I have blogged about the growing societal divide between the haves and the have nots many times, but just came across a paper that takes a current look. It’s called Executive Excess 2008 and can be found at eshttp://www.ips-dc.org/reports/#623. Here are some of the highlights from the summary:
CEO-WORKER DIVIDE: CEOs in the United States, despite our current hard
economic times, continue to pocket outlandishly large pay packages. S&P 500 CEOs
last year averaged $10.5 million, 344 times the pay of typical American workers.
Compensation levels for private investment fund managers soared even further out
into the pay stratosphere. Last year, the top 50 hedge and private equity fund managers averaged $588 million each, more than 19,000 times as much as typical U.S.
workers earned.
TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES FOR EXECUTIVE PAY: Average U.S. taxpayers subsidize
excessive executive compensation — by more than $20 billion per year — via a
variety of tax and accounting loopholes. That $20 billion for America’s most powerful is more than double what the federal government spent last year on educating America’s most vulnerable — children with disabilities.
INDIRECT TAXPAYER SUPPORT FOR RUNAWAY PAY: Many billions more
taxpayer dollars indirectly encourage excessive executive pay, through everything
from government contracts for goods and services to corporate bailouts. More than
85 percent of the public companies on the federal government’s top 100 contractors
list paid their CEOs over 100 times the pay of average U.S. workers.
REFORM ROADBLOCKS: Legislation that would plug executive-friendly tax
loopholes is already pending in Congress. But this legislation has stalled — and will likely remain stalled unless the November 2008 elections change current Congressional voting dynamics.
WHERE THE CANDIDATES STAND: Senator John McCain and Senator Barack
Obama differ significantly on the executive pay reforms now before Congress, but
neither candidate has yet endorsed all the major reforms needed to start addressing
— and ending — over-the-top executive compensation.
There is a piece of legislation on the table intended to address this situation. It is called the Employee Free Choice Act. Claire McCaskill is a co-sponsor, but neither Obama nor McCain is. Maybe we should be asking why.
Incidentally, several Missouri Congress people have co-sponsored it as well. They are Carnahan, Russ (D-MO-03), Clay, Wm. Lacy (D-MO-01), Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO-05), and Skelton, Ike (D-MO-04). Please note that they are all Democrats and tack another sticky note to your brain about how the Republicans treat the common man.
“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
Friday, August 29, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
MUST SEE TV
Every day on the entertainment page of the local paper, they hype one show or another as must see TV. Usually it’s just another episode of “Win-a-Million” or “Rambo XVII”, but last night was and tonight the TV fare truly is a MUST SEE. The Democratic National Convention did indeed make history last night, and will do so again tonight.
It doesn’t matter whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, an Independent or an apolitical, burned out citizen. It seems to me that what matters is that what is happening in Denver this week is the culmination of the last sixty years of effort in the civil rights arena and more than 140 years of daily living since the Proclamation of Emancipation.
For most of my 65 year lifetime, the struggle to end American apartheid has dominated the civil rights forum in this country. I was born in 1943. In 1947 Harry Truman’s administration published “To Secure These Rights” a treatise designed to open up equal opportunity for federal employment to all races, and in 1948, aided by Hubert Humphrey’s fiery liberal oratory, Truman’s civil rights initiative was adopted into the platform at the Democratic Convention. Truman and Humphrey fought to outlaw lynching and were shouted down on the Senate floor, but ultimately won the argument and began to erode the Jim Crow laws that had legalized racial discrimination under the Plessy v Ferguson case of 1896. In 1950, that case was overturned by the Supreme Court, and the doctrine of “separate but equal” began to collapse.
In 1955, Martin Luther King, Jr. emerged as the primary American civil rights leader of the century by managing a year-long bus boycott which, in 1956, culminated in a Supreme Court finding that discrimination like that on bus lines was illegal. That opened the door for the great marching movement that led through Selma, Alabama to the 250,000 person march on Washington, D.C. where he delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech and on to Memphis, Tennessee in 1968 where he was struck down by an assassin while supporting a strike by that city’s sanitation workers.
Four years before that, in 1964, Lyndon Johnson accomplished passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which enabled Dr. King to carry not only the moral righteousness but also the legal right to march in the face of this nation’s obstinate refusal to recognize the right of every American to equal treatment and equal opportunity.
The law alone cannot change the thinking of a nation, but years of enforcement of such laws can erode the bigotry they address to the point where, as is the case today, overt discrimination is looked upon as outrageous by the majority of the population.
I cannot say that in my lifetime I have seen racial discrimination eliminated, but I can proudly say the I have lived long enough to see it at least suppressed to the point where a man who would not, in the time of my childhood, have been allowed to rise to the level of alderman in his home town of Chicago, can now be and has now been nominated to the presidency of the United States by a major political party. (THE PARTY I would point out that has consistently led the nation in this direction in the face of direct opposition from the other major political party. The LIBERAL arm of which has led this country out of its darkness every time it has chanced to peek out of the cave of repression, suppression and illegitimate warfare.)
So I saw last night’s Democratic Convention as a historic occasion that should be celebrated by every American regardless of his or her political affiliations. Unless you are a member of the KKK or some other racial supremacist group, in which case you obviously have no understanding of the constitution, you have no reason not to rejoice in the great distance we have traveled in the course of one man’s lifetime, and THAT made last night’s convention MUST SEE TV.
Tonight will be another evening of MUST SEE TV when Barack Obama stands on the stage alongside Congressman John Lewis, who is the last living person who stood alongside Dr. King throughout his marches into history. John Lewis spoke from the same podium as Dr. King the day he delivered the “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington, D.C. Back then Congressman Lewis was a young man and chairman of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee. As such, he was labeled by J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI as a dangerous subversive. Today he serves as Congressman for the 5th Congressional District in the State of (of all places) Georgia.
I hope he will speak again tonight because the occasion of tonight as the 45th anniversary of Dr. King’s great speech and the achievement of Barack Obama is far too great a juxtaposition to ignore. And, certainly, no one is better qualified to speak to the meaning of that juxtaposition than John Lewis, who has seen it all.
I wouldn’t miss it for the world. Nor will I miss the opportunity to assist in Mr. Obama’s campaign as best I can. I hope you will do the same.
“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
It doesn’t matter whether you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian, an Independent or an apolitical, burned out citizen. It seems to me that what matters is that what is happening in Denver this week is the culmination of the last sixty years of effort in the civil rights arena and more than 140 years of daily living since the Proclamation of Emancipation.
For most of my 65 year lifetime, the struggle to end American apartheid has dominated the civil rights forum in this country. I was born in 1943. In 1947 Harry Truman’s administration published “To Secure These Rights” a treatise designed to open up equal opportunity for federal employment to all races, and in 1948, aided by Hubert Humphrey’s fiery liberal oratory, Truman’s civil rights initiative was adopted into the platform at the Democratic Convention. Truman and Humphrey fought to outlaw lynching and were shouted down on the Senate floor, but ultimately won the argument and began to erode the Jim Crow laws that had legalized racial discrimination under the Plessy v Ferguson case of 1896. In 1950, that case was overturned by the Supreme Court, and the doctrine of “separate but equal” began to collapse.
In 1955, Martin Luther King, Jr. emerged as the primary American civil rights leader of the century by managing a year-long bus boycott which, in 1956, culminated in a Supreme Court finding that discrimination like that on bus lines was illegal. That opened the door for the great marching movement that led through Selma, Alabama to the 250,000 person march on Washington, D.C. where he delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech and on to Memphis, Tennessee in 1968 where he was struck down by an assassin while supporting a strike by that city’s sanitation workers.
Four years before that, in 1964, Lyndon Johnson accomplished passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which enabled Dr. King to carry not only the moral righteousness but also the legal right to march in the face of this nation’s obstinate refusal to recognize the right of every American to equal treatment and equal opportunity.
The law alone cannot change the thinking of a nation, but years of enforcement of such laws can erode the bigotry they address to the point where, as is the case today, overt discrimination is looked upon as outrageous by the majority of the population.
I cannot say that in my lifetime I have seen racial discrimination eliminated, but I can proudly say the I have lived long enough to see it at least suppressed to the point where a man who would not, in the time of my childhood, have been allowed to rise to the level of alderman in his home town of Chicago, can now be and has now been nominated to the presidency of the United States by a major political party. (THE PARTY I would point out that has consistently led the nation in this direction in the face of direct opposition from the other major political party. The LIBERAL arm of which has led this country out of its darkness every time it has chanced to peek out of the cave of repression, suppression and illegitimate warfare.)
So I saw last night’s Democratic Convention as a historic occasion that should be celebrated by every American regardless of his or her political affiliations. Unless you are a member of the KKK or some other racial supremacist group, in which case you obviously have no understanding of the constitution, you have no reason not to rejoice in the great distance we have traveled in the course of one man’s lifetime, and THAT made last night’s convention MUST SEE TV.
Tonight will be another evening of MUST SEE TV when Barack Obama stands on the stage alongside Congressman John Lewis, who is the last living person who stood alongside Dr. King throughout his marches into history. John Lewis spoke from the same podium as Dr. King the day he delivered the “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington, D.C. Back then Congressman Lewis was a young man and chairman of the Student Non-violent Coordinating Committee. As such, he was labeled by J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI as a dangerous subversive. Today he serves as Congressman for the 5th Congressional District in the State of (of all places) Georgia.
I hope he will speak again tonight because the occasion of tonight as the 45th anniversary of Dr. King’s great speech and the achievement of Barack Obama is far too great a juxtaposition to ignore. And, certainly, no one is better qualified to speak to the meaning of that juxtaposition than John Lewis, who has seen it all.
I wouldn’t miss it for the world. Nor will I miss the opportunity to assist in Mr. Obama’s campaign as best I can. I hope you will do the same.
“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, August 27, 2008
ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOU WERE FOUR YEARS AGO?
Four years ago??!! How about eight years ago? One of the great (and highly accurate) gripes about the way the Republicans run things is that since the days of Ronald Reagan their economic policies have consistently enriched the top 1% of earners while reducing the well-being of the rest of us. It isn’t a questionable assertion, but one that is easily supported with U.S. government data.
This morning’s paper carried a little AP article that went a long way, in my mind, toward pinpointing the economic woes we currently face thanks to trickle-down economics.
The Christian question to ask about the effect of economic policy is, “What does it do for the least of us?” The answer is it slaps them upside the head with an inability to meet necessary expenses. Oh well, the poor will always be with us, so that excuses it – right?!
> There has been no change in the overall poverty rate of 12.5% of the population, but more Latinos, children and foreign born Americans have joined that level.
> While the article contends that middle class incomes have “edged up” to $50,233, that rise of $665 was only from 2006 to 2007. In 2000, the median household income was $50,557. A rise in the past year to a level below that of 10 years ago doesn’t look to me like a rise at all.
> The first line of the article says that the number of people without health insurance fell by 1 million in 2007 and represents a gain in the number of insured people under G.W. Bush. It doesn’t say how many of that 1 million were insured through government programs.
