I am off to North Carolina this week-end to attend the wedding of the last male in the Ranney family. Some folks are hoping they will soon have children to carry on the line and other are hopeful that it will end!!
Upon my return, I am up for jury duty, so in the immediate future, my blogging is likely to be spotty.
In the meantime, I just wanted to take a minute today to thank those of you who take the time to read the thoughts I share here. Each of you is valuable to me, not only because you read what I have to say, but also because it helps me to know you are there. Whether or not you agree with what I have to say, I deeply value your feedback, and deeply hope that you find value in the facts and opinions you find here.
I’m sure the fondest wish of every one of us is that whatever the political landscape holds for us in 2008, it will be the start of an era of cooperative effort to make this world a better place.
As usual, though, we would be wise to start on a smaller scale so please accept my best wishes that each of you will have the best year of your life. May your ambitions be achieved and may you find yourself in front of a warm fire on the cold days and a cool stream on the hot ones. May the wind be always at your back and the rain fall soft upon your fields. And may we all, one day, awaken to a world in which every person is as concerned about his neighbor’s well-being as about his own.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday, December 28, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Why Don’t We Rise Up?
I received a very welcome email yesterday from a reader. He wanted to express his appreciation for the even view expressed in this blog and to comment on a few of a similar vein that he found too personally biased. I appreciate his comments very much, though I often think that I put a bit too much of myself into my comments, too. It’s hard to avoid, and some days it’s entirely irresistible.
He also raised a question that I have asked myself many times and put forth in these blogs a few times as well. That being, why don’t we rise up? Why, given that those of us who write in this vein and those of us who read and believe what’s written understand what a mess this country is in, aren’t people in the streets like the citizens of France marching on the Bastille?
Another reader posed the same question in a similar message last week. I answered her in one word – Soma – and I really believe that’s it. Like the run-of-the-mill citizen in Orwell’s “1984”, we are all pretty much contented with our lot in life. I can stretch out in comfort in a nice warm living room any time I want to. If I want to take a cool drink and a salty snack to the couch with me, I only have to go a few steps out of the way to raid the well stocked refrigerator and cabinets, and, should I run short of something, it’s a short run to the nearest grocery store to stock up.
Given that this is true for most of us, it is asking a great deal to expect folks to leave the comfort of their couches to protest what they see as the coming doom.
It’s the same with the war. Over 70% of Americans now understand that invading Iraq was wrong. Many if not most of them also realize that BushCo did their best to mislead us into this war. But they aren’t out on the streets demanding impeachment – as my friends in the Peace Network of the Ozarks have been – because the politicians understand that as long as they keep the realities of the war at arms length, people won’t get PERSONALLY upset.
That’s why I have argued against “embedding” reporters. That’s why I have long been an advocate of reinstating the draft. (Not just military draft, BTW, but national service of whatever kind the draftee selects from a wide ranging menu.)
If investigative reporters were free to roam the war zones like they were in WWII, the American people would have a much clearer view of the state of things in Iraq than they are given through the biased windows offered by reporters attached to a military unit and unable to go anywhere that unit does not go.
If we had a draft every family in America would be on edge about what was happening to their children. Leaders would be held much more ethically accountable than they are for what happens to enlistees – many of whom come from circumstances the middle class doesn’t even know exist in this country.
Additionally, if we had a draft, military personnel would be less likely to revel in the possibility of going to war. It takes a certain type of person to want to sign up when war is at the other end of the pen. Draftees into WWII, Korea and even Vietnam were willing to fight in the belief that their country needed them. Enlistees in pre-emptive wars are likely to be less discerning and more compliant than informed draftees, so they provide another check on our overly ambitious administrations.
The real arbiter, though, is the bulk of the American citizenry. An informed, active citizenry is a danger to any autocratic regime. That’s why they keep us full of the soma of short, shallow news, long in-depth infotainment, and constant mindless entertainment. That keeps us off the streets.
It won’t work, though, if things get too much tougher. The middle class is collapsing under the greed of the ruling 1 percent. The lower class and even the lower middle class are starving while working two jobs. If that trend continues, the riff-raff – that’s us!! – will one day take to the streets with their rakes, hoes, and scythes – oh, wait that was 200 years ago – with arms off our LaZ Boys, computer keyboards and the AK-47 everyone has in the back room – and drive the money changers out of the temple.
Again.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
He also raised a question that I have asked myself many times and put forth in these blogs a few times as well. That being, why don’t we rise up? Why, given that those of us who write in this vein and those of us who read and believe what’s written understand what a mess this country is in, aren’t people in the streets like the citizens of France marching on the Bastille?
Another reader posed the same question in a similar message last week. I answered her in one word – Soma – and I really believe that’s it. Like the run-of-the-mill citizen in Orwell’s “1984”, we are all pretty much contented with our lot in life. I can stretch out in comfort in a nice warm living room any time I want to. If I want to take a cool drink and a salty snack to the couch with me, I only have to go a few steps out of the way to raid the well stocked refrigerator and cabinets, and, should I run short of something, it’s a short run to the nearest grocery store to stock up.
Given that this is true for most of us, it is asking a great deal to expect folks to leave the comfort of their couches to protest what they see as the coming doom.
It’s the same with the war. Over 70% of Americans now understand that invading Iraq was wrong. Many if not most of them also realize that BushCo did their best to mislead us into this war. But they aren’t out on the streets demanding impeachment – as my friends in the Peace Network of the Ozarks have been – because the politicians understand that as long as they keep the realities of the war at arms length, people won’t get PERSONALLY upset.
That’s why I have argued against “embedding” reporters. That’s why I have long been an advocate of reinstating the draft. (Not just military draft, BTW, but national service of whatever kind the draftee selects from a wide ranging menu.)
If investigative reporters were free to roam the war zones like they were in WWII, the American people would have a much clearer view of the state of things in Iraq than they are given through the biased windows offered by reporters attached to a military unit and unable to go anywhere that unit does not go.
If we had a draft every family in America would be on edge about what was happening to their children. Leaders would be held much more ethically accountable than they are for what happens to enlistees – many of whom come from circumstances the middle class doesn’t even know exist in this country.
Additionally, if we had a draft, military personnel would be less likely to revel in the possibility of going to war. It takes a certain type of person to want to sign up when war is at the other end of the pen. Draftees into WWII, Korea and even Vietnam were willing to fight in the belief that their country needed them. Enlistees in pre-emptive wars are likely to be less discerning and more compliant than informed draftees, so they provide another check on our overly ambitious administrations.
The real arbiter, though, is the bulk of the American citizenry. An informed, active citizenry is a danger to any autocratic regime. That’s why they keep us full of the soma of short, shallow news, long in-depth infotainment, and constant mindless entertainment. That keeps us off the streets.
It won’t work, though, if things get too much tougher. The middle class is collapsing under the greed of the ruling 1 percent. The lower class and even the lower middle class are starving while working two jobs. If that trend continues, the riff-raff – that’s us!! – will one day take to the streets with their rakes, hoes, and scythes – oh, wait that was 200 years ago – with arms off our LaZ Boys, computer keyboards and the AK-47 everyone has in the back room – and drive the money changers out of the temple.
Again.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
A Present for George and dick
I hope regular readers will forgive my silence of the past few days.
I kept telling myself that it being the Christmas holidays everybody had too much going on to be interested in surfing anyway, and that I was too busy with it all to get the job done, too. It’s a lie, though. Fact is that the past week or so has just seemed interminably flat to me.
The campaigns rattle on . . . Repulsicans can’t settle on a candidate because nobody likes anyone in the field, Demorats can’t settle on a candidate because they like them all, and I can’t settle on a candidate because nobody in the field takes a strong stand on anything.
I don’t think the Iraq war is any less a problem than it was before the surge, but all the candidates have concluded that because we’re told that the surge has calmed things down the war is no longer a hot issue. By the way, the BBC was quite busy over the holiday week-end with on-the-ground reports from Iraq explaining that the situation really hasn’t changed all that much. Yes, the areas where surge troops are operating have quieted down, but the rest of the country is still no man’s land. Yes, Iraqis were able to come out of their homes and visit secure areas, but there are still no jobs for them, no money in hand, and not much in the way of goods in the shops anyway.
The other big issue for me is the treachery of the present administration, and I have a hard time understanding why some brave Democratic candidate couldn’t gain some ground by standing up and declaring that s/he would begin the new presidency by authorizing in-depth investigations into unconstitutional behaviors of the Bush administration and setting right some of the legislative wrongs of the last eight years.
Barack Obama has alluded to that, but has not, to my limited knowledge, taken a hard stance and outlined an approach to the situation. There is no mention of it on his website or that of any other mainline Democratic candidate.
Of course, they can’t afford to sound like they are going to come into office with no finer thought in their head than to lop off George Bush’s, but I for one am sick to death of their coming off like a bunch of sheep lacking the courage to face up to the school yard bully.
They could at least, like Dennis Kucinich, display enough integrity to clearly state their revulsion at the actions of the present administration by endorsing attempts to impeach the SOBs.
Speaking of which – since you can’t expect your leaders to have the guts to do it – how about joining in the impeachment effort yourself? If you haven’t already been pushing for impeachment, here’s a way to do it. Just go to www.WexlerWantsHearings.com and sign on to that petition. Over 100,000 people have done so thus far, and Wexler wants to boost that to 250,000 by the first of the new year. Just think of it as your Christmas present to George and dick.
To learn more about the petition and why you and everyone you know ought to sign it, check out the radio broadcast below. It should be a dynamic program well worth listening to.
Congressman Wexler Live on Blog Radio:
WHEN: Thursday, December 18, 9:00 pm (EST)/6:00 pm (PST)
WHERE: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/fpc (a link will be posted at www.wexlerwantshearings.com and www.wexlerforcongress.com )
WHO: Rep. Wexler will appear live on Florida Progressive Radio with host Kenneth Quinnell of the Florida Netroots Caucus, Bob Fertick of Democrats.com, as well as Dave Lindorf, author of "The Case for Impeachment," and David Swanson with AfterDowningStreet.org.
Whoa, suddenly I’m finding some more energy. Maybe I’ll be back tomorrow!!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
I kept telling myself that it being the Christmas holidays everybody had too much going on to be interested in surfing anyway, and that I was too busy with it all to get the job done, too. It’s a lie, though. Fact is that the past week or so has just seemed interminably flat to me.
The campaigns rattle on . . . Repulsicans can’t settle on a candidate because nobody likes anyone in the field, Demorats can’t settle on a candidate because they like them all, and I can’t settle on a candidate because nobody in the field takes a strong stand on anything.
I don’t think the Iraq war is any less a problem than it was before the surge, but all the candidates have concluded that because we’re told that the surge has calmed things down the war is no longer a hot issue. By the way, the BBC was quite busy over the holiday week-end with on-the-ground reports from Iraq explaining that the situation really hasn’t changed all that much. Yes, the areas where surge troops are operating have quieted down, but the rest of the country is still no man’s land. Yes, Iraqis were able to come out of their homes and visit secure areas, but there are still no jobs for them, no money in hand, and not much in the way of goods in the shops anyway.
The other big issue for me is the treachery of the present administration, and I have a hard time understanding why some brave Democratic candidate couldn’t gain some ground by standing up and declaring that s/he would begin the new presidency by authorizing in-depth investigations into unconstitutional behaviors of the Bush administration and setting right some of the legislative wrongs of the last eight years.
Barack Obama has alluded to that, but has not, to my limited knowledge, taken a hard stance and outlined an approach to the situation. There is no mention of it on his website or that of any other mainline Democratic candidate.
Of course, they can’t afford to sound like they are going to come into office with no finer thought in their head than to lop off George Bush’s, but I for one am sick to death of their coming off like a bunch of sheep lacking the courage to face up to the school yard bully.
They could at least, like Dennis Kucinich, display enough integrity to clearly state their revulsion at the actions of the present administration by endorsing attempts to impeach the SOBs.
Speaking of which – since you can’t expect your leaders to have the guts to do it – how about joining in the impeachment effort yourself? If you haven’t already been pushing for impeachment, here’s a way to do it. Just go to www.WexlerWantsHearings.com and sign on to that petition. Over 100,000 people have done so thus far, and Wexler wants to boost that to 250,000 by the first of the new year. Just think of it as your Christmas present to George and dick.
To learn more about the petition and why you and everyone you know ought to sign it, check out the radio broadcast below. It should be a dynamic program well worth listening to.
Congressman Wexler Live on Blog Radio:
WHEN: Thursday, December 18, 9:00 pm (EST)/6:00 pm (PST)
WHERE: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/fpc (a link will be posted at www.wexlerwantshearings.com and www.wexlerforcongress.com )
WHO: Rep. Wexler will appear live on Florida Progressive Radio with host Kenneth Quinnell of the Florida Netroots Caucus, Bob Fertick of Democrats.com, as well as Dave Lindorf, author of "The Case for Impeachment," and David Swanson with AfterDowningStreet.org.
Whoa, suddenly I’m finding some more energy. Maybe I’ll be back tomorrow!!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday, December 21, 2007
Christian Government
Our local paper is clogged with letters, articles and editorials focused on whether the Christians or the atheists are winning the fight over whether Christmas should be such a dominant holiday in America. It isn’t just going on here, either. National press and even the “funnies” are dealing with the same question.
Underlying it is the right wing Christian contention that there is a movement to stifle their voice; a tendency for “secular humanism” to shut religion out of schools and government.
As a certified, card carrying secular humanist, I feel qualified to throw my two cents into the ring, too.
I will unabashedly say that I am solidly against the predominance of any religion in the affairs of government and I am solidly against the teaching of any religious tradition in public schools.
Does that mean that I don’t think you should practice whatever religion you truly believe? Not at all. It just means that I don’t think you have any right to tell me what I should believe.
I do not believe that anyone fighting against the insertion of Christian doctrine into governmental affairs is trying, as the far right asserts we are, to stifle Christian thought or expression in any way. The problem we have with a Christian government is the same problem we would have with a Hindu government, a Jewish government, a Sunni government or a Shiite government. What’s really going on is an attempt to control what people may think, say , and do by claiming the high moral ground of religion as the basis for political action – exactly what the Taliban did in Afghanistan!
Just for argument’s sake, imagine that we decide we are a Christian nation and so should have governmental policies based on Christian thought. Whose idea of Christianity is going to dictate that policy? Are we going to have a Jimmy Swaggert Christian government or a Bishop Fulton J. Sheen Christian government; a Jerry Falwell Christian government or a Martin Luther King Christian government? Should we have a Catholic government or a Protestant government; a Unitarian government or a Lutheran government; a Southern Baptist Convention government or a Methodist government?
Samuel Clemens once wrote about an experiment in which a lion, a lamb, and other such animals of opposite natures were put into one cage, and ministers of various Christian religious sects were put into another. They were all left over night. In the morning, the animals were found asleep, each in its own area of the cage, but the ministers had killed each other in an argument over a liturgical technicality.
