get my copy of that agenda. Requests so far have been ignored. Makes me wonder if anyone is really in that office....

Some day the right wing bloviators of the blogosphere, the hypocritical and self serving politicians, and the religious reich, and apparently it will be after they are thoroughly crushed in future elections similar to last November's, and after more scandals, they will learn that what they have lived is a lie that is evident to all concerned.

Perhaps then it will mean an end to their so-called "faith." Then maybe they will start living truthfully. Then maybe they will understand what America means. Then maybe they will become a viable political party again. Maybe then they will cease to destroy what freedom and liberty are and understand what it means to live under the Constitution our founders fought and died for. And then they can once again be referred to as faithful.

I wonder what would happen to the church if they started preaching that faith was based on rational thought and love?

Crank it Up!

2007-06-08T05:43:00.000-07:00

It's Saturday! Get those brains working! Get 'em ready to tackle the problems of the day. Unless of course you're a Christian. Then it's not the brain, it's your faith. In fact there is a Proverb that says to "lean not on your own understanding..," which is interpreted to mean that you can's trust your own reasoning.

Ignatius Loyola is quoted as saying "We sacrifice the intellect to God."

Martin Luther is attributed the saying "Reason is the Devil's harlot, who can do nought but slander and harm whatever God says and does."

Loyola is also quoted as saying that if the church states that what is white is black, we believe that it's black. Now, the point is this. There is a lot of activity within Christianity to try and present America as a Christian nation. This is referred to by historians as revisionism. So let's review a few facts about America, keeping our abilities to reason intact and open.

After all, the God you believe in allegedly gave you that brain....

The Declaration of Independence recognizes the God of Nature. There is also a reference to a Supreme Judge, which was not in Jefferson's draft of the Declaration. The point is that there was in no way an attempt to say there was no God, rightly or wrongly so.

Yet when it came to the Constitution, eleven years later, there is no recognition of God in establishing the laws of this country, or in the governance of it. It states clearly, "We the people...."

It specifically states in Article 6, Section 3, there shall be no religious test for office. In other words, James Dobson claiming that Fred Thompson isn't Christian enough to be considered as President, is flatly an anti-Constitutional view point.

The Executive oath of office, in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8, do not include the words, "so help me god." They simply state that the office holder will defend, protect, and preserve the Constitution.

And to reiterate what the Declaration of Independence recognized, in the First Amendment it states that Congress shall not establish an official religion, nor prohibit the exercise of any religion.

A decade later, in the Barbary Treaty, which Congress ratified and the President signed, there is a specific reference to the fact that America was in no way established on the Christian religion. That statement not only reasserts the trust in "We the people," it clearly denies the assertion that our Constitution was based on Judeo Chrisitan or biblical principles.

"In God We Trust" was added to the money of the United States in 1861, based on this letter to the then Secretary of the Treasury:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.
One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.
This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disaster.

He sounds a bit like Pat Robertson, and such reasoning is well, hardly reasoning. But this addition to our money was during a time in our country when both halves of the population declared God was on their side.

Two years later, after the Battle of Gettysburg, President Lincoln delivered a speech that went down in history. The two best known original drafts of that speech do not contain the phrase, "under God," and there is speculation that the same "increased religious sentiment" which prompted the redesigning of the currency was what prompted Lincoln to add the phrase to his speech.

Twenty nine years later Baptist minister Francis Bellamy penned the Pledge of Allegiance. It's original wording is this:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

As you can see, some things in the pledge have changed. Despite President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation which freed slaves, Mr. Bellamy was encouraged to drop the word "equality" since African Americans were now segregated, and women were also on society's D-list. There were both free, but had no rights they have today, and rarely saw justice.

The phrase "the flag of the United States of America" was added in 1924 over Bellamy's protests. In 1954, 23 years after Bellamy died, and during another period of "increased religious sentiment," and the time of McCarthyism, the Knights of Columbus campaigned to have the phrase "under God" added to the Pledge.

What we see from our money, our Pledge of Allegiance, and our Constitution is that this country was not established in any way to be Christian. It was meant to be secular to allow every religion the freedom to worship.

It is the revisionists who want to establish Christianity as a state religion that are responsible not only for the changes made to the original nature of our culture, but for gross dereliction in their duty to represent truth. In other words, they are lying.

Which doesn't mean that Christianity should be stamped out. Not that it doesn't deserve that fate. Christopher Hitchen's book god is Not Great states quite emphatically, with mostly good examples, that religion is responsible for much of the suffering and death on this planet. For the most part I agree with him. Yet I have a Constitution that allows for all people to practice their own beliefs.

However, when any religion begins to interfere with government of we the people, and establish themselves by the agency of bureaocracy, they have violated the nature of our rule of law, and the Constitution.

I would advocate that money be redesigned to go back to "e pluribus unum," in place of "In God We Trust." I advocate that we quote the pledge in it's original form, and teaching what it means. And I advocate that our government divest itself on any faith based operations.

Those are the facts, and you can look up the links. Educate yourself. Get your brain, and reasoning ability, in gear. Face our history, face your beliefs, and make sure they agree.

Those who don't are living a lie. And I think we all know where that leads.

The Right Has Forgotten

2007-05-22T05:33:00.000-07:00

What America stands for!

Yesterday I listened to Sean Hannity on his national radio program. As I expected, he was distorting the immigration bill that was hammered out in Congress this week. But he said four things I wanted to lay out before you that I thought needed clarifying, because they are common talking points of the right wing talking heads that are on the dole.

First, Sean hearkened back to the rule of law days of Reagan. Since the right wing attitude of the day as demonstrated in the Presidential debates of the conservatives is to emulate Ronald Reagan, they are conveniently revising even his history because, as reported, he offered amnesty to millions of workers in the country illegally in 1986. So if it's good enough for Reagan, it's certainly good enough for any conservative now.

Second, Sean made the comment of the failure of these people to recognize a sovereign country, namely, the USA. I wonder if that same sort of failure to recognize sovereignty is the same as the kind we displayed in failing to recognize Afghanistan's when we went after and failed to catch Osama Bin Laden. Which ended up being the excuse when President Bush was pressed because Bin laden was hiding in Pakistan. We want others to follow rules we don't?

Third, Sean repeated how important it is that the rule of law be observed. That's almost funny when you consider the long list of indicted Republicans: Tom Delay, Bob Ney, and Duke Cunningham to name a few. Spider webbing from there of course is the current Department of Justice scandal of the "rule of law" crowd that has lead one graduate of a prominent Christian university to resign her position at the Department and plead the fifth. A Christian at the Gonzalez led Department of Justice pleading the fifth?! Not to mention the President acknowledging warrant-less eavesdropping on Americans, another illegal act. And they trumpet the need for rule of law which they ignore routinely?

And the final thing that Hannity said that struck me as completely un-American was that immigrants shouldn't come here unless they are invited. Wow. Such ignorance of history and all that America stands for is so mind boggling it defies description. One could almost slap the political label fascist on it, but it still defies description. Regardless, I knew then that Sean Hannity never visited the Statue of Liberty. Or, if he had, it was a waste of time because he doesn't believe in the principle of the Lady. That's the invitation right there! It's what America stands for. It's an open invitation, and always has been.

The upshot is that such mishandling of the truth and history is being presented to Americans on such a massive scale. The right has no shame in their revisionist approach mainly because they want to remake America into something that it was never intended to be. So why such misrepresentation and deception? Why not simply state that they don't like the way it was set up to begin with and they want to change it? Because they know that they would be tarred and feathered and run out of town.

So I guess this Gonzalez like lack of memory is spreading among conservatives. Which proves to any one listening or reading, regardless of the issue, that they are incapable of the leadership of a country as great as ours.

Judas Moment Redux

2007-05-17T05:10:00.000-07:00

A perfect example of what I stated in a previous post entered into my in-box this morning.

I regularly get posts from right wing groups because it lets you know what they really think. What they say in their lobbying and what they say to their supporters are usually two different things.

Consider the Traditional Values Coalition, led by Reverend Lou Sheldon. They oppose the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes prevention Act. It is not unusual to for cons to parrot their misinformation about bills before Congress. Just stroll over to Townhall.com and read what their posters put up. It's like listening to a bunch of mini-radio heads trying to out do one another. It's both pathetic and funny. TVC is no different.

Their latest post throws out the martyr card to their supporters. "Oh, look how we are being attacked!" That's supposed to be proof that they are doing God's work. But the sellout is down at the bottom of the letter.

In between there you get their justifications for opposing lobbying reform and hate crimes. It is imperative to stop the Homosexual Fascists. I wonder in what state that political party appeared on the ballot? It's a new one on me! What they really want is to continue to verbally lash out at groups that interfere with their political agenda.

Now, what that amounts to is not a hate crime. When one attempts to silence a group through the actions dictated against one, is more accurately called terrorism. And so when right wing nutjobs kill abortion doctors, or gays, because of their gender or choice, that is what this bill calls a hate crime, but is actually terrorism.

But they are stumping their opposition as freedom of speech! I have to again point out to the religious community that calls themselves Christians, if you were preaching love and compassion to those you dislike, as you are supposed to be doing, this bill wouldn't exist.

And lobbying reform? Isn't Christian lobbying an oxymoron? How does lobbying constitute being the salt of the earth? The city on the hill? The light so shining before men?

So after TVC describes their enemies, including the Secular Socialists (another unheard of group for which they have no verifiable proof of their talking point moniker), what do they ask for?

Prayer? Love? No. They get right down to the most important traditional value, they ask for money. There's the sellout. The implied mission, and then the kiss.

Some of you may have heard that recently President Bush had a host of religious right leaders in the White House to discuss, not family values, not marriage, not compassion, or feeding the poor, or anything else remotely Christian. Instead, these religious leaders were there to discuss the policies concerning war in Iraq and Iran.

Ah yes, another Judas moment.

The Judas Moment?

2007-05-09T05:05:00.000-07:00

"Christian-oriented cults include: The Church of the Latter Day Saints or Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints (also known as Mormons); Christian Science; Unity; Unitarianism (various groups); The Way International (not all groups using the term "The Way"); Rosicrucian Society of America; Bahai; Hare Krishna; Scientology; The Unification Church ("Moonies"); the so-called "Children of God" headed by "Moses" Berg; Jehovah's Witnesses and other fringe groups whose teachings should be suspect."

There you have it. The definitive word from the Pat Robertson controlled 700 Club about cults. And guess who leads the pack? The group that Mitt Romney belongs to.

So isn't it interesting that Robertson invited Romney to speak to the commencement class of 2007 at Regent University. The coincidence is that Romney is a right winger running for president. And that makes it okay to invite a cult member to come speak to your Christian graduates. Will they invite other cult members to come speak at Regent? It isn't too likely.

"Some occult groups mix Christianity into their teachings, often deceiving people into following them." That's what the Mormons do. In fact, I have a recent Mormon tract that was handed to me yesterday. The Cover syas "The Gospel of Jesus Christ." The first chapter is about faith in jesus Christ, and the only scripture alluded to is a Proverb from the Old testament. That should immeditely raise red flags for fundamentalists and evangelicals. The page that states the gospel is a way of life uses 2 Nephi 31:20 as it's reference source. Whoooaaaaaa! Hold on there Nellie!
Any fundamentalist worth his salt right there is screaming that Nephi is NOT an inspired part of the Bible. Okay then we'll turn the page.

And read this: "How can I know? The gospel of Jesus Christ has been restored through revelation from God to the Prophet Joseph Smith and to other prophets." By now I think the fundamentalist has blown a head gasket and has passed out. This is what Mitt Romney believes, at least ostensibly.

The 700 Club web site continues their discussion about cults with this statement: "...you need to seek help for deliverance from cultish spirits." Since cults aren't of God, then they must be from Satan, because they deceive. Which means that Pat Robertson exposed those graduates to the spirits of deception by allowing a cult member to address them. Now I'm sure these class members were encouraged to fully put on their spiritual armor as per the instructions in Ephesians. But it begs the question of why invite a cult member to come into your "sanctuary" in the first place?

Let's turn our attention for a moment to a comment James Dobson made. In the US News and World Report Dobson was quoted as saying of Presidential candiadate Fred Thompson, “Everyone knows [Thompson’s] conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for,” Dobson told U.S. News & World Report. “[But] I don’t think he’s a Christian; at least that’s my impression.”

Fred Thompson does not belong to a cult. Mr. Thompson belongs to one of those denominations of Christianity that fundamentalists consider lukewarm. What is more outrageous about Dobson's statement is that it serves as a religious test for office, in clear contradiction to the Constitution. So let this point sink in here folks. The Christian Right cares nothing about the Constitution. To them, since it is bereft of God, it needs to be replaced by the Bible as the law of the land. Which is why they adhere to these standards they do. Any investigation of their purposes, such as that done by Michelle Goldberg in Kingdom Coming, and Chris Hedges in American Fascists, will see that the Christian idea of America is far different than the Constitutional version, and founders version of America. Which leads to the current conundrum of endorsing a cult member as President. Surely if Fred Thompson, who at least belongs to a Christian denomination isn't Christian enough, then Mitt Romney, a member of a well know and long castigated group preaching what they do will most assuredly never get the endorsement of the Religious Right.

So why then did Robertson invite him to Regent? Could it be that the Religious Right is contemplating this very thing under the guise of similar values? Even Robertson has said in his own books (New World Order) that only Christians should hold high office. Does that mean a cult member now fits that description because they refer to the Bible? And where does a Ted Haggard fall into that paradigm?

This looks to be a Judas moment to me. Christianity is facing a choice. Will they stand by their anti-Constitutional principles and fail to endorse a leading candidate, or will they continue to sell their spiritual heritage for 30 pieces of political silver?

The Beauty of Free Speech and a Free Internet

2007-04-27T05:15:00.000-07:00

Good Morning fellow Americans!

Isn't it great? Because of the wisdom of the founders, unmatched in the most part since their days, we have the freedom to make ourselves look like fools by what we say.

Look at the disarray of the right for example around their Presidential hopefuls. John McCain's Striaght Talk Express is running on flat tires. Thanks to the internet, his numerous public gaffes are known by far more people than jsut those that watch the evening news. In particular, note his comment about how safe the market was in Iraq. It was the net that showed the facts: gunships, helicopters, a battalion of men, previous clearing of the market, placed agents to look like sales people, and flak jacket. You know, the stuff every Iraqi has. That comment was as good as the related comment that General Patraeus drove around in his unarmored Humvee safely.

Then there is Dobson's attack on Giuliani for not being Christian enough for the Religious Reich. I guess the religious folk don't care for Giulianni's adultery or his stand on abortion. Perhpas if Dobson allowed Giulianni on his program to talk about his adultery, like Newt Gingrich did, then Dobson would brand him as brave, like he did for Gingrich. Especially since Giulianni recently flip-flopped on his stand on abortion. Republicans like wafflers like that.

Gingrich isn't really running, and his adultery would be the stuff of comedians for a long time. Not to mention his recent comments about the situation at Virginia Tech. The Crooks and Liars web site has the footage, as do many other sites. Basically he started with blaming video game violence. Then he launcehed into situational ethics which is, I guess, an anti-God leftist ethic. But wait! Isn't there a hugely popular game out now that has Christian soldiers walking ruined city streets killing people that won't convert?! Why, yes there is! Do you suppose Gingrich had that game in mind?

Then there's the flip-flopper Romney, who as Governor had different views about abortion. But now that he's running for the big office, ne needs the evangelical vote, and so said what they wanted to hear. His big issue with them though is that he's a cult memeber. At least according to Pat Robertson's 700 Club web site. Look under the Spiritual Life header, or puch cults into the search bar.

And there's serial adulterer Rudy to consider, who still is on a fence by appearances, on abortion. He'll never win the evangelicals that way. Nor will his Gingrich like history of adultery.

One thing they do all have in common, as well as potential candidate Fred Thompson, is that they are all out of sync with America on the war in Iraq. As any poll reader knows, almost three fourths of the country believes we should get out of Iraq. I myself heard Thompson just yesterday state on the radio that fighting is what we will do, it's really a question of where.

Because we have the internet, we can all see and hear these marvelous blunders of conservatism almost as they happen. Not that conservatives have a lock on verbal gaffes, or idiocy for all that matters.

But when it comes to fielding a Presidential candidate, it seems quite obvious to any one with functioning eyes that these wanna-bes are hopelessly out of step with reality and the country they think they are qualified to lead.

So bravo for free speech, You Tube, the net, and the wonderful technocrats that keep it functioning and those wanting to keep it free and out of the hands of big money control. Because of their tireless work, we can be front row center to what looks like one of the best circuses around, complete with loose-lipped Republi-clowns.

Let's make sure that we maintain this freedom. It is being assualted. Free Press.org has a lot of info on this issue, and this morning I read an article on the Common Dreams web site about internet filtering and censorship that is growing across the globe. The worst examples were in the Middle East. But according to the article, the number of countries doing it is growing.

To maintain any kind of rhetoric that we believe in the democratic principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press, it seems that we should be raising our voices on this issue. Only those seeking a tyrannical rule attack these basic freedoms of a free society.

Let's help our planetary brothers and sisters enjoy their own circuses!

Resisting Theocracy

2007-04-25T05:40:00.000-07:00

One might think that a Buddhist would welcome theocracy. After all, wasn't Tibet a theocracy? In true essence, no. Buddhists don't recognize a god of any kind. Their deities are nothing more than enlightened humans, or sentient beings of some kind. There was nothing "divine" about the Buddhas enlightenment. Rather, "the Buddhas enlightenment was rather a human being's direct, exact, and comprehensive experience of the final nature and total structure of reality." So wrote Robert Thurman in Essential Tibetan Buddhism.

That makes Buddhism ultimately a humanistic endeavor. And the more one pursues it, the easier it is to see it. So in the end, a Buddhist wouldn't welcome a theocracy, as it subjugates the mind. And they particularly wouldn't welcome any theocracy that would silence the dharma, which a Christian or Islamic theocracy would do.

Yes, it's true. Christians are terribly intolerant. They love to hang onto the Ten Commandments, which states they won't have any idols before God, and they really want to make that the law of the land, as long as it doesn't apply to their worship of power and money. They want to make it the law for the masses, not the elite.

Anyone paying attention these days is aware of this struggle between church and state. The religious right are bent on making America Christian. They go so far as to make the claim that it once was, or was supposed to be. Even a high schooler's reading of the Constitution would refute that fact, and any history reader knows it as well. And by history I mean the writings of Jefferson, Paine, Franklin, Madison, and the other founding fathers. NOT the writings of present day revisionists who are doing their best to present false quotations, as self taught Christian "historian" David Barton has admitted doing, and the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools not only repeat, but practice themselves.

Thankfully, there are people paying attention. Two web sites post great information about the issue of the separation of church and state that I visit regularly. One is the official blog of Americans United For Separation of Church and State. The other is Talk2Action, which goes into a bit more depth of what the religious right is doing in presenting their altered message.