I’m one of that million, but it sure wasn’t because my income increased. I just became Medicare eligible, or I still wouldn’t have any insurance. The article doesn’t say how many of the million got Medicare or Medicaid, but it does say that the increase was “largely because more people were covered through government programs”.
And now for the Whitehouse spin. These numbers, says Tony Fratto, are “definitely good news”. Sure they are. They’re good news if you want to ignore what they mean.
Yes, I’m happy to have Medicare, but I would have been happier to have been capable at some point in my life to have been able to afford health care coverage that paid for anything other than a catastrophe. It doesn’t help much to see your income rise by $665 a year if it costs you $2,500 more to live during that year. It particularly doesn’t help if that increase only brings you up to a level below where you were ten years ago. Claim all you want to that more people are insured today than last year, but the fact is that private coverage paid for by employers and individuals continues to decline while enrollment in Medicaid grows like Topsy.
You can pin all the roses you want to on that pig, but it still stinks.
“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
This morning’s paper carried a little AP article that went a long way, in my mind, toward pinpointing the economic woes we currently face thanks to trickle-down economics.
The Christian question to ask about the effect of economic policy is, “What does it do for the least of us?” The answer is it slaps them upside the head with an inability to meet necessary expenses. Oh well, the poor will always be with us, so that excuses it – right?!
> There has been no change in the overall poverty rate of 12.5% of the population, but more Latinos, children and foreign born Americans have joined that level.
> While the article contends that middle class incomes have “edged up” to $50,233, that rise of $665 was only from 2006 to 2007. In 2000, the median household income was $50,557. A rise in the past year to a level below that of 10 years ago doesn’t look to me like a rise at all.
> The first line of the article says that the number of people without health insurance fell by 1 million in 2007 and represents a gain in the number of insured people under G.W. Bush. It doesn’t say how many of that 1 million were insured through government programs.
I’m one of that million, but it sure wasn’t because my income increased. I just became Medicare eligible, or I still wouldn’t have any insurance. The article doesn’t say how many of the million got Medicare or Medicaid, but it does say that the increase was “largely because more people were covered through government programs”.
And now for the Whitehouse spin. These numbers, says Tony Fratto, are “definitely good news”. Sure they are. They’re good news if you want to ignore what they mean.
Yes, I’m happy to have Medicare, but I would have been happier to have been capable at some point in my life to have been able to afford health care coverage that paid for anything other than a catastrophe. It doesn’t help much to see your income rise by $665 a year if it costs you $2,500 more to live during that year. It particularly doesn’t help if that increase only brings you up to a level below where you were ten years ago. Claim all you want to that more people are insured today than last year, but the fact is that private coverage paid for by employers and individuals continues to decline while enrollment in Medicaid grows like Topsy.
You can pin all the roses you want to on that pig, but it still stinks.
“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
Monday, August 25, 2008
CONDASLEEZA VEEP
Here’s an interesting little news burp from CLG News:
Did McCain Help Bait Russia into Georgia? By Joe Lauria 17 Aug 2008 Who benefits most from painting this a revival of Soviet-era aggression? John McCain. The Georgian crisis has created a campaign issue McCain can run on. McCain's best chance to win, unless Obama self-destructs, is to portray himself as the Cold War-era war hero ready to do battle again against our old Cold War adversary. McCain is yesterday's man, so revive yesterday's "threat..." A compliant media will keep the phony Russian threat an issue throughout the campaign. It could even raise Condi Rice's vice presidential fortunes, as her only expertise was the former Soviet Union. The original Cold War was based on manufactured threats. The new trumped up threats about Russia will make Condi's experience "relevant" again. They can both run on Russia.
I don’t know that you can lay the Georgian conflict at the feet of John McLame, but there is no doubt in my mind that it much more the brainchild of his and W’s neocon backers than it is evidence of Russian aggression.
What the article hit on that amused me, though, was the reference to the possibility of Condasleeza Rice being McLame’s running mate. What a quandary that would create for the nation's subliminal bigotry.
As it stands the polls show McLame gaining substantial ground on Obama, which is no real surprise when you take into account the fact of this country’s racially biased history. Voters all over the spectrum are voicing euphemisms for their objection to his skin color. Donald Kaul pointed it out beautifully in a recent column revealing the real motivation in parenthesis behind the excuses; ala he’s too risky (he’s black), he doesn’t have enough experience (he’s black), he’s a Muslim (he’s black), etc., etc.
So what if McLame named Sleeza as his running mate? What would the poor voters do then? She doesn’t have any experience (she’s black, but is he blacker?). She has the heart of vulture (she’s black, but is he blacker?). The last time she laughed was when her mother fell down the stairs (she’s black, but is he blacker?). She’s a Republican (well then, he’s blacker).
The closer we get to this election the more pessimistic I become. A few months ago I did a blog about the right wingnut who called me at home to tell me that this country isn’t ready for a black, Muslim president. I told him first, of course, that he's not a Muslim and then that it had better get ready because the time has come, but as the campaign process moves along and I hear more and more euphemisms from potential Obama voters, the more likely it seems to me that the subliminal racism of this nation combined with its fear of anyone who doubts the value of war spell sure defeat for anyone who thinks as well as he does and talks about what he thinks.
By the way, just as one final effort to convince any right leaners who might happen to read this diatribe – Obama ISN”T black. He is of mixed race – just like you and me. You may not believe in evolution, but you can’t deny that the first people to appear on this planet were NOT WASPS.
“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
Did McCain Help Bait Russia into Georgia? By Joe Lauria 17 Aug 2008 Who benefits most from painting this a revival of Soviet-era aggression? John McCain. The Georgian crisis has created a campaign issue McCain can run on. McCain's best chance to win, unless Obama self-destructs, is to portray himself as the Cold War-era war hero ready to do battle again against our old Cold War adversary. McCain is yesterday's man, so revive yesterday's "threat..." A compliant media will keep the phony Russian threat an issue throughout the campaign. It could even raise Condi Rice's vice presidential fortunes, as her only expertise was the former Soviet Union. The original Cold War was based on manufactured threats. The new trumped up threats about Russia will make Condi's experience "relevant" again. They can both run on Russia.
I don’t know that you can lay the Georgian conflict at the feet of John McLame, but there is no doubt in my mind that it much more the brainchild of his and W’s neocon backers than it is evidence of Russian aggression.
What the article hit on that amused me, though, was the reference to the possibility of Condasleeza Rice being McLame’s running mate. What a quandary that would create for the nation's subliminal bigotry.
As it stands the polls show McLame gaining substantial ground on Obama, which is no real surprise when you take into account the fact of this country’s racially biased history. Voters all over the spectrum are voicing euphemisms for their objection to his skin color. Donald Kaul pointed it out beautifully in a recent column revealing the real motivation in parenthesis behind the excuses; ala he’s too risky (he’s black), he doesn’t have enough experience (he’s black), he’s a Muslim (he’s black), etc., etc.
So what if McLame named Sleeza as his running mate? What would the poor voters do then? She doesn’t have any experience (she’s black, but is he blacker?). She has the heart of vulture (she’s black, but is he blacker?). The last time she laughed was when her mother fell down the stairs (she’s black, but is he blacker?). She’s a Republican (well then, he’s blacker).
The closer we get to this election the more pessimistic I become. A few months ago I did a blog about the right wingnut who called me at home to tell me that this country isn’t ready for a black, Muslim president. I told him first, of course, that he's not a Muslim and then that it had better get ready because the time has come, but as the campaign process moves along and I hear more and more euphemisms from potential Obama voters, the more likely it seems to me that the subliminal racism of this nation combined with its fear of anyone who doubts the value of war spell sure defeat for anyone who thinks as well as he does and talks about what he thinks.
By the way, just as one final effort to convince any right leaners who might happen to read this diatribe – Obama ISN”T black. He is of mixed race – just like you and me. You may not believe in evolution, but you can’t deny that the first people to appear on this planet were NOT WASPS.
“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
Friday, August 22, 2008
REPTILIAN SYNDROME
The discussion at our breakfast table this morning seemed unrelated to the newspapers spread out between us, but only on the surface. We weren’t talking about why we continue to be embroiled in a foreign war that never had any relevance to our national security. We weren’t talking about why our government’s system of checks and balances seems not to work any more. We weren’t going on about statistics like the top one percent of earners in our society increasing their wealth by 140% between 1979 and 1997 while the earnings of the middle class rose 9%. We weren’t even talking about how quickly Obama turned McCain’s unforgivable faux pas in not knowing how many houses he owns into an attack ad, or how quickly McCain’s people turned out a counter-attack ad.
We were talking about reptilian brains. We have both recently read a novel by James Lee Burke who is one of our favorite authors because he is able to paint the psyche of his characters so deftly. In this latest book, “Swan Peak”, he explored the psyche of the American male, particularly the southern-born American male, at some length and his explorations gave rise at our table to a discussion of the fear/anger circuit that currently drives the American psyche?
Throughout history political parties of all stripes have inflamed people to patriotic fervor in order to achieve their nationalistic goals. Over the past fifty years, the Republican Party has taken the process to its highest levels and reached a pinnacle few parties have ever even striven for, let alone achieved. That is the complete alienation of their followers to the messages of their political opponents – the vilification of all things leftward leaning. The phrase “bleeding heart liberal”, for instance, has no counterpart in the liberal lexicon. No one has been able to instill a phrase like “hard hearted neocon” into the language. “Gluttonous elite” just doesn’t carry the panache of “Welfare Mom”
The left has generally striven to open society to broader perspectives while the right draws its power by restricting openness. Why, we were asking, do people on Main Street accede to the demands of people on Wall Street instead of standing up for their own best interests? Why does our society so willingly spend so much on arms and warfare and so little on taking care of its own people? The answer, we concluded, lies in the fact that the majority of people do not feel a strong enough sense of personal empowerment to demand that their needs be met first.
At the very core of most Americans lies a somewhat scared, somewhat angry, privately insecure person who bluffs his or her way through life behind a wall of fear and anger that makes them susceptible to manipulation by those who understand how to turn personal fear and anger into societal action. It lies within that reptilian brain in our brainstems and reacts to sensed danger by attacking.
Today’s far right, better than any other force in American history, has learned to channel all that individual fear and anger into a refusal to consider other points of view and to support any action proposed in the name of national security. Rather than assuming that they can maintain their position in the world through the strength of their integrity and true belief in a god that teaches peace above all, our reptilian brain takes over and we succumb to the fear that someone wants what we have and that the only way to keep it to ourselves is through wars created by the same leaders who are spending so much time tweaking our insecurities.
We’ve all had experiences in life that make us feel insufficient, insecure, not as good as the next guy; learning that we didn’t make the team, being rejected by the high school ‘in group’, failing to get a date for the prom, being passed over for promotion, etc. We bury these deep inside those little turtle brains and hide our fears of inadequacy behind fierce masks designed to keep our neighbors at arms length while we wonder what they think of us. If we have faith in ourselves and get lucky, we get over it. If not, the insecurity festers unknown to us and those around us, but it makes us manipulable.