Clemens was writing in the 19th century. Isn’t it about time the rest of us caught on?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Underlying it is the right wing Christian contention that there is a movement to stifle their voice; a tendency for “secular humanism” to shut religion out of schools and government.
As a certified, card carrying secular humanist, I feel qualified to throw my two cents into the ring, too.
I will unabashedly say that I am solidly against the predominance of any religion in the affairs of government and I am solidly against the teaching of any religious tradition in public schools.
Does that mean that I don’t think you should practice whatever religion you truly believe? Not at all. It just means that I don’t think you have any right to tell me what I should believe.
I do not believe that anyone fighting against the insertion of Christian doctrine into governmental affairs is trying, as the far right asserts we are, to stifle Christian thought or expression in any way. The problem we have with a Christian government is the same problem we would have with a Hindu government, a Jewish government, a Sunni government or a Shiite government. What’s really going on is an attempt to control what people may think, say , and do by claiming the high moral ground of religion as the basis for political action – exactly what the Taliban did in Afghanistan!
Just for argument’s sake, imagine that we decide we are a Christian nation and so should have governmental policies based on Christian thought. Whose idea of Christianity is going to dictate that policy? Are we going to have a Jimmy Swaggert Christian government or a Bishop Fulton J. Sheen Christian government; a Jerry Falwell Christian government or a Martin Luther King Christian government? Should we have a Catholic government or a Protestant government; a Unitarian government or a Lutheran government; a Southern Baptist Convention government or a Methodist government?
Samuel Clemens once wrote about an experiment in which a lion, a lamb, and other such animals of opposite natures were put into one cage, and ministers of various Christian religious sects were put into another. They were all left over night. In the morning, the animals were found asleep, each in its own area of the cage, but the ministers had killed each other in an argument over a liturgical technicality.
Clemens was writing in the 19th century. Isn’t it about time the rest of us caught on?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Freedom vs Security
Those of us who have protested the Patriot Act have often been told we need to accept that things changed after 9-11 and that we are the ones who are over-reacting. After all, the reasoning goes out government isn't what we need to fear. Our government is only trying to protect us from external threats and if that means taking away a little of our freedom (which they argue the act does not do), the gain covers the loss.
Maybe one way to settle the question is to ask an outside observer, and there is probably no one in a better position to settle the dispute than our closest neighbor, Canada. So what are they saying? The Utne Reader (Jan-Feb '08) reports:
"Concerned about cyberspooks spying along their virtual border, Canadian officials have passed a series of provincial laws that require government institutions to protect private data from U.S. investigative agencies empowered by the Patriot Act."
If Canada can see that the Patriot Act authorizes unacceptable intrusion into its citizens' lives, why on earth can't Americans?
The bottom line is that no amount of security is worth the loss of one iota of freedom no matter what changed on 9-11. Giving up freedom in exchange for security might work as long as you can trust the government not to take advantage of the disempowered citizenry.
My contention, though, has been and will continue to be that every citizen's first duty is to doubt every statement his government leaders make and to watch closely enough to see to what extent the results of their actions matches the braggadocio of their speechmaking.
Barak Obama caught my attention this week with the statement that the first thing he would do if elected is to fight for the repeal of all of the Bush era legislation that his team determines to be unconstitutional or restrictive of America’s freedoms. I am going to start paying a little more attention to what he says – while watching to see to what extent . . .
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Maybe one way to settle the question is to ask an outside observer, and there is probably no one in a better position to settle the dispute than our closest neighbor, Canada. So what are they saying? The Utne Reader (Jan-Feb '08) reports:
"Concerned about cyberspooks spying along their virtual border, Canadian officials have passed a series of provincial laws that require government institutions to protect private data from U.S. investigative agencies empowered by the Patriot Act."
If Canada can see that the Patriot Act authorizes unacceptable intrusion into its citizens' lives, why on earth can't Americans?
The bottom line is that no amount of security is worth the loss of one iota of freedom no matter what changed on 9-11. Giving up freedom in exchange for security might work as long as you can trust the government not to take advantage of the disempowered citizenry.
My contention, though, has been and will continue to be that every citizen's first duty is to doubt every statement his government leaders make and to watch closely enough to see to what extent the results of their actions matches the braggadocio of their speechmaking.
Barak Obama caught my attention this week with the statement that the first thing he would do if elected is to fight for the repeal of all of the Bush era legislation that his team determines to be unconstitutional or restrictive of America’s freedoms. I am going to start paying a little more attention to what he says – while watching to see to what extent . . .
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Bush Does Something Good!!
Mr. Bush surprised me yesterday. Usually that’s really bad news, but this time I have to admit that I liked what he did. With a stroke of his pen he acquiesced to the suggestions of his Secretaries of State and Defense by ordering the destruction of most of our stock of nuclear weapons to achieve an inventory of about one-quarter the size of our stock at the end of the cold war. That still leaves us with 1,200 or so on hand, so it isn’t as if the world is free of the threat, but at least the explosive, radioactive power lying around will be reduced significantly.
All the hawks out there needn’t worry, though. W hasn’t gone dovish. He’s just recognizing that there is little value in carrying an obsolete inventory of nuclear weaponry into the 21st century, and the other shoe may well come in the form of his recommendation for replacing those old warheads.
His signature of the new energy conservation bill was a mild surprise, too. I think it’s just that it has finally dawned on him that his term will end soon and there will be a legacy for people to point at. He’d rather they were neither laughing nor crying at the time. He wants to be remembered for more than his obstinacy and hawkishness. After all, being the “war president” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement in a country that is ostensibly a peace loving nation.
No matter what he does, though, he will not be remembered as anything but the worst president in American history. Not that the energy bill is any great prize, either.
The Demorats can crow all they want to about getting it passed, but this bill’s only real achievement is the establishment of fuel efficiency standards for the auto industry that should have been met under Jimmy Carter’s leadership if Congress had paid him any attention. They also crow about the “alternative fuels” clauses, but their upshot is that we all get to subsidize the nonsensical ethanol industry to the tune of about fifty cents a gallon so that the corn farmers will continue to vote Repulsican. In the meantime, our food costs rise because corn is now in our tanks instead of our flakes, farmers continue to pour petroleum products from gas to fertilizer into mono-crop farming methods that deplete the soil horribly but earn the farmers more for their subsidized corn than they could get by treating their soil with some stewardship, and the citizenry keeps on gassing up their SUVs and driving as much as we did when gas was 25 cents a gallon.
If we had to have an ethanol program, we could have had a bill that authorized growth of crops more sensibly appropriate for ethanol production – hemp for example – and mandated good land management practices like crop rotation in return for subsidies.
But the biggest problem with this legislation is that the Demorats caved in to the Bush veto threats by removing funding for alternative fuel and power generation research programs. That leaves us with no approach that is not dependent upon the existing corporate power structure – big oil and big energy – to dictate the level of potential we have for alleviating the pressure we continue to put on our limited resources and the limited capacity of the earth to absorb our profligacy.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that we humans have a devastating impact on our environment, but it will apparently take a rocket to get it through Washington’s head that we can’t forever to continue to crap in our nest without ultimately destroying our own ability to live in it.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
All the hawks out there needn’t worry, though. W hasn’t gone dovish. He’s just recognizing that there is little value in carrying an obsolete inventory of nuclear weaponry into the 21st century, and the other shoe may well come in the form of his recommendation for replacing those old warheads.
His signature of the new energy conservation bill was a mild surprise, too. I think it’s just that it has finally dawned on him that his term will end soon and there will be a legacy for people to point at. He’d rather they were neither laughing nor crying at the time. He wants to be remembered for more than his obstinacy and hawkishness. After all, being the “war president” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement in a country that is ostensibly a peace loving nation.
No matter what he does, though, he will not be remembered as anything but the worst president in American history. Not that the energy bill is any great prize, either.
The Demorats can crow all they want to about getting it passed, but this bill’s only real achievement is the establishment of fuel efficiency standards for the auto industry that should have been met under Jimmy Carter’s leadership if Congress had paid him any attention. They also crow about the “alternative fuels” clauses, but their upshot is that we all get to subsidize the nonsensical ethanol industry to the tune of about fifty cents a gallon so that the corn farmers will continue to vote Repulsican. In the meantime, our food costs rise because corn is now in our tanks instead of our flakes, farmers continue to pour petroleum products from gas to fertilizer into mono-crop farming methods that deplete the soil horribly but earn the farmers more for their subsidized corn than they could get by treating their soil with some stewardship, and the citizenry keeps on gassing up their SUVs and driving as much as we did when gas was 25 cents a gallon.
If we had to have an ethanol program, we could have had a bill that authorized growth of crops more sensibly appropriate for ethanol production – hemp for example – and mandated good land management practices like crop rotation in return for subsidies.
But the biggest problem with this legislation is that the Demorats caved in to the Bush veto threats by removing funding for alternative fuel and power generation research programs. That leaves us with no approach that is not dependent upon the existing corporate power structure – big oil and big energy – to dictate the level of potential we have for alleviating the pressure we continue to put on our limited resources and the limited capacity of the earth to absorb our profligacy.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that we humans have a devastating impact on our environment, but it will apparently take a rocket to get it through Washington’s head that we can’t forever to continue to crap in our nest without ultimately destroying our own ability to live in it.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
When Will They Ever Learn?
Today’s paper carried really interesting story about the fence we are building along the Mexican border. Well, to be accurate the story wasn’t written about the fence. It was about the hostility that is going on along the fenceline with border patrol agents firing tear gas and pepper gas canisters over the fence in retaliation for the rocks, bricks and bottles that are thrown at them by Mexicans infuriated by the insult the fence represents to them. But that makes the fence the story.
There was a picture, too, of this ugly orange fence running alongside the ugly little shacks impoverished Mexican families must inhabit. And now everyday, besides having to live their hardscrabble lives, these folks must come home and see this symbol of their banishment from even looking across the border at the land of plenty. Instead, their window reveals only this incredibly ungainly orange barrier that speaks constantly of our hostility toward them. Is it any wonder they throw stones?
I was reminded of the wall going up between Israel and Palestine. There it isn’t just stones and bottles that come flying over. It’s rockets and missiles and launched grenades. But I remember when it was the Israelis with guns and the Palestinians with rocks and stones and bottles. Then it was Palestinians with Molotov cocktails and hand grenades. It took the Palestinians years to develop to the point of missiles and rockets.
How long do you suppose it will take the Mexicans?
“When will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?”
-- Where Have All the Flowers Gone, Pete Seeger, 1961
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
There was a picture, too, of this ugly orange fence running alongside the ugly little shacks impoverished Mexican families must inhabit. And now everyday, besides having to live their hardscrabble lives, these folks must come home and see this symbol of their banishment from even looking across the border at the land of plenty. Instead, their window reveals only this incredibly ungainly orange barrier that speaks constantly of our hostility toward them. Is it any wonder they throw stones?
I was reminded of the wall going up between Israel and Palestine. There it isn’t just stones and bottles that come flying over. It’s rockets and missiles and launched grenades. But I remember when it was the Israelis with guns and the Palestinians with rocks and stones and bottles. Then it was Palestinians with Molotov cocktails and hand grenades. It took the Palestinians years to develop to the point of missiles and rockets.
How long do you suppose it will take the Mexicans?
“When will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?”
-- Where Have All the Flowers Gone, Pete Seeger, 1961
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Monday, December 17, 2007
Dollar Bills and Bibles
I seem to have been coming down pretty hard on religion lately. I hope my readers don’t confuse my position with being anti-spiritual. It’s just that I don’t find much of the spiritual in churches.
The spirituality I understand is that which seeks to find as much value in everyone’s approach to godliness as in one’s own. I find it runs far deeper in the currents of a clear Ozark stream than in the streams of invective that flow down from pulpits where preachers hold up their vision of virtue as the only viable vision. I find it more strongly expressed in the gentle sway of a great white oak in a spring breeze than in the violent winds of war. I find it more beautifully expressed in gentle movement of the moon across a black summer’s night than in the slow and inexorable resistance to change in the my-way-or-the-highway party line of the average church.
Recently I found a kinsman in the writings of David James Duncan. Duncan wrote one of my favorite books, “The River Why” back in the 70s. Not long ago a friend and I were discussing that book and he asked me if I had read “My Story as Told by Water”.
Duncan published that one in 2001 and I had missed it, so Mike loaned it to me.
I knew I had struck gold when I found this line in the first chapter: “Capitalist fundamentalism, I still believe, is the perfect Techno-Industrial religion, its goal being a planet upon which we’ve nothing left to worship, worry about, read, eat, or love but dollar bills and Bibles.”
What more could I add to that?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
The spirituality I understand is that which seeks to find as much value in everyone’s approach to godliness as in one’s own. I find it runs far deeper in the currents of a clear Ozark stream than in the streams of invective that flow down from pulpits where preachers hold up their vision of virtue as the only viable vision. I find it more strongly expressed in the gentle sway of a great white oak in a spring breeze than in the violent winds of war. I find it more beautifully expressed in gentle movement of the moon across a black summer’s night than in the slow and inexorable resistance to change in the my-way-or-the-highway party line of the average church.
Recently I found a kinsman in the writings of David James Duncan. Duncan wrote one of my favorite books, “The River Why” back in the 70s. Not long ago a friend and I were discussing that book and he asked me if I had read “My Story as Told by Water”.
Duncan published that one in 2001 and I had missed it, so Mike loaned it to me.
I knew I had struck gold when I found this line in the first chapter: “Capitalist fundamentalism, I still believe, is the perfect Techno-Industrial religion, its goal being a planet upon which we’ve nothing left to worship, worry about, read, eat, or love but dollar bills and Bibles.”
What more could I add to that?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday, December 14, 2007
An Army for Every Church
Two completely different articles in the local paper caught my eye this morning and combined in bizarre flights of dark fancy.
The first was a question put by a local yokel in response to the recent city audit report. Why, this person wanted to know, would the city of Springfield ever send someone to “Vegas” or, as s/he put it SIN CITY? The writer just couldn’t justify sending someone from our pristine, sinless Bible belt into the teeth of Gomorrah. What could they possibly learn out there that we need to know here in the land of Gawd?!
The second was a story about Muqtada al-Sadr and his quest to become an Ayatollah. One of the little nuggets this story revealed was that as an Ayatollah, Sadr would be allowed to raise a much larger army than his present Sadr brigade – now famous for its resistance to U.S. troops in Fallujah. His studies have concentrated on clerical rule. Any doubts about his ambitions?
What tied these two seemingly disparate tales together in my mind was a question: What would it be like in this country if we had clerical rule and each cleric was allowed his own army?