There has also been a host of books that have emerged. A good historical analysis is Kevin Phillips' American Theocracy, Michelle Goldberg's Kingdom Coming, Chris Hedges' American Fascists, and for some debate on the bigger issue of God or not, there is Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion, Sam Hill's Letter To A Christian Nation, and Christopher Hitchens' God is NOT Good. Hitchens' book appears to be more about how religion mucks up lives more than the question of God or not. It is brand new, and I am on the waiting list at the library. Bart Ehrman's books Misquoting Jesus is also a valuable resource for questioning the inerrancy of the Bible. Sam Hill also has a book titled The End of Faith, and I am on the library waiting list for that as well.

I do not believe the Christian version of reality. I think their very premise and beginning point is dubious. Their actions over the last couple decades have proved to me that my doubt is valid. And despite the fact I think that their religion, as well as any dogmatic, hierarchical, patriarchal religion is dangerous, under the Constitution of the United States of America, they have a right and the freedom to practice their religion. They do not have the right to subvert the Constitution as the law of the land, which many of them state is their goal. Which is the precise reason why they must be exposed, and stopped.

They have their rights and freedoms under our Constitution, and so do I.

2007-04-21T10:54:00.000-07:00

What country can you think of that built a wall in a major city to separate the peoples? Need a hint?

Are you thinking about the one that came down in 1986, ending the Cold War, or so we like to think, and was erected by the evil Soviet empire? That would be a good guess.

But wrong.

It's the USA. Right in Bagdhad. In a sure fire way to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis everywhere, up goes a wall designed to separate the Sunnis from the Shiites.

Now I'm sure that this good neighbor policy effort will result in peace breaking out all over Iraq. This will be hailed an another American victory, sure to quell the violence that has seen, since the beginning of the recent escalation, not only the highest per day deaths of Iraqis, but the highest monthly death rate since we invaded back in 2003.

Yessir, nothing like segregation to bring people together. It surely worked in Poland during the Nazi occupation of that country, and it allows for great neighbor feelings like those in Berlin for almost half a century and between the two Koreas. Oh, and lets not forget the wall between the Israelis and Palestinians.

And this same mentality wants a wall between Mexico and the US. Surely that will just make for the best barbeques between neighbors. Walls must surely be what signifies free democratic societies.

In all their blathering, and half baked immigration bills, still no one mentions the surest way to stop the hiring, and hence flood of illegals: Go after the employers. The righties don't ever mention the rule of law being applied to the employers. No sir. Apparently it only applies to those who violate certain laws.

What do you suppose would happen if we decided that if you hired an illegal immigrant that you went to jail and your business was shuttered? You can bet your bippy that the labor pool of illegals would dry up right quick.

And what the righties forget in all their wall/fascist thinking is that lower wages are the basic tenet of capitalism, and all these illegals have been ignored for this long for that very reason. And so all their rhetoric will amount to just that, because they have no power on Capital Hill who are very interested in and invested in keeping the wages of Americans low.

So like the gullible fish they are, they swallow the hook of wall building as a solution, forgetting all other details, not to mention the very nature of what makes America what it is.

My opinion is that we definitely need stronger border control. That can be partially done
by doing away with the reason most of them cross the border: jobs. So the keystone to any good immigration bill makes hiring an illegal a jailable offense, as I already mentioned.

I don't agree that illegals can be rounded up and deported. If there are as many as estimated, then it would take an enormous amount of money and man power to do it. It wouldn't be worth it. It is at this point better to make them pay a fine and become citizens, like the new bill does. It is a long process, and should require that they learn English.

And for most of the immigrants, these aren't problems. They would be glad to abide by these rules. A small percentage of them are the law breakers and welfarists, despite the image the righties want to project.

And most importantly, all students should be taught history, and review the many immigrant movements that made the American population what it is. That includes the influx of legal and illegal immigrants, the abuses and successes of immigrants, and what it means to be a citizen of America.

Then future generations won't be so inclined to think that the solution of a free democratic society is to build a wall.

9mm Justice?

2007-04-18T05:37:00.000-07:00

A predictable response by the fringe elements of the right wing, which are the most vocal, to the shootings at Virginia Tech is to arm more people. I first hear it on KVI, where Kirby Wilbur allows his callers to air their views, and he agrees with them, usually with "I think you're right." And right wing shill Michelle Malkin posted a piece over at Townhall.com stating the standard gun lobby response: If more people had guns....

And the examples cited are like those that occurred at Appalachian School of Law (I incorrectly stated it was Appalachian State. Thanks to an anonymaous reader I can correct this!)) where an armed shooter was forced to disarm by students who had retrieved their weapons from their vehicles. At a larger school like Tech, that would be a long time before a student got to their car because the campus is several times larger than Appalachian State. So obviously the solution is to allow people to carry the sidearms. Then we turn America into the wild west, which is correctly known for it's skewed sense of justice.

I happen to work with a former law enforcement officer. His opinion reflects that of many law enforcement officers. And many have said that when law enforcement does arrive, the question becomes, "Which one is the shooter?" Police officers will tell you that drawing their weapon at a scene raises the adrenalin considerably. Particulalry if their are armed people present with weapons drawn. So their hypothetical contention is, imagine then that an armed student is in the class, and at least one in the hall. The one in the hall rushes in after hearing the shots, to see the other student drawing his weapon in response to the shooter. The entering student then shoots the responding student, not seeing the real shooter who finishes re-loading or whatever, and promptly shoots the entering student.

Another problem to consider is that of marksmanship. I'm sure there are plenty of gun owners in America who aren't all that accurate. Police are supposed to be. Remember that incident years ago when New York police pumped 49 rounds into a hotel vestibule where they thought a kid was armed? Less than half of those shots hit their mark. These are trained people, yet somehow the right thinks that arming folks would them all marksmen. The greater likelihood is that errant shooting would take more innocent lives.

And we all know what would arise out of this: lawsuits. I'm sure they will arise in the Tech case because the law enforcement didn't respond to the first shooting as well as they could have. having no shooter, they didn't shut down the campus. There might even be some lawsuits against the state or the seller of the gun. Add more armed people, and those court cases will multiply. A solution to that may be to not allow cases, but that then runs into another problem.

And that's the concept of justice. To a right winger, justice seems best served in fascist 9mm fashion. And they must be certain that is what the founders were after, because they have used this rhetoric for years.

I have discovered though among most righties, a deplorable lack of knowledge of the Constitution. And if you read the Preamble to said document, you will see there a series of clauses as to why these people were founding this country. "We the people...in order to...establish justice...." That's a foundational purpose for America.

And not the 9mm kind either. Any kind of reading reveals just what kind of justice they meant because it begins with Article 3 and continues in Article iv, and Amendments 4 through 8 are devoted strictly to that subject. The mention of guns? Once in Amendment 2.

People shooting at one another will nilly is not justice. End of the musket barrel justice was the kind of justice that the British exercised over the Americans, and the reason Americans chose another path. One in which even Brits would have had their day in court.

In my eyes, arming an already violent people is not the answer. A cursory glance at statistics reveals that there are more heavily armed populations, like Canada, while our numbers for deaths by firearms are by far the worst. The real problem isn't guns obviously, it's violence and the people who use them.

So gun control shouldn't bother any law abiding citizen. After all, the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee unfettered access to weapons for any reason. But I'm willing to bet that most righties today would sell their guns in a heartbeat if it meant that they were suddenly a member of their state National Guard unit, which is the intent of the Second Amendment.

In many places to today a felon can't vote. But he or she can drive to Virginia and buy a weapon without no background check, no waiting period, no anything. Cash and carry from any gun show.

What kind of world do you want to live in? One with 9mm justice, or the rule of law?

In Response to Tom

2007-04-13T20:23:00.000-07:00

You post a poem in response to my rerquest for evidences? In that poem to less it makes a completely unsubstantiated claim that the nation was Christian. i can only presume that you meant America. Which of course makes you incorrect. It never was, nor was intended to be, even by the Puritans that settled Plymouth, a Christian nation.

Never mind for now the validity of Christianity. That's a different story, but in the end will need a discussion to consider theocracy.

When you can answer the questions, I will consider it a possibility. Until then, theocracy is merely a fantasy.

How The "Mighty" Have Fallen

2007-04-10T05:05:00.000-07:00

I wonder how Monica Goodling feels, being a graduate of a Christian university, having had to plead the fifth? It certainly doesn't say much for the university or Christianity in my opinion. It would seem that the school itself is a lot less concerned with the character of the students than their dogma. Or it simply says that Christianity as is currently taught and practiced, and revealed by the likes of Monica Goodling, Pat Robertson, and Ted Haggard, is really a fantasy life. Barely more than a mythology that can't relate to a modern world.

I'm sure at some point that Monica will sell her story of how she fell from grace and committed a crime, then re-committed her life to Jesus. At that point she will probably become a teacher at Regent, her former school, and she will crank out second rate carbon copies of herself.

Either way, it tells me that Christianity has sold out. Money is the God they trust, and dogma is far more important than character. It wasn't much different than in Thomas Jefferson's days, except the money wasn't available from the taxpayers then.

Consider Theocracy

2007-04-08T07:32:00.000-07:00

I will consider theocracy as a possible alternative to our Constitutional republic when Christians can explain to me, and provide valid historical support including from the founders and framers of America, explanations for the following:

1. The complete lack of reference to any God in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, other than the reference to the date at the end of the Constitution.

2. The complete lack of any reference or allusion to a scripture in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

3. Why the Barbary Treaty of 1797 says, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...."

4. Why, after the Constitution was ratified, most of the states changed their constitutions and deleted all references to God and Christ.

5. Why, after almost 200 years, it was necessary to change the Pledge of Allegiance.

6. An explanation of the full context of Thomas Jefferson's inscription on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC.

7. Why Christians feel it's necessary to violate the dictates of the Bible in presenting a revised history to their children and fellow worshippers.

8. Why it's necessary for them to try to change America to be a Christian nation by acts of legislation instead of the influence of love. How is that being a light that so shines before men?

9. What kind of governmental structure would exist under a theocracy, and how would it guarantee the inalienable rights of all men to be equal.

When I hear the answers to the above, following the criteria I laid out at the beginning, I will consider theocracy a viable alternative to a Constitutional republic.

The Double Standard

2007-04-05T05:15:00.000-07:00

Now Newt Gingrich, the newly courted Political Savior for the Religious Right, has done it. Newt is the guy of course that Dr. Dobson called courageous for admitting his many affairs on the radio.

Newt has stuck his foot in his mouth. What they seem to be forgetting is that their own Bible tells us exactly what is happening. Matthew 12:34 tells us that out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. In other words, what is bouncing around in the mind of these people finds it's way out of their mouths. The same is true of drunken vituperation's like that of Micheal Richards and Mel Gibson. It isn't that the drunkenness adds these words, it basically opens the secret safe where they keep those feelings hidden.

So the Straight Talk Express, McCain's novel little adventure in trying to offend, uh, reach the American public, has a new passenger in Newt Gingrich. For those who have missed it, Gingrich seems to think that having bilingual schools makes them sound like ghettos. McCain's straight talk includes correcting his statement that troops have been wasted, and of course the recent one that it's safe to walk the streets of Baghdad. Providing of course you have heavily armed helicopters, snipers, a battalion of soldiers, and body armor on in a staged market. And everyone has that, right?

When will they learn? When will the religious right finally quit playing churchianity and realize that their hearts are exposed by their words, not to mention their actions?

Consider also the White House criticism of Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria. Apparently diplomacy is a bad idea. As the intellectually challenged VP said, it rewards bad behavior. But that is only if those doing the talking are Democrats. Don't look at the fact that there is a Republican delegation there as well, headed by Reps. Aderson and Wolf. And the Assistant Undersecretary of State was there last month. That would make the criticism by the White House partisan and hypocritical. In other words, they are using their office in violation of the Hatch Act.

Thankfully we can catch the absurdity of all this hubris before it gets too far. Not unlike Orin Hatch's flat out lie on Good Morning America that fired US Attorney Carol Lamm was a campaign manager for Clinton in south California, and had only been an attorney for a few years. That contradicts Justice Department records showing Lamm as an attorney for 18 years, and hence unable to serve as campaign manager for Clinton. And this is all caught and researched and posted on the net withing hours.

The double standard? When it comes to the Republicans, it's only bad if someone else does it. Of bigger concern to me about what escapes their lips is what it reveals about their true feelings and intentions. That's when it is apparent that they have no inhibitions about deceit and lies.

How to Be An American

2007-03-27T12:53:00.000-07:00

I suppose I could be as stupid as Pat Robertson, and say that someones illness is a result of their moral and political corruption.

But I'm not that stupid.

I was saddened to hear that White House Press Secretary Tony Snow's cancer had returned. Not because I deem him a friend, or even a patriot. I don't. I disagree completely with his politics. But I wouldn't wish cancer on anyone. Suffering hurts people.

Which segues into what I originally wanted to write. I was listening the other day to Thom Hartmann on the radio, and he was interviewing co-author Chriss Winston. I heard Ms. Winston state that there were teachers in America who were blaming America for 9/11. She presented no examples, no proof. Anyone listening knew she was hedging on probability. And there probably are a few fringe teachers who are doing just that. The discussion was moving toward the reason why 9/11 happened, and Mr. hartmann asked Ms. Wilson to try and see it from the perspective of the perpetrators. Oh no, she cut him off. "No can do." She wouldn't go there. She in fact stated that she as much thought that Tom was blaming America for 9/11, despite him clearly stating he was reiterating the reasons the perpetraotrs of 9/11 used for the attack.

Which lead me to hear two things. First, the inability of people to hear the truth, or even facts, when they cling to their dogmatic points of view. But I heard something even more disturbing. And that was this woman's inability to connect to compassion.

Almost every one knows that the Latin root of the word means to suffer together with. It basically means that one can see anothers pain, and a wish to remove the suffering. Inherent in this idea is the thought of walking a mile in someone else's shoes.

Now we can read the Declaration of Independence, "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Now, are we to assume that this phrase "all men" only means white American men? Or just all Americans? Would we not instead say that this phrase is intended to mean all mankind, which includes Muslims?

And if that is true, what is a better way to understand their rationale that 9/11 was their pursuit of anything? By further bombing them? By subjugating them by force? Or by trying to reason and understand their perspective?

I venture to you that America, if nothing else, was founded on the concept of political and religious compassion. That for too long the bonds of both had held men in slavery, and that there is a better way. And that better way recognized the suffering of others, and created a political solution that allowed for the freedom and liberty we all want.

So how is it that an author of a book entitled How To Raise An American completely misses the point? In fact, she refused to go there. Or when was the last time you heard a televangelist preaching love for our enemies Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Kim Jong Il? What's missing from this picture?

It is sadly this kind of dogmatic ideology that will not produce patriots, but rather nationalists that will continue to propagate wars. It will also lead to the ignoring of, and ignorance of, our founding values.

Mr. Snow may be a political rival. He may be fascist. He displays an ignorance of the Constitution in saying there are no checks and balances, and despite his, what I consider jingoism, I still know he is American; and has the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Having seen friends die of cancer, and seen the suffering of families caused by disease, I know first hand what pain it produces. Because of that, I wish he and his family good health. And I know many more people feel the same way I do, regardless of their political persuasions.

And in this land of Constitutional liberty, that's what it means to BE an American.

Teach that to your kids.

Big Eyes and Small Camels!

2007-03-24T15:41:00.000-07:00

Last night on 20/20, I watched a Christian ministry state that there are certain ministries that are less than forthcoming about their finances. As that was no shock to me, I watched it anyway. And I learned that the major names in evangelicalism are living very questionable lives in regards to their finances.

Now, lest any one think I am an ignoramus about the religious right, let me assure you that I am not. I spent thirteen years in that camp, finally walking away when it became apparent to me that I had been deceived, or lied to, or at least led along in the same delusion that so many "believers" lived in.

I attended, and taught in, a ministry training school. I was an up-and-comer in our local apostolic church system. Along the way I read the Bible cover to cover 5 times. I also memorized, with a good friend, the Pauline epistles of Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians. We could recite them verbatim back to back. I still own my Zondervan Comparative Study Bible, which includes the King James version, the New American Standard, Amplified, and New International version. And I now refer to them as charis-maniac funny-mentalists.

Two things struck me last night watching that show. The first was the list on the Ministry Watch list that stated which organizations had absolutely secretive finances, and the major folk that were written about in The Sinner's Guide to the Evangelical Right. My guess is that it was coincidental.

Ministry Watch is a group that was started by a Christian who worked on Wall Street. He devotes his energy now to developing integrity among these large evangelical organizations that have budgets in the hundreds of millions, and no accountability for it. I'm glad to see that it is getting exposure, and so far those on the Ministry watch list have responded to his efforts as "attacks from Satan" as Trinity Broadcast Network's Jan and Paul Crouch say it.

The other thing that struck me was the lavish life style that the leaders of the fundie right live. Not one, but two or more multi-million dollar mansions. Private jets. Luxury automobiles. The clothes to match their trappings. vacations worthy of such opulence. In fact, Ministry watch chose to expose Kenneth Copeland, who beseeched followers to fund a new jet to be used exclusively for the gospel. That exclusive use included a trip to Australia for a conference. The flight plan though included not one, not two, but three multi-day layovers in tropical paradises along the way. And not for evangelical business. One layover was needed for "food and rest."

Remember, these huge organizations operate tax free. The rest of us subsidize the land they sit on and don't pay taxes for. And whatever other loopholes they have for tax free church business is something that has made several of these people multi-millionaires. Benny Hinn for example, gets paid a half to a million a year as a salary. I have a problem with this. And so do they.

To quote their leader, " And again I say to you (note the emphasis), it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Some guy named Matthew allegedly recorded these words that these evangelicals claim are the inerrant word of God.

So do these people a favor, contact your state and national representatives in Congress, and ask that all tax subsidizing of all religions be immediately revoked, that these men may stand a chance of entering the kingdom of their God.

More Bullpuckey From The Right

2007-03-21T05:43:00.000-07:00

Two items here. The first is the resistance to Bush's minions being put under oath in regards to the firing of 8 US attorneys from the Justice Department. I find it interesting that this so-called traditional values camp, one of those values being honesty, is so afraid of going under oath. It's almost as if they have something to hide. And were this a petty issue like a blow-job, maybe I could understand that.

But this issue is about the rule of law. Something that Republicnas apparently only like as a catch phrase. The rule of law is the people's business Mr. Bush. Your resistance to it flies in the face of your own Constitutional oath. Your efforts to control what the Senate learns, or how it learns it is obstruction of justice. But I don't suppose that's anything new as we can venture back to the deliberate lies that came forth in the 2003 State of the Union address as I have mentioned in another post.

Ah yes, the criminalization of politics. The Republicans are becoming masters at it.

The second issue is the bill introduced by John Shadegg(R) of Arizona, a "rule of law" bill, wants to make sure that Congress attaches a Constitutional validation to every bill. This will supposedly make Congress accountable. I wonder where John Shadegg was when the Patriot Act was passed. Or the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Both of those flat out contradict the Constitution. Both were penned and presented by a Republican Congress. And Mr. Shadegg voted for Passage of both of them. So where was the rule of law then?