We all have had experiences in life that led us to create a bit of a chip on our shoulders. Those experiences tend to find a place somewhere deep in that reptilian cortex to lie in wait for opportunities to show themselves and scare off our “enemies”. Having difficulty loosening a nut on the lawnmower, we fling the wrench across the garage in anger for its failure to resolve our frustrations. Worn out from a rotten day at work, we stomp through the front door and kick the dog or terrorize our own children. Frazzled from the trauma of a terrorist attack, we sign up for the war our leaders create even though the target of that war had nothing to do with the attack.
It’s that chip on our shoulder that generates all that. It’s that anger and insecurity buried deep inside of us – if we have been unable to get beyond it – that allows us to accept an irrational argument for irrational action and then back it even if a half hour’s thought is all it would take to work through the insanity of it all.
Called by our political parties to vote for them, we do so in response to their negative ads because it’s a lot like kicking the dog. Answering “our country’s” call to serve in the name of freedom in a war that yields only death, destruction and restrictions of freedom is justifiable only if we can’t take an honest look at it for fear that our neighbors might disagree with us or that we might be thought unpatriotic. Our personal insecurities and buried anger make us vulnerable to the easy fix of feeding our feeling of empowerment through angry group action.
And all that’s needed to trigger it is a little flag waving and finger pointing. And that really works for any politician who wants to use it. And all that comes of it is more pain, more anger, and more insecurity that can be used against us again in the future.
It’s a cycle that needs to be broken. Got any ideas on how to do it? Put ‘em in the suggestion box. Maybe someone will act on it.
Or maybe . . . just maybe, we could take Gandhi’s advice, and BE the change we want to see in the world.
“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
We were talking about reptilian brains. We have both recently read a novel by James Lee Burke who is one of our favorite authors because he is able to paint the psyche of his characters so deftly. In this latest book, “Swan Peak”, he explored the psyche of the American male, particularly the southern-born American male, at some length and his explorations gave rise at our table to a discussion of the fear/anger circuit that currently drives the American psyche?
Throughout history political parties of all stripes have inflamed people to patriotic fervor in order to achieve their nationalistic goals. Over the past fifty years, the Republican Party has taken the process to its highest levels and reached a pinnacle few parties have ever even striven for, let alone achieved. That is the complete alienation of their followers to the messages of their political opponents – the vilification of all things leftward leaning. The phrase “bleeding heart liberal”, for instance, has no counterpart in the liberal lexicon. No one has been able to instill a phrase like “hard hearted neocon” into the language. “Gluttonous elite” just doesn’t carry the panache of “Welfare Mom”
The left has generally striven to open society to broader perspectives while the right draws its power by restricting openness. Why, we were asking, do people on Main Street accede to the demands of people on Wall Street instead of standing up for their own best interests? Why does our society so willingly spend so much on arms and warfare and so little on taking care of its own people? The answer, we concluded, lies in the fact that the majority of people do not feel a strong enough sense of personal empowerment to demand that their needs be met first.
At the very core of most Americans lies a somewhat scared, somewhat angry, privately insecure person who bluffs his or her way through life behind a wall of fear and anger that makes them susceptible to manipulation by those who understand how to turn personal fear and anger into societal action. It lies within that reptilian brain in our brainstems and reacts to sensed danger by attacking.
Today’s far right, better than any other force in American history, has learned to channel all that individual fear and anger into a refusal to consider other points of view and to support any action proposed in the name of national security. Rather than assuming that they can maintain their position in the world through the strength of their integrity and true belief in a god that teaches peace above all, our reptilian brain takes over and we succumb to the fear that someone wants what we have and that the only way to keep it to ourselves is through wars created by the same leaders who are spending so much time tweaking our insecurities.
We’ve all had experiences in life that make us feel insufficient, insecure, not as good as the next guy; learning that we didn’t make the team, being rejected by the high school ‘in group’, failing to get a date for the prom, being passed over for promotion, etc. We bury these deep inside those little turtle brains and hide our fears of inadequacy behind fierce masks designed to keep our neighbors at arms length while we wonder what they think of us. If we have faith in ourselves and get lucky, we get over it. If not, the insecurity festers unknown to us and those around us, but it makes us manipulable.
We all have had experiences in life that led us to create a bit of a chip on our shoulders. Those experiences tend to find a place somewhere deep in that reptilian cortex to lie in wait for opportunities to show themselves and scare off our “enemies”. Having difficulty loosening a nut on the lawnmower, we fling the wrench across the garage in anger for its failure to resolve our frustrations. Worn out from a rotten day at work, we stomp through the front door and kick the dog or terrorize our own children. Frazzled from the trauma of a terrorist attack, we sign up for the war our leaders create even though the target of that war had nothing to do with the attack.
It’s that chip on our shoulder that generates all that. It’s that anger and insecurity buried deep inside of us – if we have been unable to get beyond it – that allows us to accept an irrational argument for irrational action and then back it even if a half hour’s thought is all it would take to work through the insanity of it all.
Called by our political parties to vote for them, we do so in response to their negative ads because it’s a lot like kicking the dog. Answering “our country’s” call to serve in the name of freedom in a war that yields only death, destruction and restrictions of freedom is justifiable only if we can’t take an honest look at it for fear that our neighbors might disagree with us or that we might be thought unpatriotic. Our personal insecurities and buried anger make us vulnerable to the easy fix of feeding our feeling of empowerment through angry group action.
And all that’s needed to trigger it is a little flag waving and finger pointing. And that really works for any politician who wants to use it. And all that comes of it is more pain, more anger, and more insecurity that can be used against us again in the future.
It’s a cycle that needs to be broken. Got any ideas on how to do it? Put ‘em in the suggestion box. Maybe someone will act on it.
Or maybe . . . just maybe, we could take Gandhi’s advice, and BE the change we want to see in the world.
“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, August 20, 2008
Obama Backs Bush
Watching a presidential race is often a frustrating exercise, and more than usually so when a candidate leaves his principles behind in order to avoid losing support. That’s what I see in Barack Obama’s response to the situation in Georgia.
What is happening here is that two historically opposed nations that have had the opportunity to bury the hatchet over the past decade now find themselves in reversed positions from the face-off they had over Cuba in 1962. At that time, the US called the hand of the USSR, both leaders backed down and the situation was defused. Today, neither leader shows a sign of backing down, and the world is watching while the two cowboys approach each other ala High Noon.
The really disappointing thing to me is that most of the world recognizes the risk that the Bush response poses, but Obama doesn’t seem to, and if he does, it’s worse because he then appears willing to sell out his own principles and risk inflaming an already dangerous situation in order to hang onto his chance of winning the election.
This is also disappointing for his lack of faith in the American voter. Right now, most Americans seem to be supporting Bush’s position that this is a case of unwarranted Russian aggression, but if Obama and the Democratic Party had the guts to do it, they could weather the initial storm of catcalls by repeatedly publicizing the reality of the situation. At the very least, they could demonstrate that the situation is not so simple.
The American people should be given enough information to understand the absurdity of the claim that Russia has attacked a sovereign nation without provocation. (South Ossetia broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s and exists as an independent state with full Russian support. Georgian troops attacked separatists there and Russia sent troops to stop them. If you don’t believe it, Google “Who governs South Ossetia?”) They should be given enough information to understand the military relationship between America, Israel and Georgia, and they should be given enough information to understand the nature and result of Georgian president Saakashvili’s attack on South Ossetia – not to mention the motivation for that attack and US role in urging the action. They should also be given enough information to understand not only that America has (just today) signed an agreement with Poland to place defensive missiles on their soil, but also before today negotiated a deal to provide ten offensive missiles to the Polish military.
From the Russian perspective, the US has done exactly what the USSR did in placing missiles in Cuba in 1962. Instead of backing down, however, both leaders are clinging to their assertions that the other is out of bounds. The only development that has helped my knees to still their knocking is that Russia has filed a case with the world court charging Saakashvili with war crimes. If they are willing to listen to a third party regardless of the outcome, there may be hope.
Hopefully the worst thing that could come of all this is the re-opening of the Cold War. The dark side is the potential for WWIII.
Sadly, because of America’s and Obama’s reluctance to take a hard look at the situation, the most hopeful case is probably the end result that BushCo wants. America always needs an identified enemy to keep the paranoia level high, and nothing strikes fear in the American heart like the specter of domination by the godless communists, so starting the Cold War again fills the bill.
Even more sadly, Obama seems to be playing into the whole situation by backing the Bush play instead of showing the depth of his leadership and the courage of his convictions by being the one who finally points out that the emperor has no clothes. And saddest of all, the world is left, once again, under the horrible shadow of BushCo’s militarism and the threat of a face-off of gargantuan proportions between two powers that should, by all rights, be cooperating in the effort to contain the spread of nuclear materials but instead may well be seeking to add to the stockpiles of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
The end result is not likely to be positive for anybody but the arms manufacturers, and the voters will be left once again with two unsavory choices for the presidency.
So what’s new?
“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
What is happening here is that two historically opposed nations that have had the opportunity to bury the hatchet over the past decade now find themselves in reversed positions from the face-off they had over Cuba in 1962. At that time, the US called the hand of the USSR, both leaders backed down and the situation was defused. Today, neither leader shows a sign of backing down, and the world is watching while the two cowboys approach each other ala High Noon.
The really disappointing thing to me is that most of the world recognizes the risk that the Bush response poses, but Obama doesn’t seem to, and if he does, it’s worse because he then appears willing to sell out his own principles and risk inflaming an already dangerous situation in order to hang onto his chance of winning the election.
This is also disappointing for his lack of faith in the American voter. Right now, most Americans seem to be supporting Bush’s position that this is a case of unwarranted Russian aggression, but if Obama and the Democratic Party had the guts to do it, they could weather the initial storm of catcalls by repeatedly publicizing the reality of the situation. At the very least, they could demonstrate that the situation is not so simple.
The American people should be given enough information to understand the absurdity of the claim that Russia has attacked a sovereign nation without provocation. (South Ossetia broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s and exists as an independent state with full Russian support. Georgian troops attacked separatists there and Russia sent troops to stop them. If you don’t believe it, Google “Who governs South Ossetia?”) They should be given enough information to understand the military relationship between America, Israel and Georgia, and they should be given enough information to understand the nature and result of Georgian president Saakashvili’s attack on South Ossetia – not to mention the motivation for that attack and US role in urging the action. They should also be given enough information to understand not only that America has (just today) signed an agreement with Poland to place defensive missiles on their soil, but also before today negotiated a deal to provide ten offensive missiles to the Polish military.
From the Russian perspective, the US has done exactly what the USSR did in placing missiles in Cuba in 1962. Instead of backing down, however, both leaders are clinging to their assertions that the other is out of bounds. The only development that has helped my knees to still their knocking is that Russia has filed a case with the world court charging Saakashvili with war crimes. If they are willing to listen to a third party regardless of the outcome, there may be hope.
