Living as I do in a corner of the world dominated by militant fundamentalist Christians who think that their Christianity and their patriotism are somehow tied together, it was refreshing to see this notice of action taken by the Presbyterians:
Resolution on Iran passed by the 218th General Assembly Of the
Presbyterian Church (USA) June 2008:
The 218th General Assembly (2008) directs the Stated Clerk to send the
following resolution to the President of the United Stated of America and
the United States Congress:
1. That the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) supports a peaceful, diplomatic
means to resolve the tensions developing as a result of Iran's pursuit of
its nuclear program, between the United States and Iran.
2. That the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) calls for direct, unconditional
negotiations between the United States and Iran with the goal of finding and
implementing a peaceful resolution.
3. That the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is opposed to preemptive military
action by any nation against Iran.
4. That the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) calls for a renewed effort at all
levels‹people-to-people, interfaith groups, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and government‹to help the United States and Iran eliminate the
tensions that have existed between our two nations and to unite the American
and Iranian people in a common effort to solve the problems of poverty,
illness, and climate change.
With all the talk that has passed back and forth over the past year over whether or not BushCo intends to invade Iran, it is easy to slip into a kind of complacency that convinces us that it is not going to happen. After all, even the Pentagon brass have come out against the idea.
Still, we cannot afford to forget the level of stupidity, cupidity and hegemonic thinking that still resides in the White House today. If BushCo ignores the advice of the intelligence community, it won’t be the first time, and we cannot afford, either, to forget that if Israel decides to attack Iran, our government will make the case that we cannot ignore the needs of such a valuable ally, and so we’ll be off to war by their side.
It didn’t help that the Council of Churches denounced the idea of the Iraq war long before it was launched, and the Presbyterians probably won’t have much more impact in this case, but you and I will be able to sleep a little better if we remind our Representatives and Senators that we agree with these two august bodies by dropping them a line telling them not to go to war with Iran. Why not do that today?
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
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
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
OBAMA WAS HERE
I spent most of this morning standing with Dave Davison, president of the Peace Network of the Ozarks, on a parking lot outside Glendale High School.
No, we weren’t out there trying to sell anything shady to teenagers! We were waiting for the doors to open so we could go in and hear Barack Obama speak. We arrived shortly after 8:00 am. He was scheduled to speak at 10:00, but we had to park a block away, and the line already snaked from the doorway the full length of the large parking lot, around the end of the lot and halfway back down the other side.
We and our neighbors in line made lots of observations about the problems Obama faces as the first black candidate to make it this far and questions about why the other side is so fixated on the gay non-issues.
One major difference between the parties was glaring to me, though. I remembered a long-ago demonstration we held when W came to town. He was to speak in the minor league ballpark downtown (Definitely an appropriate site for him.), and, as for today’s event, people had to have tickets to go in. The huge difference, though, was that when our members, tickets in hand, tried to enter the Bush arena, they were not only rejected, but arrested for trespassing. At Obama’s rally, on the other hand, just as at the rally John Edwards held on the SMU campus, anyone with a ticket was allowed in.
If you want to draw a meaningful distinction between the two parties, you’d be hard pressed to find a clearer one than that. There are a lot of things I don’t like about the Demorats, but they do recognize that the people of America, thin wallets and all, have value, and they are far more likely to consider opposing views than their Repulsican counterparts.
Once inside, I found the electrically charged atmosphere of political partisanism intriguing, and was often moved to stand and applaud with the crowd as Obama drove home point after point about the need for our government to recognize the needs of the average American family and tailor its policies for their protection.
I found little to disagree with in what he said. Of course, most of what he said was in generalities, but he did say one thing I have waited a long time to hear, and that was that he plans to put a stop to Congressional raids on the Social Security funds and remove the cap from contributions to Social Security. In other words, to require all wage earners to pay the same percentage of their salary into the SS coffers no matter how much they make. (Actually, he suggested exempting only wages between $102,000 and $250,000 instead of all over $102,000 as is the case today, but otherwise taxing all the same.) I don’t know about you, but I’ve been waiting all my life to hear that proposed seriously. It has been the obvious – elephant in the room – solution all along.
He spoke for a bit less than an hour and then asked for audience questions, but there were only time for four or five. Dave and I conferred afterward on the questions we had come to ask. I wish we had been given the opportunity because I the questions asked failed to cover any ground Obama had not already spoken to.
Here is the question I had written out to ask him: As a Vietnam era veteran I, myself, and all who served with me showed our willingness to serve our country. But we also learned that our government had called us to serve in an unnecessary war.
The United States leads the world many times over in military spending and arms sales. President Clinton balanced the national budget by curbing out-of-control military expenditures and I believe we could regain the high moral ground by ceasing to use war as foreign policy.
What are your beliefs on these issues?
Dave had a great question that I really wish had been asked: When you are elected president, what do you intend to do to repair the damage the Bush administration has done to the Constitution?
As it was, Barack Obama got by with only softball questions being asked, but his speech was still informative and reassuring. His understanding of the fact that there are different criteria for progress on Wall Street and Main Street was made clear. His disdain for the wildly high profits being made by oil companies and the leverage wielded by lobbyist was evident. His understanding of the worthlessness of the empty promise of off-shore drilling as a panacea to our gasoline price problem was succinctly stated. And his intentions to sponsor legislation designed to help us little folk survive highlighted his understanding of the fix we are in.
He didn’t say anything about the evils of this war and the devastation to the checks and balances created by our founding fathers as perpetrated by the present administration. He didn’t make any overly wild promises about a chicken in every pot, although there was a time or two when I found myself wondering where the money was going to come from to do all he has in mind.
He did say that he believes in national service – and not just military service, but community service – in exchange for $4,000 per year college tuition credit. And he did give the impression that he is not a naïve beginner, but rather a shrewd thinker who could easily discern between DC BS and reality, and that alone ought to be good enough to earn him a berth at the Whitehouse.
I’ve threatened to vote for a third party because of Obama’s FISA vote, and I will be watching him closely to see what other signs he might give about his allegiance to the powers that be, but one thing is certain. This man is at least head and shoulders above his opponent as a candidate for the presidency, and if the country elects John McCain this fall it would be the stupidest move since they elected George W Bush to a second term.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
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
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
No, we weren’t out there trying to sell anything shady to teenagers! We were waiting for the doors to open so we could go in and hear Barack Obama speak. We arrived shortly after 8:00 am. He was scheduled to speak at 10:00, but we had to park a block away, and the line already snaked from the doorway the full length of the large parking lot, around the end of the lot and halfway back down the other side.
We and our neighbors in line made lots of observations about the problems Obama faces as the first black candidate to make it this far and questions about why the other side is so fixated on the gay non-issues.
One major difference between the parties was glaring to me, though. I remembered a long-ago demonstration we held when W came to town. He was to speak in the minor league ballpark downtown (Definitely an appropriate site for him.), and, as for today’s event, people had to have tickets to go in. The huge difference, though, was that when our members, tickets in hand, tried to enter the Bush arena, they were not only rejected, but arrested for trespassing. At Obama’s rally, on the other hand, just as at the rally John Edwards held on the SMU campus, anyone with a ticket was allowed in.