This posturing by the Republicans is a vain attempt to cover their butts in what is widely and quickly becoming obvious to all as a n administration that doesn't care a whit about the law. They are using their positions to not only line their own pockets (ala Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney), but to abuse the law in the efforts to promote their own ideology (ala Scooter Libby and the two recent apologies by Alberto Gonzalez).

An ideology that Americans rejected last November. So let the subpoenas fly. Americans want justice, and expect if from those who ostensibly rule. It is after all, one of the primary reasons we established the Constitution.

The New Slogan

2007-03-19T05:09:00.000-07:00

Rule of law is a favorite buzz phrase of the righties when it comes to immigration. They like to point out that illegal immigration is just that: illegal. These people broke the law and should be deported.

Never mind the illegal act of the employer hiring them. That doesn't count. It's only the act of crossing the border that counts. In other words, it's a selective rule of law that is important. And the same is true of the new buzz phrase of the righties.

"The criminalization of politics." I read Tom Delays rant which appeared in Townhouse.com's recent e-mail. I had to laugh because it came from a book titled, No Retreat, No Surrender: One American's Fight. Of course, we all know now that Mr. Delay is still facing criminal charges and that he did retreat, and he did surrender, at least his seat in Congress.

What Mr. Delay does is blame this "criminalization" on the left. Which is perfectly absurd, but will go unnoticed by the majority of right wingers who will latch onto the persecuted victim/martyr role while conveniently ignoring the fact that Mr. Delay was brought up on charges during a time in which his own party ruled Congress. They will forget that Duke Cunningham was convicted of corruption during that same Congressional period, and by a prosecutor that was appointed by George H.W. Bush. Bob Ney was also convicted during this same Congressional period of corruption by Mary K. Butler, who went to work in the Justice Department during Reagan's presidency. And Scooter Libby was found guilty by a jury, and prosecuted by a Republican appointed attorney. And just coincidentally, a majority of the eight attorney's with glowing records that were summarily fired recently, were Republican appointed attorneys. Including the one that prosecuted Duke Cunningham, and one who was "too slow" in prosecuting Democrats before the election. His name was Dave Iglesisas, and the Republicans that put pressure on him to secure these convictions were Pete Dominici and Heather Wilson. Both of who denied it, later admitted it, and have hired lawyers.

Ah, the looks of innocence....

Of course, Alberto Gonzalez has apologized for these firings, because now that subpoenas are being issued into the validity of those firings, he's feeling the heat which is being added to the admitted abuse of the Patriot Act by the Gonzalez headed Justice Department. In both situations he thinks an apology is all that is needed to ameliorate the breaking of the law.

What is demonstrated by this though is the true criminalization of politics whereby a political party thinks they can use their political power to justify criminal actions. They just don't like getting caught.

The Rule of Law. That phrase can now join it's cousin, Support the Troops, as true Republican oxymorons.

The Next Book You Read....

2007-03-17T15:23:00.000-07:00

If you read any other book this year, make it this one.

Pretty bold request huh? Especially when you consider the topic. Who would think that a legal scholar discussing the Constitution would make for good reading?

I didn't. I ordered some books from the History Book Club, and this was offered. As my choices were numbered, I chose to check out the questionable selections from the library after I made my order. Hindsight says I should have ordered this one instead of one of the others.

But no biggie now, as the picture you are looking at is my own copy. The bookmark has the logo for the Moonraker bookstore here in Langley, where I purchase most of my books. (Stop in and say hi to Josh, AnnaBet, and Nancy.) I ordered this one before I was done reading the library copy! That's how good it is.

It's particularly better when you have a companion pocket copy of the Constitution right with you, such as the ones available at the American Bar Association.

Shameless advertising huh? Well, I've never had a problem promoting things I thing are worth promoting. And please note, I am promoting a product they sell, not necessarily them. Back to the book.

This is not a dry book. Mr. Reed covers his history of the document well, and brings out many facts that existed in the early days that most people are unaware of. One being the property qualifications that existed to become a politician, and hence the Constitutional qualifications eliminating that aspect entirely, and why. Another being the electoral system, starting on page 148, and what I found a bit humorous, the executive title. A Senate Committee proposed that the President be called "His Highness, the President of the United States of America, and Protector of their Liberties."

Gag me with a spoon or what?!

This book reveals a lot of information about the Articles of Confederation under which America operated before the Constitution, as well as a comparison to British law under which America existed until the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution; a great handling of the three fifths clause, and since I haven't finished reading it, a whole lot more.

So for a while forget the books by the pundits. Forget the books by the journalists, and about the mess in Iraq, and put the fiction back on the shelf. Pull out a copy of the Constitution, this book by Akhil Reed Amar, some good coffee, and learn the history that really matters to Americans.

And if you live in near Yale, stop by Mr. Amar's law class and tell him I sent you along as my proxy to sit in on his class.

The Crappie Floppin' Ryties Get It Wrong Again.

2007-03-15T05:16:00.000-07:00

Just like a crappie in the bottom of the boat: you can never tell which side will be up next! That of course makes them harder to grab a hold of. But oops, there's the tell-tale black spot, which means they are parasitic. Throw it back into the water...

In my in-box I got the news today that Tom Tancredeo, another far right nut job who suggested we should take out Muslim holy sites if terrorists used a nuke in America, is going to run for president. (Flip) He then denied making the statement. (Flop) His strong issue is ignoring the 14th Amendment, because he thinks all immigrants should be shipped home. Not that I think illegals should be given carte blanche. We do need a better immigration effort, and his is spot on on saying that we need to go after the employers, and that the problem is the employers are a Republican constituency. And he once said that we should never reward law breakers. (Flip) So where is Tancredo on pardoning Libby? (Flop)

For President?

In other news, it seems that the efforts to establish some transparency in Washington are considered Big Brotherism by the fundies. Never mind (Flip) the acknowledged illegal eavesdropping, and the recent illegal activities of the FBI as admitted by US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, the effort to make sure that folk like Mr. Abramoff don't have veiled access anymore (Flop) are being considered Big Brother actions ala 1984. These same folk are the hypocrites who cried about the lobby reform bill that required of them the same transparency of their funding as did the right wing requirements established for the unions years ago. The right wing spin on it is that it would effectively cut off their ability to "redress the government" as allowed in the First Amendment. Is that a black spot I see?

Almost approaching funny, the Traditional Values Coalition almost fainted when Congressman Peter Stark of California stated in a response to a survey that he was a Unitarian that didn't believe in a Supreme Being. Supposedly a first in American history! The tragedy! And the ignorance. Wow.

Maybe the folk over at TVC should consider the fact that there is a Muslim Representative, and at least two Buddhists. The Muslim version of God is a far cry different from their own, as the fundies have reminded us for years. And Buddhists don't believe in a supreme being either. But this is how they describe the import of the event:

"Christian Seniors Association Executive Director James Lafferty notes: 'It is sad but not surprising that the current Congress has produced this historic first – one of its members has denied God. The liberals in Congress want to throttle any school child who bows his or her head in prayer but they want to establish a right for liberals to bash Christians and berate God around the clock.'”

Yessir, Peter Stark stating he didn't believe in a supreme being is God Christian bashing and God berating. Never mind the fact that this sort of stupidity flows forth from their mouths, which their Scriptures claim is the overflow of the heart, and that they, in their own minds, are the sole representatives of God on the planet. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how then some might bash Christians and their God. But that wasn't what Stark was doing.

And just what is denying God? Denying the existence of God is not the same as believing in a supreme being but refusing to agree to something allegedly stated by a supreme being is also the act of denying. And what would be it be considered when Thomas Jefferson cut all the miracles out of the Bible, and produced something that is still printed today, and was for years handed out to freshman Congresspeople? On the face of it, a refusal to accept something stated as true(deny), and that was done by a sitting president and founder of the country. A historical first?

No, a hysterical first. Ooo, that is a black spot, and here's another one.

Throw it back.

Take 5

2007-03-14T05:56:00.000-07:00

And let your Congress people know what you think about

the people in the Justice Department (read Alberto Gonzalez and the FBI) thinking an apology is enough of a consequence for admittedly breaking the law. The Attorney General's Chief of Staff has resigned in the light of this scandal.

the move of military contract giant Haliburton moving to Dubai. Do we want to continue pouring hundreds of billions of tax dollars into this company that wants to set up shop in the country that couldn't catch Pakistan smuggling nuclear technology to North Korea? Wouldn't it be a good time to start defunding Haliburton and bring our troops home?

the army sending wounded troops back to Iraq. About the poor care for troops that are wounded even beyond the walls of Walter Reed. About the troops being sent into an escalation without training. White House talking head Tony Snow said, and it's right there on the White House web site, that they can receive their training in Iraq. About troops being sent without the proper equipment, STILL. About the military being stretched so thin even former commanders are saying it is unsustainable. About the lowering of entrance standards to meet recruitment goals. This is apparently the conservative idea of supporting the troops.

pardoning Scooter Libby. First read a transcript of the proceedings. David Corn followed the trial pretty thoroughly, and covered it in his blog.

sabre rattling with Iran. Wouldn't this be a good time to change the authorization to use force?

Granted, this may all take more than 5 minutes. But even a cursory reading of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution makes one realize that what we have at the helm in our country is no defender, protector, or preserver of the Constitution of the United States.

I called mine, and will do so again.

The Same Ol' Song

2007-03-06T05:12:00.000-08:00

Republicans are getting good at this tune. A good ol' family values song.

The first verse is denial. Like that of Duke Cunningham, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, paster Ted Haggard and the rest of the band. A couple new members to that group are Congressfolk Pete Domenici and Heather Wilson.

Both apparently contacted a federal prosecutor looking into Democratic corruption. Then when the administration decided they wanted a crony in that position, as well as several others, they fired these prosecutors. None of them were incompetent. Most of them had glowing service records. But many of them were after Republicans.

To contact a federal prosecutor to get results is unethical. Particularly when it involves someone of the opposite party at election time. Which is what Wilson and Domenici allegedly did. And true to the band, when questioned about it, they denied it.

So how does this song go?

The first verse is the denial verse. Wilson and Domenici have already sung that one. Then when they realized that denying it plasuibly was no longer possible, the admit they are liars about denying by acknowledging they had done so.

It's about here we add the same old chorus, which I already posted about.

The third verse is denying they had done anything wrong. Which of course leads one to ask why they denied making the contact in the first place. This is where I tend to think that politicians are stupid. It is so apparent that they are covering their tracks legally, and looking at the track record of the fellow band members, you'd think they would learn.

Stupid of course means unable to learn. What I think is driving these otherwise intelligent people to act so stupidly, is their distorted concept of power and their lack of understanding of what they said when they took their oath of office.

Here we put in some solos from the band memebers, and then head back into the song body.

The next verse will be an admission of guilt, and as Ney, Foley, and Haggard all demonstrated, they blamed it on something other than having made the wrong choices for all the wrong reasons. Blame falls on some form of substance abuse or early childhood abuse. Woe is me.

Another chorus please...

So far we have seen then that the song sometimes ends with a stint in rehab (Foley), plain ol acting like nothing happened(Ney), or complete healing in three weeks of life long demons! (Haggard)

This song is getting as worn out as any radio hit that is grossly overplayed.
But stay tuned America, because the hits will just keep on coming...

The Same Ol' Chorus...

2007-03-02T05:20:00.000-08:00

"...a bad hangovers something I can't stand, yet here I am with a jug in my hand.
Whooo, whoo, trouble trouble,
Worries on my mind.
Gonna go down to that cellar, get some of that mellow wine..."

These words of former Foghat front man Lonesome Dave Peverett describe quite well the current conservative penchant for continual bad behavior. Consider the headache of global climate change that won't go away.

You knew that if Gore won an Oscar for the documentary Inconvenient Truth, that the right would be shilling the next day about it. And they still are. Over at NewsMax, they crank out the not only the supposed articles proving Gore wrong (despite the tons of science leaning the other way), but the false report about Gore's personal use of energy. I guess we are expected to think that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies and the recent United Nations reports that emphatically state there is man-made global climate change occurring are all wrong, and the right wing talking heads and profit-from-polluting corporations who deny it are correct.

Well, Keith Olberman set the record straight on his show, and I saw Gore personally explain his carbon imprint on the world. Despite the fact his usage is up, and significantly from renewable sources, his bill is less than one third of one percent of the Vice presidents electric bill at the VP mansion in DC. And taxpayers are footing Cheney's bill. Another intersting fact is that the "think tank" that brought forth this false report is a right leaning arm of a state level group called the State Policy Network. It turns out the Tennessee Center for Policy Reserach hasn't produced any policy briefs since October 2005, or any policy reports for the last 11 months. That's a think tank that has a loud echo in it.

For my part, I look up the people in these groups to make sure of the left claim to be a right wing wank group. Sure enough, the people involved are also in well known right wing "think tanks" like the Heritage Foundation, and in our neck of the woods, groups that are regularly heard on local conservative radio like the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. Further investigation shows that Byron Lamm, the president of State Policy Network, was noted as a director of Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform, and made political contributions in his home state to Mike Pence and Dick Lugar.

So this so-called think tank turns out to be a right wing hack machine. They produce a report that is erroneous, and groups like NewsMax swallow it hook line and sinker because, well, why do you think?

All together on the chorus! "Whooo wooo...."

Consider the nauseating military mismanagement coupled with right wing "support the troops" attitude. As we have seen in the Walter Reed Hospital story that recently broke, they do less supporting of them if they live, though are injured. And when Tony Snow was asked about the report of troops being sent to the escalation in Iraq without desert training, Snow's response was they could get their training in Iraq. With yet another report showing that the National Guard is woefully deficient, and the years old stories of ill-equipped soldiers and equipment being sent to Iraq, one has to question how much substance is actually in the Republican use of the phrase. And with continued upswings in the military budget, where is all the money going?

And last but not least, even though the President himself said we are addicted to oil, the sure fire answer is to drill for more! Do we really want the conservatives managing any kind of addiction?

Perhaps one would have thought that after learning about the troops and their vehicles actually fighting without the necessary armor, that the administration would have jumped all over the mismanagement, and up and down throughout the military. You would have thought that after last November's 2x4 to the collective conservative head they might have learned that the old ways of doing things might not work any more.

We are wrong. Troops go without training, the hospital system and veteran care is failing the veterans, and the right continues to use spin doctors to spread their lies to a shrinking base.

I guess it's time to head to the cellar for another jug...

One more time on the Chorus! "Whoo woo..."

Revisiting an old Project

2007-02-24T22:29:00.000-08:00

Somewhere in the archives, I may have mentioned the Project for A New American Century. Once I got an e-mail form a journalist in Jamaica who read one of my posts. I was honored. And I have learned much since then. I also decided to re-read the report that put the Project on the map, and the thinking that is responsible for the United States' current situation in the Middle East.

So what I would like to do is, as I read this missive, post some as to what the administration has done either in blatant contradiction or support of that report.

But let me start by saying this: John Bolton was a Director of the Project for a New American Century. This same guy that was Under-Secretary at the State Department (now bleeding profusely of qualified people), and then US envoy to the United Nations. And as we look at the signatories of the Project, and see what they are aiming to achieve, we will see more clearly what the true motives are for the current administration as they proclaim their spread of freedom and march of democracy.

Flip Flopping Masters!

2007-02-23T05:52:00.000-08:00

When you point a finger at someone, three more are pointing directly back at you. Remember when conservatives were all agog about calling Senator Kerry a flip flopper? Then over the years they dropped that because it was apparent that Bush was decidedly and easily proven to be much better at it. I think the conservatives have mastered the art of saying one thing, and doing the opposite.

In the House, there was a resolution opposing the escalation, which of course the cons like to call not supporting the troops. It's hard to take them seriously when they can't even use the English language properly. Whatever. The Center for American Progress reports that Rep. Jeff Flake, Virginia Brown-Waits, and George Voinovich, all spoke on the House floor in opposition to the escalation. Yet they all voted against the resolution, and for the escalation they verbally opposed.

Then there is presidential hopeful John McCain. He stated years ago that Jerry Falwell was an agent of intolerance. Today he coddles to him. Last month, McCain said in an interview that Bush listened too much to Cheney, when describing the mess in Iraq. But then Cheney stated on ABC's Good Morning America the next time McCain saw him, he ran over and apologized. So what can you make of these folk?

It would be hard to make this kind of stuff up. But it boils down to this. They have no regard for the truth, and their only interest is in retaining power to promote their skewed ideology. They have no problems lying in the face of the public to create one image, and then acting contrary to their words.

In other words, they have no principles.

Weren't they supposed to be the party of traditional family values? What kind of families are they living in?

Are they representing your values?

The War Drums Beat Louder

2007-02-19T20:09:00.000-08:00

I wonder how many people realize what the possible consequences with attacking Iran are. But first, let's remember that not too long ago, the real ruler of Iran, the Ayatollah, offered in a letter to the US, to acknowledge Israel, reign in Hezbollah, and allow for more scrutiny of their nuclear program. All Bush had to do was stop the rhetoric.

We all know where that went. But have you ever wondered why it is that they always focus on the comments of Ahmadinejad, who is simply the President of Iran. The Supreme leader of Iran is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran is not a democratic country, it is a theocracy, and there are several ruling committees that are over the president and they govern on the basis of the Quran.

As I posted before about the Christian rights ignorance of history in this area, I mentioned that the Shah of Iran was "inserted" in 1953 with help from the CIA. In a letter from Iran's President to president Bush, this very same act of the insertion of the Shah is still seen as a grievance of the Iranian people. That's a long memory.

So let's look at some facts about Iran, as differing from Iraq, and whether or not a fight with them would be wise. First, Iran has three times the population, and there are no no-fly zones. Henceforth they have an air force and anti-aircraft defense systems. So air superiority over Iran isn't a given like it was in Iraq. Second, Iran has a better equipped and larger army than Iraq had. Iraq's army never recuperated from the fighting in 1991. So a three week romp, now entering it's fifth year, can't be expected in Iran. recall that Hezbollah pretty much had their way with Israel's army recently in Lebanon. The people who train Hezbollah are the Republican Guard of Iran. So if the students are that good, imagine what the teachers might be like. Third, Iran has allies that Iraq never had. Russia supplies them with some of their weaponry, and China is a big oil buyer. Iraq could only dream of potentially having two countries like that in their corner.

So let's imagine that Bush is stupid enough(we know he is) to attack a sovereign country. How do you suppose Iran would respond? If Israel is involved, then an immediate missile to Israel would be expected. Not nuclear, but destructive enough. Maybe several of them. Considering that Iran is predominantly Shiite, then expect the Shiite's of Iraq, and Syria, and Jordan at least, to rise up against America, American interests, and governments that support them. And if push comes to shove, Iran will target the oil fields of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait. Remember, our cushion between demand and supply is about 2%. If oil fields suddenly go down, we would be facing a shortfall of potentially 30%. So imagine the inflationary effect in this country if oil dropped to 30% shortfall in a day.

