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-à-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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