If you want to draw a meaningful distinction between the two parties, you’d be hard pressed to find a clearer one than that. There are a lot of things I don’t like about the Demorats, but they do recognize that the people of America, thin wallets and all, have value, and they are far more likely to consider opposing views than their Repulsican counterparts.
Once inside, I found the electrically charged atmosphere of political partisanism intriguing, and was often moved to stand and applaud with the crowd as Obama drove home point after point about the need for our government to recognize the needs of the average American family and tailor its policies for their protection.
I found little to disagree with in what he said. Of course, most of what he said was in generalities, but he did say one thing I have waited a long time to hear, and that was that he plans to put a stop to Congressional raids on the Social Security funds and remove the cap from contributions to Social Security. In other words, to require all wage earners to pay the same percentage of their salary into the SS coffers no matter how much they make. (Actually, he suggested exempting only wages between $102,000 and $250,000 instead of all over $102,000 as is the case today, but otherwise taxing all the same.) I don’t know about you, but I’ve been waiting all my life to hear that proposed seriously. It has been the obvious – elephant in the room – solution all along.
He spoke for a bit less than an hour and then asked for audience questions, but there were only time for four or five. Dave and I conferred afterward on the questions we had come to ask. I wish we had been given the opportunity because I the questions asked failed to cover any ground Obama had not already spoken to.
Here is the question I had written out to ask him: As a Vietnam era veteran I, myself, and all who served with me showed our willingness to serve our country. But we also learned that our government had called us to serve in an unnecessary war.
The United States leads the world many times over in military spending and arms sales. President Clinton balanced the national budget by curbing out-of-control military expenditures and I believe we could regain the high moral ground by ceasing to use war as foreign policy.
What are your beliefs on these issues?
Dave had a great question that I really wish had been asked: When you are elected president, what do you intend to do to repair the damage the Bush administration has done to the Constitution?
As it was, Barack Obama got by with only softball questions being asked, but his speech was still informative and reassuring. His understanding of the fact that there are different criteria for progress on Wall Street and Main Street was made clear. His disdain for the wildly high profits being made by oil companies and the leverage wielded by lobbyist was evident. His understanding of the worthlessness of the empty promise of off-shore drilling as a panacea to our gasoline price problem was succinctly stated. And his intentions to sponsor legislation designed to help us little folk survive highlighted his understanding of the fix we are in.
He didn’t say anything about the evils of this war and the devastation to the checks and balances created by our founding fathers as perpetrated by the present administration. He didn’t make any overly wild promises about a chicken in every pot, although there was a time or two when I found myself wondering where the money was going to come from to do all he has in mind.
He did say that he believes in national service – and not just military service, but community service – in exchange for $4,000 per year college tuition credit. And he did give the impression that he is not a naïve beginner, but rather a shrewd thinker who could easily discern between DC BS and reality, and that alone ought to be good enough to earn him a berth at the Whitehouse.
I’ve threatened to vote for a third party because of Obama’s FISA vote, and I will be watching him closely to see what other signs he might give about his allegiance to the powers that be, but one thing is certain. This man is at least head and shoulders above his opponent as a candidate for the presidency, and if the country elects John McCain this fall it would be the stupidest move since they elected George W Bush to a second term.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
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
Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
MORE OIL?
In the usual obfuscative approach to problems, the halls of Washington are ringing with calls for the right to drill for more oil.
“Tap Anwar,” the Repulsicans cry. “We need the oil to offset foreign importation and strengthen our oil independence.”
“Stop Anwar drilling,” the Greens shout back. “There isn’t enough oil there to reduce our dependence on foreign supplies, and drilling in the Anwar will devastate the region’s ecology.”
So which side is telling the truth? The answer is that it doesn’t matter. What is going on is, as usual, a lot of under-the-table dealing.
The truth is that the United States doesn’t have the capacity to refine any more gasoline than it is already producing. The truth also includes the fact that the Anwar holds a very small percentage of our current oil usage level, so all the oil in the Anwar would make no appreciable dent in our foreign oil consumption. The truth is that even if we authorized oil production in the Anwar today, it would be several years before we saw any product from that region in our marketplaces.
The real under-the-table truth is that if we did authorize drilling in the Anwar, the end result would never be increased supplies of gasoline. The real result would be increased crude oil supplies for our petro-chemical industries to make use of at their leisure timed to maximize profits from that use.
The truth is exactly what George Bush said in one of the only truthful moments of his entire political career when he told us that America is addicted to oil. The truth is that the only way for America to become less dependent on foreign oil is for America to become less dependent on oil.
The truth is that the solution to the problem is up to you and me. Yes, the major oil companies are making huge profits at our expense, but they are just the sharks that swim on the reef we occupy. They aren’t any more vicious than any other corporation that swims in these waters. They just occupy a niche that, right now, puts us right in front of their gaping, greedy maws.
One thing is certain, though, and that is that allowing them to drill in the Anwar is not going to do you or me any good no matter which side of the political spectrum we stand on.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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
“Tap Anwar,” the Repulsicans cry. “We need the oil to offset foreign importation and strengthen our oil independence.”
“Stop Anwar drilling,” the Greens shout back. “There isn’t enough oil there to reduce our dependence on foreign supplies, and drilling in the Anwar will devastate the region’s ecology.”
So which side is telling the truth? The answer is that it doesn’t matter. What is going on is, as usual, a lot of under-the-table dealing.
The truth is that the United States doesn’t have the capacity to refine any more gasoline than it is already producing. The truth also includes the fact that the Anwar holds a very small percentage of our current oil usage level, so all the oil in the Anwar would make no appreciable dent in our foreign oil consumption. The truth is that even if we authorized oil production in the Anwar today, it would be several years before we saw any product from that region in our marketplaces.
The real under-the-table truth is that if we did authorize drilling in the Anwar, the end result would never be increased supplies of gasoline. The real result would be increased crude oil supplies for our petro-chemical industries to make use of at their leisure timed to maximize profits from that use.
The truth is exactly what George Bush said in one of the only truthful moments of his entire political career when he told us that America is addicted to oil. The truth is that the only way for America to become less dependent on foreign oil is for America to become less dependent on oil.
The truth is that the solution to the problem is up to you and me. Yes, the major oil companies are making huge profits at our expense, but they are just the sharks that swim on the reef we occupy. They aren’t any more vicious than any other corporation that swims in these waters. They just occupy a niche that, right now, puts us right in front of their gaping, greedy maws.
One thing is certain, though, and that is that allowing them to drill in the Anwar is not going to do you or me any good no matter which side of the political spectrum we stand on.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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, July 28, 2008
OUR CROSSROADS
Among the more than 200 emails that were waiting for me on my return from my two week hiatus was one that referred me to an article written by David Korten that appeared in Yes! Magazine’s summer issue. In it, he succinctly said what I have been trying to say for several years now.
It is time for the United States to recognize that its long-held policy of threatening or using war as a diplomatic tool is passé, and that we must now seriously hold up to the world the torch of peace and recognize that national security can only be gained through international cooperation.
In short, it is time for us to catch up to Japan, who, at our urging after WWII included the following article in their constitution:
ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
The grotesque damage the war in Iraq has done enough damage to the people of Iraq, our economy and our standing in the world community of nations for even the people of the United States to realize that using our military to browbeat the rest of the world into ceding us their resources is not a sound way for us to proceed into the future.