Hopefully the worst thing that could come of all this is the re-opening of the Cold War. The dark side is the potential for WWIII.
Sadly, because of America’s and Obama’s reluctance to take a hard look at the situation, the most hopeful case is probably the end result that BushCo wants. America always needs an identified enemy to keep the paranoia level high, and nothing strikes fear in the American heart like the specter of domination by the godless communists, so starting the Cold War again fills the bill.
Even more sadly, Obama seems to be playing into the whole situation by backing the Bush play instead of showing the depth of his leadership and the courage of his convictions by being the one who finally points out that the emperor has no clothes. And saddest of all, the world is left, once again, under the horrible shadow of BushCo’s militarism and the threat of a face-off of gargantuan proportions between two powers that should, by all rights, be cooperating in the effort to contain the spread of nuclear materials but instead may well be seeking to add to the stockpiles of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction.
The end result is not likely to be positive for anybody but the arms manufacturers, and the voters will be left once again with two unsavory choices for the presidency.
So what’s new?
“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, August 19, 2008
Pearl Harbor or Iraq?
I recently got together with an old friend whom I love and respect, but whose political views are diametrically opposed to mine. It was a great pleasure to see him, but it was also deeply disturbing because, although he occasionally follows my blog, he could not seem to see it as anything but “Bush bashing”.
The disturbing thing for me is that the exploration of facts seems not to compute for those whose political loyalties lie on the right. I cannot seem to convince people – even old and dear friends - that I would be screaming just as loudly if the things to which I object were being perpetrated by Bill Clinton or John Kennedy instead of George Bush.
When you get right down to it, I don’t even think W is the problem. He’s just a dumb bunny with a lot of money whom the real powers see as an easily manipulated front man.
The problem is that my country has been taken down a very dangerous and downright evil path by a bunch of crazies whose goal is world domination.
At this point, my right wing friends will point at me and shout “Hypocrite” because they see that line as pure hyperbole in the middle of an essay that will discuss the need to avoid hyperbole. But the bottom line fact for me is that the line is not hyperbole at all, but a pure and clear statement about the direction my country is going.
For me, the clearest example of this is that Congress has accepted BushCo’s doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is at the top of the heap of accepted policies that I think contradict long-standing American values. In my mind, there is nothing more anathematic to the American way than pre-emptive war.
Just for clarity, consider the World Book Dictionary definition of pre-empt: “1. To secure before someone else can; acquire or take possession of beforehand. 2. To take over; displace.
Step back for a minute and examine the nature of the events we, as Americans, have always held up as examples of the greatest wrongs committed in modern times – Hitler’s invasion of Poland to begin WWII, and Japan’s invasion of Pearl Harbor that drew America into that war.
Consider both of those events from the perspective of Germany and Japan. From that view, both of those events were nothing more than pre-emptive war. Germany attacked Poland from the air without warning with the purpose of destroying the Polish air defenses to avoid the possibility of a tough initial fight in their attempt to take over the world. Japan attacked America from the air with the purpose of destroying the American naval defenses to avoid the possibility of America’s entry into the war with an effective fighting force. In other words, they were pre-emptive strikes to secure dominance.
America was rightly repulsed by the aggressive nature of those strikes and struck back in anger at the affront of the invasion of territory and power under our control. Why does any American now think that we should have the right to strike other countries before they strike us? Does this not sink us to the level of Germany and Japan in the thirties and forties? Is our interest in controlling the world economy OK while theirs was evil?
Another friend, who leans a bit more to the left than the dear friend who inspired this essay, recently sent an article by Paul Craig Roberts called, There May Be Many Mushroom Clouds In Our Future. She asked if I thought it was more politically correct than an early article she had sent and to which I had objected. This article was a bit over the top in my view, too, employing some exaggerations that took it a little too far beyond factual representation for me, but it did contain a great many truths and culminated in one that I believe to the core of my being. Its last line was, “The neoconservatives represent the greatest danger ever faced by the United States and the world. Humanity has no greater enemy.”
I know that to my conservative friend that, too, will sound like hyperbole, but it is certainly not.
Paul Roberts, BTW, was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and is known as the father of Reaganomics – not exactly known as a hot blooded left winger, but definitely aware of the risks the neocons pose to the world.
Pre-emptive warfare is just the tip the iceberg of the necons’ damage to America and the world. Their approach to surveillance of the American people, torture and abuse of prisoners, and disregard for the rule of law are more symptoms of their similarity to Fascists. No American, whether Republican or Democrat, can afford to ignore the dangers these people pose to the Republic. The stakes are far too high.
Another point Roberts made in his article was that the American public has been brainwashed to the point that they can't seem to understand how dangerous our present course is. I'm afraid that's true, too. Otherwise, how could thoughtful, intelligent and caring people like my Republican friend so glibly support our nation's decline?
“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
The disturbing thing for me is that the exploration of facts seems not to compute for those whose political loyalties lie on the right. I cannot seem to convince people – even old and dear friends - that I would be screaming just as loudly if the things to which I object were being perpetrated by Bill Clinton or John Kennedy instead of George Bush.
When you get right down to it, I don’t even think W is the problem. He’s just a dumb bunny with a lot of money whom the real powers see as an easily manipulated front man.
The problem is that my country has been taken down a very dangerous and downright evil path by a bunch of crazies whose goal is world domination.
At this point, my right wing friends will point at me and shout “Hypocrite” because they see that line as pure hyperbole in the middle of an essay that will discuss the need to avoid hyperbole. But the bottom line fact for me is that the line is not hyperbole at all, but a pure and clear statement about the direction my country is going.
For me, the clearest example of this is that Congress has accepted BushCo’s doctrine of pre-emptive war. This is at the top of the heap of accepted policies that I think contradict long-standing American values. In my mind, there is nothing more anathematic to the American way than pre-emptive war.
Just for clarity, consider the World Book Dictionary definition of pre-empt: “1. To secure before someone else can; acquire or take possession of beforehand. 2. To take over; displace.
Step back for a minute and examine the nature of the events we, as Americans, have always held up as examples of the greatest wrongs committed in modern times – Hitler’s invasion of Poland to begin WWII, and Japan’s invasion of Pearl Harbor that drew America into that war.
Consider both of those events from the perspective of Germany and Japan. From that view, both of those events were nothing more than pre-emptive war. Germany attacked Poland from the air without warning with the purpose of destroying the Polish air defenses to avoid the possibility of a tough initial fight in their attempt to take over the world. Japan attacked America from the air with the purpose of destroying the American naval defenses to avoid the possibility of America’s entry into the war with an effective fighting force. In other words, they were pre-emptive strikes to secure dominance.
America was rightly repulsed by the aggressive nature of those strikes and struck back in anger at the affront of the invasion of territory and power under our control. Why does any American now think that we should have the right to strike other countries before they strike us? Does this not sink us to the level of Germany and Japan in the thirties and forties? Is our interest in controlling the world economy OK while theirs was evil?
Another friend, who leans a bit more to the left than the dear friend who inspired this essay, recently sent an article by Paul Craig Roberts called, There May Be Many Mushroom Clouds In Our Future. She asked if I thought it was more politically correct than an early article she had sent and to which I had objected. This article was a bit over the top in my view, too, employing some exaggerations that took it a little too far beyond factual representation for me, but it did contain a great many truths and culminated in one that I believe to the core of my being. Its last line was, “The neoconservatives represent the greatest danger ever faced by the United States and the world. Humanity has no greater enemy.”
I know that to my conservative friend that, too, will sound like hyperbole, but it is certainly not.
Paul Roberts, BTW, was an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan and is known as the father of Reaganomics – not exactly known as a hot blooded left winger, but definitely aware of the risks the neocons pose to the world.
Pre-emptive warfare is just the tip the iceberg of the necons’ damage to America and the world. Their approach to surveillance of the American people, torture and abuse of prisoners, and disregard for the rule of law are more symptoms of their similarity to Fascists. No American, whether Republican or Democrat, can afford to ignore the dangers these people pose to the Republic. The stakes are far too high.
Another point Roberts made in his article was that the American public has been brainwashed to the point that they can't seem to understand how dangerous our present course is. I'm afraid that's true, too. Otherwise, how could thoughtful, intelligent and caring people like my Republican friend so glibly support our nation's decline?
“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
Friday, August 15, 2008
CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK
One of the things I have noticed about political interaction is that if you want to disarm your opponent’s ability to attack you for what you do or are about to do, you first accuse him of doing it. It’s the pot calling the kettle black as an offensive tactic.
Want to start a potentially unpopular war? Start by labeling those who might oppose you as unpatriotic. Want to establish control over a foreign country? Start by calling them unacceptably aggressive. That may be what is going on in Georgia today.
The United States celebrated the fall of the USSR and the end of the cold war, but did not stop acting as though the cold war was still in effect. Right now, the Bush administration is pointing at Russian aggression in Georgia and saying that the Russians are acting as if the cold war had never ended, but we are the country that has never stopped creating nuclear weapons. We are the nation that has sought, though NATO treaties, to arm countries near the Russian borders. Georgia is just one of those countries, but it is so close that Russia sees our arming that nation the same way we saw the USSR’s arming of Cuba in the 1960s. The dangerous difference is that this time we have leaders in both countries who are much more willing to pull the trigger than were Kennedy and Kruschev.
BushCo’s desire to establish a defensive missile system in the region feeds this fire. In fact, the BBC reported this morning on the US request to put missiles in Poland. Czechoslovakia is another chosen location, but from Russia’s perspective that system could as easily be offensive, and Georgia is far too close for their comfort. If the cold war is over, they reasonably ask, what is the need for any missile defense system in the region?
The Russian bear is also awakened by the thought that the US is trying to cut off their access to Georgia as an alternative shipping site for their oil exports. There can be no doubt that we are at least trying to protect our own access to the non-Russian pipelines of Georgia.
The third thorn in the Russian bear’s paw is Georgia’s resistance to the Russian backed revolt against the government of Georgia, which is the impetus for the Georgian president’s punitive actions. From the Russian perspective, he is holding two provinces hostage so they are acting to free them. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/46812.html) They don’t see any difference between what they are doing in South Ossetia and what we did in Kosovo.
Given the low esteem in which the Bush administration is currently held, it would be hard pressed to drum up support at home or in Europe for any kind of military expenditures in the Central Asian region (i.e. move against Russia) and it would be a stupid thing to do anyway, but if Russia could be goaded into acting first perhaps that sentiment would change. Saakashvili knew his troops would stir the Russians to respond militarily. Could it be, then, that the whole idea is to bait Russia aggression so that BushCo could legitimize its desire to protect its Georgian oil pipelines through combined action with its NATO allies while at the same time developing a NATO ‘defensive’ missile system with the smiling approval of the American people?
Thanks to vigilant Springfieldian who keeps on top of such things and freely distributes web-based information about them, we can also check these video references and explore the question:
Nuclear war by miscalculation
F William Engdahl: The geopolitics of Georgia pt2 August 14, 2008
The geopolitics of Georgia
F William Engdahl: There are far bigger stakes being played out in Georgia than a territorial dispute August 13, 2008
Who's to blame for the Russian Georgian conflict?