Can you begin to think that perhaps this is what these neo-fools in the White House want to establish martial law? Are really this incredibly stupid and/or care so little for the consequences on this country that they would do this anyway?

Can you begin to see why there is so much momentum in this country for the ending of the fighting in Iraq? Now is the time to make noise. The time to stop these war mongers is now.

I Say, Off With Their Heads!

2007-02-18T13:41:00.000-08:00

Sounds a bit rough, but I am speaking in reference to the upcoming Presidents Day. Which is basically just another day that banks and government don't have to server their public despite their high rates.

I say we do away with President's Day. After all, these guys are full of gaffes. There are whole books devoted to President Bush's gaffes. Never mind his blunders, crimes, etc. And all President's had them. Clinton couldn't keep Slick Willy in the right place. Warren Harding had the same grasp of English that George W Bush has. E.E. Cummings said of Harding after his death, "The only man, woman or child who wrote a simple declarative sentence with seven grammatical errors is dead." President Ford on October 6, 1976 , during a televised Presidential debate in the 1976 Presidential election with rival Jimmy Carter, President Ford became confused and stated that Poland and eastern Europe were not under the domination of the Soviet Union. When challenged over his comments, he repeated "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration." First president Bush made this comment in reference to Auschwitz: "Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren't they?" And the venerable Abe Lincoln stated a particular date in his 1863 Gettysburg address, stated that 87 years prior, which was 1775. The declaration of Independence wouldn't come into being until the following July, and that did nothing to establish a new nation as did the Constitution which was ratified by the required ninth state in 1788.

Never mind that a distant family member of mine decided to deliver his inaugural address sans coat, hat or gloves, and died on pneumonia four months later.

I would rather see a day where all Americans celebrate the Constitution as the law of the land. The American Bar Association states that May 1 is Law Day, but that is news to me. My calendar doesn't claim that day.

You see, the Constitution doesn't gaffe. It doesn't have the foibles that our Presidents are prone to. And I think it's time that we as Americans reclaim our understanding of the great effort and thought that went into the Constitution. That we as Americans relearn the words that have given us the greatest freedoms man has known.

Because I think that there is a need to reclaim this understanding. Consider that former Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee made a statement on the Senate floor that it was the Constitutional responsibility of the Senate to provide up-or-down votes on Presidential judicial nominees. It took Senator Byrd to stand up and correct him on that same Senate floor. But how did a man sworn to protect and uphold this document not know it? An educated man at that. How shameful. And recently US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez stated that the Constitution does not grant the right of habeus corpus. A rather interesting statement, when you consider that Section 9, Article 2 states that the writ of habeus corpus shall not be suspended. So how can a document oppose something unless it already exists? And here lies the big and perhaps fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative understanding of the Constitution, and perhaps government. The liberals understand that there are inalienable rights given to all
equally born mankind. Conservatives don't. The "Bible" of conservatism, written by Russel Kirk, is called The Conservative Mind. It follows conservatism back to Edmund Burke, a British Lord who was a loyalist to King George who opposed American independence. In The Conservative Mind it is clearly stated quite early in the book that conservatives do not believe that men are not equal, except morally. That is quite a different position than that of the founders, and explains where Gonzalez comes from. The basic conservative view then is that unless government grants you the right, you don't have it. Which of course defies the declaration of Independence, which states that governments are instituted to secure these inalienable rights. Hence the Constitution says, "...and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The italicized "for" indicates that the Constitution was established to protect the citizens from the government. it basically restricts the government, in the belief that we the people have inalienable rights as equals that no one can deprive us of.

It is this dismal understanding of the Constitution, even among elected and appointed officials, that makes me think that we as Americans need to focus on what really matters. Instead of President's day, I say we have a Constitution Day. Maybe this could be united with July 4, as they are related. Maybe not. I remember I had to pass a Constitution test to graduate the 8th grade. Which is an idea I endorse, but think the age is too young. To me it's like requiring kids to say the altered Pledge of Allegiance, when they have no clue what a republic is, or what a solemn vow is, or what was and has been sacrificed to make our country what it is. Those kids want to play on the play ground and eat paste.

The Constitution didn't pass by a landslide in the original ratification. It was a close decision. States weren't too interested in giving up their sovereignty. I say it's time to make this great law of our land something that every American knows and embraces. That those immigrating to our land must know before they become citizens. That students be required to know it before they graduate high school and college.

That we celebrate something as a country, and which deserves our debate and energy. Otherwise the loss will be ours.

And the banks and government will take off President's day while we work.

The Up Escalator

2007-01-28T11:44:00.000-08:00

Consider four things when thinking about the current escalation of troops in Iraq.

1 - That there is a new order to kill or capture Iranians.

2 - Attacking a consulate is a violation of the Vienna Conventions, at that is what America did on or about Jan 11, in the town of Abril, in Iraq. Can you imagine if the shoe was on the other foot?

3 - Iran is mostly Shiite. Saudi Arabia is mostly Sunni. On Jan. 28, 2007 it was reported in the New York Times by Jad Mouawad that Saudi Arabia thinks it can hold the price of a barrel of crude at $50 without crippling it's own economy while crippling Iran's. Look for a turn against the Shiite Maliki government in Iraq and attack on Shiite Mullah Sadr. Is this why VP Cheney was summoned to Saudi Arabia recently for short top secret talks?

4 - The new head of military operations overseeing the occupation in Iraq is an Admiral. What's the Navy doing heading up an operation in the desert? Unless....

Simple saber rattling?

If you read this blog with any regularity, you'll remember what I wrote recently about the Christian right and their distortion of facts, particularly in regards to Iran. Well, they continue to trump up justification of war with Iran.

Today I was channel surfing like I usually do, and stopped by Pastor John Hagee's show to listen to what he had to say. And right there on national television, he stated that the Shah of Iran's government was democratic. If you do any searching about the Shah, you'll find out that he never installed a democracy, he was not elected, and his secret police were notoriously violent. Political opposition did not exist. Now I can suppose one can say that Hagee just isn't doing his homework. However, he mentions an intelligence briefing that was on his desk, and quoted a couple Congressional reports on Homeland Security. So it seems that Hagee does his homework. Which categorizes his statement about the Shah of Iran as deliberate distortion or a lie. The difference is pretty moot for an alleged man of God. And just what is a Pastor doing with intelligence reports on his desk? And included in his bluster was the, now spread to the church, "mushroom cloud" talk that preceded the Iraq invasion. Yessiree, the Iranians could blow up a satellite above America that would create an electro magnetic pulse that would cut off all electricity in America for months, or even years. Ahhh, the fear factor. It seems that Hagee was reading almost verbatim form this site. Notice at that site the complete lack of verification of information. Then read a scientific site and you'll discover that what Hagee was saying just isn't all that true. And why would a pastor be spreading fear? And if you look at the name below the quote on the United States Action site, click on it, and read, you'll see the decidedly right hand slant to it. Not that unexpected from the Religious Reich of America, but verifiable none-the-less.

So consider all this, and then let your Congresspeople know how you feel. This administration wants to escalate this war to include at least Iran.

Is that a vlaue and position that you share?

There Is No War in Iraq!

2007-01-19T06:28:00.000-08:00

That's right, there is no war. There hasn't been for almost four years. What we have had is an occupation. So quit using the phrase war in Iraq, and watch what happens to your thinking about what is happening there. There is also no "war on terror." Why? Because terror is an emotion. How can you fight an emotion and when do you think you win? See how open ended that is? War invokes fear. Terror invokes fear. So utilizing that phrase only engenders fear. Is fear something you value? A wiser President once said, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." And that is exactly what some Americans want America to do: live in fear.

It is an occupation of Iraq. One with no plan, or even the necessary armor. One that the President wants to escalate. We stand against the crime of terrorism. We defy those who utilize it to hurt innocent people to make political gains. We should bring them to justice, just as Colin Powell suggested before Bush invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

Let's use our language properly to better define our values. Do we value an occupation? Do we value imperialism? Particularly one that is accomplishing nothing in regards to rebuilding, let alone bringing stability to the country or region. Is an occupation really what democracy and freedom are all about?

Do we value justice? Is it being intelligently pursued? Where is the indictment against Osama Bin Laden? Where is Bin Laden? How are we pursuing him, to bring him to justice for 9/11? Why doesn't the FBI Most Wanted page for Bin Laden even mention 9/11 in connection to Bin Laden?

Consider the other issues then. Consider them in light of your values, and see if a change in terminology is required to better express your values. Most likely, the spin and talking points versions of presenting issues won't fit.

Explanation Please....

2007-01-18T21:24:00.000-08:00

Bush never denied warrant-less spying on Americans. In fact, he stated that it was a vital tool. Yet Alberto Gonzalez stated before the Senate recently that the administration was no longer going to spy on Americans without a warrant. So is this tool no longer vital? Why not? Explanation please.

Bush recently signed the Postal Reform Act, to which he added a signing statement. The Reform Act reasserts the right to mail privacy. Yet Bush found it necessary to state that he would not be bound by this law if he chooses not to be. Why? And in light of stopping warrant-less eavesdropping, why? Explanation please....

Bush Feeds the Wrong Dog

2007-01-18T20:34:00.000-08:00

There is an analogy used in explaining how to deal with personal vices that has been around for a long time. It compares a personal vice to a large, mean, black dog kept in the basement. The Golden Retriever of Virtue however, is allowed to roam freely. When we choose to act on our vices, we feed the dog in the basement, and the Retriever goes hungry. The point is simple: Stop feeding the wrong dog.

The foreign affairs Mr. Bush has focused on since the year 2000 have revolved around his own idea of what the axis of evil is. At the time he uttered the statement, that included Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

So Mr. Bush decided that after invading Afghanistan to ostensibly capture Osama Bin Laden, and since Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, he invaded them.

Oops.

Despite the reassurance from former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein during Reagan's administration, the coalition forces to date have not found any weapons of mass destruction, nor the ability to make them.

Meanwhile, North Korea claims to have enough enriched uranium to make several nuclear warheads. And Iran has stated that their non-weapons nuclear ambitions will continue regardless of United Nations sanctions.

And all this means nothing. Because recently another country of far greater importance fired a missile that took out a satellite. Now imagine the possibilities. This country could fire several of these itself, and so take out US satellites that are used to spy on countries. Or it could sell that same missile to countries like Iran. Or Venezuela. Or Egypt. Maybe even Pakistan. Another possibility is that it could do both. It could sell it as well as use it.

Now consider if this same country was owner of a significant portion of US national debt.

Consider then China.

China is the dog that Bush continues to feed with massive amounts on national borrowing and cheap labor to feed the profit hungry capitalists. And just look what they have done with all the money they have made. They demonstrate that they are capable of poking our eyes out.

Also consider that the Chinese economy, and their need for oil, dwarfs ours. And they are actively hunting for oil. They already purchase a large portion of Iran's oil. And there is talk that Venezuela might shift a large portion of their future oil contracts to China. And why not? China has the money to pay for it. America does not.

Not that this means that China is a military threat. To some extent they are. They could blind us, but that would only mean that they are interested in making an overland move on another country. The threat that China poses is economic.

Suppose China began to allow their currency it's true value compared to our debt saddled dollar? Suppose they decided to either call in the debt, or sell it off? What if they decided they wanted more for the goods they make for us? Or all of the above? Inflation would cripple our economy immediately. China is poised then to become the imminent world power, more because of the size of it's economy, and the lack of any real foe to challenge it, militarily or financially.

Here is a perfect example of how short sighted capitalism and conservatism are. If they indeed see this potential problem, they are doing nothing to stop it. Or they don't see it. Either way, we are definitely not dealing with a growing problem. And the first and best place to start correcting this problem is to start the comeback of four words.

Four words that will reassert us economically. Four words that will generate jobs. Four words that will reduce the trade imbalance. Four words that will revive the American middle class. Four words done with pride and skill. Four words that will kill the dog in the basement.

They are not "Don't feed the Dog."

They are,

"Made in the USA"

Conservative Radio Against Fairness!

2007-01-18T20:16:00.000-08:00

You can count on the righties on the web and radio to freak out about this one! But first, some words from our favorite talking heads on the right....

Glen Beck:

On a Nigerian public information campaign to fight bird flu: "They've actually resorted to radio jingles. ... Are we as dumb as Nigeria?"
To the 7-year old African-American author of a controversial poem: "You want to go to Africa? I will personally purchase your airfare.
But the second thought I had when I saw these people and they had to shut down the Astrodome and lock it down, I thought: I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims. These guys -- you know it's really sad. We're not hearing anything about Mississippi. We're not hearing anything about Alabama. We're hearing about the victims in New Orleans. This is a 90,000-square-mile disaster site, New Orleans is 181 square miles. A hundred and -- 0.2 percent of the disaster area is New Orleans! And that's all we're hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones we're seeing on television are the scumbags -- and again, it's not all the people in New Orleans. Most of the people in New Orleans got out! It's just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans, or who decided to stay in New Orleans, and they're getting all the attention. It's exactly like the 9-11 victims' families. There's about 10 of them that are spoiling it for everybody.

Michael Savage: We need another brave Senator, like McCarthy, whom history has proven to be a loyal patriot."

"I'm beginning to think that women should be denied the vote. Their hormones rage; they are too emotional."

In fact, Christianity has been one of the great salvations on planet Earth. It's what's necessary in the Middle East. Others have written about it, I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity but I'll get here a little later, I'll move up to that. It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings. ... Because these primitives can only be treated in one way, and I don't think smallpox and a blanket is good enough incidentally. Just before -- I'm going to give you a little precursor to where I'm going. Smallpox in a blanket, which the U.S. Army gave to the Cherokee Indians on their long march to the West, was nothing compared to what I'd like to see done to these people, just so you understand that I'm not going to be too intellectual about my analysis here in terms of what I would recommend, what Doc Savage recommends as an antidote to this kind of poison coming out of the Middle East from these non-humans. (from http://atheism.about.com/b/a/086463.html)

Janet Parshall: “Today we ask, 'How can a country with such a horrific record of human rights abuses, religious persecution, nuclear proliferation and espionage be deemed normal by any freedom-loving country such as the United States?'”

“When two people of the same sex … decide that they want to then adopt children, … then I think what you have in many respects is state-sanctioned child abuse because you have purposely taken away either a momma or a daddy, and mom and dad are both necessary in a child's life.”

(and this typical abuse of facts)

Sean Hannity: “It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution this idea of the separation of church and state.”

It goes to show how little Hannity knows American history.

and this ditty about the fighting in Kosovo: "And we are having a president compare this to Adolf Hitler. Granted, 2,000 in a year is disgusting, despicable, if we can stop it. But let's arm the Kosovo Liberation Army instead of putting U.S. troops in harm's way."

and in response to the growing call for national health insurance, I heard Hannity exclaim on his daily show on Seattle's KVI radio that America has the greatest health care system on the planet.

and this gem about Jeff Gannon: HANNITY: Now, Jeff Gannon, who is a terrific Washington bureau chief and White House correspondent for Talon News, actually shot me an e-mail today, and he's about to break a story in an exclusive about these CBS documents.

Janet Folger is another Religious fundamentalist: "And now, five years after we were attacked, our troops are fighting overseas for the freedom of those who pray in the name of Allah at the same time a U.S. chaplain has been court-martialed for praying in the name of Jesus on American soil."

Neal Boortz: How many Catholic schools do you think teach the students to question the authority of the Pope? Do you believe Christian schools teach students to question or challenge the authority of Jesus Christ? Do military schools teach the cadets to challenge the authority of superior officers? Well, why should we then expect government schools to teach children to question the authority of government?

and let's not forget Rush Limbaugh: “Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along,” and who can forget this attack,

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's
moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
act. . . . This is really shameless of
Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication
or he's acting. This is the only time I've ever seen
Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the
disease he has. He can barely control himself."

and on and on he goes ad nauseum.

So what is it about the Fairness Doctrine that the conservatives really don't like? Is it necessarily that they don't want to present a fair and balanced view point? To actually be professional journalists? That's partly it. Hannity has no journalism credentials, and Limbaugh is just a "radio guy." And as we can see from history, no government that wants control of the people can tolerate a free press. So instead of just closing them down Gestapo style, the right wing has decided to use profit as the muzzle. It has been known for a long time that most newspapers were unprofitable. So when the FCC under Reagan decided to eliminate the rules concerning media monopolies, suddenly the bottom line wasn't journalistic professionalism, but rather a profit margin. And if the owners didn't like the message, well, it just didn't get shared. And as we have seen by the watching of FOX News, and the documentary Outfoxed by Robert Greenwald, Fox news was created and operates as a conservative propaganda machine. In some regards this is simply a step back to the original days of journalism in America, where most papers were simply mouthpieces for one viewpoint or another. But when it comes to the common ground of the Internet, then it takes on a whole new significance, and why there is so much debate over Net Neutrality. Another aspect of the common ground truth is that the Fairness Doctrine recognized the public ownership of the airwaves. In "Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine, under challenges that it violated the First Amendment. Although similar laws had been deemed unconstitutional when applied to newspapers, the Court ruled that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited nature of the public airwave spectrum." (Wikipedia) So how is it that public airwaves are allowed control for profit by a very small group of people? But even more importantly, there are some related rules of the Fairness Act that would up-end right wing radio: "Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond."

Those two corollary rules would wipe out most conservative radio. I have in fact heard here on the local "conservative" radio station, KVI of Seattle, host John Carlson, completely distort a posting on the Daily Kos. Carlson's point was the far left anti-American view. Well, I knew Carlson was wrong. Completely wrong. Which proves that either they don't fact check, or they deliberately alter the facts for their own ideology. As it turns out, but KVI never owned up to, the post in question was about the US troops, and was a comment not posted by Kos himself, but a poster named Oachim's Razor on the Daily Kos site, and the comment itself not only was used out of context, but it was followed by an apology which was never aired on KVI.

The only radio host I am aware of that actually interviews the "conservative" viewpoint is Thom Hartmann. He often however has the bad habit of interrupting his guests, particularly when they make some incredibly stupid statements. I really dislike the interruptions, but it allows for fair play, and the opportunity to hear both sides of an issue. On the other hand, Hannity had to have his Colmes foil because he couldn't handle anything real, and O'Reilly just shuts off the mic or yells at his guest to shut up.

That's why the Fairness Doctrine scares the right. It would mean that they would have to actually engage in debate, and even in the Congress they ran for the last decade, they allowed for practically no debate. Take the Patriot Act for example. It's original passage was a complete rush job, and it contains language that is contrary to the Constitution of the US, and there was virtually no debate on it before passage. In fact, many of those who voted on it never had a chance to read it. It means their smear tactics wouldn't go unchallenged in mainstream media.

So to all who are scared of the Fairness Doctrine: Put up or shut up.