As Korten so eloquently points out, we are at a crossroads from which we as a nation can choose whether to proceed forward with no change in course and thereby drive the world into the pollution of war and horrible ecological policies or to make a sharp turn – whether to the right or to the left – that would result in a bright future dominated not by the pursuit of power, but by the process of cooperation to dissolve policies of war and replace them by green development.
Only a people so paralyzed by paranoia that they cannot see reason could continue to believe that the world’s interests are best served by military means; that the security of the United States depends upon its domination of the rest of the world, and that our best interests are served by spending more than one-half of our discretionary budget on the military.
It is high time that we realized that the next terrorist will be someone whose brother we have killed, and that our next friend will be someone whose son we have fed.
Even if international cooperation cannot totally destroy the idea of terrorism – and it certainly cannot, it should now be readily apparent to anyone who thinks about it at all, that huge weapons of mass destruction are not capable of fighting terrorism. There are better ways, and the best way is to regain the high moral ground of a nation that seeks peace more adamantly than it seeks anything else; a nation that puts its technology to work not on death and destruction, but on life and construction; not on war and dominance, but on peace and shared prosperity.
Let us each pledge to strengthen our personal efforts to help those around us to understand that we now stand at one of the greatest watersheds in history. We now have the opportunity to choose between a future that continues to be full of want, fear, death and destruction or a future that promises to bring peace, comfort, and ecological responsibility to the planet.
Will a change of leadership in Washington, D.C. this fall begin to accomplish this? No. Only if the people of the United States of America stand up and demand it loudly enough and long enough, will it happen.
Remember -- Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle
It is time for the United States to recognize that its long-held policy of threatening or using war as a diplomatic tool is passé, and that we must now seriously hold up to the world the torch of peace and recognize that national security can only be gained through international cooperation.
In short, it is time for us to catch up to Japan, who, at our urging after WWII included the following article in their constitution:
ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.
The grotesque damage the war in Iraq has done enough damage to the people of Iraq, our economy and our standing in the world community of nations for even the people of the United States to realize that using our military to browbeat the rest of the world into ceding us their resources is not a sound way for us to proceed into the future.
As Korten so eloquently points out, we are at a crossroads from which we as a nation can choose whether to proceed forward with no change in course and thereby drive the world into the pollution of war and horrible ecological policies or to make a sharp turn – whether to the right or to the left – that would result in a bright future dominated not by the pursuit of power, but by the process of cooperation to dissolve policies of war and replace them by green development.
Only a people so paralyzed by paranoia that they cannot see reason could continue to believe that the world’s interests are best served by military means; that the security of the United States depends upon its domination of the rest of the world, and that our best interests are served by spending more than one-half of our discretionary budget on the military.
It is high time that we realized that the next terrorist will be someone whose brother we have killed, and that our next friend will be someone whose son we have fed.
Even if international cooperation cannot totally destroy the idea of terrorism – and it certainly cannot, it should now be readily apparent to anyone who thinks about it at all, that huge weapons of mass destruction are not capable of fighting terrorism. There are better ways, and the best way is to regain the high moral ground of a nation that seeks peace more adamantly than it seeks anything else; a nation that puts its technology to work not on death and destruction, but on life and construction; not on war and dominance, but on peace and shared prosperity.
Let us each pledge to strengthen our personal efforts to help those around us to understand that we now stand at one of the greatest watersheds in history. We now have the opportunity to choose between a future that continues to be full of want, fear, death and destruction or a future that promises to bring peace, comfort, and ecological responsibility to the planet.
Will a change of leadership in Washington, D.C. this fall begin to accomplish this? No. Only if the people of the United States of America stand up and demand it loudly enough and long enough, will it happen.
Remember -- Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi
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, July 14, 2008
GONE
Dear Readers and Friends -
I will probably not be posting for the next couple of weeks. I may be able to fit one in from time to time, but personal obligations and the needs of a very close friend who soon will leave us demand my attention.
Please forgive my absence and check with me from time to time. Two weeks will pass more swiftly than you can imagine, and then I will be back in action.
In the meantime, please do what you can to forward the cause of reason and peace.
Yours in Peace,
Bob Ranney
I will probably not be posting for the next couple of weeks. I may be able to fit one in from time to time, but personal obligations and the needs of a very close friend who soon will leave us demand my attention.
Please forgive my absence and check with me from time to time. Two weeks will pass more swiftly than you can imagine, and then I will be back in action.
In the meantime, please do what you can to forward the cause of reason and peace.
Yours in Peace,
Bob Ranney
WHY NOT VOTE FOR McCAIN?
Like it or not, we are going to be faced with a heavily meaningful decision this November when we cast our vote for president.
As usual it is very easy to find reasons not to vote for either candidate and hard to find strong reasons to vote for either candidate. As readers know from past columns, I am not exceedingly happy with Obama but his is certainly the more attractive option since John McCain has handed me a very strong and clear reason not to vote for him.
At the end of last week McCain tried to distance himself from a statement his chief economic advisor, ex-Senator Phil Gramm, made about the American being “a nation of whiners” because of the current economic situation. Gramm later said he was talking about the present leaders and not the people, but I’ve never before heard anyone refer to the country’s leadership as the nation.
McCain hopes that the statements he made immediately distancing himself from Gramm will save the votes he might have lost from those citizens insulted by Gramm calling them whiners. That’s the least reason his relationship with Gramm should cost him votes, though. The real reason has nothing to do with that.
The reason no one should vote for John McCain is that he chose Gramm as his economic advisor in the first place.
The strength of the relationship between these two men has been well documented. See: www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009690 and http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/18/news/newsmakers/tully_gramm.fortune/index.htm.
Did I hear you ask why this should keep you from voting for McCain? After all, you might say, that article in Money Magaxine says that Gramm as Secretary of the Treasury would ensure that the conservative boast of being the party to reduce the size of government would become reality. Gramm, after all, is famous for his dislike of big government.
He may dislike big government, but he has no distaste for making sure that the government doesn’t get in the way of big earnings for his friends, and there lies the rub.
Gramm’s loyalty to his big money buddies far outweighs his loyalty to any party goal including the reduction of government size. In my view, if anybody wants to reduce the size of the government, they could start with Homeland Security. Gramm’s efforts, however have always focused on the banking industry.
His idea of reducing big government is to reduce regulation. So, you ask, what’s so wrong with that? Doesn’t everybody hate the way the government keeps looking over our shoulders?
My answer is that when the government is looking over my shoulder in an attempt to stifle my rights I do hate it, but when the goal is to keep the robber barons at bay, I’m all for it, and Gramm’s whole reason for existence has been to help the barons get their hands deeper into our pockets.
Gramm’s deregulation of the home lending industry is almost single-handedly responsible for the collapse of the American housing market. The evidence is clear that he, more than any other individual, sought and accomplished, through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the abolishment of regulations that had, since the great depression, kept the country on an even economic keel – not to mention that his wife was a nicely enriched accomplice while serving as Vice-Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. (See: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html.) The end result was that the damage to the economy grew exponentially as loans made to borrowers incapable of paying them back were given on over-valued homes then repackaged to be traded back and forth like lottery tickets with each trade adding money to the coffers of the brokers while creating a bubble of unsupported paper wealth.