Can’t you just picture Jerry Falwell with a couple of battalions?! I expect he’d have gone with tanks and air power and maybe ruled the Tennessee, Kentucky, Carolinas belt. Would his factions have been able to keep Jimmy Swaggert’s crew in their place, or would Swaggert have won out? Would they have burned Georgia in the process? What if they allied and tried to take over Oklahoma? Would Oral Roberts be able to heal the wounds inflicted on his troops fast enough to win the war and carry his version of Gawd’s word to capitol hill?
The Assembly of God national headquarters being here, I suppose we would all fall under their control. Would Central Bible College and Baptist Bible College join forces and raise an army sufficient to garner a little power to themselves? And what would happen to the poor Catholics, Jews, Muslims and other non-fundamentalists that call Springfield home? We’d probably have barbeques featuring burning atheists at the stake.
Thinking of it in that way, it is not hard to understand what a buzz saw we have walked into in Iraq where, now that there is no strong man to keep them under his thumb, every cleric who can talk the right talk can gather a big enough following to raise an army and go to war to protect his turf.
Here in the U.S. – and especially in Springfield – that could mean religion based turf guarding every couple of blocks. Why it would make gang warfare look like a tea party.
Just think about it friends, and gird yourselves to continue fighting against the nutsy notion that we ought to bring Gawd into government.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
The first was a question put by a local yokel in response to the recent city audit report. Why, this person wanted to know, would the city of Springfield ever send someone to “Vegas” or, as s/he put it SIN CITY? The writer just couldn’t justify sending someone from our pristine, sinless Bible belt into the teeth of Gomorrah. What could they possibly learn out there that we need to know here in the land of Gawd?!
The second was a story about Muqtada al-Sadr and his quest to become an Ayatollah. One of the little nuggets this story revealed was that as an Ayatollah, Sadr would be allowed to raise a much larger army than his present Sadr brigade – now famous for its resistance to U.S. troops in Fallujah. His studies have concentrated on clerical rule. Any doubts about his ambitions?
What tied these two seemingly disparate tales together in my mind was a question: What would it be like in this country if we had clerical rule and each cleric was allowed his own army?
Can’t you just picture Jerry Falwell with a couple of battalions?! I expect he’d have gone with tanks and air power and maybe ruled the Tennessee, Kentucky, Carolinas belt. Would his factions have been able to keep Jimmy Swaggert’s crew in their place, or would Swaggert have won out? Would they have burned Georgia in the process? What if they allied and tried to take over Oklahoma? Would Oral Roberts be able to heal the wounds inflicted on his troops fast enough to win the war and carry his version of Gawd’s word to capitol hill?
The Assembly of God national headquarters being here, I suppose we would all fall under their control. Would Central Bible College and Baptist Bible College join forces and raise an army sufficient to garner a little power to themselves? And what would happen to the poor Catholics, Jews, Muslims and other non-fundamentalists that call Springfield home? We’d probably have barbeques featuring burning atheists at the stake.
Thinking of it in that way, it is not hard to understand what a buzz saw we have walked into in Iraq where, now that there is no strong man to keep them under his thumb, every cleric who can talk the right talk can gather a big enough following to raise an army and go to war to protect his turf.
Here in the U.S. – and especially in Springfield – that could mean religion based turf guarding every couple of blocks. Why it would make gang warfare look like a tea party.
Just think about it friends, and gird yourselves to continue fighting against the nutsy notion that we ought to bring Gawd into government.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Thursday, December 13, 2007
W Takes Us Another Step Down: Global Warming
For years the U.S. has been putting the world off on the question of global warming with imprecations to “follow the science”. The science, we have always maintained, did not support the idea that human behaviors were the cause of global warming.
Well, the scientists are now saying loudly and emphatically that there can no longer be any doubt. Humans are the cause of the dramatic acceleration of warming. So now what does the U.S. say? We just say, “NO.”
The world has met in Bali and examined the facts. As a result they have decided that scientists are right when they say we must reduce carbon emission by 25% to 40% of the amounts allowed by the 1990 protocols by 2020. The European Union and even China have agreed to this goal. Only the U.S., Canada and Japan and a few minor suck-up nations are holding out.
Mr. Bush, though, says we won’t go along with such an arbitrarily set goal. In true BushCo fashion he will hold his own meeting in Hawaii next year. He has invited everyone to come, but many will not. Germany has already announced that they won’t come and they are urging the rest of the European nations to stick with them.
Bush’s rationale is that such goals should be negotiated. Well, duh, W they negotiated the new goals at the Bali conference. Why wasn’t he there? Nobody but Bush himself did anything to keep him away, and now his call for negotiations isn’t a true call for dialogue, but a roadblock thrown up to try and stall the process.
The truth is that neither the U.S. nor Canada nor Japan is capable of meeting the 2020 goals because we refused to pare emissions down after the Kyoto Protocols were negotiated. The rest of the world did agree to those protocols so they are well ahead of us in the race to save the planet’s heating and cooling system. If we could just admit that we made a mistake in not recognizing the problem earlier and pledge to do our damnedest to meet the new protocols we would instantly do a great deal to reinstate ourselves as honorable members of the world community.
Would that really be so hard?
It seems that by now even W would be able to perceive that his bullheaded idea of diplomacy comes up a loser every time, but no. . . once again his stubbornness is leading us into unnecessary confrontation with our friends and neighbors around the world. W will stand in one spot and stamp his foot until either somebody pays attention to him or he falls through the floor. Sadly, he’s going to take a lot of us with him when he falls.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Well, the scientists are now saying loudly and emphatically that there can no longer be any doubt. Humans are the cause of the dramatic acceleration of warming. So now what does the U.S. say? We just say, “NO.”
The world has met in Bali and examined the facts. As a result they have decided that scientists are right when they say we must reduce carbon emission by 25% to 40% of the amounts allowed by the 1990 protocols by 2020. The European Union and even China have agreed to this goal. Only the U.S., Canada and Japan and a few minor suck-up nations are holding out.
Mr. Bush, though, says we won’t go along with such an arbitrarily set goal. In true BushCo fashion he will hold his own meeting in Hawaii next year. He has invited everyone to come, but many will not. Germany has already announced that they won’t come and they are urging the rest of the European nations to stick with them.
Bush’s rationale is that such goals should be negotiated. Well, duh, W they negotiated the new goals at the Bali conference. Why wasn’t he there? Nobody but Bush himself did anything to keep him away, and now his call for negotiations isn’t a true call for dialogue, but a roadblock thrown up to try and stall the process.
The truth is that neither the U.S. nor Canada nor Japan is capable of meeting the 2020 goals because we refused to pare emissions down after the Kyoto Protocols were negotiated. The rest of the world did agree to those protocols so they are well ahead of us in the race to save the planet’s heating and cooling system. If we could just admit that we made a mistake in not recognizing the problem earlier and pledge to do our damnedest to meet the new protocols we would instantly do a great deal to reinstate ourselves as honorable members of the world community.
Would that really be so hard?
It seems that by now even W would be able to perceive that his bullheaded idea of diplomacy comes up a loser every time, but no. . . once again his stubbornness is leading us into unnecessary confrontation with our friends and neighbors around the world. W will stand in one spot and stamp his foot until either somebody pays attention to him or he falls through the floor. Sadly, he’s going to take a lot of us with him when he falls.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The Disgrace of Guantanamo Bay
At long last, the Senate was poised to enter into a committee level investigation into our national disgrace at Guantanamo Bay. They even had a whistle blowing witness from the Pentagon on the schedule.
Col. Morris Davis was the chief prosecutor for the terrorism trials at Guantanamo Bay until he resigned because of his objections to the politics behind decisions on who should be tried in what order. Those decisions, he said, were politicized to the point that prosecutable cases were to be ignored while higher profile cases whose successful prosecution could possibly garner votes in the 2008 elections were to be moved up on the court’s calendar.
The Pentagon, however, ordered him not to testify. Instead we got the apologist Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann who said the military commissions are an "honor to the American justice system of which Americans should be very proud."
It’s just another case of the lack of ethics on constant display by the administration. Because the military is involved and the president is the commander-in-chief this is less visible, but the tactics are exactly the same as those employed by Alberto Gonzalez in the Department of Justice. The idea there was to determine which way investigations into voting fraud would go as well as prosecutions with political import. In the case of Guantanamo, it’s purely political.
Not only did the administration want to decide on a political basis which cases to prosecute, but also has a real need not to prosecute those cases in which plausible evidence of terrorism is lacking. In other words, they want to continue to hold prisoners against whom no evidence exists, but whose release would reflect badly on the entire Guantanamo prison system.
In short, we have an administration that is much more concerned about the outcome of domestic elections than about the rights human beings. Their concern is concentrating and holding onto all the power they can garner. Beyond that nothing matters to them.
To see them strutting about the stage in their “moral values” plumage is one of the most sickening aspects of being an American these days.
It would be nice to think that we have the chance to vote the *#@&#(!!s out of office next fall, but watching the Demorats fall all over themselves this week to give BushCo all they are asking for to continue our mad war in Iraq doesn’t exactly fill my heart to overflowing with hope.
Given the way our politicians and preachers have of twisting God into a monster suited to their wishes, we can’t even ask Him to bless us out of this mess. We’ll just have to do it ourselves.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Col. Morris Davis was the chief prosecutor for the terrorism trials at Guantanamo Bay until he resigned because of his objections to the politics behind decisions on who should be tried in what order. Those decisions, he said, were politicized to the point that prosecutable cases were to be ignored while higher profile cases whose successful prosecution could possibly garner votes in the 2008 elections were to be moved up on the court’s calendar.
The Pentagon, however, ordered him not to testify. Instead we got the apologist Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann who said the military commissions are an "honor to the American justice system of which Americans should be very proud."
It’s just another case of the lack of ethics on constant display by the administration. Because the military is involved and the president is the commander-in-chief this is less visible, but the tactics are exactly the same as those employed by Alberto Gonzalez in the Department of Justice. The idea there was to determine which way investigations into voting fraud would go as well as prosecutions with political import. In the case of Guantanamo, it’s purely political.
Not only did the administration want to decide on a political basis which cases to prosecute, but also has a real need not to prosecute those cases in which plausible evidence of terrorism is lacking. In other words, they want to continue to hold prisoners against whom no evidence exists, but whose release would reflect badly on the entire Guantanamo prison system.
In short, we have an administration that is much more concerned about the outcome of domestic elections than about the rights human beings. Their concern is concentrating and holding onto all the power they can garner. Beyond that nothing matters to them.
To see them strutting about the stage in their “moral values” plumage is one of the most sickening aspects of being an American these days.
It would be nice to think that we have the chance to vote the *#@&#(!!s out of office next fall, but watching the Demorats fall all over themselves this week to give BushCo all they are asking for to continue our mad war in Iraq doesn’t exactly fill my heart to overflowing with hope.
Given the way our politicians and preachers have of twisting God into a monster suited to their wishes, we can’t even ask Him to bless us out of this mess. We’ll just have to do it ourselves.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Arvada Musings
Yesterday I called an old (since before kindergarten!) friend of mine who lives in Arvada, Colorado. I called not only because of the shootings in Arvada this week-end, but also because her husband was teaching at Columbine on their horrible day. I thought all the baggage of these horrors might be weighing a little heavily on Jules, so I just wanted to let her know I was thinking about her.
She seemed okay with it all even though the incident was six blocks from her home, her husband was gone hunting so she was home alone and the police called her to tell her to turn off all her lights, draw her drapes and stay inside.
Of course, we had to get into a dialogue on why it is that our society is riddled with crazies who choose to shoot a few others before they blow themselves away or get the cops to do it for them.
Is it the isolation everybody feels because they’ve spent their lives in front of a TV instead of interacting with human beings? Is it growing up in a culture that constantly sends the message that violence solves problems? Is it being so far removed from reality that the killer doesn’t see his victims as real human beings? Is it ingrown anger rising from neglect – benign or otherwise? Is it a result of the some sad loner feeling like his life is of no value but that notoriety can give it value just like it has for other lost souls who got their 15 minutes of fame on a newscast with a gun in their hand? Is it living in a culture that on a daily basis makes it clear that no other culture (ergo no other being) has value and so can be rubbed out with alacrity? Is it an evolutionary development triggered by thousands of years of existence in the knowledge that at every moment there is some enemy or another out there who has no higher desire than our destruction?
Is it innate in humanity and so to be expected? Is there no way out of it and so we should just accept it and move on?
Or could it be that if we decided to do a cultural about face and quit trying to solve international problems with bombs; begin interacting with one another so that each face had a name and each name a value; and recognize that even those whose skin or eyes don’t look like mine or who choose a different religion from mine or who speak a different language from mine are, even so, human beings of value . . . Could it be that we might begin to evolve into a more sane species? Might it be that these aberrations would reduce in number to the level they used to be when a Columbine or Arvada incident was unthinkable?
Might be, but we’ll never know. As George W. Bush said, we’ll all be in our graves before that happens.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
She seemed okay with it all even though the incident was six blocks from her home, her husband was gone hunting so she was home alone and the police called her to tell her to turn off all her lights, draw her drapes and stay inside.
Of course, we had to get into a dialogue on why it is that our society is riddled with crazies who choose to shoot a few others before they blow themselves away or get the cops to do it for them.
Is it the isolation everybody feels because they’ve spent their lives in front of a TV instead of interacting with human beings? Is it growing up in a culture that constantly sends the message that violence solves problems? Is it being so far removed from reality that the killer doesn’t see his victims as real human beings? Is it ingrown anger rising from neglect – benign or otherwise? Is it a result of the some sad loner feeling like his life is of no value but that notoriety can give it value just like it has for other lost souls who got their 15 minutes of fame on a newscast with a gun in their hand? Is it living in a culture that on a daily basis makes it clear that no other culture (ergo no other being) has value and so can be rubbed out with alacrity? Is it an evolutionary development triggered by thousands of years of existence in the knowledge that at every moment there is some enemy or another out there who has no higher desire than our destruction?
Is it innate in humanity and so to be expected? Is there no way out of it and so we should just accept it and move on?
Or could it be that if we decided to do a cultural about face and quit trying to solve international problems with bombs; begin interacting with one another so that each face had a name and each name a value; and recognize that even those whose skin or eyes don’t look like mine or who choose a different religion from mine or who speak a different language from mine are, even so, human beings of value . . . Could it be that we might begin to evolve into a more sane species? Might it be that these aberrations would reduce in number to the level they used to be when a Columbine or Arvada incident was unthinkable?
Might be, but we’ll never know. As George W. Bush said, we’ll all be in our graves before that happens.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Monday, December 10, 2007
Misspent Resources
This morning’s paper didn’t even carry the story, but the BBC informed us this morning that a major offensive is going on in Afghanistan where coalition troops are trying to push the Taliban out of an area where they have been regaining more and more control.