Trumping up more War

2007-01-17T06:12:00.000-08:00

Clinton's fault? The liberal press? How about the academics? No? How about we make the jump all the way back to the seventies, to justify the current situation in Iraq. That not only takes a bit of desperation, but some real astute spin as well. Then again, that is what you would expect from a politician. But from a Reverend?

Yet this is exactly what Reverend Lou Sheldon is doing for his audience these days. So let's have a look at Reverend Sheldon's blaming of the current situation in the Middle East on Jimmy Carter, and his handling of history regarding that era.

According to Reverend Sheldon, Carter may well be judged as the worst president in history. Well be? His presidency ended 26 years ago, and he doesn't think the verdict is in? Even more interesting is that the title of Worst President ever is often applied to Reverend Sheldon's idol, George W. Bush. Sheldon's reason is that Carter is responsible for the spread of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East because Carter turned against the Shah of Iran late in his Presidency, and the Ayatollah Khomeini replaced the Shah, ushering in the current quagmire in the Middle East.

So let's look at these facts: First, Sheldon states that because of the overthrow of the pro-Western Shah, we have what we have in the Middle East. Never mind what Bush has done. That apparently doesn't count. What Sheldon isn't telling you is that the Shah was a dictator who ruled ruthlessly, wouldn't support a democracy, and was returned to power in 1953 after the CIA under a Republican president helped depose a Prime Minister that nationalized the Iranian oil supply. So the real issue wasn't fundamentalism, it was oil, as it is now. So apparently pro-Western is okay with traditional values despite being a dictatorship with bloody hands.

Second; Sheldon tells his audience that the Soviet Union saw Carter's weakness and invaded Afghanistan. Really? The Russians recognize Carter had issues with Iran, so they invade the neighbor. That sounds like Bush logic to me. And to "misunderestimate" even more, the Soviets decide to invade a couple weeks before Carter loses his office. Now history has informed us that Carters aid Brzezinski claimed they lured the Soviets into Afghanistan, to be their own Viet Nam. One author however claims that much of this information was withheld from Carter. But even given the time line, the only thing Carter authorized was a propaganda campaign against the Soviets. the real assistance to the mujhadeen and Osama Bin laden was undertaken by the Reagan administration that took office in January of 1980, three weeks after the invasion of Afghanistan, and almost two months after the election that replaced Carter. More and more the Afghan invasion sounds just like the thinking that propelled the Bush invasion of Iraq.

The often overlooked facts are that the Afghans sought an alignment with the USSR because of the American alignment with it's regional contestants, which include Pakistan and Iran, and we know that the Shah came to power with a US intervention in 1953. Hence, when it came to be needed, the Afghans turned to their ally when needed, and not because they saw that Carter was weak. The Soviet aligned faction in Afghanistan sought help when they wanted it, and to the place that had provided the weapons, assistance, and military training they had used for a decade prior to Jimmy Carter.

And yet these same twisted facts are what Christian groups including the Traditional Values Coalition are telling the far right wing of America. And to what end? So that the war machine in Washington can further it's efforts in the Middle East.

Shockingly, this is being done blindly. These right wing groups have completely forgotten, in their world of manipulated facts, that the Soviet Union was bankrupted and dissolved after ten years of a conflict in Afghanistan that they didn't win. So what makes these imperialists think that the US can do anything different in Iraq, when the policies it has followed so far have produced little but chaos?

So in direct contradiction to their own Prince of Peace, the right wing Christian fundamentalists trump up the need for continued fighting and occupation in the Middle East, and they base it on a history they purposely distort to fit their own political agenda.

I wonder who is being set free from these "truths?"

Protect the Rule of Law: Give me a Raise!

2007-01-03T06:47:00.000-08:00

You see, without a 30% raise, I can't possibly sit on the bench and rule fairly. It will eat at my concentration, knowing that there are plenty of academic and private practice lawyers making twice what I do. My assets, worth upwards of ten million not withstanding, it will be nigh impossible to do my job.

Yes I realize that minimum wage earners haven't seen any raise in over a decade. And yes, I realize that my earnings are almost 5 times the median wage of an American, and twice that of a median lawyer. And yes, I realize that I can make money from book deals and other endeavors, that I will retire with my full pay, and there is no limit on how long I can serve on the most prestigious job in justice in America. What has that got to do with anything?

If anyone said this to you, you'd think that person a fool wouldn't you? I would. Yet this is exactly what Chief Justice Roberts has decided is the most important issue after a year on the bench. Not warrant-less eavesdropping. Not the rights of American citizens accused of being terrorists. No, his eight page year-end report was devoted to the necessity of getting a pay raise on his meager $212,000 annual salary.

So dire is this problem, that he called it a "constitutional crisis." Obviously what he meant was that the make-up of the court could be altered by this problem. His spin was that only those to whom $212K is chump change would agree to serve on the bench. You see, judges are leaving by the droves. In fact, a whopping 1% turnover rate! Call in the National Guard....

This is another fine example of an out of touch government employee. So out of touch that he thinks it's his privilege to get rich off the tax payer while simply forgetting that he's a public servant. It's not like he's never been in government before. He's been in and out over the last 30 years. So he knows the ropes, and you'd think that he'd know the idea of public service. But then this current administration has had some difficulties understanding ethics and governing, and seem drawn inexorably to making a dollar at the tax payers expense. One could hope that a Chief Justice would be beyond such meager attitudes.

But not so with John Roberts. In fact, he sits on the Court of an administration that in the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen, that has abandoned the rule of law altogether. Mr. Padilla's Constitutional rights as a citizen have been criminally violated for over three years, and yet for Chief Justice Robert's, whose duty it is to oversee justice in this land, it's all about the money.

Well Mr. Robert's, if you can't rule without a raise from your privileged position: the door is right over there. If your attitude is at all prevalent on the courts of America, I say then we need a "constitutional crisis." It would do America well to have a Chief Justice that is concerned about the rule of law rather than the size of his check.

So just how tough is life for a Supreme Court justice? To begin with, being government employees, they get access to the best health care for free. We're talking John Hopkins and Bethesda Naval health care, not your local clinic in downtown DC. Oh, and if you need a check up, the same limo that drives you to work every morning will drive you there too. That limo that drives you there will drop you at the building where you have a three room office suite on some of the most valuable land in the country. Sometime during the day you can have your personal trainer drop by, or just head down to the free gym. While there you can work on the book you're planning to sell for millions, or a lecture offer that sits on your desk for which you are allowed to charge upwards of twenty thousand dollars. To get to those lectures you'll have to suffer the limo again and a first class ticket to wherever it is you are lecturing. Of course you'll do some work. For nine months of the year. The other three are a vacation. But during those nine months, as in 1996, you'll hear about 90 cases and offer opinions on about 80, like they did in 1996. That year the heavily conservative court actually had to muddle through 1% of the cases in the docket. They sound like the Congress that was just retired this last November....

And let's not forget the A-list for places like theaters, sporting events, and restaurants. There you can discuss those lectures and book deals while you're limo waits. No need to worry about the boss, because you're job is a lifetime appointment. And when all this work gets tiring, and you simply can't raise the gavel anymore, you can retire with your full pay. A guaranteed full pay pension. Man, that's tough.

So let's exclude those A-list things. Just maybe those aren't comped. What do these perqs amount to? Well, a single lecture amounts to twice what a minimum wage earner makes in a whole year. One lecture, for let's say an astounding two hours. Let's say it's only a ten thousand dollar lecture, and it's in California. For a whopping three days of your life, you'll make what a minimum wage earner makes in one year. So lectures can easily boost the salary of a justice by 10%. Health care benefits can easily add another 5%, just on cost alone let alone the quality of the care received. Since 2000, roughly a million people have lost their health care coverage. That means they have no health care. So 5% is a low figure. What do you suppose rent is on a three room office suite? A couple thousand a month? Let's add the gym and this together, and say three thousand a month. That's roughly thirty six thousand a year. A little over 10% of the salary figure. Already, outside the vacation of three months and book deals that are available, we have added 25% to the salary of a Supreme Court justice, which makes even the Associate justices roll in at over two hundred thousand dollars a year.

How many of us have a free limo to get to work? A three room office suite? Free access to a gym? The A-list of the best places in the country? How about three months off? The best and free health care available? Considering that the median wage in this country is about one fifth of what a justice makes, the odds aren't all that good in favor of the bulk of Americans whose wages compose that median wage. And I relatively doubt that the productivity numbers of the Supreme Court are even close to what the average workers is.

So when you hear a Chief Justice like Justice Roberts complain, write to your Senator and tell them that you oppose any wage increases until their productivity numbers go up, and that they realize that the bigger issues in America have nothing at all to do with how much a justice is paid. When an American citizen is denied his Constitutional rights, than it's not only proper but necessary that these Justices understand what a true "constitutional crisis" really is.

And they told us it was the libs...

2007-01-01T21:03:00.000-08:00

...that were the threat to the judiciary.

And here we find out the truth, the real threat is the lack of pay! That according to Chief Justice Roberts as reported on CNN.com.

Might I remind you Chief Justice Roberts, you well educated ignoramus,

YOU ARE A PUBLIC SERVANT!

If you want to be in it for the money, than get the hell out of government. In a future installment, I will be reporting on just what kind of perqs a Chief Justice gets, and what that amounts to per year, and how that relates to the median wage in this country.

So Chief Justice Roberts, quit being an asshole, or quit being a judge.

The Conservative Mind

2006-12-18T06:26:00.000-08:00

In my on-going effort to understand conservatism, and particularly it's wayward bastard son demonstrated by the George W. Bush administration, I decided to read the book considered the Bible of Conservatism, which is pictured above. The author is Russel Kirk, as the flash may have hidden his name.

I was set for a thoroughly complex philosophy of what conservatism is born from. I have in all honesty, been disappointed. Notice the full title, The Conservative Mind from Burke to Elliot. Edmond Burke is the bloke who so vociferously opposed Tom Paine's writings. Tom Paine's writings are the ones that laid the foundation for the Declaration of Independence(Common Sense) and the Bill of Rights(The Rights of Man). I have long held the view that conservatives fought against American independence in the Revolutionary War, and have pretty much been doing so since then. In all fairness though, I thought it best to read this tome.

The foreword is by Henry Regnery, who's publishing firm includes such notable names as William J. Bennett, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, Congressman Curt Wheldon, Oliver North, Congressman Dennis Hastert, Michelle Malkin, and Ted Nugent and Charlie Daniels. To quote his forward, " What it all comes down to, he used to say, is that a conservative knows that two plus two always, invariably, equals four, a fact of life that a liberal, on the other hand, is not quite willing to accept."
I thought that a rather weird way to set the tone for a supposed book of scholarly thought. It's those kinds of conservative comments one can find issuing from the mouths of news story commenter's on Yahoo. It's also why last November America rejected conservatism as demonstrated by this administration.

So okay I thought, that's just a publisher who's given ability to grasp what Kirk had to say is below par. He's sunk to the level of comments of his authors like Coulter and Malkin. And since his firm owns the rights to a dead author, who's going to argue with him?

The book so far, has done little to counter my initial impression. In fact, on page 8, the very first of the listed six canons of conservatism is, " Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law...Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems," and on page 33, " Every state is the creation of Providence, whether or not it's religion is Christianity. Christianity is the highest of religions...." At least in this one area has the conservatism of today stuck true to it's past, even if it is a Frankenstein form of it. This is where I think the major problem lies in conservatism being a viable form of thought for governing a nation. It has as it's root a presumed body of truth which is intolerant to the differing realities of modern man. Never mind the fact that today's leaders of the Christian faith are so blatantly far from the core teaching of their own Scriptures.

So as I move through this book, I will be posting in regards to where I see conservatism as unworkable. I think the major policy failures of the Bush administration are symptomatic to their own version of conservatism. My goal is towards conservatism as a historical train of thought, and why I don't think it is suited to be a political mind set.

The Errant Religious Right

2006-12-11T04:58:00.000-08:00

I knew the minute I heard it, that America was doomed. It was the beginning of the end. Well, not actually. I was pleased, but I knew there would be an instant controversy. And so there is, and lo and behold, you would think that America is doomed.

I'm talking about the election of Jim Ellison from Minnesota to Congress. You see, Jim Ellison is a Muslim. And I thought the controversy would be around the opening of the Congressional session with a prayer. But it's not. it's about Mr. Ellison's desire to take his oath of office with his hand on the Koran instead of a Bible.

The horror of it all! I knew it would rattle the cages of the Religious fanatics of America. And it has. And they have emerged with all the smear they can, like Jesus would do, and their historical ignorance and misinformation.

It appears that some time ago is when Mr. Ellison decided to become a Muslim. Back then, he had some interactions with the Nation of Muslim, and it's controversial leader Louis Farrakhan. And so the subtle attempt to paint a black mark on Mr. Ellison, and the absolutely worst thing they could say was that Mr. Ellison supported the Million Man march. He didn't participate in it apparently, he just supported it. How radical can a guy get?! So I wonder how many of these same Christian fundamentalist leaders have associated with know meth smoker and gay sexer Reverend Ted Haggard?

The fundies of this country like to promote the idea that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. At the very least, they like to think that the Bible was what undergirded the the founding of our country. But that is only true as far as the Pilgrims and Puritans who first landed here were concerned. By the time the United States of America was actually founded, the times had changed.

This is simply evidenced by the fact that nowhere in the US Constitution is there any mention of God, or the Bible. And for good reason. The founders of this country were attempting to establish a secular government, one free of entanglement with any and all religion. Why? Because they had just fought a war against a country that was heavily entangled with it's national church, and they had seen the oppression it brought on the people, and it's abuse of power. Our founders wanted something different. Hence we have the Amendment that protects our right to freely express our religion, and the clause that prevents the government from establishing one. This is what Thomas Jefferson referred to in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists: "Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

To this day the Religious fundamentalists of America deny this basic truth that Jefferson made so clear. In fact, to this day they still tell their sheep that the opposite is true, which in essence, is a lie. It is a questionable I guess whether or not I should call this ignorance though. it is more accurately called deception. Which is pretty much what i felt after reading what I posted above after having spent 13 years believing and being told the opposite.

I don't believe that the American fundies think the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land. They would argue that the Bible should be. But their ignorance of it is almost hard to imagine. Here is what the Traditional Values Coalition told their followers: "The Office of the Clerk for Congress has published information on the Oath of Office, which is in the U.S. Constitution: “The oath of office required by the sixth article of the Constitution of the United States, and as provided by section 2 of the act of May 13, 1884 (23 Stat. 22), to be administered to members, Resident Commissioner, and Delegates of the House of Representatives, the text of which is carried in 5 U.S.C. 3331:..."

Here is the entire Sixth Article of the US Constitution:

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

You'll notice that the first two paragraphs have nothing to do with our subject matter. The third one does. And does it say they shall take an oath on any holy book? No. However, as you can see in the TVC posting, they tie the the Sixth article with a law that was written later, making it appear as if the Constitution mandates an oath of a particular fashion. Nothing could be farther from the truth when the Sixth article clearly states that no religious test shall be required, ever, as a qualification for office.

I can surmise from this that the ones who write this propaganda only hope that their readers don't actually fact check the materials for themselves. I know I never did when I was in their camp. We just figured that those purportedly teaching us wouldn't lie to us. I see I was wrong.

So in true Jesus-like fashion, TVC, and most likely others, are out to smear Mr. Ellison because he is a Muslim. They will parade out their usual distortion of historical facts along with their black marks on his character in hopes that they can convince others that their narrow-minded view of life and American history is the correct one.

But like many others in this country, I follow the same vision that Jefferson did, and which is inscribed on his memorial in Washington DC: ""The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion."

Constitutional basis of sworn oaths to office.

2006-12-04T05:40:00.000-08:00

This is actually quite simple, but it seems to be an uproar these days. When Keith Ellison, the recently elected Muslim from Minnesota to the House of representatives stated he would take his oath of office on the Koran, you would have thought America was doomed. Dennis Prager had a lot to say about it, and most recently, so did Congressman Virgil Goode.

Mr. Prager states in his article, "But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath." Is that so? And is not Mr. Ellison an American? He was born and raised in Detroit, Michigan. How much more American can you get than being from Motor City? So already, Mr. Prager has given permission to Mr. Ellison to swear his oath on the Koran though Mr. Prager thinks he should not be allowed to do so.
Mr. Goode was simply floored that a Muslim was elected to Congress. In his letter to a Sierra Club member he stated,

"Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped."

What is so amazing to me is the level of ignorance of those who stand by these views. One is indeed an elected Republican Representative of the state of Virginia. The other is a columnist for a right wing blog. And beyond the obvious racism and the fear, is a complete lack of understanding of the history of our country.

First, let's look at the statement by both men regarding the traditional beliefs and values that they think America was founded on. To both Prager and Goode, it is their belief that those values and beliefs are based on the Bible. But yet in 1797 our government made this statement in a treaty with a Muslim country: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...." This treaty was signed by President John Adams, one of the earliest of conservatives, and was ratified by Congress. Apparently the wording of this treaty didn't bother them in the least, and stands in direct contradiction to what Prager and Goode believe. Hence we have a Constitution that never mentions God. Mr. Jefferson stated,

"To suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own." --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2: 546

and,

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

Our history demonstrates that America was designed to be a secular nation which was the best guarantee of all men to follow the dictates of their conscience, and prevent meddling in either direction between the government and the religious choices of it's people.

Secondly, and to the core of this issue, is what does the Constitution say about oaths to office? The Traditional Values Coalition wants it's readers to think that oaths are to be taken on the Bible. But the Constitution, even in the article the TVC mentions, does not say that. Regarding the oath of Congresspeople, the Constitution says in Article 6,

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Notice the language. It specifically states that an oath to support only the Constitution will betaken. It also sates that no religious test will ever be required. So in direct contradiction to Mr. Prager, who thinks that if Mr. Ellison can't swear an oath on a Bible he shouldn't be allowed to serve in Congress, the Constitution merely states they shall take an oath. In fact, when Representative Dennis Hastert took his oath, his hand was on the podium, not a book of any kind.

And what does the Constitution say about Presidential oaths? Article 2, Section 1 says,

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' "

That is it in it's entirety. It does not say "So help me God," as we are so apt to hear. That is merely optional. Like the Congress, the president is only sworn to protect the Constitution. Nothing else. And again, no mention of where to put your hands.

This concludes today's tour of the Constitution and it's matters regarding taking oaths of office. As we've seen, the several right wing elements of the current "conservative" movement have it all wrong. They are promoting at the very least misinformation intended to deceive Americans as to the nature of our country as well as what the responsibilities of our elected officials are. The only responsibility related to taking the oath of office is to swear to protect the Constitution. A Constitution which was developed to allow all men the right to practice their own religion. That includes Muslims, much to Mr. Goode's chagrin.

And yes Mr. Prager, America does get to decide. And they did a long time ago. The Constitution of the United States of America, definitely being American, does not restrict Mr. Ellison, an elected American citizen, from taking his oath of office on any book he considers his scripture. Public opinion, even of a vocal, bigoted minority, does not matter in this case. Your statement Mr. Prager, was correct. Your support for it is dead wrong.