The article cited above, in an attempt to be fair, notes that Gramm probably didn’t understand how devastating his deregulation efforts would be to the economy so he wasn’t acting malevolently.
To me that is a damned if I do, damned if I don’t situation. If he didn’t know what the effects of his actions would be, he certainly shouldn’t be a prominent economic advisor and probably should be hanged in effigy. If he knew the potential consequences and went ahead anyway because it would make him and his friends richer, he should be hanged in person.
AND THIS IS THE MAN THAT JOHN McCAIN CHOSE AS HIS CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISOR!!
How much confidence should this kind of decision by John McCain give voters in his potential as a president? NONE. ZERO. ZIP. GOODBYE JOHN.
*********************************************************************************
By the way, last week when I wrote about my Canadian trip, I failed to mention a terribly important fact and have taken quite a bit of flack for it, so please note that if you want to duplicate the great time we had at Sioux Lookout, you ought to call Tom Cappel first and sign him on as your guide. Tom operates Blue Water Guide Service and Outfitters from his home in Sioux Lookout and is not only an excellent guide and shore lunch cook, but a fine raconteur and well-voiced guitar picker. He is also not only a gentleman and acholar, but his generosity is exceeded only by his good looks, and you could never go wrong by calling Tom at 807-737-4573 and hiring him to ensure that your boat will be filled with walleye, northern pike, smallmouth, and maybe even a mythical lake trout or two before the week is over.
All kidding aside, Tom is fine guide and fine fellow and I'm proud to consider him a friend. If you ever do get up there, you will be doing the best you can if you work with Tom. 807-737-4573.
************************************************************************************
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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
As usual it is very easy to find reasons not to vote for either candidate and hard to find strong reasons to vote for either candidate. As readers know from past columns, I am not exceedingly happy with Obama but his is certainly the more attractive option since John McCain has handed me a very strong and clear reason not to vote for him.
At the end of last week McCain tried to distance himself from a statement his chief economic advisor, ex-Senator Phil Gramm, made about the American being “a nation of whiners” because of the current economic situation. Gramm later said he was talking about the present leaders and not the people, but I’ve never before heard anyone refer to the country’s leadership as the nation.
McCain hopes that the statements he made immediately distancing himself from Gramm will save the votes he might have lost from those citizens insulted by Gramm calling them whiners. That’s the least reason his relationship with Gramm should cost him votes, though. The real reason has nothing to do with that.
The reason no one should vote for John McCain is that he chose Gramm as his economic advisor in the first place.
The strength of the relationship between these two men has been well documented. See: www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009690 and http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/18/news/newsmakers/tully_gramm.fortune/index.htm.
Did I hear you ask why this should keep you from voting for McCain? After all, you might say, that article in Money Magaxine says that Gramm as Secretary of the Treasury would ensure that the conservative boast of being the party to reduce the size of government would become reality. Gramm, after all, is famous for his dislike of big government.
He may dislike big government, but he has no distaste for making sure that the government doesn’t get in the way of big earnings for his friends, and there lies the rub.
Gramm’s loyalty to his big money buddies far outweighs his loyalty to any party goal including the reduction of government size. In my view, if anybody wants to reduce the size of the government, they could start with Homeland Security. Gramm’s efforts, however have always focused on the banking industry.
His idea of reducing big government is to reduce regulation. So, you ask, what’s so wrong with that? Doesn’t everybody hate the way the government keeps looking over our shoulders?
My answer is that when the government is looking over my shoulder in an attempt to stifle my rights I do hate it, but when the goal is to keep the robber barons at bay, I’m all for it, and Gramm’s whole reason for existence has been to help the barons get their hands deeper into our pockets.
Gramm’s deregulation of the home lending industry is almost single-handedly responsible for the collapse of the American housing market. The evidence is clear that he, more than any other individual, sought and accomplished, through passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the abolishment of regulations that had, since the great depression, kept the country on an even economic keel – not to mention that his wife was a nicely enriched accomplice while serving as Vice-Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. (See: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2008/07/foreclosure-phil.html.) The end result was that the damage to the economy grew exponentially as loans made to borrowers incapable of paying them back were given on over-valued homes then repackaged to be traded back and forth like lottery tickets with each trade adding money to the coffers of the brokers while creating a bubble of unsupported paper wealth.
The article cited above, in an attempt to be fair, notes that Gramm probably didn’t understand how devastating his deregulation efforts would be to the economy so he wasn’t acting malevolently.
To me that is a damned if I do, damned if I don’t situation. If he didn’t know what the effects of his actions would be, he certainly shouldn’t be a prominent economic advisor and probably should be hanged in effigy. If he knew the potential consequences and went ahead anyway because it would make him and his friends richer, he should be hanged in person.
AND THIS IS THE MAN THAT JOHN McCAIN CHOSE AS HIS CHIEF ECONOMIC ADVISOR!!
How much confidence should this kind of decision by John McCain give voters in his potential as a president? NONE. ZERO. ZIP. GOODBYE JOHN.
*********************************************************************************
By the way, last week when I wrote about my Canadian trip, I failed to mention a terribly important fact and have taken quite a bit of flack for it, so please note that if you want to duplicate the great time we had at Sioux Lookout, you ought to call Tom Cappel first and sign him on as your guide. Tom operates Blue Water Guide Service and Outfitters from his home in Sioux Lookout and is not only an excellent guide and shore lunch cook, but a fine raconteur and well-voiced guitar picker. He is also not only a gentleman and acholar, but his generosity is exceeded only by his good looks, and you could never go wrong by calling Tom at 807-737-4573 and hiring him to ensure that your boat will be filled with walleye, northern pike, smallmouth, and maybe even a mythical lake trout or two before the week is over.
All kidding aside, Tom is fine guide and fine fellow and I'm proud to consider him a friend. If you ever do get up there, you will be doing the best you can if you work with Tom. 807-737-4573.
************************************************************************************
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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, July 11, 2008
IT’S TIME THE PEACE MOVEMENT GOT SOME CREDIT
IT’S TIME THE PEACE MOVEMENT GOT SOME CREDIT
For years now many people in Springfield and other towns like it all across this country have been making their stand against BushCo’s war on the Middle-East, and through all those years, we have had to endure heckling, name-calling and slurs against our courage and our patriotism.
It has been rewarding to see the majority of the country’s citizens finally coming into line with us in their opposition to the war in Iraq, but I fear that their reasons for doing so are different from our reasons for initial opposition, and there can be no doubt that they would still rather not be associated with us “peaceniks”.
I never have and never will, and I expect you never have and never will, expect to be thanked for opposing this war from the start, nor for standing our ground until the rest of country caught on, but I sure would appreciate it if someone would at least acknowledge that we were right.
I remember the first big protest march the PNO (Peace Network of the Ozarks) staged. The occasion was W’s visit to speak on behalf of Jim Talent in his race for the Senate. I think PNO could take some credit for the helping the community to see that Talent’s unquestioning support for Bush war policies fed strongly into the reasons why McCaskill should take his place.
We tried mightily that day to get the message across that Bush was pushing an unnecessary and illegal war. For our efforts, we were loudly called unpatriotic, communist cowards. As a veteran of the Vietnam era, I was deeply offended by that characterization and would love an opportunity to speak to those same folks today and see how they feel about this war now.