Pepe Escobar: Georgia is a strategic client state of the US with close ties to the Bush administration August 12, 2008
President Saakashvili definitely overshot his bounds and overestimated the willingness of the US to confront the Russians gun for gun, but the upshot of this episode is likely to be further degradation of the American image in the eyes of its allies. From the perspective of newly acquired allies like Georgia, the US has been unable to deliver on its promise of support in the face of external aggression. All the posturing and pointing in the world will not ease their feeling that an alliance with the US is an empty gesture.
Russia is not going to gain from this either. They are coming off as viciously militaristic hardliners willing to overthrow their neighbors and risk large-scale warfare to protect their own economic interests. Unless these nations’ true motivations emerge in negotiations, this messy wound is likely to fester and might ultimately have very serious consequences.
The bottom line in politics is always that nothing is what it seems to be. Exactly what this situation really is remains to be seen, but one key to understanding political action definitely is to look first at the pot that’s doing the pointing.
“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
Want to start a potentially unpopular war? Start by labeling those who might oppose you as unpatriotic. Want to establish control over a foreign country? Start by calling them unacceptably aggressive. That may be what is going on in Georgia today.
The United States celebrated the fall of the USSR and the end of the cold war, but did not stop acting as though the cold war was still in effect. Right now, the Bush administration is pointing at Russian aggression in Georgia and saying that the Russians are acting as if the cold war had never ended, but we are the country that has never stopped creating nuclear weapons. We are the nation that has sought, though NATO treaties, to arm countries near the Russian borders. Georgia is just one of those countries, but it is so close that Russia sees our arming that nation the same way we saw the USSR’s arming of Cuba in the 1960s. The dangerous difference is that this time we have leaders in both countries who are much more willing to pull the trigger than were Kennedy and Kruschev.
BushCo’s desire to establish a defensive missile system in the region feeds this fire. In fact, the BBC reported this morning on the US request to put missiles in Poland. Czechoslovakia is another chosen location, but from Russia’s perspective that system could as easily be offensive, and Georgia is far too close for their comfort. If the cold war is over, they reasonably ask, what is the need for any missile defense system in the region?
The Russian bear is also awakened by the thought that the US is trying to cut off their access to Georgia as an alternative shipping site for their oil exports. There can be no doubt that we are at least trying to protect our own access to the non-Russian pipelines of Georgia.
The third thorn in the Russian bear’s paw is Georgia’s resistance to the Russian backed revolt against the government of Georgia, which is the impetus for the Georgian president’s punitive actions. From the Russian perspective, he is holding two provinces hostage so they are acting to free them. (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/46812.html) They don’t see any difference between what they are doing in South Ossetia and what we did in Kosovo.
Given the low esteem in which the Bush administration is currently held, it would be hard pressed to drum up support at home or in Europe for any kind of military expenditures in the Central Asian region (i.e. move against Russia) and it would be a stupid thing to do anyway, but if Russia could be goaded into acting first perhaps that sentiment would change. Saakashvili knew his troops would stir the Russians to respond militarily. Could it be, then, that the whole idea is to bait Russia aggression so that BushCo could legitimize its desire to protect its Georgian oil pipelines through combined action with its NATO allies while at the same time developing a NATO ‘defensive’ missile system with the smiling approval of the American people?
Thanks to vigilant Springfieldian who keeps on top of such things and freely distributes web-based information about them, we can also check these video references and explore the question:
Nuclear war by miscalculation
F William Engdahl: The geopolitics of Georgia pt2 August 14, 2008
The geopolitics of Georgia
F William Engdahl: There are far bigger stakes being played out in Georgia than a territorial dispute August 13, 2008
Who's to blame for the Russian Georgian conflict?
Pepe Escobar: Georgia is a strategic client state of the US with close ties to the Bush administration August 12, 2008
President Saakashvili definitely overshot his bounds and overestimated the willingness of the US to confront the Russians gun for gun, but the upshot of this episode is likely to be further degradation of the American image in the eyes of its allies. From the perspective of newly acquired allies like Georgia, the US has been unable to deliver on its promise of support in the face of external aggression. All the posturing and pointing in the world will not ease their feeling that an alliance with the US is an empty gesture.
Russia is not going to gain from this either. They are coming off as viciously militaristic hardliners willing to overthrow their neighbors and risk large-scale warfare to protect their own economic interests. Unless these nations’ true motivations emerge in negotiations, this messy wound is likely to fester and might ultimately have very serious consequences.
The bottom line in politics is always that nothing is what it seems to be. Exactly what this situation really is remains to be seen, but one key to understanding political action definitely is to look first at the pot that’s doing the pointing.
“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, August 13, 2008
Lighten Up
I don’t usually pass along the jokes, etc. that I receive as email, but this item (thanks, Karolyn) was so good I decided to include it in my blog archives. If this doesn’t make you chuckle you are far too deeply involved with the Republican Party. Today, let’s just lighten up:
George W. Bush Presidential Library to Open in 2009
The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the final planning stages.
The Library will include:
The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.
The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.
The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.
The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.
The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.
The National Debt room which is huge and has no ceiling.
The 'Tax Cut' Room with entry only to the wealthy.
The 'Economy Room' which is in the toilet.
The Iraq War Room. After you complete your first tour, they make you to go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth tour.
The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location,complete with shotgun gallery.
The Strategic National Energy Policy Room currently under construction by OPEC/Carlyle Group.
The Supreme Court's Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.
The US Constitution Room is also under construction by the new and improved American Fascism Group aka American Enterprise Institute.
The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.
The 'Decider Room' complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.
The museum will also have an electron microscope to help you locate the President's accomplishments.
I might add here: The Hall Of Shame ..... Lined with photos of all those who became wealthy during the granting of governmental contracts.
And one more: The Oil Slick Balcony: Dedicated to those who were slick nuff to dodge prosecution for their illegal actions.
“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
George W. Bush Presidential Library to Open in 2009
The George W. Bush Presidential Library is now in the final planning stages.
The Library will include:
The Hurricane Katrina Room, which is still under construction.
The Alberto Gonzales Room, where you won't be able to remember anything.
The Texas Air National Guard Room, where you don't even have to show up.
The Walter Reed Hospital Room, where they don't let you in.
The Guantanamo Bay Room, where they don't let you out.
The Weapons of Mass Destruction Room, which no one has been able to find.
The National Debt room which is huge and has no ceiling.
The 'Tax Cut' Room with entry only to the wealthy.
The 'Economy Room' which is in the toilet.
The Iraq War Room. After you complete your first tour, they make you to go back for a second, third, fourth, and sometimes fifth tour.
The Dick Cheney Room, in the famous undisclosed location,complete with shotgun gallery.
The Strategic National Energy Policy Room currently under construction by OPEC/Carlyle Group.
The Supreme Court's Gift Shop, where you can buy an election.
The US Constitution Room is also under construction by the new and improved American Fascism Group aka American Enterprise Institute.
The Airport Men's Room, where you can meet some of your favorite Republican Senators.
The 'Decider Room' complete with dart board, magic 8-ball, Ouija board, dice, coins, and straws.
The museum will also have an electron microscope to help you locate the President's accomplishments.
I might add here: The Hall Of Shame ..... Lined with photos of all those who became wealthy during the granting of governmental contracts.
And one more: The Oil Slick Balcony: Dedicated to those who were slick nuff to dodge prosecution for their illegal actions.
“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, August 12, 2008
TO DRILL OR NOT TO DRILL, THAT IS THE QUESTION
McCain and Obama are going round and round about energy policy. Unfortunately, they are also going around and around the real issues. If our political process only allowed it, they might be debating the actual nuts and bolts of the issue so that voters could make a truly informed decision.
McCain wants to drill. Where, exactly? What safeguards does he plan to employ to ensure environmental integrity? When would license to drill actually produce oil for the U.S.? How much would it produce and how long would it last at our present level of consumption? What then?
Obama will drill if it can lead us to a meaningful energy program. After answering the same questions put to McCain, then, what does he mean by a meaningful energy program? In spite of the Repulsican derision, properly inflated tires would make a difference, but it isn’t exactly the solution. He says he wants to subsidize R&D, but what R&D and in what amounts and from what revenue streams?
One of the things that I find a bit disconcerting about Obama and the Demorats in general is their seeming inability or unwillingness to directly address the holes in the Repulsican arguments. For instance, the information in this piece from CLG News offers at least a telling jab for Obama to use in his sparring with McCain:
US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar 03 Jul 2008
While the U.S. oil industry wants access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, American-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries. A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush regime for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. "We can help alleviate shortages by drilling for oil and gas in our own country," President [sic] Bush told reporters this week. "We have got the opportunity to find more crude oil here at home."
We produce 5,064,000 barrels of oils per day in the U.S. so that means that 31.6% of the oil we refine in this country was exported to other countries in the first quarter of this year. Shouldn’t that turn up in a debate between McCain and Obama somewhere along the line?!
We import 10,031,000 barrels/day of foreign oil. Combined with the 3,464,000 barrels we keep from our daily U.S. production that is a total use of 13,495,000 barrels per day. Off-shore drilling is projected to produce a maximum of 3% of our need. That comes to 404,850 barrels per day.
That being the case, we could generate the same amount of additional oil just by curtailing the sale of 404,850 of the 1.6 million barrels of oil we export daily and not have to drill off-shore. I know it doesn’t make for a slick sound-bite, but it is the truth according to the Energy Information Administration which provides official U.S. government statistics. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
Isn’t it just possible that a candidate could use this kind of information to frame an argument the average voter could understand and act upon?
“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
McCain wants to drill. Where, exactly? What safeguards does he plan to employ to ensure environmental integrity? When would license to drill actually produce oil for the U.S.? How much would it produce and how long would it last at our present level of consumption? What then?
Obama will drill if it can lead us to a meaningful energy program. After answering the same questions put to McCain, then, what does he mean by a meaningful energy program? In spite of the Repulsican derision, properly inflated tires would make a difference, but it isn’t exactly the solution. He says he wants to subsidize R&D, but what R&D and in what amounts and from what revenue streams?
One of the things that I find a bit disconcerting about Obama and the Demorats in general is their seeming inability or unwillingness to directly address the holes in the Repulsican arguments. For instance, the information in this piece from CLG News offers at least a telling jab for Obama to use in his sparring with McCain:
US oil firms seek drilling access, but exports soar 03 Jul 2008
While the U.S. oil industry wants access to more federal lands to help reduce reliance on foreign suppliers, American-based companies are shipping record amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel to other countries. A record 1.6 million barrels a day in U.S. refined petroleum products were exported during the first four months of this year, up 33 percent from 1.2 million barrels a day over the same period in 2007. The surge in exports appears to contradict the pleas from the U.S. oil industry and the Bush regime for Congress to open more offshore waters and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. "We can help alleviate shortages by drilling for oil and gas in our own country," President [sic] Bush told reporters this week. "We have got the opportunity to find more crude oil here at home."