The BBC’s interviewer made it abundantly clear that the military representative he was interviewing was being much less open than he usually was when he evaded questions about coalition progress and whether or not any significant Taliban leaders had been killed or captured.
The general picture, though, was that the fighting had initially been intense but had eased off somewhat over the last 24 hours or so and that the coalition was making headway.
I find it ironic that the Bush Administration, here given an opportunity to finally announce some good news about its efforts in the “war against terror”, is offering no word at all about this battle. Why would that be?
Perhaps the spin doctors think that any reference to pushing the Taliban back offers too big an opportunity for opponents to point out that after our invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban should never have had an opportunity to come back at all. They could be right about that.
Maybe they are afraid that someone might say that if we had put into Afghanistan a quarter of the resources we have poured down the rathole in Iraq, we would by now have put the Taliban totally out of commission, found Osama bin Laden, ground Al Qaida into the dust, and probably eased the problems now being faced by Pakistan.
Maybe they fear that someone might point out that the reason we didn’t do that is because Afghanistan lacks Iraq’s oil. Afghanistan offers only a path for us to use to run an oil pipeline from Russia’s Kirghiz fields, while Iraq offers one-third of all the oil the Middle East has to offer.
Perhaps then someone might have drawn the conclusion that BushCo’s war in Iraq really has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and his WMDs or with the “war on terror” and everything to do with American control of Middle East power and oil.
Believe it or not, I supported Mr. Bush when he announced that we were going to Afghanistan to root out the Taliban and terrorists they supported. Our “war against terror” should have been a war against Osama bin Laden. The Taliban should have been eliminated because of their open support of his hostility, and we should have put our efforts at government building into Afghanistan and not Iraq. We could have dramatically improved the lot of the people of Afghanistan while demonstrating our sensibility to the rest of the world. Instead we have demonstrated our irrational bellicosity and our willingness to trade our humanity for the mask of power. Pray that our next administration will have the sense to turn us around.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
The BBC’s interviewer made it abundantly clear that the military representative he was interviewing was being much less open than he usually was when he evaded questions about coalition progress and whether or not any significant Taliban leaders had been killed or captured.
The general picture, though, was that the fighting had initially been intense but had eased off somewhat over the last 24 hours or so and that the coalition was making headway.
I find it ironic that the Bush Administration, here given an opportunity to finally announce some good news about its efforts in the “war against terror”, is offering no word at all about this battle. Why would that be?
Perhaps the spin doctors think that any reference to pushing the Taliban back offers too big an opportunity for opponents to point out that after our invasion of Afghanistan the Taliban should never have had an opportunity to come back at all. They could be right about that.
Maybe they are afraid that someone might say that if we had put into Afghanistan a quarter of the resources we have poured down the rathole in Iraq, we would by now have put the Taliban totally out of commission, found Osama bin Laden, ground Al Qaida into the dust, and probably eased the problems now being faced by Pakistan.
Maybe they fear that someone might point out that the reason we didn’t do that is because Afghanistan lacks Iraq’s oil. Afghanistan offers only a path for us to use to run an oil pipeline from Russia’s Kirghiz fields, while Iraq offers one-third of all the oil the Middle East has to offer.
Perhaps then someone might have drawn the conclusion that BushCo’s war in Iraq really has nothing to do with Saddam Hussein and his WMDs or with the “war on terror” and everything to do with American control of Middle East power and oil.
Believe it or not, I supported Mr. Bush when he announced that we were going to Afghanistan to root out the Taliban and terrorists they supported. Our “war against terror” should have been a war against Osama bin Laden. The Taliban should have been eliminated because of their open support of his hostility, and we should have put our efforts at government building into Afghanistan and not Iraq. We could have dramatically improved the lot of the people of Afghanistan while demonstrating our sensibility to the rest of the world. Instead we have demonstrated our irrational bellicosity and our willingness to trade our humanity for the mask of power. Pray that our next administration will have the sense to turn us around.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday, December 7, 2007
Politics and Religion
In a locker room conversation the other day, I answered a question from a friend whom I met while working at the polls during the last presidential election. He wanted to know which of the candidates for president I favored.
“One that won’t be elected,” I told him. “Dennis Kucinich. He’s the only one that has consistently stood up and told the truth about what he believes.”
“Yeah,” my friend nodded, “but he’s just too far out there.”
“Right,” I said. “He’s definitely the best administrator in the pack, and he believes we should put as much effort into achieving peace as into making war. With those attitudes in this society, he doesn’t stand a chance.”
Larry just looked at me, but that look said it all. I could see in his eyes, the understanding that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that is more comfortable with war than with peace and more excited about having a president with good hair, white teeth and a strong personality than one who has demonstrated his ability to run a government but is just a little guy with a bad haircut.
Besides, Dennis has never proven his right to the presidency by telling us how much he believes in Jesus. How could he ever expect to be president!?
In a related vein, I was interested in Romney’s comments about his Mormonism yesterday. As all the media have pointed out, it reminds us of what Jack Kennedy had to say about Catholicism. Maybe it’s just that I’m an old coot and old coots always think the ways of the past were better than those of the present, but of the two speeches, I much preferred Kennedy’s.
The bottom line of Romney’s speech was his call for “deepening the link between faith and political life”. – (Springfield News-Leader, Friday December 7, p1E) The bottom line of Kennedy’s speech was that faith is a personal choice that was best left out of the political arena in order to ensure that the church has no sway over political decision-making.
The trend of requiring politicians to wear their fundamentalism on their sleeve has led to undue influence for people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Charles Dobson, and to voting decisions that brought us the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
It seems to me that we were far better off with Kennedy!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
“One that won’t be elected,” I told him. “Dennis Kucinich. He’s the only one that has consistently stood up and told the truth about what he believes.”
“Yeah,” my friend nodded, “but he’s just too far out there.”
“Right,” I said. “He’s definitely the best administrator in the pack, and he believes we should put as much effort into achieving peace as into making war. With those attitudes in this society, he doesn’t stand a chance.”
Larry just looked at me, but that look said it all. I could see in his eyes, the understanding that there is something fundamentally wrong with a society that is more comfortable with war than with peace and more excited about having a president with good hair, white teeth and a strong personality than one who has demonstrated his ability to run a government but is just a little guy with a bad haircut.
Besides, Dennis has never proven his right to the presidency by telling us how much he believes in Jesus. How could he ever expect to be president!?
In a related vein, I was interested in Romney’s comments about his Mormonism yesterday. As all the media have pointed out, it reminds us of what Jack Kennedy had to say about Catholicism. Maybe it’s just that I’m an old coot and old coots always think the ways of the past were better than those of the present, but of the two speeches, I much preferred Kennedy’s.
The bottom line of Romney’s speech was his call for “deepening the link between faith and political life”. – (Springfield News-Leader, Friday December 7, p1E) The bottom line of Kennedy’s speech was that faith is a personal choice that was best left out of the political arena in order to ensure that the church has no sway over political decision-making.
The trend of requiring politicians to wear their fundamentalism on their sleeve has led to undue influence for people like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Charles Dobson, and to voting decisions that brought us the likes of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
It seems to me that we were far better off with Kennedy!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Ghosts of Abu Ghraib
Last night a group of conscientious folk gathered at the Library to view a DVD titled Ghosts of Abu Ghraib. Directed by Rory Kennedy, the documentary took us inside Abu Ghraib itself as well as inside the minds of some of the soldiers who were assigned to work there including those who served time for their involvement in the infamous scenes that brought to light that rip in our national moral fabric.
It was a gripping, fact-filled, and rather unpleasant 78 minutes of viewing time. The marines who had served there spoke first of the uses Saddam Hassein had made of the facility. They showed us the gallows where 80 to 100 people were hanged every day under his iron fist. They told us about sleeping in a room that also held crematoriums for the disposal of the bodies. They spoke, as gloomy footage showed us the dank halls of the prison, of their fear of walking those halls at night; their sense of the presence of all those lost souls wandering in anger.
They spoke, too, of the ways their experience as guards at the American run prison somehow twisted them from the caring citizens they were when they arrived into the kind of people who could commit atrocities on other people. Using documents issued by Donald Rumsfeld and the Justice Department, and discussing the attitudes of their officers, these soldiers painted a picture worthy of Van Gogh in his deepest depressions.
Questions that rose in the minds of the viewers included wondering whether, given the same circumstances, they, too, would turn into the kind of merciless robots these fine young men and women told us they had become. How thick (or thin) is the veneer of civilization that keeps us from persecuting one another? What is the psychological vein of sadism that runs not so very deep within the human psyche? Why does it respond to negative leadership as strongly as it does, so that it allows a culture like the Germans of 1939 or the Americans of 2007 to at best ignore and worst approve of the kind of inhuman treatment our soldiers are giving daily to those incarcerated in inhumane prisons of our making around the world?
As the movie made clear, such policies are not created by the boots on the ground. The policies and the attitudes that create or allow them are made by higher ups – the Donald Rumsfelds, dick Cheneys and George W. Bushes of the world.
The pictures that so shocked us in 2004 are no longer at the forefront of our national consciousness. Instead, we have presidential caucuses about to take place in a state (Iowa) where polls earlier this week showed that 80% of the registered Republicans approve of the job being done by Mr. Bush and his administration. Who would ever have thought that such moral decay would overtake the land of the free; the home of the brave; the nation that saved the world from the brutality of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
The great irony we discussed last night is that all this has taken place during the era of strong resurgence of evangelical Christianity. I was reminded of Thoms Paine’s imprecation, “You can generally depend upon a good man to do good things, and an evil man to do evil things, but it takes religion to make a good man do evil things.”
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
It was a gripping, fact-filled, and rather unpleasant 78 minutes of viewing time. The marines who had served there spoke first of the uses Saddam Hassein had made of the facility. They showed us the gallows where 80 to 100 people were hanged every day under his iron fist. They told us about sleeping in a room that also held crematoriums for the disposal of the bodies. They spoke, as gloomy footage showed us the dank halls of the prison, of their fear of walking those halls at night; their sense of the presence of all those lost souls wandering in anger.
They spoke, too, of the ways their experience as guards at the American run prison somehow twisted them from the caring citizens they were when they arrived into the kind of people who could commit atrocities on other people. Using documents issued by Donald Rumsfeld and the Justice Department, and discussing the attitudes of their officers, these soldiers painted a picture worthy of Van Gogh in his deepest depressions.
Questions that rose in the minds of the viewers included wondering whether, given the same circumstances, they, too, would turn into the kind of merciless robots these fine young men and women told us they had become. How thick (or thin) is the veneer of civilization that keeps us from persecuting one another? What is the psychological vein of sadism that runs not so very deep within the human psyche? Why does it respond to negative leadership as strongly as it does, so that it allows a culture like the Germans of 1939 or the Americans of 2007 to at best ignore and worst approve of the kind of inhuman treatment our soldiers are giving daily to those incarcerated in inhumane prisons of our making around the world?
As the movie made clear, such policies are not created by the boots on the ground. The policies and the attitudes that create or allow them are made by higher ups – the Donald Rumsfelds, dick Cheneys and George W. Bushes of the world.
The pictures that so shocked us in 2004 are no longer at the forefront of our national consciousness. Instead, we have presidential caucuses about to take place in a state (Iowa) where polls earlier this week showed that 80% of the registered Republicans approve of the job being done by Mr. Bush and his administration. Who would ever have thought that such moral decay would overtake the land of the free; the home of the brave; the nation that saved the world from the brutality of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?
The great irony we discussed last night is that all this has taken place during the era of strong resurgence of evangelical Christianity. I was reminded of Thoms Paine’s imprecation, “You can generally depend upon a good man to do good things, and an evil man to do evil things, but it takes religion to make a good man do evil things.”
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Yesterday's Question Already Answered
Yesterday I asked if the release of the national intelligence estimate declaring that Iran has not been working toward developing nuclear weapons would stop the BushCo pressure to attack that country.
By the time the evening news carried the story, the answer was already on the street. On the Jim Lehrer News Hour, two government experts were interviewed - David Kay, a past arms inspector, and another whose name I missed. Their assessment sounded like they were talking about an entirely different report. From their perspective the report simply proved that Iran had been developing nuclear arms, that US diplomacy was working to deter further development, and that this all went to prove that Iran truly is an enemy we need to fear.
Additionally, President Bush himself made it clear in a statement to the press that this report was not going to change anything. His logic, if you can call it that was that this report was a warning signal because if Iran had once had a nuclear weapons program but stopped it, they could restart it any time.
He also related Iran's decision to stop its program to effective U.S. diplomacy. To cap it off, Hillary Clinton, in a statement made in yesterday's Iowa Public Radio debate agreed with that statement!
What US diplomacy was it that worked to stop Iran's nuclear development four years ago?!? There was none going on that I'm aware of. The big event of that year was our invasion of Iraq. It seems much more logical to me that Iran looked at that invasion and said, "Saddam's gone. I we won't need the nukes." Friends or not, we had removed their greatest enemy so, by dint of the old saw, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend.",they actually saw the U.S. as a sort of round-about ally. If there is any truth in that scenario, our "diplomacy" at this point becomes an even greater slap in the face than ever before.
To me, all this is like a trip through the looking glass. What is there to fear if we know they have stopped trying to develop nuclear weapons? Why should we continue to consider attacking another nation that is not a threat to us?
Maybe because they are still the threat the administration says they are in Iraq? Or, maybe not . . .
The Los Angeles Times recently ran an article confirming the Asia Times article I cited here a couple of weeks ago about the determination that Iran was not behind the IEDs in use in Iraq, either. Here is an excerpt:
In Iraq, U.S. shifts its tone on Iran
Officials have backed off the accusations of arms smuggling and agreed to talk. It could be each side needs the other.
By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 1, 2007
BAGHDAD -- Not long ago, U.S. military officials in Iraq routinely displayed rockets, mortars and jagged chunks of metal to reporters and insisted that they were Iranian-made arms being fired at American bases. Collaboration between Tehran and Washington on stabilizing Iraq seemed doubtful at best.
In the last two months, though, there has been a shift in U.S. military and diplomatic attitudes toward Iran. Officials have backed away from sweeping accusations that the Iranian leadership is orchestrating massive smuggling of arms, agents and ammunition. Instead, they have agreed to a new round of talks with Iranian and Iraqi officials over security in Iraq. The meeting is expected to take place this month.
The U.S. also freed nine Iranian men last month, some of whom it had been holding since 2004. Iran denied U.S. accusations that many of them had been assisting anti-U.S. militias in Iraq, and had demanded their release in a series of testy exchanges with U.S. officials.
When the U.S. freed them, it did not allude to the Iranian demands. It said only that they no longer posed a threat.
Pentagon officials and analysts cite several reasons for the change, including U.S. concern that provoking Iran could set off a confrontation that military commanders are keen to avoid, and the realization that better relations with Iran would help stabilize Iraq.