As the build-up to the war escalated, PNO was invited to participate in a televised debate over whether or not we should invade Iraq. I was privileged to sit on that panel along with professors from Dury and MSU, a retired military officer, and the head of the Missouri Department of Homeland Security. The points PNO members schooled me to make were:
(1) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. BushCo and my opposition said he did. THEY WERE WRONG and WE WERE RIGHT.
(2) Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. BushCo and my opposition said that we couldn’t know that and that they would find those weapons after toppling Hussein. We contended that the UN Weapons Inspectors and the IAEA had clearly established the absence of WMDs. THEY WERE WRONG and WE WERE RIGHT.
(3) Iraqis would not respond with open arms to our bombing their country. BushCo and my opposition said that we would be welcomed as liberators. My response was that it was a bit tenuous to think that we could bomb a nation to ashes and expect them to love us for it. THEY WERE WRONG and WE WERE RIGHT.
(4) The economic cost of the war would be too high. Those in favor of the war said that Iraq’s oil would pay for it. THEY WERE WRONG and WE WERE RIGHT.
(5) The loss of both American and Iraqi lives would be too high a price to pay. We have lost over 4,000 patriotic Americans. It is still impossible to tell how many Iraqis died, but it is in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention the millions who have lost their homes and are now refugees. THEY WERE WRONG and WE WERE RIGHT.
We staged many street corner protests over the years, and took more abuse including a beer bottle thrown from a moving vehicle. I remember one day when an elderly man pulled over to the curb and said to me, “Freedom isn’t free. It comes at a price.” He immediately rolled up his window, unwilling to hear my response, so he missed my telling him that as a veteran, I knew that. He missed my saying that freedom is forfeited when citizens blindly follow negative leadership.
We both missed a chance to discuss our grievances, and that is the crux of my complaint this morning. It has been years since it was possible to have a good deep political discussion on opposing viewpoints.
I will go tomorrow to visit a dear and valued old friend. We’ve known each other so long that I had a small hand in helping to raise his sons and helped hold his spirits up after his wife of 27 years left him. His youngest son and I had a special bond and yet we have not spoken for four years because he, as a military man and a Republican, cannot talk with me about politics without getting extremely angry. My marching for peace offends him as does my advocacy for domestic spending over militaristic spending in the nation’s budget.
I understand his distaste for my positions, but I love that young man and respect his reasons for believing as he does. It pains me deeply to know that he can’t respect mine. He will be there tomorrow. I hope that time has ameliorated our differences so that we can once again feel the love and respect for one another that was for so long the basis of our relationship.
My wishes for the future relations between PNO members and community members are the same. I wish that the community could recognize and acknowledge at least that we have always had a sound basis for our arguments. I wish that we could all sit down – on opposite sides of the table if need be – but at least in the same room and speak our minds civilly and in an air of mutual respect so that we could come to realize that our similarities are greater than our differences; that we all have the same basic goal in mind – to live well and in peace with one another.
Is that asking so much?
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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
For years now many people in Springfield and other towns like it all across this country have been making their stand against BushCo’s war on the Middle-East, and through all those years, we have had to endure heckling, name-calling and slurs against our courage and our patriotism.
It has been rewarding to see the majority of the country’s citizens finally coming into line with us in their opposition to the war in Iraq, but I fear that their reasons for doing so are different from our reasons for initial opposition, and there can be no doubt that they would still rather not be associated with us “peaceniks”.
I never have and never will, and I expect you never have and never will, expect to be thanked for opposing this war from the start, nor for standing our ground until the rest of country caught on, but I sure would appreciate it if someone would at least acknowledge that we were right.
I remember the first big protest march the PNO (Peace Network of the Ozarks) staged. The occasion was W’s visit to speak on behalf of Jim Talent in his race for the Senate. I think PNO could take some credit for the helping the community to see that Talent’s unquestioning support for Bush war policies fed strongly into the reasons why McCaskill should take his place.
We tried mightily that day to get the message across that Bush was pushing an unnecessary and illegal war. For our efforts, we were loudly called unpatriotic, communist cowards. As a veteran of the Vietnam era, I was deeply offended by that characterization and would love an opportunity to speak to those same folks today and see how they feel about this war now.
As the build-up to the war escalated, PNO was invited to participate in a televised debate over whether or not we should invade Iraq. I was privileged to sit on that panel along with professors from Dury and MSU, a retired military officer, and the head of the Missouri Department of Homeland Security. The points PNO members schooled me to make were:
(1) Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. BushCo and my opposition said he did. THEY WERE WRONG and WE WERE RIGHT.
(2) Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. BushCo and my opposition said that we couldn’t know that and that they would find those weapons after toppling Hussein. We contended that the UN Weapons Inspectors and the IAEA had clearly established the absence of WMDs. THEY WERE WRONG and WE WERE RIGHT.
(3) Iraqis would not respond with open arms to our bombing their country. BushCo and my opposition said that we would be welcomed as liberators. My response was that it was a bit tenuous to think that we could bomb a nation to ashes and expect them to love us for it. THEY WERE WRONG and WE WERE RIGHT.
(4) The economic cost of the war would be too high. Those in favor of the war said that Iraq’s oil would pay for it. THEY WERE WRONG and WE WERE RIGHT.
(5) The loss of both American and Iraqi lives would be too high a price to pay. We have lost over 4,000 patriotic Americans. It is still impossible to tell how many Iraqis died, but it is in the hundreds of thousands, not to mention the millions who have lost their homes and are now refugees. THEY WERE WRONG and WE WERE RIGHT.
We staged many street corner protests over the years, and took more abuse including a beer bottle thrown from a moving vehicle. I remember one day when an elderly man pulled over to the curb and said to me, “Freedom isn’t free. It comes at a price.” He immediately rolled up his window, unwilling to hear my response, so he missed my telling him that as a veteran, I knew that. He missed my saying that freedom is forfeited when citizens blindly follow negative leadership.
We both missed a chance to discuss our grievances, and that is the crux of my complaint this morning. It has been years since it was possible to have a good deep political discussion on opposing viewpoints.
I will go tomorrow to visit a dear and valued old friend. We’ve known each other so long that I had a small hand in helping to raise his sons and helped hold his spirits up after his wife of 27 years left him. His youngest son and I had a special bond and yet we have not spoken for four years because he, as a military man and a Republican, cannot talk with me about politics without getting extremely angry. My marching for peace offends him as does my advocacy for domestic spending over militaristic spending in the nation’s budget.
I understand his distaste for my positions, but I love that young man and respect his reasons for believing as he does. It pains me deeply to know that he can’t respect mine. He will be there tomorrow. I hope that time has ameliorated our differences so that we can once again feel the love and respect for one another that was for so long the basis of our relationship.
My wishes for the future relations between PNO members and community members are the same. I wish that the community could recognize and acknowledge at least that we have always had a sound basis for our arguments. I wish that we could all sit down – on opposite sides of the table if need be – but at least in the same room and speak our minds civilly and in an air of mutual respect so that we could come to realize that our similarities are greater than our differences; that we all have the same basic goal in mind – to live well and in peace with one another.
Is that asking so much?
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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, July 10, 2008
THE BEST NEWS IS FROM IRAQ!