We produce 5,064,000 barrels of oils per day in the U.S. so that means that 31.6% of the oil we refine in this country was exported to other countries in the first quarter of this year. Shouldn’t that turn up in a debate between McCain and Obama somewhere along the line?!
We import 10,031,000 barrels/day of foreign oil. Combined with the 3,464,000 barrels we keep from our daily U.S. production that is a total use of 13,495,000 barrels per day. Off-shore drilling is projected to produce a maximum of 3% of our need. That comes to 404,850 barrels per day.
That being the case, we could generate the same amount of additional oil just by curtailing the sale of 404,850 of the 1.6 million barrels of oil we export daily and not have to drill off-shore. I know it doesn’t make for a slick sound-bite, but it is the truth according to the Energy Information Administration which provides official U.S. government statistics. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html
Isn’t it just possible that a candidate could use this kind of information to frame an argument the average voter could understand and act upon?
“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
Monday, August 11, 2008
AN OLYMPIAN FACE-OFF
While W dozed through the opening ceremonies at the Olympics a face-off of more than Olympian proportions was building between Russia and Georgia.
This morning’s email brought a most interesting message containing a blog written by
The host of this blog is a man named Timothy Alexander who has apparently assumed the titles listed even though there is no legitimization of those titles by any authority in the British Isles. In fact, according to Baronage.co.uk, if he uses the titles in any official way he would open to prosecution.
The blog (http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2008/08/massive-us-naval-armada-heads-for-iran.html ) was loaded with details including a list of ships the U.S. and its allies have deployed to the Middle-east and the potential those deployments have as a means for kicking off a huge war over oil in that region and all the way to Georgia and Russia.
Though I have no way of verifying the military details in the blog, I think that its information about the nature of the building conflict is probably accurate. I have not found any evidence of the Israeli-Georgian oil supply agreement the discussion refers to, but Israel has been selling a lot of arms to Georgia. The bottom line issue seems to be Georgia's attempt to maintain or regain control of the two provinces that have broken off since the original break from the USSR and which are being claimed and defended by Russia. In the process the Russians are fighting against Israeli made weapons. The U.S. has an alliance with Georgia, though, and is likely to march lock-step with Israel in any way that country chooses to be involved.
The build-up of hostilities in Georgia seems reminiscent of the way a relatively obscure assassination kicked off WWII, and it is not being treated as any more important a news story than the Olympic games.
The upshot is that while our newsertainment services feed us stories about the glorious U.S. quest for Olympic gold, the world may become embroiled in a face-off that ain’t field hockey. The great fear is that the Amerikan people will go along with another (probably much bigger) war because, once again, they haven’t been paying attention.
The statements W and dick Cheney have made indicate their willingness to face off against Russia. It appears to be another variation on the missile crisis JFK faced, and the one thing we know for sure is that the enormous power now in the hands of our idiot president puts the world in even greater danger than his pre-emptive strike on Iraq.
“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
This morning’s email brought a most interesting message containing a blog written by
The host of this blog is a man named Timothy Alexander who has apparently assumed the titles listed even though there is no legitimization of those titles by any authority in the British Isles. In fact, according to Baronage.co.uk, if he uses the titles in any official way he would open to prosecution.
The blog (http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2008/08/massive-us-naval-armada-heads-for-iran.html ) was loaded with details including a list of ships the U.S. and its allies have deployed to the Middle-east and the potential those deployments have as a means for kicking off a huge war over oil in that region and all the way to Georgia and Russia.
Though I have no way of verifying the military details in the blog, I think that its information about the nature of the building conflict is probably accurate. I have not found any evidence of the Israeli-Georgian oil supply agreement the discussion refers to, but Israel has been selling a lot of arms to Georgia. The bottom line issue seems to be Georgia's attempt to maintain or regain control of the two provinces that have broken off since the original break from the USSR and which are being claimed and defended by Russia. In the process the Russians are fighting against Israeli made weapons. The U.S. has an alliance with Georgia, though, and is likely to march lock-step with Israel in any way that country chooses to be involved.
The build-up of hostilities in Georgia seems reminiscent of the way a relatively obscure assassination kicked off WWII, and it is not being treated as any more important a news story than the Olympic games.
The upshot is that while our newsertainment services feed us stories about the glorious U.S. quest for Olympic gold, the world may become embroiled in a face-off that ain’t field hockey. The great fear is that the Amerikan people will go along with another (probably much bigger) war because, once again, they haven’t been paying attention.
The statements W and dick Cheney have made indicate their willingness to face off against Russia. It appears to be another variation on the missile crisis JFK faced, and the one thing we know for sure is that the enormous power now in the hands of our idiot president puts the world in even greater danger than his pre-emptive strike on Iraq.
“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
Thursday, August 7, 2008
EVERY SILVER LINING HAS A CLOUD
For a long time, I’ve felt like all is darkness and there is not a chance that anyone in Congress understands the Constitution. Then today came a bolt from the blue. Seven Republican Congressmen were quoted as to their understanding of the ramifications of unconstitutional action by a president.
Take a look at this site, http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/Seven-Republican-Members-o-by-Cheryl-Biren-Wrigh-080711-38.html. Here are some excerpts from six of them:
Hon. Lamar Smith (TX) Phone 202-225-4236 . Fax: 202-225-8628 We should not underestimate the gravity of the case against the president. When he put his hand on the Bible and recited his oath of office, he swore to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States - not some laws, all laws
Hon. James Sensenbrenner (WI) Phone (202) 225-5101 . Fax (202) 255-3190…being a poor example isn't grounds for impeachment; undermining the rule of law is.
When Americans come to Washington, they see the words "equal justice under law" carved in the facade of the Supreme Court building. Those words mean that the weak and the poor have an equal right to justice, as do the rich and the powerful.
Hon. Elton Gallegly (CA) Phone (202) 225-5811 . Fax (202) 225-1100 This has been a very trying time. In a democracy, there are few more serious acts than to consider the possible impeachment of a president. I can tell you in true conscience it has caused me many sleepless nights.
I wanted to hear the evidence that would prove the charges were false. I believed that was the only fair way to proceed, and it was also my solemn constitutional duty and immense responsibility. I waited, I read, and I listened.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not a lawyer -- one of the few on this committee -- however, everyone that knows me knows I believe in the rule of law -- believe the rule of law is fundamental to our society. A society without laws is anarchy. Societies that ignore the laws are condemned to violence and chaos.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte (VA) Phone (202) 225-5431 . Fax (202) 225-9681 Mr. Chairman, this is a somber occasion. I am here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is the constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to follow the truth wherever it may lead. Our Founding Fathers established this nation on a fundamental yet at the time untested idea that a nation should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law, including the chief executive
Hon. Steve Chabot (OH) Phone (202) 225-2216 . (202) 225-3012 Thank you. Mr. Chairman, every member of our committee recognizes that this is likely the most important vote we will ever cast, and all of us would prefer that the president's actions had not led us down this fateful path. However, we have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and we must fully accept that responsibility.
Hon. Chris Cannon (UT) Phone (202) 225-7751 . Fax (202) 225-5629 We are at a defining moment in our history. What we do here will set the standard for what is acceptable for this and future presidents.
I believe profoundly that the behavior of this president is unacceptable because I agree with John Jay, one of our Founding Fathers, who said, "When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights become insecure."
These statements are excerpts from transcripts of the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings. December 10-11, 1998. Each congressman is a current member of the House Judiciary Committee – so they were talking about Bill Clinton.
Do I think it means that we will see the impeachment of dick and W? Hell no, what it means to me is that these Republicans are even more cynical than I thought.
These folks won’t say the same thing about their fearless leader. Never mind that his actions have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people including nearly 5,000 American soldiers in a war that should never have been fought.
So it’s even worse than I thought. I thought they were too ignorant to understand what was going on. Turns out they are just so cynical that they don’t care what’s going on as long as it is going on in the name of their party.
These folks don’t even deserve a spit in the eye. Nothing short of vomit could send the right message, but maybe we should all call them and tell them what we think of their perfidy.
“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
Take a look at this site, http://www.opednews.com/articles/3/Seven-Republican-Members-o-by-Cheryl-Biren-Wrigh-080711-38.html. Here are some excerpts from six of them:
Hon. Lamar Smith (TX) Phone 202-225-4236 . Fax: 202-225-8628 We should not underestimate the gravity of the case against the president. When he put his hand on the Bible and recited his oath of office, he swore to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States - not some laws, all laws
Hon. James Sensenbrenner (WI) Phone (202) 225-5101 . Fax (202) 255-3190…being a poor example isn't grounds for impeachment; undermining the rule of law is.
When Americans come to Washington, they see the words "equal justice under law" carved in the facade of the Supreme Court building. Those words mean that the weak and the poor have an equal right to justice, as do the rich and the powerful.
Hon. Elton Gallegly (CA) Phone (202) 225-5811 . Fax (202) 225-1100 This has been a very trying time. In a democracy, there are few more serious acts than to consider the possible impeachment of a president. I can tell you in true conscience it has caused me many sleepless nights.
I wanted to hear the evidence that would prove the charges were false. I believed that was the only fair way to proceed, and it was also my solemn constitutional duty and immense responsibility. I waited, I read, and I listened.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not a lawyer -- one of the few on this committee -- however, everyone that knows me knows I believe in the rule of law -- believe the rule of law is fundamental to our society. A society without laws is anarchy. Societies that ignore the laws are condemned to violence and chaos.
Hon. Bob Goodlatte (VA) Phone (202) 225-5431 . Fax (202) 225-9681 Mr. Chairman, this is a somber occasion. I am here because it is my constitutional duty, as it is the constitutional duty of every member of this committee, to follow the truth wherever it may lead. Our Founding Fathers established this nation on a fundamental yet at the time untested idea that a nation should be governed not by the whims of any man but by the rule of law. Implicit in that idea is the principle that no one is above the law, including the chief executive
Hon. Steve Chabot (OH) Phone (202) 225-2216 . (202) 225-3012 Thank you. Mr. Chairman, every member of our committee recognizes that this is likely the most important vote we will ever cast, and all of us would prefer that the president's actions had not led us down this fateful path. However, we have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and we must fully accept that responsibility.
Hon. Chris Cannon (UT) Phone (202) 225-7751 . Fax (202) 225-5629 We are at a defining moment in our history. What we do here will set the standard for what is acceptable for this and future presidents.
I believe profoundly that the behavior of this president is unacceptable because I agree with John Jay, one of our Founding Fathers, who said, "When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights become insecure."
These statements are excerpts from transcripts of the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment hearings. December 10-11, 1998. Each congressman is a current member of the House Judiciary Committee – so they were talking about Bill Clinton.
Do I think it means that we will see the impeachment of dick and W? Hell no, what it means to me is that these Republicans are even more cynical than I thought.
These folks won’t say the same thing about their fearless leader. Never mind that his actions have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people including nearly 5,000 American soldiers in a war that should never have been fought.