So - if they are not a threat in Iraq, either, why would BushCo keep saying that we should attack Iran? -- Because it somehow fits into their grand plan for control of the Middle East. The only other reason I can think of is that it definely fits into the BushCo approach of sticking to its guns no matter what.
This administration is like a three year old kid. It can't see the long term effects of its actions and it will hold its breath and kick and scream until it gets its way. Well, it's time we parents put a stop to this nonsense.
BushCo needs a knot jerked in its tail and it's obvious that Congress isn't going to do it. That leaves it up to you and me. Maybe we can find a small room to lock these brats up in until the tantrums pass. Or maybe we could arrange an extraordinary rendition and give them a taste of their own medicine. A little Syrian waterboarding would probably do them a world of good. These guys don't believe it's torture, so they shouldn't mind.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
By the time the evening news carried the story, the answer was already on the street. On the Jim Lehrer News Hour, two government experts were interviewed - David Kay, a past arms inspector, and another whose name I missed. Their assessment sounded like they were talking about an entirely different report. From their perspective the report simply proved that Iran had been developing nuclear arms, that US diplomacy was working to deter further development, and that this all went to prove that Iran truly is an enemy we need to fear.
Additionally, President Bush himself made it clear in a statement to the press that this report was not going to change anything. His logic, if you can call it that was that this report was a warning signal because if Iran had once had a nuclear weapons program but stopped it, they could restart it any time.
He also related Iran's decision to stop its program to effective U.S. diplomacy. To cap it off, Hillary Clinton, in a statement made in yesterday's Iowa Public Radio debate agreed with that statement!
What US diplomacy was it that worked to stop Iran's nuclear development four years ago?!? There was none going on that I'm aware of. The big event of that year was our invasion of Iraq. It seems much more logical to me that Iran looked at that invasion and said, "Saddam's gone. I we won't need the nukes." Friends or not, we had removed their greatest enemy so, by dint of the old saw, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend.",they actually saw the U.S. as a sort of round-about ally. If there is any truth in that scenario, our "diplomacy" at this point becomes an even greater slap in the face than ever before.
To me, all this is like a trip through the looking glass. What is there to fear if we know they have stopped trying to develop nuclear weapons? Why should we continue to consider attacking another nation that is not a threat to us?
Maybe because they are still the threat the administration says they are in Iraq? Or, maybe not . . .
The Los Angeles Times recently ran an article confirming the Asia Times article I cited here a couple of weeks ago about the determination that Iran was not behind the IEDs in use in Iraq, either. Here is an excerpt:
In Iraq, U.S. shifts its tone on Iran
Officials have backed off the accusations of arms smuggling and agreed to talk. It could be each side needs the other.
By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
December 1, 2007
BAGHDAD -- Not long ago, U.S. military officials in Iraq routinely displayed rockets, mortars and jagged chunks of metal to reporters and insisted that they were Iranian-made arms being fired at American bases. Collaboration between Tehran and Washington on stabilizing Iraq seemed doubtful at best.
In the last two months, though, there has been a shift in U.S. military and diplomatic attitudes toward Iran. Officials have backed away from sweeping accusations that the Iranian leadership is orchestrating massive smuggling of arms, agents and ammunition. Instead, they have agreed to a new round of talks with Iranian and Iraqi officials over security in Iraq. The meeting is expected to take place this month.
The U.S. also freed nine Iranian men last month, some of whom it had been holding since 2004. Iran denied U.S. accusations that many of them had been assisting anti-U.S. militias in Iraq, and had demanded their release in a series of testy exchanges with U.S. officials.
When the U.S. freed them, it did not allude to the Iranian demands. It said only that they no longer posed a threat.
Pentagon officials and analysts cite several reasons for the change, including U.S. concern that provoking Iran could set off a confrontation that military commanders are keen to avoid, and the realization that better relations with Iran would help stabilize Iraq.
So - if they are not a threat in Iraq, either, why would BushCo keep saying that we should attack Iran? -- Because it somehow fits into their grand plan for control of the Middle East. The only other reason I can think of is that it definely fits into the BushCo approach of sticking to its guns no matter what.
This administration is like a three year old kid. It can't see the long term effects of its actions and it will hold its breath and kick and scream until it gets its way. Well, it's time we parents put a stop to this nonsense.
BushCo needs a knot jerked in its tail and it's obvious that Congress isn't going to do it. That leaves it up to you and me. Maybe we can find a small room to lock these brats up in until the tantrums pass. Or maybe we could arrange an extraordinary rendition and give them a taste of their own medicine. A little Syrian waterboarding would probably do them a world of good. These guys don't believe it's torture, so they shouldn't mind.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Monday, December 3, 2007
National Intelligence Estimate
A national intelligence estimate was released yesterday about Iran’s nuclear weapons capability. Their conclusion – Iran dropped its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and, if they decided tomorrow to start over, could not possibly produce a weapon before 2012 to 2015.
Why did they decide to make this report – classified since last spring – available to the public? Obviously they wanted enough citizens to be aware of this to create a critical mass that even little dick Cheney couldn’t ignore.
Will it work and stop this megalomaniac this time? It didn't stop them when they were the only ones who had read it. Will public pressure increase and do the trick? Stay tuned.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Why did they decide to make this report – classified since last spring – available to the public? Obviously they wanted enough citizens to be aware of this to create a critical mass that even little dick Cheney couldn’t ignore.
Will it work and stop this megalomaniac this time? It didn't stop them when they were the only ones who had read it. Will public pressure increase and do the trick? Stay tuned.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Venezuelan Elections – Defeat or Victory?
The US government – notably not just the Bush Administration, but the whole verbose shebang – has long been making nasty comments about Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chavez. To me all that bluster is more of the same vis-Ã -vis our usual process of demonizing a person or a nation until he or it becomes accepted as an enemy by the man on the street so our government can act against them without American censure.
Not only has Hugo Chavez been obnoxiously confrontational toward US policy and flagrantly pointing at BushCo as a group of international criminals, but he has been making sure that his country’s resources are used for the benefit of the entire spectrum of society in Venezuela with a special emphasis on the poor. For all those things, he has long been a hero of mine.
By a 51-49% margin in yesterday’s vote, the people of Venezuela voted not to grant Chavez the right to hold the presidency as long as he likes, but rather gave him notice that his term of office is limited. While I think that most of what he has accomplished in Venezuela has been beneficial for Venezuelans (and the world in general), I also think that the voters were right.
Those who hold absolute power indefinitely can and usually do build for themselves a vast and bountiful lifestyle that ultimately must be defended by limiting the power of the people. I don’t know about Chavez himself, but his family was beginning to show signs of that deterioration of national interest in favor of personal interests – big houses, new cars, etc. The kind of extravagances the rich gather to themselves everywhere they are permitted to amass so much more than they need and to taste the thrill of power that wealth provides.
It’s too bad because it goes so deeply against what Hugo Chavez has stood for and accomplished over the years, but it is true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so congratulations to the people of Venezuela for the wisdom they showed in their voting. Now my hope is that Chavez, too, will recognize that wisdom and strive to maintain the efforts at populism that brought equal opportunity to all of his people and show it by being a bit more humble while keeping up his efforts to make sure that everyone benefits and no one is hurt by the power the wealth of his oil producing nation generates.
Viva Chavez. Viva Venezuela. Viva pas.
Would that we had some real populists gaining power in this country and voters with the wisdom of the average Venezuelan
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Not only has Hugo Chavez been obnoxiously confrontational toward US policy and flagrantly pointing at BushCo as a group of international criminals, but he has been making sure that his country’s resources are used for the benefit of the entire spectrum of society in Venezuela with a special emphasis on the poor. For all those things, he has long been a hero of mine.
By a 51-49% margin in yesterday’s vote, the people of Venezuela voted not to grant Chavez the right to hold the presidency as long as he likes, but rather gave him notice that his term of office is limited. While I think that most of what he has accomplished in Venezuela has been beneficial for Venezuelans (and the world in general), I also think that the voters were right.
Those who hold absolute power indefinitely can and usually do build for themselves a vast and bountiful lifestyle that ultimately must be defended by limiting the power of the people. I don’t know about Chavez himself, but his family was beginning to show signs of that deterioration of national interest in favor of personal interests – big houses, new cars, etc. The kind of extravagances the rich gather to themselves everywhere they are permitted to amass so much more than they need and to taste the thrill of power that wealth provides.
It’s too bad because it goes so deeply against what Hugo Chavez has stood for and accomplished over the years, but it is true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, so congratulations to the people of Venezuela for the wisdom they showed in their voting. Now my hope is that Chavez, too, will recognize that wisdom and strive to maintain the efforts at populism that brought equal opportunity to all of his people and show it by being a bit more humble while keeping up his efforts to make sure that everyone benefits and no one is hurt by the power the wealth of his oil producing nation generates.
Viva Chavez. Viva Venezuela. Viva pas.
Would that we had some real populists gaining power in this country and voters with the wisdom of the average Venezuelan
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday, November 30, 2007
How Much Blood and Treasure?
General David Patraeus, asked by Rep. Susan Collins in a Senate hearing recently what the appropriate U.S. response would be if the Iraqi government has not made significant progress within a year, he refused to prognosticate but did say that there would have to be consideration given to how much “blood and treasure” we could continue to commit to that situation.
Before we could possibly make that decision, we would have to know exactly what the goals are in that country and whether or not we collectively agreed that those goals were worth additional blood and treasure.
That is where those of us who have opposed this war from the time it was first discussed part ways with those who support it because they believe that America can do no wrong. The myth of “America the Beneficent” has been the pulse of BushCo’s ability to convince the nation that they should be supportive of this war. They accomplished it, though, by withholding their true goals from the American people while waving the flags of patriotism as though this we were going off to fight World War II.
From my perspective we have already expended far more blood and treasure than was called for by this so-called war on terror. Fighting terrorism takes quiet boots on the ground not the huge expense in blood and treasure of shock and awe bombing a people that neither attacked us nor had any intention of doing so. It takes recognition of the issues that give rise to the hatred that motivates suicide bombers and other terrorists and the resolve to address them. It takes international cooperation based, not on the desire to corner the market on scarce resources or conquer new territories, but the desire to honor the humanity in everyman and to build a future based on the well being of all of us – not just Americans and Brits.
How much more blood and treasure for this war? None.
How much more treasure for healing the wounds of this war and of terrorist activity as well? A great deal. Let’s get on with it.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Before we could possibly make that decision, we would have to know exactly what the goals are in that country and whether or not we collectively agreed that those goals were worth additional blood and treasure.
That is where those of us who have opposed this war from the time it was first discussed part ways with those who support it because they believe that America can do no wrong. The myth of “America the Beneficent” has been the pulse of BushCo’s ability to convince the nation that they should be supportive of this war. They accomplished it, though, by withholding their true goals from the American people while waving the flags of patriotism as though this we were going off to fight World War II.
From my perspective we have already expended far more blood and treasure than was called for by this so-called war on terror. Fighting terrorism takes quiet boots on the ground not the huge expense in blood and treasure of shock and awe bombing a people that neither attacked us nor had any intention of doing so. It takes recognition of the issues that give rise to the hatred that motivates suicide bombers and other terrorists and the resolve to address them. It takes international cooperation based, not on the desire to corner the market on scarce resources or conquer new territories, but the desire to honor the humanity in everyman and to build a future based on the well being of all of us – not just Americans and Brits.
How much more blood and treasure for this war? None.
How much more treasure for healing the wounds of this war and of terrorist activity as well? A great deal. Let’s get on with it.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Bush Peace Efforts
Yesterday President Bush broke his seven year fast from attempting to enhance world peace by providing the keynote for the first effort at Middle-East peace since he took office.
He is to be commended for attempting this even if he is too late. Had he begun the effort seven years ago, though, he might have a chance of achieving something before leaving office. As it is, he has saddled himself with a timetable that makes his chances for success slim at best – not to mention that it is going to be hard for participants to offer concessions to the president who installed pre-emptive warfare as a national strategy and who has often confronted the world belligerently but never welcomed contrary views with open arms.
Probably the wisest thing he has done in this effort is to pass the central roles to the Department of State since, unlike Presidents Carter and Clinton before him, he lacks the ability to handle such delicate negotiations himself. That’s not entirely a condemnation of the man. After all, one of the marks of a good leader is the ability to recognize his shortcomings and assign tasks in those areas to competent aides. This exercise will stringently test the quality of Mr. Bush’s ability to choose competent aides more than his own diplomatic abilities, and the intensity of these negotiations will certainly test their competence to the max.
No matter what your political leanings are, though, you have to be rooting for a positive solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. If Rice and Bush surprise us all by pulling it off, they will definitely deserve a standing O.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
He is to be commended for attempting this even if he is too late. Had he begun the effort seven years ago, though, he might have a chance of achieving something before leaving office. As it is, he has saddled himself with a timetable that makes his chances for success slim at best – not to mention that it is going to be hard for participants to offer concessions to the president who installed pre-emptive warfare as a national strategy and who has often confronted the world belligerently but never welcomed contrary views with open arms.
Probably the wisest thing he has done in this effort is to pass the central roles to the Department of State since, unlike Presidents Carter and Clinton before him, he lacks the ability to handle such delicate negotiations himself. That’s not entirely a condemnation of the man. After all, one of the marks of a good leader is the ability to recognize his shortcomings and assign tasks in those areas to competent aides. This exercise will stringently test the quality of Mr. Bush’s ability to choose competent aides more than his own diplomatic abilities, and the intensity of these negotiations will certainly test their competence to the max.
No matter what your political leanings are, though, you have to be rooting for a positive solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem. If Rice and Bush surprise us all by pulling it off, they will definitely deserve a standing O.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
A Declaration of Principles and the Realization of the Neo-Con’s Goals
Yesterday Mr. Bush pulled off a coup he and his cronies have been aiming at from the beginning –permanent bases for American troops in the Middle East. This move comes as no surprise to those who have done their research on the neo-con motives for the war in Iraq, but others will undoubtedly miss its import.
To really get the picture, you must be familiar with the seminal neo-con document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. Long time readers can skip this paragraph. It’s old hat to you. But for those who still don’t know exactly why we invaded Iraq, here’s the reference that explains it all: www.newamericancentury.org Go there and open the paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. This is a report that was presented to George W. Bush’s campaign committee on international affairs in September, 2000 – a full year before 9-11.
Be sure to check out the list of contributors. You’ll find a lot of familiar BushCo names. You’ll want to read the whole thing, but initially you can save a little time by going right to page 14. There you can verify that I’m not misleading you when I say you’ll find the single line that entirely sums it up. In the middle of the right hand column it says, “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
Now, after six years of fighting at the cost of billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and untold Iraqi property, Mr. Bush has signed a document binding his successors to either delivering or have to weasel out of one of the primary goals his backers sought from the outset of his bid for the presidency – that permanent American military presence in the Gulf.