I have ignored it since returning from vacation, but the best news I’ve heard in a long time came out of Iraq.
I never thought I’d say that. The very word Iraq has become synonymous with pain and suffering in my mind. I have also equated it with everything I despise about BushCo, their goals, and the way they go about achieving them.
I’ve always thought that one of those goals was to establish a dependent, if not puppet, government in Iraq that they could manipulate into furthering their quest for permanent military bases and control over oil and water resources.
The great news from Iraq, though, is that they have apparently failed in that attempt. The government of Iraq, apparently as disgusted by the blatantly greedy and inept power-grabbing efforts of this conscience-less administration as the rest of the world is, has, through the mouth of al Maliki, basically told BushCo to shove it.
Like those of us who have been the brunt of attacks from the right for our “unpatriotic” support of troop withdrawal, the government of Iraq has forthrightly said that they want us to set a timetable for withdrawal and give them back their country. Included in this position are the denial of the right to a permanent military presence in Iraq and the assumption of the right of the Iraqi government to contract with whomever it choses to manage its oilfields.
Of course, BushCo has long held that a withdrawal should be in accord with “conditions on the ground” and not some arbitrary timetable, but we have long known, and now the Iraqi government has made known, that conditions on the ground are such that a timetable for withdrawal is appropriate. The reason BushCo isn’t ready to withdraw is that they did not come there thinking that they would ever withdraw. The written goal as stated two years before the war started in the neo-con paper “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq as a means of establishing western control over the Middle-East.
Now, faced with the Iraqi demand for a withdrawal timetable, what will BushCo do? I think there is a simple, one-word answer – nothing. So far, they have just ignored it, and that is what they will continue to do in the hope that they can stick to the status quo and then hand the problem over to the next administration.
The fact is that any administration that was at all interested in removing our soldiers from harms way would immediately have dispatched at least the Secretary of State to meet with representatives of the Iraqi government and begin working out the details for withdrawal.
The fact that this administration has failed to react to this demand is clearly further proof of their lack of interest in removing our troops from harms way. Their interest is in furthering their imperialistic goals and nothing else.
Perhaps it is on this front that groups like our Peace Network of the Ozarks should now focus their efforts. If the Iraqis want us out, on what grounds can we to refuse to honor their wishes?
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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 never thought I’d say that. The very word Iraq has become synonymous with pain and suffering in my mind. I have also equated it with everything I despise about BushCo, their goals, and the way they go about achieving them.
I’ve always thought that one of those goals was to establish a dependent, if not puppet, government in Iraq that they could manipulate into furthering their quest for permanent military bases and control over oil and water resources.
The great news from Iraq, though, is that they have apparently failed in that attempt. The government of Iraq, apparently as disgusted by the blatantly greedy and inept power-grabbing efforts of this conscience-less administration as the rest of the world is, has, through the mouth of al Maliki, basically told BushCo to shove it.
Like those of us who have been the brunt of attacks from the right for our “unpatriotic” support of troop withdrawal, the government of Iraq has forthrightly said that they want us to set a timetable for withdrawal and give them back their country. Included in this position are the denial of the right to a permanent military presence in Iraq and the assumption of the right of the Iraqi government to contract with whomever it choses to manage its oilfields.
Of course, BushCo has long held that a withdrawal should be in accord with “conditions on the ground” and not some arbitrary timetable, but we have long known, and now the Iraqi government has made known, that conditions on the ground are such that a timetable for withdrawal is appropriate. The reason BushCo isn’t ready to withdraw is that they did not come there thinking that they would ever withdraw. The written goal as stated two years before the war started in the neo-con paper “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was to establish a permanent military presence in Iraq as a means of establishing western control over the Middle-East.
Now, faced with the Iraqi demand for a withdrawal timetable, what will BushCo do? I think there is a simple, one-word answer – nothing. So far, they have just ignored it, and that is what they will continue to do in the hope that they can stick to the status quo and then hand the problem over to the next administration.
The fact is that any administration that was at all interested in removing our soldiers from harms way would immediately have dispatched at least the Secretary of State to meet with representatives of the Iraqi government and begin working out the details for withdrawal.
The fact that this administration has failed to react to this demand is clearly further proof of their lack of interest in removing our troops from harms way. Their interest is in furthering their imperialistic goals and nothing else.
Perhaps it is on this front that groups like our Peace Network of the Ozarks should now focus their efforts. If the Iraqis want us out, on what grounds can we to refuse to honor their wishes?
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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, July 9, 2008
Iraqi Yellowcake Goes to Canada
What follows is the text of a video aired by ABC News on Tuesday:
[0:00] ..." The US embassy as well as the multinational forces in Iraq are now confirming that the United States government has assisted the Iraqi Government with the sale and removal of approximately 550 metric tons of yellow cake at the request of the Iraqi Government . It's thought to be the lost major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program yellow cake. It's concentrated natural. Uranium it is not considered to be potent enough alone for a dirty bomb. However it can also be enriched for use in reactors and even at higher levels could possibly be used for nuclear weapons . Those 550 metric tons of yellow cake are now in Canada. Clarissa -- ABC news Baghdad"...
Wow. So is this proof that Saddam actually did have a nuclear weapons development program?
A good many right wingers, including Springfield’s own Larry Little http://simplethoughts-complexmind.blogspot.com, are saying the answer is yes, but it doesn’t take much research to find the truth which is that the UN, the IAEA, and the US government were all well aware of the presence of that yellowcake from 1991 on.
It is notable that even BushCo wasn’t brazen enough to claim it was evidence of an on-going nuclear weapons development program.
By definition, yellowcake is not weapons grade. In order for it to be used for nuclear weapons, it would have to be much more highly refined, and Saddam did not have the centrifuge system necessary to do the job. It even needs further refinement before it could be used to produce nuclear power.
The US government took part in the decision to move the stuff to Canada because that country does not have a nuclear weapons development program and is signatory to the nonproliferation treaty.
So, once again, the radical right are willing to risk the reputation of the more stable right wingers so that they can make their fear-mongering claims that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a valid one.
We need a much more balanced discourse in this country. One that allows the voices of those with level heads on both sides to be heard and that presents fact-based discussion of the pros and cons of various positions. The kind of “Amerika-love-it-or-leave-it” thinking that is espoused by the right wing alarmists is no more valuable than the “America-is-always-wrong” kind of thinking that is put forward by extremists on the left.
Our two political parties are far too divided for reasonable discourse in Congress, but the people on the street ought to be able to do better, and the end result ought to be that elected representatives who are too polarized are tossed out of office and replaced by others more willing to consider the needs of the citizens of America and the people of the world than to march goose-step to the party line drums.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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
[0:00] ..." The US embassy as well as the multinational forces in Iraq are now confirming that the United States government has assisted the Iraqi Government with the sale and removal of approximately 550 metric tons of yellow cake at the request of the Iraqi Government . It's thought to be the lost major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program yellow cake. It's concentrated natural. Uranium it is not considered to be potent enough alone for a dirty bomb. However it can also be enriched for use in reactors and even at higher levels could possibly be used for nuclear weapons . Those 550 metric tons of yellow cake are now in Canada. Clarissa -- ABC news Baghdad"...
Wow. So is this proof that Saddam actually did have a nuclear weapons development program?