So it’s even worse than I thought. I thought they were too ignorant to understand what was going on. Turns out they are just so cynical that they don’t care what’s going on as long as it is going on in the name of their party.
These folks don’t even deserve a spit in the eye. Nothing short of vomit could send the right message, but maybe we should all call them and tell them what we think of their perfidy.
“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
THE ROAD TO PEACE
This week I attended my first Coordinating Committee meeting of the Peace Network of the Ozarks (PNO) as acting president of that organization. I put my name up for that position at the urging of Dave Davison who, being forced to give up the position as president due to pressing work issues, talked to me several times about the importance of the group within the community and the need for a strong voice for peace at its head.
Being one of the early members of PNO and always having been of the opinion that its message of thoughtful consideration of issues related to war held great value, this was a difficult argument for me to refute. I have always shied away from leadership positions, though, and was very reluctant to accept this one. The thing that decided me was the hope that I could provide a voice of reason that might ultimately be of value not only for PNO, but for the community.
The early days of PNO seemed like a no-brainer to me. I could see no reason to back a national movement toward increasing the USA’s warlike nature. While calling ourselves a peaceful nation, we have been involved in one armed conflict or another throughout my entire lifetime; while worshipping the Prince of Peace more commonly than any other deity, we have embraced arms production and sales at a level no other nation on earth has ever sought let alone achieved, and, ultimately, while saying time and again that they had no desire to go to war, the administration was building a false case for pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation that clearly posed no threat to the U.S. Understanding these things left me no choice about joining PNO.
We started off strong and could put three to four hundred people on the street to protest the obvious injustice of war on Iraq. After that war was declared interest began to wane. It became harder and harder to gather a crowd to protest the war and other transgressions committed by this administration. As the time has gone by and people have become more inured to the damage our war effort has done to America and its relationship to the world, it has become nearly impossible to draw a large crowd to any protest even though PNO still has about the same number of supporters who ask to remain on the mailing list.
People know that we are on the wrong path, but they can’t see an imminent reason to stand up and get vocal about their opposition.
Because of this, the Peace Network has been quietly evolving away from just a group gathered to protest inappropriate governmental actions and into an agency for the spread of information. As communication is probably my strongest suit, this seemed to be an appropriate time for me to step into a more visible position.
I see my role as attempting to share a belief in the need for fundamental shifts in our nation’s approach to governance and to international interaction. Please understand that I do not believe that I will ever have any effect on national policy. What I do believe, though, is that a group like PNO can affect the way the community in which it resides sees things. Further, I believe that each member of such a community who sees wisdom in proposed ideas can have an affect on other members of that community and that if the community as a whole comes to share a set of beliefs and values, it can change the thinking in other communities.
I also believe that it takes years for a sound idea to become policy in any community, so I am willing to continue the slow but inexorable process of seeding this rocky ground in the hope that some of the truths held dear by the members of PNO might take root and spread.
The direction I think PNO and its like organizations around the country must take is one in which PNO is truly a national leader. The idea that peace groups can protest enough to get those who disagree with them to come around to their position is, I think, a most unlikely proposition. Having realized the difficulty of massing people for protests here in the Ozarks over the past few years PNO, under the wise leadership of people like Joan Collins, Doris Ewing, Gene Davidson and Dave Davison, began to try instead to bring information to the Ozarks -- information that could help people to see and understand the horrible waste that war and warlike behavior cause.
Another person who has done a great deal in this area while working outside the auspices of PNO is Sue Skidmore who was instrumental in bringing in many valuable speakers including one of the nation’s finest voices of reason, ex-CIA agent and presidential advisor Ray McGovern.
My hope is to provide an inexorable, if not constant, flow of information intended to help people to understand the devastation of our national policy of spending more on “defense” than the other five of the world’s biggest military spenders combined. My fervent hope is that our nation will come to understand that our wealth could be spent in many better ways that would not only help to improve the quality of life for the people of the world, but also would improve our national security beyond anything a new bomb can do. My deepest hope is that this will happen by choice rather than being forced upon our grandchildren by the impoverishment of the world in the name of military might.
Our planet is at risk not only from the direct danger of war including potential nuclear warfare, but from the nature of the world economy. Our reliance on the production and use of arms and the production, purchase and use of petroleum is the primary reason the world is now teetering on the edge of ecological and economic disaster.
PNO has come to be seen by people of reason as a local voice of reason. My hope is to expand that voice and, thus, to increase the level of hope for the future for all of us by expanding on these themes and providing clearly stated arguments for a change in our national approach to world-citizenship. We know that such change will not come from our “leaders”. It will have to come from the demands of the people for leadership that is far more sane than we have seen to date.
In the knowledge that my readers are people who do a lot of research and hard thinking, I am asking that you send any references you come across that might help in this effort to my attention at peacenetwork@ozarkpeace.net. I also ask that you consider joining PNO if you haven’t already done so. You can visit the PNO website at http://ozarkpeace.net or just send an email to Ron at peacenetwork@ozarkpeace.net and ask him about membership.
“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
Being one of the early members of PNO and always having been of the opinion that its message of thoughtful consideration of issues related to war held great value, this was a difficult argument for me to refute. I have always shied away from leadership positions, though, and was very reluctant to accept this one. The thing that decided me was the hope that I could provide a voice of reason that might ultimately be of value not only for PNO, but for the community.
The early days of PNO seemed like a no-brainer to me. I could see no reason to back a national movement toward increasing the USA’s warlike nature. While calling ourselves a peaceful nation, we have been involved in one armed conflict or another throughout my entire lifetime; while worshipping the Prince of Peace more commonly than any other deity, we have embraced arms production and sales at a level no other nation on earth has ever sought let alone achieved, and, ultimately, while saying time and again that they had no desire to go to war, the administration was building a false case for pre-emptive war against a sovereign nation that clearly posed no threat to the U.S. Understanding these things left me no choice about joining PNO.
We started off strong and could put three to four hundred people on the street to protest the obvious injustice of war on Iraq. After that war was declared interest began to wane. It became harder and harder to gather a crowd to protest the war and other transgressions committed by this administration. As the time has gone by and people have become more inured to the damage our war effort has done to America and its relationship to the world, it has become nearly impossible to draw a large crowd to any protest even though PNO still has about the same number of supporters who ask to remain on the mailing list.
People know that we are on the wrong path, but they can’t see an imminent reason to stand up and get vocal about their opposition.
Because of this, the Peace Network has been quietly evolving away from just a group gathered to protest inappropriate governmental actions and into an agency for the spread of information. As communication is probably my strongest suit, this seemed to be an appropriate time for me to step into a more visible position.
I see my role as attempting to share a belief in the need for fundamental shifts in our nation’s approach to governance and to international interaction. Please understand that I do not believe that I will ever have any effect on national policy. What I do believe, though, is that a group like PNO can affect the way the community in which it resides sees things. Further, I believe that each member of such a community who sees wisdom in proposed ideas can have an affect on other members of that community and that if the community as a whole comes to share a set of beliefs and values, it can change the thinking in other communities.
I also believe that it takes years for a sound idea to become policy in any community, so I am willing to continue the slow but inexorable process of seeding this rocky ground in the hope that some of the truths held dear by the members of PNO might take root and spread.
The direction I think PNO and its like organizations around the country must take is one in which PNO is truly a national leader. The idea that peace groups can protest enough to get those who disagree with them to come around to their position is, I think, a most unlikely proposition. Having realized the difficulty of massing people for protests here in the Ozarks over the past few years PNO, under the wise leadership of people like Joan Collins, Doris Ewing, Gene Davidson and Dave Davison, began to try instead to bring information to the Ozarks -- information that could help people to see and understand the horrible waste that war and warlike behavior cause.
Another person who has done a great deal in this area while working outside the auspices of PNO is Sue Skidmore who was instrumental in bringing in many valuable speakers including one of the nation’s finest voices of reason, ex-CIA agent and presidential advisor Ray McGovern.
My hope is to provide an inexorable, if not constant, flow of information intended to help people to understand the devastation of our national policy of spending more on “defense” than the other five of the world’s biggest military spenders combined. My fervent hope is that our nation will come to understand that our wealth could be spent in many better ways that would not only help to improve the quality of life for the people of the world, but also would improve our national security beyond anything a new bomb can do. My deepest hope is that this will happen by choice rather than being forced upon our grandchildren by the impoverishment of the world in the name of military might.
Our planet is at risk not only from the direct danger of war including potential nuclear warfare, but from the nature of the world economy. Our reliance on the production and use of arms and the production, purchase and use of petroleum is the primary reason the world is now teetering on the edge of ecological and economic disaster.
PNO has come to be seen by people of reason as a local voice of reason. My hope is to expand that voice and, thus, to increase the level of hope for the future for all of us by expanding on these themes and providing clearly stated arguments for a change in our national approach to world-citizenship. We know that such change will not come from our “leaders”. It will have to come from the demands of the people for leadership that is far more sane than we have seen to date.
In the knowledge that my readers are people who do a lot of research and hard thinking, I am asking that you send any references you come across that might help in this effort to my attention at peacenetwork@ozarkpeace.net. I also ask that you consider joining PNO if you haven’t already done so. You can visit the PNO website at http://ozarkpeace.net or just send an email to Ron at peacenetwork@ozarkpeace.net and ask him about membership.
“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, August 5, 2008
WHERE ARE THE WAR CRIMINALS?
A sidebar story in today’s Springfield News-Leader devotes three paragraphs to reporting on the first American war crimes trial since World War II.
The accused is Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni, who worked as a driver for Osama bin Laden. His prosecutors say his service to bin Laden makes him culpable for the danger his work posed for American troops. His defenders say he is just a pawn; a chauffeur who knew nothing more than what destination to drive to on a given day.
Most prisoners at Gitmo have never been tried and probably never will be. It appears to me that the administration is drawing at straws in an attempt to prove their vigilance over the nation’s safety by demonstrating that they have caught and will prosecute terrorists. But the real question on which this trial will shed light is not whether or not this man is guilty of the charges. The central question everyone will be assessing is whether the system the Bush administration put in place – from the arrest process to Guantanamo Bay to the military tribunal assigned to hear cases against prisoners – is a legitimate system or a trumped up means of denying prisoners’ rights while railroading them into sentences issued in response to baseless charges.
There is a lot of evidence that a great many of the prisoners in Gitmo are there because their enemies turned them in for the rewards offered by the American government for information leading to the capture of terrorists. It was an easy way for any Pakistani, Afghani, or anyone else to point the finger at an enemy and have him removed from the local competition for whatever power was to be had whether governorship of a municipality or just control of a fig grove.
There is also plenty of evidence of Amerikan abuse of prisoners, and a huge, though behind the scenes as far as the popular press is concerned, debate over whether the military tribunal system was structured by the administration so that they could (1) avoid habeas corpus, and (2) allow “evidence” gained through torture.