Is our work done?

2006-11-16T05:45:00.000-08:00

The answer to that is HELL NO!
Mind you, America rejected GOP ideology big time on November 7. Besides the House and Senate, a total of 16 of 20 Governor seats in races are now held by Democrats, and 9 new State houses were placed under Democrat control. However, that doesn't mean we sit on our haunchs and gloat. There are several issues to deal with. For example, the Democrat view of what Middle Class is.
But I would rather focus on what I see as a continuing problem in Washington, and that is their disconnect from reality, regardless of the party. I point this out after listening to Charlie Rangel on the radio.
I'm all for the Democrats taking over not only Congress, controlling 28 Governor mansions and nine new state houses. Supposedly they will take care of the needs of Americans. But I was shocked to hear what Rangel classified as Middle Class. To Mr. Rangel, the bottom line of the Middle Class starts around $70K a year, and runs up to $200K a year. He did state that he wouldn't be held to those numbers.
I was stunned. Between my full time job, and my wife's full time job, we'll still need another full time job between us at Washington state's minimum wage just to make it to the bottom of the Middle Class!
According to the Census Bureau, the median income in the United States is just over $46,000. That's roughly a combination or sole earner wage of $23 an hour. And one would think that the mass of the workers of America are the ones that this wage represents. But where does that leave them according to Charlie Rangel? That leaves them squarely in the lower class. At $23 an hour. They are in fact in the 65th percentile of the lower class!
Let's look at how statistics can work. Let's say that eight of us working for that $23 an hour are sitting in McGinty's Friday night enjoying a cold one. Our median income is roughly the national average, give or take a few bucks an hour depending on the work we do. In walks Bill Gates to have a beer. Suddenly, based on statistics, our median wage just shot up past the Middle Class, and not one dime has filled our pockets with this new wealth.
Now let's look at the real picture for a minute. How many jobs in America are paying Middle Class wages? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 7.7% of the jobs in this country pay Middle Class wages. Another 80.5% of the jobs pay less than the median wage as reported by the Census Bureau. The gap in the middle are those jobs that pay between the median wage in America, and the Middle Class. In other words, a little over 10% of the jobs in this country, to say nothing of their availability, pay between median wage and Middle Class. A whopping 92.3% of the jobs in America pay less than Middle Class wages. And the "Middle Class" is where they want to aim the tax cuts. Dare I say that the Republicans aim their tax cuts at the top one percent, and the Democrats at the top nine percent? Where does that leave most Americans?
According to the Census Bureau, the poverty threshold for a family of four is less than $20,000 a year. Basically, two non-working kids and two adults at minimum wage. So what do we classify those as who are between poor, which I take it then are referred to those who are beneath the poverty level, and the Middle Class that have $70,000 a year as their lower rung? Is this the working poor we continue to hear about?
I think it is. And this is where I see some Democrats are little different than Republicans. These hybrids will consistently vote to erode what the Middle Class actually is. They will do nothing to make health insurance available to all. They may lower the prices on drugs for seniors, and make some program that the better off of the working poor can perhaps afford some relatively expensive medical plan with few services. What these moderate democrats will do though is balk at the idea of a national health care plan, like every industrialized country in the world has. Never mind the fact that America at this point in time has almost a million citizens a year that lose health coverage. That means 2740 people every day lose their health coverage. That equals roughly the population of twenty four of the fifty United States. Forty six million people and growing. That isn't helping the "Middle Class" at all.
I've already mentioned that Mr. Rangel thinks we should give tax breaks to this "Middle Class," which seems much closer to the top than the middle. Since the ousted Republicans have given massive tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations, that means that the current national deficit is owed by those in the "Middle Class" and below. That number as of November 29, 2006 was over $28,000 per every citizen in the United States. That number grows every day at an incredible rate, the burden of which, if it doesn't bankrupt us, will fall on those who make up the bulk of the wage earners in America. And it isn't the Middle Class!
It is now our responsibility to make ourselves loud and clear on this issue. Those who represent us need to hear that they are out of touch. That those of us who are working need to be insured, we need jobs with livable wages, we need regulation to stop greed, we need fair economic markets, we need tax responsibility and fairness, we need savings for retirement.
So besides the at least 40 we put in every week, this is the work we need to do. And we need to do it until we are heard.

I had to laugh

2006-10-25T07:07:00.000-07:00

I had to laugh. Here in my voter pamphlet are the statements of those running for office. I suppose most of you got yours as well. And I read it. Which is why I had to chuckle.

It seems Mike McGavick has forgotten which party controls the US Senate. His first line: "The US Senate is broken...." Then he parades out some of what he must consider the key problems on which this broken Senate has done nothing, with the implication that Maria Cantwell and her ilk are to blame.

1. Deficite Spending - Here McGavick goes on the attack. (Compare to Maria Cantwell who never mentions McGavick in her pamplet piece or the ads I've seen)
Out of control federal spending. Again, by a Republican controlled House and Senate that allow for the spending of $2 billion a month in the futility we call Iraq. Yet he harkens back to the 108th Congress,(we're in the 109th) which was also Republican controlled, and claims Cantwell was the voter for most spending. Which is a nice spin. If you look at the bills, you'd see other names there as well, and, if you'd stop and think about it, in the face of tax give-aways to the wealthy and corporations, and cuts to most social programs, yes, those who are really concerned about Americans did vote for more spending, and DIDN'T GET IT!

Yes, Mike has a record for delivering. He laid of 1200 employees, and was rewarded with a $28 million dollar parachute.

2. Terrorism - Shall we forget that just this last month, it was possible to fly a small airplane into a high rise in Manhattan, years after 9/11, unimpeded. No scambled fighters, nothing. To me, that's a huge WOW. Of all the places in the America, I would think that downtown New York would be the hardest place to do something like that. So why was it possible?

Let the barrage continue. Remember the recent report of National Intelligence Estimate that stated that the war in Iraq has made terrorism worse? That was an agreement of 16 intelligence agencies of the US. How many of us can even name half those agencies? Yet the big ones and obscure ones alike all agreed that fighting in Iraq has made a big problem worse.

3. Border Security - How many years has it taken the Republican controlled Congress to even begin discussing a bill about the borders? Wasn't it five? Five years where any one from al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, or North Korea could cross our borders, even after 9/11, with impunity and under the noses of the controlling party that supposedly has the best national security interests at heart. And if you do a little Federal Reserve search, you'll see that Alan Greenspan was the one who said we needed to allow more immigrants in. Look under his FRB speeches and his hearing before Congress.

And all under the watch of the Republican controlled Congress and White House.

So Mr. McGavick wants us to vote for a guy who parachuted in numbers most of us can only dream about, and has his own fundamentalist pastor, the Rev. Joseph Fuiten, as an advisor. And yet he would like us to think that voting for a wealthy CEO allied with the religious right is going to be any different than the "broken Senate" he described.

I laugh at things that are absurd.

Toxic Faith doesn't save you.

2006-10-18T06:24:00.000-07:00

Recently it has become obvious that the self-righteous right wingers aren't practicing what they preach. Mr. Traditional Values Man Mark Foley resigned after it was disclosed he was pursuing young men less than a half his age, and that this behavior had been going on for many years. Then comes the news that country "superstar" Sarah Evans was divo rcing her husband of over a decade. Turns out her and her husband are staunch Republicans, and her husband ran for Congress in 2002, and runs a PAC raising money for Republican candidates. Her husband, Craig Schelske, was also a student at Pat Robertson's Regent University, and lists on his web page that he belongs to a non-denominational Christian Church.
And in his spare time, it seems his well made up and lookable wife isn't enough. At least according to his wife. Her husband, Craig Schelske of course denies all the allegations. What I thought was interesting is the placement of Craig Schelske as a "team member" of American Destiny, an organization whose goal is to "... is not just information. It is change. By remembering who we were intended to be. The result: social justice, economic strength, racial reconciliation, political righteousness, and a faith that draws the favor of God.

Our dream, and our passion, is to see America shake off her lesser self and become the nation of God’s intent and our Founders’ hopes. Help us, then, to Remember what has been forgotten, Restore what has been lost, and Rebuild what America may again become."

So how is it that this Craig Schelske, and Ted Haggard, and Paul Barnes, all these trumpeters of traditional family values, these paragons of Godly virtue, are all sex addicts? How is it that they cannot shake off their "lesser" selves and live real lives?
Part of it has to do with looking at life as having a "lesser" self to begin with. A segregated self, neatly or not, compartmentalized into little cubby holes is not how life is. That approach to life is dogmatic, and as these three men demonstrate, doomed to failure. The Christianity they are following is what some even in their own midst would call toxic faith.
I walked with this crowd for 13 years, which went through the Reagan era. And I saw two things happen there. One, the Church decided that it was easier to legislate than actually live their own morals. As we've seen since the 80's, it has been the choice to legislate and live immoral. The Bakers, Swaggerts, Tiltons, as well as those mentioned above, have been a long enduring train as to the validity of my statement. And what the Church doesn't seem to understand is that what's in the shepherd, is in the sheep. The second thing I saw is that Christianity, in legislating rather than living, was bringing into the fold addicts that simply exchanged their drugs, alcohol, learning, relationship, food and sex addictions for a cleaner version of Bible study, prayer, worship, and leadership addictions. I recall going to a conference that Pastor Cho of South Korea had in Minnesota. Pastor Cho at that time had the only megachurch, and he was teaching how to do to make your own megachurch. The Assemblies of God were all over this. It seemed an outright race to be the first American church to have 10,000 attendants. As a sidebar here, can you see what happened? The emphasis became about numbers, not souls. Christianity morphed into Evangelicalism, and lost sight of it's own mission. Back to the trunk now. At this conference, an up-and-coming pastor openly admitted that if he were to die, his large church would likely flounder and split apart. And it occurred to me that what he had established really wasn't a church, an expression of their living God, but a personality cult. And this was the new direction that the church of America has embraced over the last 20 years. Add to that a patriarchal, hierarchical, dualistic dogma, and you have the recipe for what the church has a become: a staunchly neoconservative, intolerant and belligerent wing of the neoconservative political machine in America.And that is precisely why the founders of our country wanted a separation of church and state.

Not that I care an iota about Christianity. As their dogma is what it is, I see nothing but trouble that can come of it. But if they want to venture into the political arena, and still maintain their tax free status, than the rest of us are being poisoned by their toxic nature, and that gives us the right to stand up and speak against it. And we can hold them accountable to their own standards, which they don't do themselves. They are correct in that the rest of us need to be saved. What they don't see is that we need to be saved from them.

Why Government?

2006-09-13T06:06:00.000-07:00

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

So said President Reagan.

Most of todays "conservatives" date themselves from the Reagan era of the 1980's. I regularly get e-mails from conservative groups, and that is a constant theme. They don't hearken back to Goldwater, or anything older. It's Ronald Reagan. In fact, on the national talk show hosted by Thom Hartman, he has a regular guest on Fridays in the person of Congressman Bernie Sanders, and this very issue came up. I believe that the reason todays cons date themselves the way they do rests on the emergence of the thinking of Leo Strauss. And Strauss wasn't about small government, or that "which governs least governs best." Strauss believed in elitist government and Machiavellian tactics and beliefs to accomplish it.

And on the basis of Reagan's words, I'd say that our 39th President didn't have a very good grasp on what the founding documents of this country had to say on the matter of government.

We live in a day and age when rights is a big words.Part of this goes back to the very beginning of this country, back to the heady days when the citizens who had been born on this continent were tired of being abused by the monarch of Britain. Many of these people had been born here, not in England. Out of that environment of abuse and the resultant longsuffering came the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, and the US Constitiution.

In the Declaration of Independence we see the very first mention of the word and what the founders of this country thought about them: "...that all men...are endowed...with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...."

According to these founders, these things are self-evident. More to the point, "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."

I could ramble on about how under Reaganesque conservatism, now called neo-conservatism, that despite their belicose rhetoric about smaller government, they always manage to make it bigger. I could produce numbers that they spend far more relative to the GDP than the Democrats do. Or I could go on about how the cons rule instead of govern. But that isn't the point. The point is that they miss the point of what it means to govern, what we Americans should and do expect from our government, and why we want one to begin with.

To secure these self-evident truths, we institute governments among ourselves. That's a fairly frank admission in the founders belief in the fellow man as well as themselves. We need government to make sure that our inalienable rights are kept intact. That also explains what the mission of public servants is: to work for the maintenance of the citizens' inalienable rights. In the context of the document form which this statement is taken, it is obvious now that the monarchy of Britain was not doing this, despite the belief of the founders that it is the purpose of governments to do so.

Jump foward eleven years. In between the Declaration and the Constitution, a war was fought to secure the beliefs laid out in the Declaration of Independence. And after eleven years and a long war, we read these words:

"We the People of the United States., in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

Building on the earlier belief that government was necessary to secure self-evident rights, it was now laid out in law what the government's function was to be in a Constitutional Republic. Notice that list: Domestic tranquility, general welfare, justice, and the blessings of liberty. Our government is supposed to insure domestic tranquilty, provide for the common defense, establish justice, and secure the liberty.

When it comes to domestic tranquility, think New Orleans. To insure means to guarantee against loss or harm. New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is a perfect example of failing to insure domestic tranquility, but a perfect example of what it could have meant to do so.

To establish means to bring into existence on a firm or stable basis. Our governmnent is supposed to establish justice, and there are sections of the Constitution devoted to that subject. Again we have an example of the current administration doing the opposite with the pressure for legislation to treat prisoners in ways that the Constitution prohibits. Amendments 5, 6, and 8 all have direct bearings on the current issues surrounding terrorism and the incident of 9.11. Is it possible that the attempts by the Right Wingers to discredit and destroy the judiciary are actually eroding justice?

Providing for the common defence is the one condition which the federal government is to provide. Note though that it says the common defence, not the common pre-emptive action. Also note: it says "We the people to...provide for a common defence...." It does not say, that "Those people will provide the common defense." Given the sate of todays military, I think it is time for reform that puts people of every economic class in uniform, with the goal in mind that we want to minimize the need for armed forces.

Promoting the general welfare. To promote means to help or encourage to exist or flourish. It doesn't say provide, but to help along. Preventing the monoplies from exisiting and dominating the market place, creating policies that encourage innovation and manufacturing. But welfare means basic well being, health, happiness, and prosperity, which means that the medical fields as well as the business market need to be regulated and monitored to protect the consumers from scams and greed. In essence, this means making sure that the majority of the population have the opportunities to be a well educated, fully employed, functional group. It also means that the rights of all citizens are protected on the basis that all mankind is equal, and have the same inalienable rights.

Perhaps it is the sum of these things that means securing the blessings of liberty. I see the major difference between being free and having liberty as this: Liberty is the absence of external control imposed by others. Freedom is the power to determine action, or choose. One can have liberty and not freedom, or freedom and not liberty. In the former you are still a slave, in the latter a rebel. And it is the governments job to secure the blessings of liberty to it's populace. I rather like that viewpoint.

None of these things are partisan. Any political party can either endorse these truths, or work against them. I believe there is a history that would indicate a trend since Reagan took office, but suffice it to say that what we Americans need to embrace as citizens, is that the underlying truth to our ability to function in the ideals set down for us is the reality of "We the people." Not we the Democrats, or Republicans, or Christians, or any other brand. That is what seperates us from making these things happen.

So it is our repsonsibility to see that the political arena centers around debate of the issues, and particularly debate around legislation. We need to press for a law that makes bills singular, with no added amendments for an entirely different issue. For example, no bundling the minimum wage onto an estate tax bill. Or bridges to nowhere on military budget bills. And no bill can be considered for action until every member has recorded that they have recevied it, and an added 72 hours after that. The bill must be on the web at THOMAS.gov for a week before a final vote. That's one step.

Another step is in the campaigns. Smearing or alluding qualifies as instant disqulification from the race. An opponents voting record can be mentioned, but only with the number of the bill that was voted on, and the Daily Roll register number as well. The glitch here is evident in the first step. If you voted against the estate tax reduction, you voted against the minimum wage, which then becomes a misleading statement by an opponent. So when those kinds of campaign statements are heard, remember to find out exactly what the bill contained. Campaigns are to be centered on issues, and a detailed analysis of why it is an issue, how you are going to fix that issue and at what cost to whom.

It is time that we actually begin to make the American experiment work. It is time to make "We the people" a functional reality. It is time to prove that Ronald Reagan's statement was wrong, because we are the government. It is time to secure our rights, our inalienable rights toLife, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is our time.

The Mysterious Case of Osama Bin Laden

2006-08-30T19:44:00.000-07:00

It seems another Bin Laden special is going to air on TV!

Wow!

And lest you think my last post on this subject was weird, read this from the Washington Post as to why 9.11 isn't on the web page for OBL:

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

No logic to it? So what does that say about needing to bring justice to the citizens of America for the crime perpetrated against it? What was our reason for invading Afghanistan, if not to catch Bin Laden, the so-called mastermind of the worst act of aggression on our soil since 1941? No logic, or no reality to the illusion that has been presented to the American public?

But it goes on, "It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."

I can agree with that, but it underscores my point that OBL has been made out to be Public Enemy #1, and yet legally nothing has been done which means that legally this administration has no real reason to justify utilizing resources in pursuit of this friend of the Bush family.

So then is terrorism really why we are in Iraq? And is it really the reason we are sabre rattling about Iran?

I don't think so.

2006-08-24T05:37:00.000-07:00

I see that CNN was running a special about Usama Bin Laden. I thought that was interesting.

I say that because I am sure that in the minds of most Americans, he is Public Enemy #1. I would have. After all, our government released the video of the man admitting to the horrorof 9.11. What else do we need?

Yet if you hop over to the FBI website, and look up the Most Wanted folks, you will of course find Mr. Bin Laden. And if you look closely under the reasons for which he is wanted, you will notice a glaring omission. Here it is in it's entirety:

"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

1998? That was when Clinton was President. Not one word of 9.11, unless you count that vague sentence on the end. Isn't that a bit weird? After all, we invaded Afghanistan on the basis of 9.11.

According to Ed Haas, a freelance writer, he called the FBI and they stated they didn't have enough hard evidence to indict UBL for the 9.11 crime. Which is why there is no indictment at the Department of Justice against Bin Laden.

So I googled around, searching for indictments against Bin Laden, which would be a public document. And lo and behold, all that came up was the efforts of President Clinton to arrest this man and try him for his crimes. Not one mention anywhere of an indictment for 9.11.

This actually offers an explanation for what occurred at Tora Bora in the Afghan war campaign. Tora Bora is in far eastern Afghanistan, just north of the Pakistan boder, where it seemed in early 2002 we had a chance to catch or kill Bin Laden. It seemed, and still does, rather incredulous that the most innovative, powerful, and technologically savvy power in the world can't catch one man.

Yet he "slipped away." In light of the above facts, I wonder if that slipping was facilitated. Much like the lame excuses that have been proven wrong in regards to Iraq, the one excuse for invading Afghanistan isn't even wanted for the very reason we went there to get him. Or so we were told.