A good many right wingers, including Springfield’s own Larry Little http://simplethoughts-complexmind.blogspot.com, are saying the answer is yes, but it doesn’t take much research to find the truth which is that the UN, the IAEA, and the US government were all well aware of the presence of that yellowcake from 1991 on.
It is notable that even BushCo wasn’t brazen enough to claim it was evidence of an on-going nuclear weapons development program.
By definition, yellowcake is not weapons grade. In order for it to be used for nuclear weapons, it would have to be much more highly refined, and Saddam did not have the centrifuge system necessary to do the job. It even needs further refinement before it could be used to produce nuclear power.
The US government took part in the decision to move the stuff to Canada because that country does not have a nuclear weapons development program and is signatory to the nonproliferation treaty.
So, once again, the radical right are willing to risk the reputation of the more stable right wingers so that they can make their fear-mongering claims that the decision to go to war in Iraq was a valid one.
We need a much more balanced discourse in this country. One that allows the voices of those with level heads on both sides to be heard and that presents fact-based discussion of the pros and cons of various positions. The kind of “Amerika-love-it-or-leave-it” thinking that is espoused by the right wing alarmists is no more valuable than the “America-is-always-wrong” kind of thinking that is put forward by extremists on the left.
Our two political parties are far too divided for reasonable discourse in Congress, but the people on the street ought to be able to do better, and the end result ought to be that elected representatives who are too polarized are tossed out of office and replaced by others more willing to consider the needs of the citizens of America and the people of the world than to march goose-step to the party line drums.
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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, July 8, 2008
Homeland Security Strikes Again
If you want a black laugh and a bout of knee-knocking terror all in one swell foop, just follow this link then read it and weep. http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/aviation-security/2008/Jul/01/want-some-torture-with-your-peanuts/
This is just another link in the long chain of knee-knock reactions I suffer whenever I hear the term “Homeland Security”. I remember the first time I heard the proposal for the creation of this cabinet post. My first thought, and that of my clear-headed wife was that the term itself smacked of Nazi Germany. Hitler would have loved the sound of it. The Homeland: Der Vaterland. Homeland Security: Vaterland Sicherheit.
Heil Bush.
Even John McCain recently noted that our “conservative” president has increased the size of the federal government by 60% over the past seven years. McCain, himself, calls this unacceptable, but he says nothing about what agencies grew so. I don’t have exact figures at this point, myself, but I can tell you this without reservation; Homeland Security is no small part of that unacceptable growth.
At first, the actions of this department were so laughable that if one ignored the tangible and intangible costs, it added to the daily chuckles Washington, D.C. can provide to anyone capable of seeing past the smoke screens. I mean how could you take anyone seriously when the best they could do was to recommend that all citizens buy duct tape and plastic to seal up their homes in defense against terrorist attacks?!!
It wasn’t long after that recommendation that a deranged would be terrorist tried to light a bomb in his sneakers and – ever after – every 90 year old lady who wanted to ride an airplane had to take off her shoes before she could pass the security check point. Then some bright bulb figured out that there was a remote possibility that a passenger might build a bomb while aboard a plane so we all have to bring limited amounts of toiletries with us and put them all in a clear plastic bag of a certain size. Nail clippers and pen knives pose such a huge threat to us that no one can carry any of them, either.
“Okay, I’ve got a loaded nail clipper, here. Nobody move until I force the pilot to land in Cuba.”
The only stroke of genius the Department of Homeland Security has ever had (Unfortunately it was a stroke of evil genius.) was the system of color-coded signals cleverly designed to keep the average Amerikan on pins and needles in fear of another attack.
“The terrorism alert code is Orange today. No attack is imminent, so all citizens can relax into their usual routine of just watching for unusual activity and be ready to report any strange backpacks or brief cases left lying around. Have a good day and enjoy your flight.”
And now the insanity of a cabinet department created in the name of protecting the freedom of the American people has proposed that all passengers on every airplane should wear a bracelet that they want to call a “Safety ID Bracelet” so that people won’t be alarmed by being asked to wear what the industry calls an EMD Bracelet. (That’s short for Electro-Muscular Disruption Bracelet.) I just can’t wait for the chance to put one on. How about you?
Does it occur to you, as it does to me, that this is asking me to forfeit far too much of my freedom as a law-abiding American citizen in the name of safety? How safe can citizens of any nation be when they are expected to wear an article of clothing that can render them painfully immobile at the whim of whatever authority holds the remote control?
Has anyone in the Department of Vaterland Sicherheit ever wondered what might happen if terrorists learn to remove the bracelets from their own wrists and over-ride the remote command function with a controller of their own? Does anyone in the Department of Vaterland Sicherheit remember that it was free citizens who overcame the terrorists aboard a plane over Pennsylvannia and perhaps saved the nation’s capital from a destructive blow to the Capital Building or the Whitehouse? (Of course our fearless leader wouldn't have been hurt in any case as he was busy trying to read a story about a goat to a third grade class. At least he was operating at an appropriate level that day.) Does anyone in the Department of Vaterland Sicherheit understand the difference between freedom and slavery; freedom and safety; or democracy and dictatorship?
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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
This is just another link in the long chain of knee-knock reactions I suffer whenever I hear the term “Homeland Security”. I remember the first time I heard the proposal for the creation of this cabinet post. My first thought, and that of my clear-headed wife was that the term itself smacked of Nazi Germany. Hitler would have loved the sound of it. The Homeland: Der Vaterland. Homeland Security: Vaterland Sicherheit.
Heil Bush.
Even John McCain recently noted that our “conservative” president has increased the size of the federal government by 60% over the past seven years. McCain, himself, calls this unacceptable, but he says nothing about what agencies grew so. I don’t have exact figures at this point, myself, but I can tell you this without reservation; Homeland Security is no small part of that unacceptable growth.
At first, the actions of this department were so laughable that if one ignored the tangible and intangible costs, it added to the daily chuckles Washington, D.C. can provide to anyone capable of seeing past the smoke screens. I mean how could you take anyone seriously when the best they could do was to recommend that all citizens buy duct tape and plastic to seal up their homes in defense against terrorist attacks?!!
It wasn’t long after that recommendation that a deranged would be terrorist tried to light a bomb in his sneakers and – ever after – every 90 year old lady who wanted to ride an airplane had to take off her shoes before she could pass the security check point. Then some bright bulb figured out that there was a remote possibility that a passenger might build a bomb while aboard a plane so we all have to bring limited amounts of toiletries with us and put them all in a clear plastic bag of a certain size. Nail clippers and pen knives pose such a huge threat to us that no one can carry any of them, either.
“Okay, I’ve got a loaded nail clipper, here. Nobody move until I force the pilot to land in Cuba.”
The only stroke of genius the Department of Homeland Security has ever had (Unfortunately it was a stroke of evil genius.) was the system of color-coded signals cleverly designed to keep the average Amerikan on pins and needles in fear of another attack.
“The terrorism alert code is Orange today. No attack is imminent, so all citizens can relax into their usual routine of just watching for unusual activity and be ready to report any strange backpacks or brief cases left lying around. Have a good day and enjoy your flight.”