Love it or hate it; like it or lump it; you and your grandchildren are now obligated to the continued drainage of your wealth down the sump that our rash action in invading the sovereign nation of Iraq has created.
If this “accomplishment” is your idea of a dream, I promise the day will come when you, too, will come to see it as a nightmare. I do not believe that America will enjoy a single day of total comfort with its presence in that country. I do not believe that the time will ever come when we can reasonably expect that no American will be in jeopardy for having been sent to that country. I do not believe that this will do anything to stem the tide of terrorism and anti-Americanism around the world, but rather will add fuel to the anti-American fires smoldering throughout the Arab world.
So congratulations W. You got your way, but once again, just like the day you strutted across the deck in your victory flight suit, you have proven that you have the anti-Midas touch. Everything you touch turns to lead, and our nation and the world suffer for it.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
To really get the picture, you must be familiar with the seminal neo-con document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. Long time readers can skip this paragraph. It’s old hat to you. But for those who still don’t know exactly why we invaded Iraq, here’s the reference that explains it all: www.newamericancentury.org Go there and open the paper, Rebuilding America’s Defenses. This is a report that was presented to George W. Bush’s campaign committee on international affairs in September, 2000 – a full year before 9-11.
Be sure to check out the list of contributors. You’ll find a lot of familiar BushCo names. You’ll want to read the whole thing, but initially you can save a little time by going right to page 14. There you can verify that I’m not misleading you when I say you’ll find the single line that entirely sums it up. In the middle of the right hand column it says, “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
Now, after six years of fighting at the cost of billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and untold Iraqi property, Mr. Bush has signed a document binding his successors to either delivering or have to weasel out of one of the primary goals his backers sought from the outset of his bid for the presidency – that permanent American military presence in the Gulf.
Love it or hate it; like it or lump it; you and your grandchildren are now obligated to the continued drainage of your wealth down the sump that our rash action in invading the sovereign nation of Iraq has created.
If this “accomplishment” is your idea of a dream, I promise the day will come when you, too, will come to see it as a nightmare. I do not believe that America will enjoy a single day of total comfort with its presence in that country. I do not believe that the time will ever come when we can reasonably expect that no American will be in jeopardy for having been sent to that country. I do not believe that this will do anything to stem the tide of terrorism and anti-Americanism around the world, but rather will add fuel to the anti-American fires smoldering throughout the Arab world.
So congratulations W. You got your way, but once again, just like the day you strutted across the deck in your victory flight suit, you have proven that you have the anti-Midas touch. Everything you touch turns to lead, and our nation and the world suffer for it.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Monday, November 26, 2007
Is Our Democracy Doomed?
We’ve all read the stories about the firings of U.S. Justice Department attorneys. The Attorney General lost his job and most of his credibility in the process. Why would he take such a risk? What was really at stake here? What would motivate BushCo to fire so many Justice Department attorneys and replace them with party faithful lawyers? What did they have to gain?
The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that 2008 is an election year. We all like to think of the U.S. as the world’s leader in the free election process. We believe that the people in countries like El Salvador, Haiti, and Russia are oppressed because the elections they participate in are likely to be rigged one way or another. There is really only one party fielding a candidate, or the ballot box is stuffed, or people are intimidated at the polls, or something happens somewhere along the way that predetermines the outcome of the election every time.
We tend to believe that we are above that. We think that we have a system that protects us from predetermined elections, but just look at the last two presidential elections. Eight years ago the entire process was warped and twisted to the point that the popular vote didn’t matter. The electoral college didn’t even matter. It all came down to a Supreme Court decision that was very quickly made and not at all hotly contested. Four years ago there were questions as to the legality of the voting process in Missouri, Ohio and, once again, Florida, not to mention the furor over how easily new electronic voting systems developed and operated by strong supporters of the Republican party could be manipulated.
Questionable practices weren’t limited to the Republican party, either. The Democrats were accused of some pretty shady stuff, themselves. After all, there is a great deal at stake in any election, and an American presidential election contests the most powerful position in the world.
So what does the firing of DOJ attorneys have to do with this? The answer is glaringly simple. Those attorneys are the people who will investigate and deal with contested election issues. They monitor the voting process in this country. They determine how and by whom election issues will be settled. So if they are professed supporters of a given political party, that party can be assured that the settlement will be in their favor. As Naomi Wolf pointed out in a recent article, Goebbels did this same thing in Germany in 1933.
The real upshot of the brouhaha over these attorneys, though, must be examined within the bigger picture. This process is just one aspect of a series of moves taken by the executive branch and through the Congress that perhaps are setting the stage for the complete loss of the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution.
Add it up:
• The firing of U.S. attorneys to make elections easily manipulable
• The right of the executive branch to identify enemies of the state and imprison them without the right of representation or appeal – The Patriot Act
• The suspension of habeas corpus and the empowerment of the executive branch to declare U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” – The Military Commissions Act
• Easing the way for the executive branch to declare martial law – The Defense Authorization Act of 2007
• The creation of prison camps by none other than Halliburton that is occurring in this country right now with no public disclosure
• Hundreds of presidential signing statements exempting the executive branch from laws passed by the Congress
• The rise of a movement for a “Christian” nation with only the extreme right wing allowed to define Christian
• The demise of small news media and their replacement by a small number of large media controlled by ideologues enabled by federal legislation and reduced regulation now being taken further by Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC.
Once again, not all of this can be laid solely at the feet of the Republican party, though most of it is most definitely the handiwork of BushCo and most notably quiet little dick Cheney. Many Democrats have voted along the way in support of this process. The voting record of every office holder in the Congress should be examined and none who consistently voted to put this block of legislation and activities into place or failed to speak out against it should ever be re-elected.
In the best case scenario, this picture represents an abdication of responsibility by our Congress. In the worst case scenario, it is the outline of an under-the-table scheme to hijack the country and take away the freedom of every American who would dare to stand up for his/her rights by strongly protesting governmental actions. In that case, it is no less than a move toward fascism, and should not be tolerated for one minute by any thinking American citizens. Find middle ground here if you can, but even from that position, the nation cannot long survive if the trend is allowed to continue, so unbroken silence is not an acceptable approach to the problem. The solution lies in the will of the people.
For the last eight years I have held that the issues BushCo presents to our nation are not partisan. At this point, it should be clear to everyone that support of either party without regard to the ultimate effect of that party’s actions is a pledge of allegiance to a party and not to America. America needs informed action from its citizenry and allegiance only to the preservation of the constitution or it will cease to be the America we all love.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
The answer, I believe, lies in the fact that 2008 is an election year. We all like to think of the U.S. as the world’s leader in the free election process. We believe that the people in countries like El Salvador, Haiti, and Russia are oppressed because the elections they participate in are likely to be rigged one way or another. There is really only one party fielding a candidate, or the ballot box is stuffed, or people are intimidated at the polls, or something happens somewhere along the way that predetermines the outcome of the election every time.
We tend to believe that we are above that. We think that we have a system that protects us from predetermined elections, but just look at the last two presidential elections. Eight years ago the entire process was warped and twisted to the point that the popular vote didn’t matter. The electoral college didn’t even matter. It all came down to a Supreme Court decision that was very quickly made and not at all hotly contested. Four years ago there were questions as to the legality of the voting process in Missouri, Ohio and, once again, Florida, not to mention the furor over how easily new electronic voting systems developed and operated by strong supporters of the Republican party could be manipulated.
Questionable practices weren’t limited to the Republican party, either. The Democrats were accused of some pretty shady stuff, themselves. After all, there is a great deal at stake in any election, and an American presidential election contests the most powerful position in the world.
So what does the firing of DOJ attorneys have to do with this? The answer is glaringly simple. Those attorneys are the people who will investigate and deal with contested election issues. They monitor the voting process in this country. They determine how and by whom election issues will be settled. So if they are professed supporters of a given political party, that party can be assured that the settlement will be in their favor. As Naomi Wolf pointed out in a recent article, Goebbels did this same thing in Germany in 1933.
The real upshot of the brouhaha over these attorneys, though, must be examined within the bigger picture. This process is just one aspect of a series of moves taken by the executive branch and through the Congress that perhaps are setting the stage for the complete loss of the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution.
Add it up:
• The firing of U.S. attorneys to make elections easily manipulable
• The right of the executive branch to identify enemies of the state and imprison them without the right of representation or appeal – The Patriot Act
• The suspension of habeas corpus and the empowerment of the executive branch to declare U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” – The Military Commissions Act
• Easing the way for the executive branch to declare martial law – The Defense Authorization Act of 2007
• The creation of prison camps by none other than Halliburton that is occurring in this country right now with no public disclosure
• Hundreds of presidential signing statements exempting the executive branch from laws passed by the Congress
• The rise of a movement for a “Christian” nation with only the extreme right wing allowed to define Christian
• The demise of small news media and their replacement by a small number of large media controlled by ideologues enabled by federal legislation and reduced regulation now being taken further by Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC.
Once again, not all of this can be laid solely at the feet of the Republican party, though most of it is most definitely the handiwork of BushCo and most notably quiet little dick Cheney. Many Democrats have voted along the way in support of this process. The voting record of every office holder in the Congress should be examined and none who consistently voted to put this block of legislation and activities into place or failed to speak out against it should ever be re-elected.
In the best case scenario, this picture represents an abdication of responsibility by our Congress. In the worst case scenario, it is the outline of an under-the-table scheme to hijack the country and take away the freedom of every American who would dare to stand up for his/her rights by strongly protesting governmental actions. In that case, it is no less than a move toward fascism, and should not be tolerated for one minute by any thinking American citizens. Find middle ground here if you can, but even from that position, the nation cannot long survive if the trend is allowed to continue, so unbroken silence is not an acceptable approach to the problem. The solution lies in the will of the people.
For the last eight years I have held that the issues BushCo presents to our nation are not partisan. At this point, it should be clear to everyone that support of either party without regard to the ultimate effect of that party’s actions is a pledge of allegiance to a party and not to America. America needs informed action from its citizenry and allegiance only to the preservation of the constitution or it will cease to be the America we all love.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday, November 23, 2007
Who Should Get Your Vote?
Polls this week show W with an approval rating of 33%. At the same time the approval rating for the Democratic Congress is 29%. What does this mean when we are turning the corner into a presidential election year?
Who do you vote for when you don’t approve of anybody? If you haven’t been there before, welcome to my constant quandary. It’s been years since I voted for anyone other than the lesser of two evils, (I did vote eagerly for Bill Clinton, but he was the first I was in any way excited about since Bobby Kennedy. I was old enough, but not smart enough to vote for Jack!) but this year is a oner.
Talk about evils – I’ve been fed up with the Republican party since Richard Nixon headed up a band of burglars and Ronald Reagan raided Social Security to fund his illegal wars, but I never thought I would see true, deep-seated, no-holds-barred evil in the White House under any party until I saw what BushCo came in to do and did.
At this point the only thing I’m sure of is that the Republican party needs to be thrown out of the Whitehouse.
Well, not really. Here are a couple of other things I’m sure of:
1. Anybody who continues to support this war at this point ought to be thrown out of Washington, D.C. altogether.
2. No candidate who will not state that torture and extraordinary rendition have been occurring and must be stopped should receive a single vote from any American of conscience.
3. No candidate who holds that Iran could reasonably be attacked during his or her first term in office should be elected to any office.
4. No candidate who fails to express a desire to reinstate liberties through repeal or revision of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, or any of the other freedom restrictive legislation passed during this administration should be elected.
5. It would be preferable for neither a party-bound Democrat nor a hard-line Republican to be elected to the presidency. (But they will.)
6. The best reasonably possible outcome for the next election would be for a Democrat to be elected president and a slight majority of Democrats to hold the Congress.
And finally, one last point that is absolutely true - No matter what we want from the next election, we won’t get it.
That is the way it always has been and always will be. There is no perfect form of government save a benevolent dictatorship under a Ghandi or Schweitzer, so no matter what the next election brings, we will have to do our best to get along with it. And I, no doubt, will still find plenty to gripe about!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Who do you vote for when you don’t approve of anybody? If you haven’t been there before, welcome to my constant quandary. It’s been years since I voted for anyone other than the lesser of two evils, (I did vote eagerly for Bill Clinton, but he was the first I was in any way excited about since Bobby Kennedy. I was old enough, but not smart enough to vote for Jack!) but this year is a oner.
Talk about evils – I’ve been fed up with the Republican party since Richard Nixon headed up a band of burglars and Ronald Reagan raided Social Security to fund his illegal wars, but I never thought I would see true, deep-seated, no-holds-barred evil in the White House under any party until I saw what BushCo came in to do and did.
At this point the only thing I’m sure of is that the Republican party needs to be thrown out of the Whitehouse.
Well, not really. Here are a couple of other things I’m sure of:
1. Anybody who continues to support this war at this point ought to be thrown out of Washington, D.C. altogether.
2. No candidate who will not state that torture and extraordinary rendition have been occurring and must be stopped should receive a single vote from any American of conscience.
3. No candidate who holds that Iran could reasonably be attacked during his or her first term in office should be elected to any office.
4. No candidate who fails to express a desire to reinstate liberties through repeal or revision of the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, or any of the other freedom restrictive legislation passed during this administration should be elected.
5. It would be preferable for neither a party-bound Democrat nor a hard-line Republican to be elected to the presidency. (But they will.)
6. The best reasonably possible outcome for the next election would be for a Democrat to be elected president and a slight majority of Democrats to hold the Congress.
And finally, one last point that is absolutely true - No matter what we want from the next election, we won’t get it.
That is the way it always has been and always will be. There is no perfect form of government save a benevolent dictatorship under a Ghandi or Schweitzer, so no matter what the next election brings, we will have to do our best to get along with it. And I, no doubt, will still find plenty to gripe about!
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Thanks Alot
Today is America’s great day of thanks. As children we are taught to be thankful for all that America stands for. I remember grade school lessons about the day when the pilgrims shared their bounty by getting together with the Indians in peace to share the year’s harvest in a feast of friendship. It’s only in adulthood that we come to realize that this lovely little scene is most likely the product of the victor’s revisionist history and that it was more like the Indians, feeling sorry for the poor wretches that were about to face the ravages of a New England winter and deciding to feed the fools.
Still, the idea of setting aside a day on which to be consciously thankful for the blessings life has bestowed upon us is a fine one. Those of us who have carved out a comfortable existence for ourselves in America do have a lot to be thankful for. We do not have to wonder whether there will be bread on the table today or tomorrow. We do not have to wonder whether we will be able to find shelter from the storms of the coming winter. We do not have to wonder whether our children will have the opportunity to go to school next week. We do not have to fear that some marauding policeman will kick down our door and attack our women for having shown an ankle in the marketplace. We do not have to hide in the bush because we were born into this tribe instead of that tribe – the one with the machetes and the centuries of hatred in their hearts. We do not have to hide in an attic for five years while the Nazis rage outside the door seeking to haul us away to the gas chambers. We do not have to run from our neighborhoods when we see Al Qaida members coming – not from fear of what they will do to us, but from fear of what the occupying army will do to us after Al Qaida blows things up and leaves so there is no one but us against whom to vent their anger.