Keep in mind that the only thing working grandly well in Afghanistan to this day, is the poppy crop every year which has blossomed almost 500% since we invaded. Poppy is something the pharmaceuticals would be interested in. Or someone wanting to finace under the radar arms deals and/or covert operations. Like the French did in Viet Nam, in imitation of the Viet Cong.

Oh, and the Taliban is still a presence in Afghanistan.

So does this fact that there is no indictment against Bin Laden explain President Bush's comments that he doesn't care where Bin Laden is, that he doesn't think about him? Remember that the Bin Ladens are friends of the Bushs, and Daddy Bush regularly has lunch with a Bin Laden, and a Bin Laden neice has recorded a CD here in America.

It would seem so. And despite the fact I didn't see the CNN special, I doubt it raised these points I have mentioned. On the basis of the right wing nuts they hire at CNN to bloviate, it seems fair to guess that it was just more right wing effort to paint an illusion about teorroism which the administration itself doesn't believe. In other words, they are trying to look like they are better at national Security than anyone else, just in time for the elections.

The proof however, says otherwise.

2006-04-09T11:34:00.000-07:00

It isn't to difficult these days to see that the GOP is in trouble in America. They have squandered their political capital. If they are true to form, they are in political red ink. Judging by the poll numbers, investigations, and indictments, it's seems like an easily provable fact.

So come November you'd think the Democrats are a shoe in, and my guess is they will be. The main stream conservative media continues to harp the point that Democrats have no plan, and I hear it on liberal radio as well. Even Kos, of the Daily Kos said so on the Colbert Report on cable TV.

The essential point is, is it any better to replace the people with the GOP tag with the same type of political people wearing the Democrat tag? Said that way, no it isn't. But I think there are some progressive Democrats in our Congress that read the thoughts of the American public quite well. And to a certain extent, it means they really don't need a plan initially.

Why? Because they'll have their hands full just undoing the oppressive legislation the Republicons have passed. Which to me is an important point. If they aren't going to bother to repeal the many bills that are a burden on the American people, and give aways to corporations, than they are the same ilk as the current Republicons. The PATRIOT Act should be flushed. It is completely useless. I know of no area that it covers that isn't already mentioned by another law somewhere else, and it contradicts the Bill of Rights. No Child Left Behind needs amending to remove Section 9526. Go read it if you don't know what it says. The bankruptcy bill needs to be dramatically rewritten if not trashed. Lobby and ethics reform. Tort reform needs to be abolished. The threats against the neutrality of the Net need to be stopped. Honest elections with a paper trial. And all those in favor of eliminating tax cuts for wealthy and corporations say AYE!

And if by miraculous chance they got all that done in short order, there is the situation in Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay to deal with. Then there is New Orleans. The restructuring of FEMA. In other words, there is plenty of damage control that needs to be attended to that the Republicans have not only allowed, they've created.

Then we can set about fixing our country, and I believe there are a lot of liberal ideas that are very good that will work. Not ones that will re-create the "good ol' days," because we can't do that. America is growing. We will be near a half a billion people by mid century. So we may need new economic models, and maybe even new political models. By golly, let's try by, of and for the people! Public financing of all campaigns so that every one is on a level playing field. Alter if not eliminate the two party system. Then the real work can begin.

Is is sounding like a plan yet?

Who champions these ideas? Gar Alperovitz is a good one. William Grieder is another. Greg Leroy. Richard Rorty. John Conyers, Jr. Dennis Kucinich. The late Paul Wellstone. Mark Miller. And these are just some of the one's I have read over the last year. I bet every one of you could produce your own list. And that sounds like more than one plan.

Furthermore, I think we would do well to re-acquaint ourselves with the founding documents, and the writings of the founders and their peers. The likes of Ben Franklin, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison.

From that foundation of our historical beginnings, I think we could effectively reach forward in our grand experiment, our plan, of creating a more perfect union.

Some thoughts on reforms - Version 2

2006-03-14T06:49:00.000-08:00

What got me thinking about this was the postings at Capitol Hill Blue. The discussion was based around the phrase, "Follow the money." Which in regards to the GOP corruption scandal involving Jack Abramoff, members of Congress and the Religious Reich, uh, I mean Right, is the easiest path to follow.

Yet it brings to mind some ideas. It was noted on the aforementioned site that Congressmen make $165K a year. That's not bad. Four times the median salary in American, with lots of perqs. I say we change that. First, no more perqs than the average person in America gets. You start out with a week vacation, the median salary in America, health insurance for yourself, and if you need it for the family, you can pay the discount price. No gifts from lobbyists. I think though that there ought to be some freedom for allowing Congressfolk to speak publicly and get paid for it. You know, they get flown somewhere, dined, speak, and get a couple hundred bucks before flying home.

No more voting your own pay raise. If the median, not average, wage in America goes up, so does yours. A cost of living increase, and bonus if poverty is dropped, percentages relative. In other words, drop poverty 5%, get a 5% pay raise.

And then there would need to be a rule for at least House members, and some for the Senate, that a certain mnumber of days not present be allowed. But no call no show rules otherwise, and if you need to get fired, then so be it. You were hired to be a Senator or Representative, and you will do the work or you will be fired and the second highest vote getter, first from the same party, and if none, then the opposing party, gets your seat, until there can be an election so the people can speak.

All laws brought to the floor of either house get posted publicly on the internet a week before a vote can be taken on it. So all the Congress and interested public are looking at the same laws. All lobbyist activities are posted on the net as well.

All campaign financing is public. No corporations can donate. If corporations break the rules, they are closed, the managers tried and convicted, and the assets sold off and given to the displaced workers. Also, any assets obtained by managers at the expense of the company are confiscated and sold. Their family can be provided a stipend from their assets to protect the spouse and children. Politicians face the same. They are tried and convicted, and they lose any assets that corruption has gained them.

Basically, of the people, by the people, and for the people.

I've heard some talk from Capital Hill Blue about a couple ideas I'm not sure of. One is term limits. I'm all for keeping that relative to the President. However, the legislature is another matter. At this point the metaphor I use is that of carpentry. After all, it is not unlike either building or remodeling a house. And what would you rather have working on your house, someone who will never have more than 8 years experience, or someone with more? Remember that to attract those interested in public service we suggested lowering Congressional pay to median levels. Mr. Thompson of CH Blue suggested the median pay of the Representative's home district. That would certainly have a rallying effect to improve many local economies! My fear is it would leave the seat empty.

Another idea I am not yet comfortable with is eliminating the electoral college. I would love to reference my pocket Constitution(yes, I carry one), but I gave it to the British woman working at the bank, who said she neeeded to learn it to become a citizen. For the $1.50 I paid for it, it's a minor investment with potentially large gains. Regardless, Amendment 12 says, "they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;."

The way I read that is that the Electoral College records the person voted for. It doesn't do it's own voting. They "name," or record, someone all ready voted for. That language is also aplied to all those who got Presidential votes, which further substantiates my point. For the language to stay consistent, the Electoral College is supposed to "vote" for the person the population has voted for. Ans as I recall, it has happened twice in our history that they didn't. Perhaps the last one was a huge corrupt gaffe, but two in 43 Presidents, 10 of which had two terms. That includes Nixon who served part of his second term, and our current President. That's a 4% error rate.

Now were it a device such as I use in the fire service that is designed to save my life, I would not accept 4%. However, America is a grand experiment that is on-going, as we have never achieved all that we can under our Constitution. So I think it is a bit hasty to throw out the electoral college based on a 4% error rate, if we want to call it that, and especially when it comes to human endeavors. Wouldn't it be nice if all our government ran at a 96% success rate?

The Right to Boast - Part 1

2006-03-11T21:58:00.000-08:00

"When it shall be said in any country in the world, 'My poor are happy, neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty, the streets free of beggars; the aged not in want, the taxes not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of happiness': then may that country boast of it's constitution and government."

Those are strong words. Those are the words of Tom Paine I believe, written during the Revolution. In fact, I believe they were in his tract called Common Sense, where he essentailly writes about the failings of what the British called their Constitution.

What I want to do is look at some of these quantifiers in real terms relative to the United States. There are several, including poverty, homelessness, education, crime, the elderly, and taxes.

First I want to point out two things first. One is the indicators that Paine used: the poor, and downtrodden. Notice that he doesn't mention a middle class working group, other than in the issue of oppressive taxes. He mentions the elderly, the poor, and the beggars. I think this is a significant statement. He does not say they don't exist, or that even under a good government they will not exist. What he does acknowledge is that they will be there.

Second, the condition of those people is reflective of a philosophy that the conservative Tories of the day, and the conservatives of today do not believe in. The liberal philosophy that has been consistent through the centuries is that of government being nurturative. A government that cares. Not that it eliminates the state of being poor. But look at the conditions of the poor: they are happy, not ignorant or in distress. The government is some regard has stepped up to provide for basic needs for these people. No needs to look no further than New Orleans to see how little care modern conservatism has for it's own citizens. Conservatives believe they are the disciplining over lord. Mankind is basically bad. Each individual needs to pull themselves up by their own bootstrap, no matter how difficult the government makes it. The liberal philosophy believes that we need to help each other, and that to a certain extent, the government, and the United Sates government in particular, should step in to meet some of those needs. It's a nurturative philosophy, that believes in the eseential goodness of man. The Preamble of the Declaration of Independaence and the Constitution make this fairly clear.

So on to the detail!

First, the poor. Ah, what a fertile field this is. Especially since the word has slight nuances to it these days. First, let's recognize the Census Bureau's report that acknowledges that poverty rose as a percentage as well as actual numbers of people. Most surprisingly, the increase came in the category of non-Hispanic whites. What I find really distubing is the threshold for poverty. A family of four has a threshold of slightly over $19,000. That means that between mom and dad, they make $9 an hour. There are plenty few jobs in America that are paying $9 an hour with benefits. So that means that for those living in poverty, they are getting health care and food subsidies. So lets look at what it costs to live the American dream.

The median house price, accordinding to the March 21, 2006 USA Today, was $213,000. That roughly requires a wage of $35 an hour to purchase. Not to mention a vehicle, insurances, food, savings, etc. The types of jobs developing in this country are not those that pay $35 an hour. They are the low wage retail kind, according to the Bureau of labor Statistics. The BLS also states that the median wage in America is $44,000. Even that won't buy a house unless two parties are working.

Add to this the reality that more and more people lose their health insurance every year, and poverty becomes a real issue. What we have come to call those that make between the poverty threshold and the level required to own a home in America is the working poor. That class of people that are one disaster away from ruin. One incident requiring care that their insurance doesn't cover, or that isn't covered because they aren't insured and they make too much money to meet the state standards for partially subsidized insurance. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, the number of individual foreclosures is up, and those behind on their house payments. These are the working poor. The middle class that is disappearing. The American dream that is turning into a nightmare because poverty is growing, not diminishing.

"My jails are empty." This isn't the America we all live in is it? According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a branch of the Department of Justice, as of year end 2004 there were "2,135,901 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons or in local jails...." That represents less than 1% of our population of 280,000,000+. Two million sounds like a large number. Less than 1% doesn't. And we all hear the horror stories of prison life. What the numbers reveal though is that this population is growing. Violent crimes is up, property and drug related down slightly. According to stopthedrugwar.com, the US has an estimated one fourth of the worlds prison population. Geohive.com has a list of populations country by country, and it lists the US at 295,000,000+, and the world population at 6,446,131,400. That makes the US population 4.57% of the world total, yet we have 25% of the world prisoners? What can this mean?

The first thought that jumps to mind is that our justice system is screwed up. How many of those incarcerated are there for dumb reasons? In other words, how many people are there for small items like petty theft and marijuana possesion? Or are we trying to say that the prison population is primarily serious criminals? And we all know the stories where the guy who kites a check gets 20 years while the murderer gets 8. And how many of those in jail are repeaters? Are we as a society rehabilitating, reintegrating these people back into the world? I suppose when the world they return to is the same slum, that there is a better chance that they will repeat. I think at that point I would have the same opinion: no one cares. And when these felons get out, they are in some states, unable to participate in the system. They can't vote. So legally we bar them from reintegrating to a large extent. But we can certainly take their taxes.

The upshot is, our jails are not empty. They are growing at about 3.4%, according to the Justice Department. So there is work to be done here.

Here ends Part I

Holographic Conservatives

2006-03-09T13:19:00.000-08:00

The Holographic Conservatives

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 08, 2006

"Meeting our goal has messianic dimensions. It will certainly mean some kind of new world order," he said. "I believe when that time comes, the power of peace will be greater than the power of war, the power of love will be greater than the power of hate, and fullness will be greater than poverty and hunger."

That sounds pretty good doesn't it? A bit utopian perhaps, but no less so than liberal utopia. The irony of it is that this was the comment of Faith Central Pastor Kenneth Ulmer, who leads an Inglewood congregation of 10,000. A Christian mega-church pastor. One of those mega-churches that rely on the taxpayers of their area to make them millionaires tax free.

Okay, the irony is more than that. The irony is that these comments flow from a group bent of evangelizing the world, yet it seems to me that today's current crop of evangelicals are anything but concerned about hunger, or the poor, or hatred.

According to the Census Bureau, poverty has gone up again not just in terms of a percentage of the population, but in the real numbers of people. Simply put, they are the working poor because according to the administration, the unemployment rate is historically low. And then lets look at the current budget and proposals.

So let's look at the cuts in the budget. I'm sure most of you have heard this by now. Medicare, which assists the elderly, was chopped by 36 billion or so. Medicaid, which assists the low-income and children primarily, was axed by 13 billion. These two programs assist mostly the poor. I am aware that groups like The Interfaith Alliance, and Sojourners, and affiliated churches, speak out against these types of budget cuts.These groups however, are the same groups that fundamentalists barely acknowledge as being Christian. They dress up like they are, but the whole fundamentalist argument is centered on whether or not you have a born again experience. Simple baptism isn't enough. Growing up in the church isn't enough. If some of you would like, I can play that role. I still own my four translation Bible, and I know the Scriptures, and could well state my case. So what happens then? The fundamentalists, who happen to be quite close to the Bush administration, say nothing about these types of budget cuts that expose the weak and vulnerable of our society while the rich get futher tax breaks(70 billion is on the table) and the military gets a huge 5% budget increase.

According to the Cesus Bureau, poverty went up last year. It was a rather significant rise apparently. Along with those numbers, since Bush took office, over 6 million people have lost their health care coverage. That's roughly the population of about 24 of our United States. So I would ask Mr. Ulmer, how does the budget actions of the current administration demostrate Christian values? If fullness is supposed to be better than poverty and hunger, why are you not fighting for that fullness now?

Jerry Falwell stated back in 2004, on CNN that "And I'm for the president to chase them all over the world. If it takes 10 years, blow them all away in the name of the Lord." I have not heard that Jerry Falwell apologized for that comment. Mr. Falwell even wrote an article titled "God is Pro-war." In which he stated Exodus 15 hails(praise, applaud, glorify) God as a God of war: "… The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name." Essentially the article is about justifying supporting Bush invading Iraq, and that Christians can support war.

These are some of the contradictions that I have yet to get good answers on. How can God be the Prince of Peace and a God of war? How is conducting war in His name a sign of the Love He supposedly is? What I see is either a part-time vocation in love and peace, or very limited and conditional love.

The same goes for the comments about love trumping hate, but you can look up Liberty Council's web site and read the defense for not supporting hate crime bills yourself. It all boils down to this question: If these are Christianity's supposed goals, why aren't the fundamentalists willing to work towards these now, instead of supporting an administration that does the opposite, and supporting leaders of your own religion who make statements like the ones I have quoted?

And so my title. I see a lot of confessed light, a "pretty little picture", but no substance. That is not to say that many Christians of the conservative side of the aisle didn't help out in New Orleans. I'm sure they did. They also do things like Toys for Tots during the HOLIDAYS. (Hehehe!) So why do they allow these misrepresentations of their beliefs continue to hog the microphone and misrepresent them? I can only conclude that for the most part, they DO represent them. And after talking to many of them, and continuing the debate with my own family members, I realize that I am close to correct.

Which is why I no longer believe the holographic light.

It isn't real.

Is This The One?

2006-03-09T06:51:00.000-08:00

Is this the one?

THURSDAY, MARCH 02, 2006

Supposedly World War 1 was the war to end all wars. Then World War 2 was. Essentially, we've been at war ever since. According to the folk at the University of Michigan, who publish a Peace and Conflict report, there are 18 countries in the world with armed conflict going on. They say that's a low number compared to past decades. And I can certainly be glad to hear that, but the tone of them is the conflict in Sudan, which is wreaking death in mind staggering numbers, and the other is the war in Iraq which seems to be accomplishing little other than guaranteeing future terrorism, and that on our soil.

But, none of those compares to THE ONE war of importance. The one you probably didn't know about, you guessed didn't you?

Thats's right, it's the newly morphed version of the war on Christmas. Mind you, according to the Liberty Counsel web site, the war on Christmas is still on!

But I have been invited to attend the "War on Christians and Values Voter Conference." How ironic.

Here is the introduction: "A war on Christians rages across the America. By attacking Christians, the left intends to destroy the remnants of Judeo-Christian morality."

Now if any of you actually read my posts, I sound fairly anti-Christian. I'm not afraid to say that I think their essentially philosophy of hierarchy, patriarchy, and dualism are dangereous to human beings. Not at all. I'll also throw out the welcome mat. This is America, where the expression of religion, I believe the founders intended an understanding of private expression, is not to be infringed upon. So worship whom you please. I in turn though, have that same right. Which is where the rub comes.

Apparently the evil liberals, and believe me, they are definitely presented that way in many fundamentalist churches, want to destroy Judeo-Christian morality. Hmm. Really.

Now I consider myself a progressive liberal. And for some odd reason I must have misplaced that memo that had our agenda on it. And I distictly remember it said that destroying the Religious Reich's morality(Ha!) was on the agenda just after morning break running up to lunch.

I think you get the picture. Now despite my caustic use of labels, used primarily to generate a response(from which I have gotten none, leading me to believe that Christianity around here is unresponsive, which in emergency medical situations means a very sick patient), I stand by my earlier statement of welcome.

But when I see things like this Conference, I realize that my very liberties are not being taken into consideration. For example, as my invite informs me, "Blasphemous 'Da Vinci Code' movie comes out in May."

Wowzers! How's that for a broadsides! A movie based on a fictional book. I read Da Vinci Code. I thought it was good. It might even be right. But does that change our Constitution? Apparently in the eyes of the Conference promoters it does.

Also, "A Navy chaplain is told he can't publicly pray in Jesus' name," and "Removal of Ten Commandments monuments." Now I partly understand where some of this is coming from, and I could get lengthy on this. But America is not the all-white Christian nation that exists in the fantasies of fundamentalists. It never was, according to the Barbary Treaty of 1797, nor intended to be according to the First Amendment of the Constitution, and never will be considering the "melting pot" of religions that America is becoming. According to a report by Cathy Lynn Grossman from 2001, "There may be more than 6 million Muslims in America today, researchers calculate, based on 2 million people who are formally affiliated with mosques, up from 500,000. They attribute the growth primarily to immigration."