And now the insanity of a cabinet department created in the name of protecting the freedom of the American people has proposed that all passengers on every airplane should wear a bracelet that they want to call a “Safety ID Bracelet” so that people won’t be alarmed by being asked to wear what the industry calls an EMD Bracelet. (That’s short for Electro-Muscular Disruption Bracelet.) I just can’t wait for the chance to put one on. How about you?
Does it occur to you, as it does to me, that this is asking me to forfeit far too much of my freedom as a law-abiding American citizen in the name of safety? How safe can citizens of any nation be when they are expected to wear an article of clothing that can render them painfully immobile at the whim of whatever authority holds the remote control?
Has anyone in the Department of Vaterland Sicherheit ever wondered what might happen if terrorists learn to remove the bracelets from their own wrists and over-ride the remote command function with a controller of their own? Does anyone in the Department of Vaterland Sicherheit remember that it was free citizens who overcame the terrorists aboard a plane over Pennsylvannia and perhaps saved the nation’s capital from a destructive blow to the Capital Building or the Whitehouse? (Of course our fearless leader wouldn't have been hurt in any case as he was busy trying to read a story about a goat to a third grade class. At least he was operating at an appropriate level that day.) Does anyone in the Department of Vaterland Sicherheit understand the difference between freedom and slavery; freedom and safety; or democracy and dictatorship?
“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry
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, July 7, 2008
The Ethics of Extraordinary Rendition
I spent every day of the past week in a boat fishing Canada’s English River system. We stayed near Sioux Lookout, Ontario and fished primarily in Minnitaki Lake, one of my favorite places on earth. It was delightful to spend each day ignoring whatever was going on in the rest of the world – no newscasts, no newspapers, no radio, no blogs, no computer, not even a telephone. I didn’t even check my email; just spent each day in contemplative pursuit of finny future entrees.
I had earmarked a subject for consideration before I left – the British Parliament’s reaction to the report that they had been unwillingly complicit in America’s extraordinary rendition efforts, and it was still being discussed in obscure corners of the web when I returned.
It seems that certain Members of Parliament are up in arms because they figured out that their agreement allowing the U.S. to land on the British controlled Indian Ocean island, Diego Garcia, had included landings to refuel flights carrying prisoners destined for torture under the extraordinary rendition program.
Here is a quote from an article in the British newspaper, “The Independent”:
Andy Tyrie, a Tory MP, welcomed the report last night. Mr Tyrie, chair of the parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, said: "In October 2007, I started asking questions about Diego Garcia. I was very concerned that Britain and British territory could have become complicit in America's programme of extraordinary rendition, whereby people have been kidnapped around the world and taken to places where they may be maltreated or tortured. The Foreign Secretary persistently gave me the brush-off. He said we could rely on US assurances. My allegations were correct. The Foreign Secretary's brush-off was not just misplaced, it was a disgrace."
Admittedly, Mr. Tyrie, as a Tory, is politically in opposition to the party in power, so he is trying to discredit the present Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister with him. However, he has succeeded in his call for an investigation because the Parliament agrees that the use of a British military base to support our torture program is unacceptable.
What strikes the deepest chord with me in all this is that the British Parliament is getting all bent out of shape not because their government is in any way actively involved in our program of torturing prisoners, but simply because airplanes carrying those prisoners were allowed to touch down and refuel on their territory. What does it say about Americans that no one in our government has become outraged enough to raise a ruckus about this program?
We don’t just refuel planes for an ally committing these atrocities. We commit the atrocities. We, the people of the United States of Amerika, condone not only the use of our airstrips to land and refuel the planes, but we foot the bill for the entire process. We hire interrogators, collaborate with nations willing to carry out tortures we can’t legally do on our own ground, kidnap and torture SUSPECTED terrorists on the word of people who might stand to gain by the removal of the suspect from their community, and hold these suspects in horrible conditions while torturing them without first proving that they actually present any real threat to us.
No nation that possesses a meaningful moral code could possibly condone such behavior, and it is that ethic which spurs the British Parliament to investigate its own government for having even the slightest peripheral involvement in it.
Will this nation, this Amerika, ever regain enough valid moral perspective to understand the vile arrogance and deep seated paranoia that blind us enough to accept and support a program of torturing and holding prisoners without trial or any kind of representation?
If we had half the ethical understanding of the British Parliament – a body which ironically has authorized far too much of the same kind of butchery in its day – we, too, would be outraged enough to investigate and chastise our own government, but it’s a whole lot easier to just ask them to pass another helping of homeland security, pop the top on another can of Bud and lean back in our Laz-e-Boys. Life gets tedious, don’t 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
I had earmarked a subject for consideration before I left – the British Parliament’s reaction to the report that they had been unwillingly complicit in America’s extraordinary rendition efforts, and it was still being discussed in obscure corners of the web when I returned.
It seems that certain Members of Parliament are up in arms because they figured out that their agreement allowing the U.S. to land on the British controlled Indian Ocean island, Diego Garcia, had included landings to refuel flights carrying prisoners destined for torture under the extraordinary rendition program.
Here is a quote from an article in the British newspaper, “The Independent”:
Andy Tyrie, a Tory MP, welcomed the report last night. Mr Tyrie, chair of the parliamentary group on extraordinary rendition, said: "In October 2007, I started asking questions about Diego Garcia. I was very concerned that Britain and British territory could have become complicit in America's programme of extraordinary rendition, whereby people have been kidnapped around the world and taken to places where they may be maltreated or tortured. The Foreign Secretary persistently gave me the brush-off. He said we could rely on US assurances. My allegations were correct. The Foreign Secretary's brush-off was not just misplaced, it was a disgrace."
Admittedly, Mr. Tyrie, as a Tory, is politically in opposition to the party in power, so he is trying to discredit the present Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister with him. However, he has succeeded in his call for an investigation because the Parliament agrees that the use of a British military base to support our torture program is unacceptable.
What strikes the deepest chord with me in all this is that the British Parliament is getting all bent out of shape not because their government is in any way actively involved in our program of torturing prisoners, but simply because airplanes carrying those prisoners were allowed to touch down and refuel on their territory. What does it say about Americans that no one in our government has become outraged enough to raise a ruckus about this program?
We don’t just refuel planes for an ally committing these atrocities. We commit the atrocities. We, the people of the United States of Amerika, condone not only the use of our airstrips to land and refuel the planes, but we foot the bill for the entire process. We hire interrogators, collaborate with nations willing to carry out tortures we can’t legally do on our own ground, kidnap and torture SUSPECTED terrorists on the word of people who might stand to gain by the removal of the suspect from their community, and hold these suspects in horrible conditions while torturing them without first proving that they actually present any real threat to us.
No nation that possesses a meaningful moral code could possibly condone such behavior, and it is that ethic which spurs the British Parliament to investigate its own government for having even the slightest peripheral involvement in it.
Will this nation, this Amerika, ever regain enough valid moral perspective to understand the vile arrogance and deep seated paranoia that blind us enough to accept and support a program of torturing and holding prisoners without trial or any kind of representation?
If we had half the ethical understanding of the British Parliament – a body which ironically has authorized far too much of the same kind of butchery in its day – we, too, would be outraged enough to investigate and chastise our own government, but it’s a whole lot easier to just ask them to pass another helping of homeland security, pop the top on another can of Bud and lean back in our Laz-e-Boys. Life gets tedious, don’t 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