Amerika is trying the wrong people. No prisoner in Gitmo is guilty of imprisoning hundreds of people and holding them for years without stating the case against them, allowing them to have representation, or bringing them to trial. No prisoner in Gitmo has outed a covert intelligence agent for political revenge. No prisoner in Gitmo has constructed false intelligence to build a case for war. No prisoner in Gitmo is guilty of leading America away from its long heritage as a nation that does not torture prisoners. No prisoner in Gitmo is guilty of unleashing pre-emptive warfare on a country that posed no threat and possessed no weapons of mass destruction and in the process causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the displacement of more than two million more. No prisoner in Gitmo is now advocating doing exactly the same thing to a second sovereign nation (Iran).
My bet is that you can find more real war criminals per capita in the White House right now than in Guantanamo Bay.
“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
The accused is Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni, who worked as a driver for Osama bin Laden. His prosecutors say his service to bin Laden makes him culpable for the danger his work posed for American troops. His defenders say he is just a pawn; a chauffeur who knew nothing more than what destination to drive to on a given day.
Most prisoners at Gitmo have never been tried and probably never will be. It appears to me that the administration is drawing at straws in an attempt to prove their vigilance over the nation’s safety by demonstrating that they have caught and will prosecute terrorists. But the real question on which this trial will shed light is not whether or not this man is guilty of the charges. The central question everyone will be assessing is whether the system the Bush administration put in place – from the arrest process to Guantanamo Bay to the military tribunal assigned to hear cases against prisoners – is a legitimate system or a trumped up means of denying prisoners’ rights while railroading them into sentences issued in response to baseless charges.
There is a lot of evidence that a great many of the prisoners in Gitmo are there because their enemies turned them in for the rewards offered by the American government for information leading to the capture of terrorists. It was an easy way for any Pakistani, Afghani, or anyone else to point the finger at an enemy and have him removed from the local competition for whatever power was to be had whether governorship of a municipality or just control of a fig grove.
There is also plenty of evidence of Amerikan abuse of prisoners, and a huge, though behind the scenes as far as the popular press is concerned, debate over whether the military tribunal system was structured by the administration so that they could (1) avoid habeas corpus, and (2) allow “evidence” gained through torture.
Amerika is trying the wrong people. No prisoner in Gitmo is guilty of imprisoning hundreds of people and holding them for years without stating the case against them, allowing them to have representation, or bringing them to trial. No prisoner in Gitmo has outed a covert intelligence agent for political revenge. No prisoner in Gitmo has constructed false intelligence to build a case for war. No prisoner in Gitmo is guilty of leading America away from its long heritage as a nation that does not torture prisoners. No prisoner in Gitmo is guilty of unleashing pre-emptive warfare on a country that posed no threat and possessed no weapons of mass destruction and in the process causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the displacement of more than two million more. No prisoner in Gitmo is now advocating doing exactly the same thing to a second sovereign nation (Iran).
My bet is that you can find more real war criminals per capita in the White House right now than in Guantanamo Bay.
“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
Monday, August 4, 2008
SAME OL’ SAME OL’
Here we are in July of a presidential campaign year, and, as usual, the mud is so thick you can’t see the issues.
McCain can’t afford to have people asking whether they want to face another four to eight years of Repulsican policies, so he chooses to undertake character assassination instead by comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
Obama has taken a higher road, but still doesn’t very directly speak to some of the issues I would like to see our nation address. Although his European and Middle-eastern tours have given him a great deal of popularity in those regions, he hardly ever points out the damage BushCo has done to America’s reputation abroad. Nor does he ever speak of how bitterly most of the world views our current warlike persona.
Neither candidate has voiced his position on trade policies, and total silence reigns on the subject of job exportation. What are they going to do to try and rebuild American eminence as a productive workplace? How do they plan to restore the value of the American dollar? What programs do they have in mind to try and combat the fact that China and India have more gifted students than we have students? How will they overcome the dumbing-down of Amerika? What can be done to reduce the world’s nuclear arms level? How can America lead the way in nuclear arms reduction? How can America divorce itself from Amerika – that nation approaching fascism and constantly threatening the rest of the world with its military power? How can the balance of powers – so dangerously o’ertipped by BushCo – be restored to the distribution written into the Constitution? What practical steps will either candidate take to ensure the universal availability of primary health care to American citizens; and at what cost to be covered from what sources? What does McCain plan to do to ensure that the Social Security program remains viable and valuable? (Obama has detailed his plan, and his thinking matches mine point for point, so I like it!!)
The one thing we know the answer to at this point is that the campaign will center on the kind of inanities that McCain has chosen to make the core of his advertising rather than spending much time on any of these questions. After all, that’s the Amerikan way. We just can’t be bothered to listen to – let alone read – lengthy explanations of political problems and their solutions.
Ultimately, instead of weighing the important issues and identifying the candidate whose approach most nearly matches our idea of correct thinking, we, like the good Amerikans we are, will try to decide which man we would rather have lunch with and then vote for him.
“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
McCain can’t afford to have people asking whether they want to face another four to eight years of Repulsican policies, so he chooses to undertake character assassination instead by comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
Obama has taken a higher road, but still doesn’t very directly speak to some of the issues I would like to see our nation address. Although his European and Middle-eastern tours have given him a great deal of popularity in those regions, he hardly ever points out the damage BushCo has done to America’s reputation abroad. Nor does he ever speak of how bitterly most of the world views our current warlike persona.
Neither candidate has voiced his position on trade policies, and total silence reigns on the subject of job exportation. What are they going to do to try and rebuild American eminence as a productive workplace? How do they plan to restore the value of the American dollar? What programs do they have in mind to try and combat the fact that China and India have more gifted students than we have students? How will they overcome the dumbing-down of Amerika? What can be done to reduce the world’s nuclear arms level? How can America lead the way in nuclear arms reduction? How can America divorce itself from Amerika – that nation approaching fascism and constantly threatening the rest of the world with its military power? How can the balance of powers – so dangerously o’ertipped by BushCo – be restored to the distribution written into the Constitution? What practical steps will either candidate take to ensure the universal availability of primary health care to American citizens; and at what cost to be covered from what sources? What does McCain plan to do to ensure that the Social Security program remains viable and valuable? (Obama has detailed his plan, and his thinking matches mine point for point, so I like it!!)
The one thing we know the answer to at this point is that the campaign will center on the kind of inanities that McCain has chosen to make the core of his advertising rather than spending much time on any of these questions. After all, that’s the Amerikan way. We just can’t be bothered to listen to – let alone read – lengthy explanations of political problems and their solutions.
Ultimately, instead of weighing the important issues and identifying the candidate whose approach most nearly matches our idea of correct thinking, we, like the good Amerikans we are, will try to decide which man we would rather have lunch with and then vote for him.
“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
Friday, August 1, 2008
THE RACE CARD NONSENSE
The hum on the airwaves and in the paper this morning is John McCain’s claim that Obama had played the “race card from the bottom of the deck” in his comments at Glendale High School here in Springfield Wednesday morning. That claim is so blatantly ridiculous that it is hardly worth noting, but he underlying psychology is powerful enough to justify some attention.
Barack’s comment was really made in reference to the combination of fools who have characterized him as a black Muslim and the McCain campaign tactic of pointing out his inexperience. He was pointing out that the McCain position is that a vote for Obama is a risk due to his inexperience, but that, to those fools who cannot get over their racism a vote for him, it is a risk due to his race. He made a joke about how the fact that he doesn’t resemble any of the white men on American money makes his candidacy “risky”.
The audience at the event interpreted his comment appropriately. They laughed. They laughed with him and took pleasure in his ability to so adroitly point out that he is a different kind of man than any who had held the office before him. They laughed at the idea that anyone would think that it would be appropriate to vote against this man simply because of the color of his skin. They laughed with the pleasure of the thought that they might make history by helping this man to gain the office he seeks.
The audience enjoyed his comment. They enjoyed his joke, and I venture to say that not a single person in that audience perceived the comment as in any sense being derogatory toward John McCain or racist in any way. It was a joke about the racist past of this nation. It was a satirical poke at the way this country has kept people of any other race or sex than white males from ever before having a serious chance at winning the highest office in the land. It was softly delivered sarcasm, and it was appreciated by everyone in attendance.
It was not in any sense racist, and the attempts by the McCain campaign to make it seem racist are so tawdry that I expect only the kind of thoughtless, knee-jerk conservatives that seem to be so common in this neck of the woods will stand behind Mr. McCain’s analysis.
If McCain really believes what he is saying about the remark, his thinking is so shallow that it indicates that he is not half the man Obama is. If he doesn’t really believe it, but is saying it anyway, it just points out that he is a typical Repulsican – willing to sling any mud he can dream up in order to stir up enough votes from the lunatic fringe to win the election.
The comparison of the two candidates offered by this exchange surely will swing more votes toward Obama than toward McCain. The dispute raised here by McCain is just too shallow to be given much weight by any but the weightless.
If you would like to go further in your comparison of the two candidates, here is a link that will allow you to compare their positions on various military issues:
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iraq/articles/070108_mccain_obama_national_security/
“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
Barack’s comment was really made in reference to the combination of fools who have characterized him as a black Muslim and the McCain campaign tactic of pointing out his inexperience. He was pointing out that the McCain position is that a vote for Obama is a risk due to his inexperience, but that, to those fools who cannot get over their racism a vote for him, it is a risk due to his race. He made a joke about how the fact that he doesn’t resemble any of the white men on American money makes his candidacy “risky”.
The audience at the event interpreted his comment appropriately. They laughed. They laughed with him and took pleasure in his ability to so adroitly point out that he is a different kind of man than any who had held the office before him. They laughed at the idea that anyone would think that it would be appropriate to vote against this man simply because of the color of his skin. They laughed with the pleasure of the thought that they might make history by helping this man to gain the office he seeks.
The audience enjoyed his comment. They enjoyed his joke, and I venture to say that not a single person in that audience perceived the comment as in any sense being derogatory toward John McCain or racist in any way. It was a joke about the racist past of this nation. It was a satirical poke at the way this country has kept people of any other race or sex than white males from ever before having a serious chance at winning the highest office in the land. It was softly delivered sarcasm, and it was appreciated by everyone in attendance.
It was not in any sense racist, and the attempts by the McCain campaign to make it seem racist are so tawdry that I expect only the kind of thoughtless, knee-jerk conservatives that seem to be so common in this neck of the woods will stand behind Mr. McCain’s analysis.
If McCain really believes what he is saying about the remark, his thinking is so shallow that it indicates that he is not half the man Obama is. If he doesn’t really believe it, but is saying it anyway, it just points out that he is a typical Repulsican – willing to sling any mud he can dream up in order to stir up enough votes from the lunatic fringe to win the election.
The comparison of the two candidates offered by this exchange surely will swing more votes toward Obama than toward McCain. The dispute raised here by McCain is just too shallow to be given much weight by any but the weightless.
If you would like to go further in your comparison of the two candidates, here is a link that will allow you to compare their positions on various military issues:
http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/iraq/articles/070108_mccain_obama_national_security/
“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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