But the most newsworthy finding is the determination of Muslims to make mosques "the platform for full participation in American life," says Ihsan Bagby, co-chairman of the research committee. "The Muslim community is maturing and coming into its own."

So we enter then that zone where we either eliminate prayers, or include all the divinities. Allah, Jesus, Great Spirit, Wakan Tonka, Jehovah, and the list goes on and on to represent all the difference in the indigenous tribes of North America alone, and I think you see how much work would get done after the prayers. As for the removal of the Ten Commandments, I have to ask why it is the Christians are so buggered by that. I would have thought they would be more interested in seeing the Beatitudes posted. But this amounts to the same argument, in that we recognize that the Judeo-Christian code, which is NOT the foundation for our law sysytem, is not the only code to form morality. And as I have pointed out in previous posts, it seems quite lacking and hypocritical these days. I think perhaps the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism would be more appropriate.

Finally, I was warned of this: A federal judge bans "One Nation Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance recited by school children.

Can you imagine? The nerve of actually reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in it's original form? Never mind the fact that most elementary school kids have no idea what a pledge means, or a Republic, or what the symbolism of our flag stands for. So what are we creating here? These kids want to play, and the Pledge is then not a reminder of how great our country is, nor an inspiration. It's mindless, boring, dull. They want to play with the toys and eat the glue.

But did you catch the omission? Not mentioning the fact that the phrase "Under God" was added to the Pledge many decades after the fact? So despite all their rhetoric about liberals painting the picture skewed to the left, here's a great example of the supposed truth bearers doing the same.

Some of the attendees of this Conference "such nationally acclaimed speakers as Senator Sam Brownback, Senator John Cornyn, Congressman Tom DeLay, Gary Bauer, Alan Keyes, Phyllis Schlafly, Janet Parshall, Janet Folger, William Greene, Ron Luce and Rod Parsley."

And these are the discussions:

# Christian Persecution: Reports from the Frontlines

# The Gay Agenda: America Won't Be Happy

# The ACLU and Radical Secularism: Driving God From The Public Square

# Hollywood: Christians Through A Distorted Lens

# The Judiciary: Overruling God

# The Media: Megaphone for Anti-Faith Values

# Jews Confront The War on Christians and the Values Voter in 2006

# Taking Our Faith To The Ballot Box

Yup. This could be the one. The war to end all wars. The war that denies the truth that all mankind are created equal. That all mankind has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Seems like old territory, doesn't it?

We Are All Scouts

2006-03-09T06:49:00.000-08:00

We Are All Scouts

TUESDAY, MARCH 07, 2006

Be Prepared!

That's the Boy Scout motto. I also remember what a Chicago area high school coach used to tell his usually successful team back when they ruled our football division: Prior Proper Planning prevents Piss Poor Performance. Seems they had it on a poster on the way out their locker room to the home field, and like Notre Dame players, all these Catholic boys would lay a hand on it on their way out for a game or practice.

Let's look at Tom Paine's version: "Every generation is and must be competent to all the purposes which it's occasions require."

He wrote these words in 1791, in an essay called The Rights of Man.

There is a reason why we need to consider these words. Our rights are being assailed as we sit here. I posted last week about the move by some corporations to create a "toll" system on the internet. That hasn't changed. "Bush recently directed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to use 'whatever means at your disposal' to wiretap, follow, harass and investigate journalists who have published stories about the administration's illegal use of warrantless wiretaps, use of faulty intelligence and anything else he deems 'detrimental to the war on terror.'"

Welcome to freedom of the press under the Bush administration. Never mind the legality of the administration's eavesdropping, go after those that report it. Intimidate the press, which is already muzzled by profit seeking monopolies anyway. Now you know why KBR, the Halliburton subsidary, was contracted to build new dtetention centers for "immigrants" and other "threats to national security."

And as you may recall, a detainee can be whisked away without anyone being told, without charges being made, to an unspecified location for an unspecified length of time, without legal representation, as this administration has already done to at least one American citizen, as well as many others.

As most of you know, there are horror stories that continue to come out of Ohio about voting irregularities. Florida had them as well in the 2000 election. We probably all remember that during the Iraqi election, the US government established satellite stations all over the US for Iraqi voters. Care to guess what voting benefit the displaced Katrina victims get? They will have mailed to them, if they ask for it, an information packet that explains how they can get an absentee ballot. Not the ballot itself, which is another snail-mail wait.

It is getting easier to believe the words that democracy is under attack.

Those are the rights you "have" in America if you disagree with this President. Has there ever been a generation more in need of being competent to it's purposes required?

Every generation. That means that we, and by that I mean us 50 somethings, are our own generation. My parents are gone, but many of your are not. That is another generation. And then there is our kids. The third generation perhaps, still living on this planet. All three need to do their duty. For our parents perhpas that responsibility is diminishing. But we still have, in my view, two things to do. One is be prepared ourselves, and then tell our kids to be prepared themselves. In this case we need to do what Ghandi admonished: be the change you want to see.

"Every generation is...." Despite the "must be" that follows, it is interesting to note that Paine said that every generation is competent. Is this a statement of blind faith? I don't think so. Paine wasn't given to such carelessness. I think it is a reflection of the simplicity of our system as well as what the Founders trusted in their fellow human beings. Our system boils down to "we the people." As Lincoln said, "...by the people, for the people, of the people...." In other words, WE are the government. WE does not mean professional politicians. There are basic requirements and understandings that are needed. Hence the need for a basic education. But back when the Constitution was written, advanced degreed politicians were not the norm. Havinf an understanding of the Constitution is paramount, and through that understanding, how our government is supposed to work. Besides that, we need to know what civil service is, and have a heart for it. The reason Mr. Paine wanted frequent elections was to return office holders to the neighborhood. That kept things real "of the people." It goes a long way to eliminate special interests.

So we have this competence. We also need to be making sure that we retain it. Our common reference for this is, "Use it or lose." Are we prepared to run this country? To defend it from within? Are we an informed electorate? Let's jump back a paragraph. Have we a readable copy of the Constitution handy that we read and know? The American Bar Association and Oak Hill Publishing have great pocket copies available. We should also be familiar with the Declaration of Independence. Note in the list of greivance about King George that there are commercial as well as political reasons that they "Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do." So beside poetry at the Friday night neighborhood gathering in the coffe hose, wouldn't the Constitution make wonderful topic?

We must be competent to all the purposes....Paine thought we were already competent to some extent. Yet our world is different. But the basics remain the same despite the reams of minutia that encumber our system. Paine isn't calling us to know all the minutia. He's calling us to purposes.

So what might those be? For starters, lets read what the founding documents say. In the Declaration of Independence we read,

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So how easy is it for gays in our country to pursue happiness? How goes it for women now that South Dakota has passed a law designed to ultimately overthrow Roe. V. Wade? There is almost a dozen ststes with similar laws waiting in the wings. And consider that Missouri want's to make Christianity the official state religion. Apparently they haven't read the Constitution in Missouri. I say that because the ever popular Pat Robertson told George Stephanopolous on George's morning show that Hindu's and Muslims were unqualified to sit on judicial benches in America. Pat was cornered on his statements in his recent book, which he denied making. It doesn't matter if the Muslim or Hindu man was a citizen, had his degree, had passed the bar, and was a qualified individual intellectually and legally. because of his religion, he was not qualified. According to Robertson, only Christians should hold those positions.

So equality is one purpose, and in that framework, the legislation of the land should be framed as such it makes sure that everyone has equal treatment and opportunity. Currently, America is moving backward in that regard.

Our Constitution says,

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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."

Here we have specific purposes. Justice is one. We all know the history of civil rights in this country, which is sadly still an issue. Domestic tranquility is another. This takes on braod applications. The domestic economy for one. National security for another. The above mentioned civil rights for another. Freedom of the press, religion, to gather, and the Bill of Rights that we have which enumerates many more purposes.

Let's not forget that we have the purpose of common defence. Not common domination, or imperialism, but of common defense. For example, I don't consider the 11 tunnels that have been dug under our borders since Bush took office a very functional common defence. I don't consider the locally built X-Craft of the Navy as being for the common defense. It is a craft designed to off-load an amphibious assualt team with minimal detection. So why would we need to land soldiers on our own soil? It's an offensive weapon, not defensive. And having at least 6 different carrier "strike" groups as they are called, each consisting of no leass than at least one carrier, four destroyers, and 2 cruisers hardly constitutes common defense. Now let's bring in the submarines that are armed with nuclear missles of the ICBM class. Hundreds of billions of dollars are required every year to maintain this military. It is well beyond providing for the common defense.

And then there is the purpose of securing liberty. Let's glance briefly at the subject of legislation, and in particular that of the Medicare bill that has now taken effect which provides seniors with their much needed medicines. This tparticular oiece of legislation is an example of abused liberty. The bill itself was left open well beyond the legally prescribed time limit so it's passage could be squeaked theough. It's true cost was deliberately hidden from Congress, as the lead actuary later testified. The result has been a travesty. Pharmaceuticals have no controls. Seniors are forced to make a choice they are locked into for a designated time period. They have been given a dizzying array of choices, from private insurance companies, and the result has been chaos to the point that several states have declared the need for emergency funding for the very medications this plan was designed to cover. And the controls? many predicted that the savings of this plan, touted as 10 to 25%, would be eaten up by the pharmas after they raised the prices. Which of course they did last month. And they could every hour on the hour if they so wish because the plan has no restrictions on price controls for medications. The government can't barter for prices, so the seniors eat the cost themselves. Now I ask you: How much liberty is that? Which body of our government was looking out for the liberty of it's citizens when they ramrodded this legislation through? Do you know how your representative voted for this legislation?

These are some of the purposes, and today we have occasions galore in which we need to fight for our rights. We have not achieved what America can be. We aren't even close in may regards. I would even say that we are no longer the finest economic opportunity available. That dream is fading fast in this country. It may be a sad thing that the very government we have, or more precisely, the very administration we have, is who we need to battle to attain those purposes to which we are called. But those purposes were such that men devoted their lives, their fortunes, and their honors to. Many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence lost everything: family and fortune. They did that so we could be where we are today. And in my opinion, we are letting that dream slip away.

We are competent, qualified, capable. That is what, by, of, and for the people means. We may need a little "exercising" to get in shape; so be it. We have many objectives towards which we can work, and those just to make sure that the very words that founded this country are true for everyone. It doesn't require that we be masters of every issue. Pick one or two. Learn them. Learn how they fit within the framework of this country's founding documents. Then be the best advocate for them you can be. That will go a long way toward being able to every occasion required by our times.

The Irony of Brazen Hypocrisy

2006-02-21T17:14:00.000-08:00

I noticed that Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, has told the Iraqis "that the United States won't support a new Iraqi government that serves sectarian interests and told Iran that Washington won't tolerate Persian meddling, either."

What do you suppose that means? The administration that Khalilzad works for caters to sectarian interests so narrow it almost defies description. Yet the term fascism does a pretty good job. On the other hand, is this a veiled threat of withdrawal? That would be the kind of political fodder that this administration needs. THEY ended the war. In these times when it seems that almost everyone reacts to the admionistrations actions, indictments, and guilty pleas, they are going to need some positive spin come November. And already they are starting the commercials featuring troops or their parents as a run-up to November. That will be their card up the sleeve. Who can speak against that? Well, actually there are plenty of ways, but we can discuss that later.

Yet in light of the fact that some rather permanent looking bases are being built in Iraq, that seems like a weird threat. Remember, Khalilzad is a signatory of the Project For A New American Century. It is their report from the year 1997 that stated that the US needed permanent military bases in the Middle East, and Iraq was the best choice. So politically Khalilzad has shown that he believes the US has reason to stay. Or this just becomes a scare tactic(what, the GOP use scare tactics?!) to make the Iraqi government a sectarian interest of the American government.

And it seems that the US doesn't like meddlers in democratic governments. UNLESS....Ah, conditional love. Where is the love brother? In Palestine there was a recent democratic election. And Bolivia, and Venezuela not too long ago. Yet to the Palestinians we see that the US thinks that we can cut off funding, and starve out Hamas. They can just cozy up with Isreal and make some economic difficulties so a new election is called for. I would think most folk consider that meddling. It certainly isn't acceptance.

Hidden in Khalilzads threats though are certain admissions. It admits that the Iraqi govenrment is quite sectarian, and the major sect is Shiite, which is the same group that is the majority interest in Iran. Had we not invaded, this would not be a problem. Now it is. It also admits that the US is readying itself for action against Iran. That may be a smoke screen for an act by Isreal, but none-the-less, it's still sabre rattling.

Khalilzad also said the US is "investing billions of dollars to rebuild the country but added that 'we are not going to invest the resources of the American people to build forces run by people who are sectarian.'" Hmmm. I noticed that the new budget had ZERO dollars for rebuilding. I guess that means Iraq is finished. Pun not intended. What we see though is that things like unemployment, water, sewage, electricity, the basic infrastructures of Iraq, are running at worse levels than when we invaded. And security is non-existant. So unless they continue to pour billions into Iraq to finish rebuilding(let's get some accounting for all that money though), Iraq is indeed finished.

What is brand spanking new is a reason for continued terrorism. Here we have ruined a country. That will at least turn the eyes of the average Iraqi citizen to look disfavoably on the US. And the next generation or two. And then we meddle in the Palastinian elections. That is sure to stir foment. Plenty of good reasons to strike back at the US and meddle in our democracy, maybe evcen create some economic difficulties, and perhaps even starve out the religiously intolerant ideologues.

And on the heels of that, the Bush administration allows the United Arab Emirates to run 6 major US ports. The same UAE that officially recognized the Taliban government of Afghanistan. The same UAE that the 9.11 terrorists used for their banking business. The same UAE that was used to illegally smuggle Pakistani nuclear technology to points beyond. How the UAE pulled off this coup was to buy the company that was doing it already. So we already were outsourcing major entry locations to foreigners! So what if this is really just a cleverly disguised Trojan Horse? Or does the UAE really just want the money the US will invest to build a space port there? (That's a high priority item, eh?)

And yet they do all this with straight faces because they trust that their spin machine is doing it's job, that you or I won't bother to call our Congress people, won't bother to inform ourselves, and won't bother to vote in such staggering numbers that even some fixed machines would make a difference. Which is another matter altogether.

They are trusting that we won't start another Revolution. That was what the conservatives hoped for back in the mid 1700s. It is what they have been working on for the last 30 years, and in some regards, since the first Revolution.

But even now cracks are appearing in the dikes. So keep up the pressure America! Know your founding documents. Buy yourself a pocket sized version, and READ it. People long ago pledged their honor, fortunes, and lives on the principles contained therein.

Can we do any less now?

More of seeing patterns

2006-02-07T05:24:00.000-08:00

I am curious if I am the only one seeing this. Okay, not really, because I heard Mike Malloy rant about this as well. Two things actually, but consider them as connected for an even more frightening scenario.

First, what is with KBR winning bids to build detention centers in the US? Supposedly in the event of a natural disaster(detention center?), or undefined national emergency(again the ?), or a sudden influx of immigrants. FROM WHERE?! You know, if the illegal spying was producing anything other than the gross violation of our civil rights, I might be able to understand this. But consider the comment right wing hack job Tony Snow made yesterday on his radio show: he was commenting about the Republicans wanting to find out who leaked the illegal spying. Never mind it's illegal, they want the patriot that leaked the illegal activity. Snow's comment was that we need to make the US safe from reporters. Now can you guess what article in the Bill of Rights that would violate? Those are the true colors of today's conservatism shining through.

And on a different note, yesterday Alberto Gonzalez, the author of American torture, appeared before the Senate to answer questions about the illegal spying. And the Republican controlled committee that called him decided he didn't need to be under oath. So Senator Ross Feingold called for the roster to see just who thought it was okay to not put Gonzalez under oath. This same Republican controlled Senate decided that the oil executives called before the Senate to find out why Americans were paying over $3 a gallon in gas while those gas companies posted quaterly profits of $8 biilion didn't need to be under oath. Nor was it necessary for president Bush, who first resisted the 9.11 Commission, then not(flip flop?), and finally agreed to appear for one hour as long as Cheney was with him to be under oath. Why don't the Republicans demand any one tell the truth? None of these can be chardged with perjury if it turns out they were lying. Now compare that to the many appearances of folk like Janet Reno who appeared before the Senate for hearings during the Clinton administration. Those same Republicans made sure they were under oath.

Is this an administration that can be trusted any more? Is this not enough evidence of rampant lying, corruption, and disregard for not just the truth, but the law as well?

Gonzo Word!

The Demise of Sports

Blundering Idiots?

Right is Wrong, and The Left Sold Out.

Informed in the Age of Information

The Liars Keep Lying

More Republican Stupidity

"I don't know."

Sayonara! Adios! Ciao! Bye Bye!

Eight Reasons Why

Republicans like 2x4s

More Of The same!

Where Is Our Country Headed?

More right wing-nut absurdity

Got Him By The Balls.

To Be Angry Or Not To Be

Another Conservative Trifecta

Full of Crap on Iran

Lets Change The Debate!

Free market - Part 3

This Market Isn't Free Redux

This Market Isn't Free

Righties Running From Debate?!

Republican Confusion

Pixilated Math and Values

Hiding Their Light

Do They Ever Learn?

A True Lack of Integrity

Sicko is right!

ANOTHER "Crusade"

Low Brow Ignorance in the White House

More Needed Reading

The End of Faith

Crank it Up!

The Right Has Forgotten

Judas Moment Redux

The Judas Moment?

The Beauty of Free Speech and a Free Internet

Resisting Theocracy

9mm Justice?

In Response to Tom

How The "Mighty" Have Fallen

Consider Theocracy

The Double Standard

How to Be An American

Big Eyes and Small Camels!

More Bullpuckey From The Right

The New Slogan

The Next Book You Read....

The Crappie Floppin' Ryties Get It Wrong Again.

Take 5

The Same Ol' Song

The Same Ol' Chorus...

Revisiting an old Project

Flip Flopping Masters!

The War Drums Beat Louder

I Say, Off With Their Heads!

The Up Escalator

There Is No War in Iraq!

Explanation Please....

Bush Feeds the Wrong Dog

Conservative Radio Against Fairness!

Trumping up more War

Protect the Rule of Law: Give me a Raise!

And they told us it was the libs...

The Conservative Mind

The Errant Religious Right

Constitutional basis of sworn oaths to office.

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." --Thomas Jefferson to Jeremiah Moor, 1800.

Is our work done?

I had to laugh

Toxic Faith doesn't save you.

Why Government?

The Mysterious Case of Osama Bin Laden

Some thoughts on reforms - Version 2

The Right to Boast - Part 1

Holographic Conservatives

Is This The One?

We Are All Scouts

The Irony of Brazen Hypocrisy