We do have a system of justice that gives us the right to fair trial if we are wealthy enough to hire a good lawyer. We do have a police force that looks after our well-being and does not in any serious way seek to abuse their power. We do have a system of public schools that offers a free and adequate basic education to every child. We do have the security of knowing that the odds are very much in our favor when we go to bed tonight that we will sleep safely and awaken to the same level of safety we enjoyed yesterday. We do have the wherewithal to continue to overuse the resources available to us so that we will not have to endure one minute of discomfort throughout the day.
And we do have an election system which, provided we can safeguard it adequately against rigged ballot boxes, unfair election judges and bought supreme court justices, might allow us to vote into office a government that will have better priorities than the economic domination of the world.
Oh, but now I’ve gone too far again. Best to just be thankful for what we’ve got. Or not! – your choice.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Still, the idea of setting aside a day on which to be consciously thankful for the blessings life has bestowed upon us is a fine one. Those of us who have carved out a comfortable existence for ourselves in America do have a lot to be thankful for. We do not have to wonder whether there will be bread on the table today or tomorrow. We do not have to wonder whether we will be able to find shelter from the storms of the coming winter. We do not have to wonder whether our children will have the opportunity to go to school next week. We do not have to fear that some marauding policeman will kick down our door and attack our women for having shown an ankle in the marketplace. We do not have to hide in the bush because we were born into this tribe instead of that tribe – the one with the machetes and the centuries of hatred in their hearts. We do not have to hide in an attic for five years while the Nazis rage outside the door seeking to haul us away to the gas chambers. We do not have to run from our neighborhoods when we see Al Qaida members coming – not from fear of what they will do to us, but from fear of what the occupying army will do to us after Al Qaida blows things up and leaves so there is no one but us against whom to vent their anger.
We do have a system of justice that gives us the right to fair trial if we are wealthy enough to hire a good lawyer. We do have a police force that looks after our well-being and does not in any serious way seek to abuse their power. We do have a system of public schools that offers a free and adequate basic education to every child. We do have the security of knowing that the odds are very much in our favor when we go to bed tonight that we will sleep safely and awaken to the same level of safety we enjoyed yesterday. We do have the wherewithal to continue to overuse the resources available to us so that we will not have to endure one minute of discomfort throughout the day.
And we do have an election system which, provided we can safeguard it adequately against rigged ballot boxes, unfair election judges and bought supreme court justices, might allow us to vote into office a government that will have better priorities than the economic domination of the world.
Oh, but now I’ve gone too far again. Best to just be thankful for what we’ve got. Or not! – your choice.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
BushCo’s Wasp Nest
When I was ten years old, we spent a summer in San Antonio, Texas while my dad, 38 at the time, went through boot camp after being drafted to serve in Korea. We rented a home in a pleasant neighborhood, and one of the new friends I made was Pepe, the gardener for the home across the street. Pepe didn’t speak much English, and I don’t think he was too bright either, because I clearly remember the day he tried to take out a hornets nest by spraying it with a hose. My brother and I thought it was funny, but then at the time we weren’t any brighter than Pepe.
It is really sad to say that I think our president is a whole lot like Pepe. Confronted with the problem of terrorism, he and his cronies have chosen to launch our tech laden military against it. Like Pepe they chose the wrong weapon, but they took it one giant step further and chose to fight their fight in a place that had no relation at all to terrorism.
And what’s been going on behind their backs while they flail away at the Iraqi air they said was filled with wasps? The LA Times has compiled a report card. By every measure, they have exposed the world and the U.S. to much greater danger than existed five years ago. To top it off, they have arrested and illegally dealt with thousands of prisoners who have never been found guilty of anything – more water on the Al Qaida nest.
And yet, some people find ways to support this negativity. The rest of us had better find a way to turn off BushCo’s water and start focusing on the real terrorists and targeted actions before the wasps take advantage of our holding the wrong weapons while looking the other way.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
It is really sad to say that I think our president is a whole lot like Pepe. Confronted with the problem of terrorism, he and his cronies have chosen to launch our tech laden military against it. Like Pepe they chose the wrong weapon, but they took it one giant step further and chose to fight their fight in a place that had no relation at all to terrorism.
And what’s been going on behind their backs while they flail away at the Iraqi air they said was filled with wasps? The LA Times has compiled a report card. By every measure, they have exposed the world and the U.S. to much greater danger than existed five years ago. To top it off, they have arrested and illegally dealt with thousands of prisoners who have never been found guilty of anything – more water on the Al Qaida nest.
And yet, some people find ways to support this negativity. The rest of us had better find a way to turn off BushCo’s water and start focusing on the real terrorists and targeted actions before the wasps take advantage of our holding the wrong weapons while looking the other way.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Pakistan, Iran 0r De Ja Vu?
Martial law is declared and protestors are herded into jail. An autocratic leader declares that the future of the country depends upon his remaining in power. The United States government urges the leader to modify his approach to governance and move toward democracy. Today, this describes Pakistan, but the more I hear about what's going on in Pakistan, the more I think about the Iran I remember from my youth.
When I was a kid the man in the news was Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran. I have a vague memory of his early days in power - days when he was represented in the papers as a shining example of positive governance in the Middle East. He was Washington's darling.
In 1961 I started college at the University of Iowa where I made a new friend named Mahmoud Zokaie. Mahmoud was an Iranian in his forties and was in the U.S. to get a degree that would undoubtedly give him access to a fine job back home. Mahmoud would tell me about his home, and I would take him to mass with me on Sunday mornings. All was well between us and our countries. Less than 20 years later everything had changed. The Shah fled Iran, his autocracy fell to the religious dictatorship of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the relationship between Iran and the U.S. went into the toilet it remains in today.
And today Pakistan has taken Iran's place in our history. Once again we are supporting an autocratic leader whose power is slipping away under the demands of an unwilling public. Once again, there is among those people a growing faction of religious fanaticism eagerly chomping at the bit in anticipation of charging onto that country's political scene to impose its particular brand of "holiness" on the inherently secular process of civic governance. This time, though, this faction is already well known to all of us – the Taliban in combination with Al Qaida.
Will our government once again hang onto its pact with the devil in the form of Musharraf or is there any chance that it will see the hand writing on the wall this time and do the hard work necessary to demonstrate to the people of Pakistan and the rest of the world that it truly is more interested in the establishment of democratic governments than in bolstering its own power through alliances with any strong man who will help them mow down our enemies? (Or even just pose as if that's what he's doing.)
Given the track record of BushCo and W's undying loyalty to any incompetent boob who'll bow to him first, (think, "Heckuva job, Brownie".) there is not much question in my mind which way we'll go. There's not much doubt as to the eventual outcome either. Once again, we will have taken official action seen by the administration as essential to our security, but ultimately acting to erode our security by handing control over to those who hate us most.
The key difference between Pakistan and Iran, though, is that 20 years after the debacle in Iran, we are worried that Iran might get the bomb. Thanks to us, Pakistan already has the bomb and has already begun to distribute it to rogue nations. (Check out what Adrian Levy says about W's complicity with Musharraf in slapping A. Q. Kahn's wrist for handing nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran.)
If we haven't managed to blow the world to smithereens by then, watch what's happening in Pakistan 20 years from now. If it isn't similar to today's Iran, I'll either be eating my hat or spinning in my grave.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
When I was a kid the man in the news was Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of Iran. I have a vague memory of his early days in power - days when he was represented in the papers as a shining example of positive governance in the Middle East. He was Washington's darling.
In 1961 I started college at the University of Iowa where I made a new friend named Mahmoud Zokaie. Mahmoud was an Iranian in his forties and was in the U.S. to get a degree that would undoubtedly give him access to a fine job back home. Mahmoud would tell me about his home, and I would take him to mass with me on Sunday mornings. All was well between us and our countries. Less than 20 years later everything had changed. The Shah fled Iran, his autocracy fell to the religious dictatorship of the Ayatollah Khomeini, and the relationship between Iran and the U.S. went into the toilet it remains in today.
And today Pakistan has taken Iran's place in our history. Once again we are supporting an autocratic leader whose power is slipping away under the demands of an unwilling public. Once again, there is among those people a growing faction of religious fanaticism eagerly chomping at the bit in anticipation of charging onto that country's political scene to impose its particular brand of "holiness" on the inherently secular process of civic governance. This time, though, this faction is already well known to all of us – the Taliban in combination with Al Qaida.
Will our government once again hang onto its pact with the devil in the form of Musharraf or is there any chance that it will see the hand writing on the wall this time and do the hard work necessary to demonstrate to the people of Pakistan and the rest of the world that it truly is more interested in the establishment of democratic governments than in bolstering its own power through alliances with any strong man who will help them mow down our enemies? (Or even just pose as if that's what he's doing.)
Given the track record of BushCo and W's undying loyalty to any incompetent boob who'll bow to him first, (think, "Heckuva job, Brownie".) there is not much question in my mind which way we'll go. There's not much doubt as to the eventual outcome either. Once again, we will have taken official action seen by the administration as essential to our security, but ultimately acting to erode our security by handing control over to those who hate us most.
The key difference between Pakistan and Iran, though, is that 20 years after the debacle in Iran, we are worried that Iran might get the bomb. Thanks to us, Pakistan already has the bomb and has already begun to distribute it to rogue nations. (Check out what Adrian Levy says about W's complicity with Musharraf in slapping A. Q. Kahn's wrist for handing nuclear technology to North Korea and Iran.)
If we haven't managed to blow the world to smithereens by then, watch what's happening in Pakistan 20 years from now. If it isn't similar to today's Iran, I'll either be eating my hat or spinning in my grave.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored. But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Our Christian Soldiers
Today the newspaper tells us that the Senate Judiciary Committee is bamboozled by the question of whether or not to grant immunity to the telecommunications companies that aided BushCo in setting up a system of domestic surveillance. They just can't decide whether or not they might risk national security if they opened the companies up to legal action. Bush also asserts that in investigation might bankrupt the companies.
The only risk to the Senate in all this is that their bill might be vetoed if they don't exempt the companies from suit. This doesn't seem like much of a dilemma to me. If our Senators can't see that they need to have the right to investigate whether or not something already done was illegal, they can't see the nose on their own faces.
I don't see a national security risk here at all. The risk to BushCo is that someone might finally and legally call their hand on the invasion of citizen privacy by learning just how far they have overstepped their legal bounds. Not long ago I received a message that contained a story or a link to a story a telephone company executive about the huge effort that had gone into setting up the equipment and staffing necessary to operate the governmental spying program. I tried to find that reference for you this morning, but was unable to locate it. Sorry. All I can say is that this fellow was deeply upset by the size and nature of this program.
Henry Kissinger once said that it was a mistake to think that governments should be held to the same moral behavioral standards as individuals. He held that the business of government called for breaches of such standards for the well-being of the national community. I've never believed that at all. I think that kind of thinking is just a rationale that let him off the "guilty" hook his conscience would otherwise have imposed on him for all the murder and mayhem his policies caused.
Lawbreaking by governmental figures is often condoned under Dr. Kissinger's creed, though. His beliefs enable people like dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush to rationalize their actions under the old Al Capp saw of "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the country."
The bottom line to me, though, is that leadership that operates outside the bounds of individual decency drags the nation it represents into the gutter with it. The gains from such behavior are always short term. In the long run we all suffer from the world's perception of us as a people who cannot be trusted, and even in the short run many individuals among us suffer because they live by a higher moral standard and refuse to participate in the resulting misdeeds. Many of those people end up in prison because of their resistance to the immorality of the state. Daniel Berrigan comes prominently to mind in that regard.
We should demand of our leaders that they live up to the high standards of the religions they so loudly claim to espouse. As part of that process, we should ask our Senators today to refuse to vote for immunity to telecom companies. Let suits go forward. Let an investigation begin and let the chips fall where they may. We would know then that we had done the right thing regardless of the outcome. Isn't that what our moral code asks of us?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
The only risk to the Senate in all this is that their bill might be vetoed if they don't exempt the companies from suit. This doesn't seem like much of a dilemma to me. If our Senators can't see that they need to have the right to investigate whether or not something already done was illegal, they can't see the nose on their own faces.
I don't see a national security risk here at all. The risk to BushCo is that someone might finally and legally call their hand on the invasion of citizen privacy by learning just how far they have overstepped their legal bounds. Not long ago I received a message that contained a story or a link to a story a telephone company executive about the huge effort that had gone into setting up the equipment and staffing necessary to operate the governmental spying program. I tried to find that reference for you this morning, but was unable to locate it. Sorry. All I can say is that this fellow was deeply upset by the size and nature of this program.
Henry Kissinger once said that it was a mistake to think that governments should be held to the same moral behavioral standards as individuals. He held that the business of government called for breaches of such standards for the well-being of the national community. I've never believed that at all. I think that kind of thinking is just a rationale that let him off the "guilty" hook his conscience would otherwise have imposed on him for all the murder and mayhem his policies caused.
Lawbreaking by governmental figures is often condoned under Dr. Kissinger's creed, though. His beliefs enable people like dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W. Bush to rationalize their actions under the old Al Capp saw of "What's good for General Bullmoose is good for the country."
The bottom line to me, though, is that leadership that operates outside the bounds of individual decency drags the nation it represents into the gutter with it. The gains from such behavior are always short term. In the long run we all suffer from the world's perception of us as a people who cannot be trusted, and even in the short run many individuals among us suffer because they live by a higher moral standard and refuse to participate in the resulting misdeeds. Many of those people end up in prison because of their resistance to the immorality of the state. Daniel Berrigan comes prominently to mind in that regard.
We should demand of our leaders that they live up to the high standards of the religions they so loudly claim to espouse. As part of that process, we should ask our Senators today to refuse to vote for immunity to telecom companies. Let suits go forward. Let an investigation begin and let the chips fall where they may. We would know then that we had done the right thing regardless of the outcome. Isn't that what our moral code asks of us?
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
Friday's Reference
In Friday's blog, I made reference to an article I had seen about the NSA program of spying on the American people through AT&T. A kind reader sent me this reference to an interview from Frontline that is even more complete than the article I had in mind. I'm listing it here today because this story is so crucial to understanding how Orwellian big brother has become. If only the bulk of the American people could get the big picture and react against it.
Just in case the link fails you, here is the reference: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html
Thanks Kathy.
Just in case the link fails you, here is the reference: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html
Thanks Kathy.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Christian Terrorism
I read a nationally syndicated column today pondering the reasons behind Pat Robertson's support for Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid. The ultimate reason is Robertson's conviction that the problem of "Islamic terrorism" outweighs the other issues upon which the two disagree such as gay rights and abortion.
It is refreshing to hear that someone like Robertson understands that there are matters of much greater import than those two hot button issues, but the most troubling aspect of this alliance is the underlying theme that Giuliani hammered home during his visit to Mt. Vernon, MO yesterday. Calling for a massive buildup of American troops, Giuliani sounded the trumpets of war loud and clear, and Robertson, a major voice of the Christian right, has a long history of harmonizing with that tune. The two together would have us in Iran in a New York minute.
What most of us have long failed or chosen not to understand is that the war that is now raging in the Middle East is indeed, despite what W says, a holy war. Yes, the United States government saw Saddam Hussein as an uncontrollable and therefore expendable obstacle in the region and yes, the U.S. saw control of Iraq's oil reserves as a valuable prize and yes, the neo-cons and AIPAC saw the invasion of Iraq as an opportunity to enhance Israel's strength and security in the region, but behind it all lies the manipulation of U.S. policy by right wing religious groups bent on not only dominating Middle Eastern politics, but also cramming their brand of Christianity down America's throat.
In their zeal to make their rigid religion America's guiding light, these American Talibanic believers in Armageddon are perfectly willing to trigger it through wars in the "Holy Land". These right wingnuts know that growing the military under their careful tutelage would ultimately give them the weaponry to push their religion so powerfully upon the U.S. and the rest of the world alike that they could not be ignored.
Under the careful leadership of people like Robertson and D. James Kennedy, a neo John the Baptist who actually teaches seminars on how to convert people to Christianity (i.e. "Save" them) and ultimately to advocate for America to recognize itself as a Christian nation, this bunch resembles no other group on earth as much as they resemble the jihadist Muslims they point at and call terrorists. Their railing against "Islamic terrorists" is as if they stand before a mirror and point out their own viciousness.
The ultimate result of the election of a candidate like Giuliani with the strong backing of the Christian right would be an even more warlike America that truly could trigger what would look like Armageddon with the only difference being that those lying and dying among the ashes would include these crazies who think that when they trigger all this Jesus will leap off a cloud with his flaming sword in hand and lead his faithful followers off to paradise while the rest of us are left to the fires of hell. The only thing missing from these Christians' version of paradise is 72 virgins.
For God's sake (literally) let's get and keep these nuts out of power.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
It is refreshing to hear that someone like Robertson understands that there are matters of much greater import than those two hot button issues, but the most troubling aspect of this alliance is the underlying theme that Giuliani hammered home during his visit to Mt. Vernon, MO yesterday. Calling for a massive buildup of American troops, Giuliani sounded the trumpets of war loud and clear, and Robertson, a major voice of the Christian right, has a long history of harmonizing with that tune. The two together would have us in Iran in a New York minute.
What most of us have long failed or chosen not to understand is that the war that is now raging in the Middle East is indeed, despite what W says, a holy war. Yes, the United States government saw Saddam Hussein as an uncontrollable and therefore expendable obstacle in the region and yes, the U.S. saw control of Iraq's oil reserves as a valuable prize and yes, the neo-cons and AIPAC saw the invasion of Iraq as an opportunity to enhance Israel's strength and security in the region, but behind it all lies the manipulation of U.S. policy by right wing religious groups bent on not only dominating Middle Eastern politics, but also cramming their brand of Christianity down America's throat.
In their zeal to make their rigid religion America's guiding light, these American Talibanic believers in Armageddon are perfectly willing to trigger it through wars in the "Holy Land". These right wingnuts know that growing the military under their careful tutelage would ultimately give them the weaponry to push their religion so powerfully upon the U.S. and the rest of the world alike that they could not be ignored.
Under the careful leadership of people like Robertson and D. James Kennedy, a neo John the Baptist who actually teaches seminars on how to convert people to Christianity (i.e. "Save" them) and ultimately to advocate for America to recognize itself as a Christian nation, this bunch resembles no other group on earth as much as they resemble the jihadist Muslims they point at and call terrorists. Their railing against "Islamic terrorists" is as if they stand before a mirror and point out their own viciousness.
The ultimate result of the election of a candidate like Giuliani with the strong backing of the Christian right would be an even more warlike America that truly could trigger what would look like Armageddon with the only difference being that those lying and dying among the ashes would include these crazies who think that when they trigger all this Jesus will leap off a cloud with his flaming sword in hand and lead his faithful followers off to paradise while the rest of us are left to the fires of hell. The only thing missing from these Christians' version of paradise is 72 virgins.
For God's sake (literally) let's get and keep these nuts out of power.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Extreme Patriotism
I'm feeling fairly well flag flogged this morning. It happens every Veteran's Day, but this morning's paper worked especially hard at driving the message home.
It always puts me on a narrow balance beam – recognizing the validity of giving thanks for those veterans who have put their lives on the line whether actually in defense of their country or only in the belief that there was good reason for them to risk their lives when it wasn't true as in the case of every war I can think of other than the World Wars I & II – and I'm not knowledgeable enough to be sure about WWI.
During the time when we were working so hard to try and get folks to understand that going to Iraq was a gigantic misstep, I was amazed and appalled at how many folks on the other side of the issue were equating Bush's push to Iraq with WWII. It is even more amazing that this feeling persists to this day.
How anyone who takes a hard look at why we went to Iraq and the impacts that decision has had on our own well-being can still think there is any similarity between the two wars is totally beyond me.
We went to war with Japan because they attacked us. We went to war with Iraq after that country's enemy, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida attacked us. We went to war with Germany because their totalitarian government wanted to take over the world and was willing to torture and exterminate people in the process. Now we are engaged in a war designed to heighten our control over the world and its resources and WE are willing to torture and kill innocent people in the process.
America – the world's liberator during WWII – has become the world's oppressor. At the time of WWII we hated the very thought of imprisoning people without just cause, detested any nation that would torture prisoners, and went to war only when the nation was attacked. Now we house thousands of uncharged prisoners whom we routinely torture and we espouse a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. That has traonsformed us from the most admired nation on the globe to the most detested of the superpowers. The world has learned to fear us and hate us.
On the domestic front, legislation has been passed that puts the freedom of the American people at great risk and most citizens appear to be completely unaware of it.
President Bush has spoken over the past few days about his distaste Pakistan President Musharaf's declaration of martial law, but even that rings false. Many people I know fear that a body of legislation run through by the Bush Administration has been aimed at exactly that goal in this country. For a good, clear discussion of their reasoning, take about five minutes to read the two pages written by Frank Morales. (Sorry reference lost in translation from MySpace.)
We've looked at some extremes in this discussion this morning, but I wish that more people could discern that the kind of flag waving patriotism that glorifies the sacrifice people are willing to make for their country is also an extreme. It rightfully thanks those willing to wear the uniform and protect their fellow citizens, but it wrongfully glorifies doing so without first questioning whether or not the cause is worthy of that sacrifice.
I wore the uniform during Viet Nam. When I went in, I was willing to blindly follow and was an advocate of "just nuke 'em and get it over with". By the time I got out, I had learned that all of us in those uniforms were being asked to put our lives on the line for no good reason. Time has proven the latter to be correct.
Unless the citizens of America learn to discern between just causes and false patriotism, the kind of governance offered by the Bush Administration will eventually cost us our freedom. At that point, we will once again have something truly worth fighting for. Sadly, we will have realized far too late that we are our own worst enemy.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
It always puts me on a narrow balance beam – recognizing the validity of giving thanks for those veterans who have put their lives on the line whether actually in defense of their country or only in the belief that there was good reason for them to risk their lives when it wasn't true as in the case of every war I can think of other than the World Wars I & II – and I'm not knowledgeable enough to be sure about WWI.
During the time when we were working so hard to try and get folks to understand that going to Iraq was a gigantic misstep, I was amazed and appalled at how many folks on the other side of the issue were equating Bush's push to Iraq with WWII. It is even more amazing that this feeling persists to this day.
How anyone who takes a hard look at why we went to Iraq and the impacts that decision has had on our own well-being can still think there is any similarity between the two wars is totally beyond me.
We went to war with Japan because they attacked us. We went to war with Iraq after that country's enemy, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaida attacked us. We went to war with Germany because their totalitarian government wanted to take over the world and was willing to torture and exterminate people in the process. Now we are engaged in a war designed to heighten our control over the world and its resources and WE are willing to torture and kill innocent people in the process.
America – the world's liberator during WWII – has become the world's oppressor. At the time of WWII we hated the very thought of imprisoning people without just cause, detested any nation that would torture prisoners, and went to war only when the nation was attacked. Now we house thousands of uncharged prisoners whom we routinely torture and we espouse a doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. That has traonsformed us from the most admired nation on the globe to the most detested of the superpowers. The world has learned to fear us and hate us.
On the domestic front, legislation has been passed that puts the freedom of the American people at great risk and most citizens appear to be completely unaware of it.
President Bush has spoken over the past few days about his distaste Pakistan President Musharaf's declaration of martial law, but even that rings false. Many people I know fear that a body of legislation run through by the Bush Administration has been aimed at exactly that goal in this country. For a good, clear discussion of their reasoning, take about five minutes to read the two pages written by Frank Morales. (Sorry reference lost in translation from MySpace.)
We've looked at some extremes in this discussion this morning, but I wish that more people could discern that the kind of flag waving patriotism that glorifies the sacrifice people are willing to make for their country is also an extreme. It rightfully thanks those willing to wear the uniform and protect their fellow citizens, but it wrongfully glorifies doing so without first questioning whether or not the cause is worthy of that sacrifice.
I wore the uniform during Viet Nam. When I went in, I was willing to blindly follow and was an advocate of "just nuke 'em and get it over with". By the time I got out, I had learned that all of us in those uniforms were being asked to put our lives on the line for no good reason. Time has proven the latter to be correct.
Unless the citizens of America learn to discern between just causes and false patriotism, the kind of governance offered by the Bush Administration will eventually cost us our freedom. At that point, we will once again have something truly worth fighting for. Sadly, we will have realized far too late that we are our own worst enemy.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
Monday, November 12, 2007
Friday, November 9, 2007
Why The Left Fears the Right
Yesterday, I wrote about how the left has abandoned the people. In my twisted little way, that article was prompted by thinking about who on the left was stills standing up for populism. Largely because of the right's successful branding of populists as "humanists" (a super-dirty word to all the evangelical dominionists who form the far religious right) and "socialists" (anyone who thinks that government money should be used to further social programs) and the further branding of anyone who speaks for military reduction and true diplomacy instead of embargo or attack as a soft wimp.
Still, as I was thinking yesterday morning, there are a few lefties who still stand their ground. They are the ones the Democratic party should be listening to and following. They are the ones who are sometimes found standing alone in the empty chambers of the Congress reading their objections to our national neuroses into the Congressional Record. They are Dennis Kucinich, Robert Byrd, John Conyers, Charles Rangel, Patrick Leahy, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
As a great example of this, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) stood last month to object to yet another move by BushCo to enable easy declaration of martial law.
It is this area of law that most scares those of us on the left, and it is also in this area that the radical right most vehemently condemns anyone who speaks out against it. In the time that Bush has been in office, the right has passed and/or tacitly allowed so many infringements upon the rights of the people that this last act , Public Law 109-364 - the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 was seen by Leahy as actually encouraging the declaration of martial law.
Such a declaration is, to the left, the most disastrous possible way that an American government could act. Martial law is the complete antithesis of democracy and as such should only be possible under the most strident attempts by enemies of the state to take our nation down. The big threat arises now because enabling easy declaration of martial law is just the cap on a pillar of earlier legislation that step-by-step made it easier for the Executive branch to declare persons enemies of the state.
The risk of martial law is greatly enhanced when the president can declare individuals to be enemies of the state without due cause as enabled by the Patriot Act. That risk is also made more imminent when the president can authorize surveillance of individuals without judicial oversight. It is worsened when the courts can be sidestepped by virtue of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
And now, Leahy says, the last barriers to the use of the military to supplant civilian police officers are being removed by the Warner Defense Act.
Historically, the government has always been barred from using the military as domestic police. The Insurrection Act (10U.S.C.331-335) and the Posse Comitatus Act (18U.S.C.1385) have worked to prohibit such action. But the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2007 removes the bars. Acting in conjunction with the Military Commissions Act which allows torture and detention abroad, this law makes the same allowances at home.
Read more about this and the detentions centers in place to imprison declared enemies of the state in this article: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law and be prepared to shiver from the chills it will run up and down your spine.
Next week, more about our loss of freedoms and the motivations behind the far right movement to advance its interests by infringing upon yours. In the meantime -- thank any politician you know who stands up for your rights and thank your stars that they are there.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
Still, as I was thinking yesterday morning, there are a few lefties who still stand their ground. They are the ones the Democratic party should be listening to and following. They are the ones who are sometimes found standing alone in the empty chambers of the Congress reading their objections to our national neuroses into the Congressional Record. They are Dennis Kucinich, Robert Byrd, John Conyers, Charles Rangel, Patrick Leahy, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
As a great example of this, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) stood last month to object to yet another move by BushCo to enable easy declaration of martial law.
It is this area of law that most scares those of us on the left, and it is also in this area that the radical right most vehemently condemns anyone who speaks out against it. In the time that Bush has been in office, the right has passed and/or tacitly allowed so many infringements upon the rights of the people that this last act , Public Law 109-364 - the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 was seen by Leahy as actually encouraging the declaration of martial law.
Such a declaration is, to the left, the most disastrous possible way that an American government could act. Martial law is the complete antithesis of democracy and as such should only be possible under the most strident attempts by enemies of the state to take our nation down. The big threat arises now because enabling easy declaration of martial law is just the cap on a pillar of earlier legislation that step-by-step made it easier for the Executive branch to declare persons enemies of the state.
The risk of martial law is greatly enhanced when the president can declare individuals to be enemies of the state without due cause as enabled by the Patriot Act. That risk is also made more imminent when the president can authorize surveillance of individuals without judicial oversight. It is worsened when the courts can be sidestepped by virtue of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
And now, Leahy says, the last barriers to the use of the military to supplant civilian police officers are being removed by the Warner Defense Act.
Historically, the government has always been barred from using the military as domestic police. The Insurrection Act (10U.S.C.331-335) and the Posse Comitatus Act (18U.S.C.1385) have worked to prohibit such action. But the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2007 removes the bars. Acting in conjunction with the Military Commissions Act which allows torture and detention abroad, this law makes the same allowances at home.
Read more about this and the detentions centers in place to imprison declared enemies of the state in this article: Bush Moves Toward Martial Law and be prepared to shiver from the chills it will run up and down your spine.
Next week, more about our loss of freedoms and the motivations behind the far right movement to advance its interests by infringing upon yours. In the meantime -- thank any politician you know who stands up for your rights and thank your stars that they are there.
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
