“TORTURE IS AS TORTURE DOES”

Or, a Fervent Lament About What Yoo Should Repent

Morally impaired professor John Yoo. Now there is a man this country should sue.
May his days writing White House memos and briefs bring him to trial and eternal grief.

This is the lawyer who “Torture” he said,“is hard to define and all in your head.
Besides with all the time bombs a ticking, mustn’t we give those suspects a kicking?”

True, dogs, sticks and stones might break a few captive bones,
But, near drowning it seems, shouldn’t even be counted as mean.

So what if it risks all our soldiers and troops. And, makes us liars and hypocrites to boot.
Jack Bauer did it and look at his result. To not follow his lead would be a big insult.

Jailing forever without charge, counsel or trial? As to any Amendments, John Yoo’s in denial.
“The Constitution is quaint and really quite dead.” Or, so he proclaimed and deliberately mislead.

May his words of malevolent and ignorant intent result someday soon in his prompt disbarment.
A thank you from Bush was his apparent sole goal. For that he sold out his profession and soul.

Convict Bush as well for his unlawful bend since he swore a solemn oath the Constitution he would defend.
But, try Yoo first cause he should’ve known better. Aren’t attorneys supposed to follow the law to the letter?

Nazi lawyers and judges caught Nuremberg ire. That too was for fulfilling their boss’s desire.
Unless for this there’s some stiff punishment, others will assume rules are meant to be bent.

“GETTING ABOARD WATERBOARDING”

We don’t need Jack Bauer. Let the Fox "News" Commentators Test Drive Torture Techniques

The one and maybe only thing that made the US of A different from all the countries of the world and maybe of all history was that it stood for something more than just self interest or mere self protection. It stood for certain almost unique principles, one of which was that we do not torture. No matter the provocation, no matter the magnitude of the threat, no matter the strength or pervasiveness of the enemy, no matter the risk of delay or harm. We did not torture as official policy and we did not tolerate those who do. Simply calling it something else was never a defense. And, I have never understood why the current crop of "conservative" Republicans seems to hate so much what America once proudly stood for.

Here are a couple thoughts since it does not look like the Republican leadership and their followers will be satisfied until they get torture approved. If we must be like the Nazis, the Imperial Japanese, the Spanish Inquisition, and all the others who used such methods without qualm, let's at least insist on two preconditions.

First, no one can vote for or authorize any torture method unless they themselves, their spouse and their children are subjected to it first by a sadist. That might eliminate some of the worst methods. Second, as to any methods that are NOT first "tested" by and survived by those employing them, let's have some consequences. IF they are used for, say, the apocryphal justification of the ticking Atom bomb, then fine. Give the torturer a ticker tape parade, declare him a hero, thank him for his "saving humanity" (an interesting irony) and have the parade route deliver him straight to solitary confinement for the rest of his life since anyone doing that obviously is not fit to mingle with the rest of humanity. That way they get to call themselves "heroes", but we will not have to have such dangerous sociopaths in our midst.

Click to enlarge if desired. The shoe throwing at the president cartoon was created by the author at the Funnytimes website were everyone can create their own cartoons

“SNEAK ATTACK”

Or, World War By Those with Money Against Those Without

Nearly a trillion in bailout grants handed out without strings to banks and companies owned by the ubër rich while a comparatively small loan to the American car industry denied unless the last big unions agreed to commit hari kari.

Legislation to restrict bankruptcy protection for individuals but not companies, and no restriction on predatory lending and credit practices that put borrowers at risk.

Then there is the difference between what CEOs “earn” and what the average employee earns which has already multiplied by a multiplication factor thousands of times greater than it used to be and that doesn’t even include the company perks for CEOs for which they don’t even pay taxes.

Can we forget a concerted decades long attack on both health care and social security to eliminate the “safety net” that once existed for the poor?

What do these have in common?

In retrospect, what seemed to have made America great and relatively unique throughout the world after the last Depression was the size of its middle class, the opportunity at least to move upward despite more humble beginnings, and the relatively benign treatment of even those who remained in lower classes (at least in comparison to most countries) and the rough parity between the competing class groups. Class warfare has always been going on to a certain extent, but it was muted with all three classes each having some genuine power and the ability to weld it after the Depression. The situation evolved a rough set of checks and balances which tended to hold down the avariciousness of any one particular class. Two against one usually prevented excesses of any single group like the ubër rich once exercised back during the Robber Baron Age for most of the late 1800s.

Unfortunately, since Reagan’s time, the ubër rich have secretly re-declared the class war while simultaneously attacking anyone who points out the obvious by declaring that even asking the question is tantamount to “instigating class warfare.” Astonishingly, it worked. The ubër rich have pretty much won. While few were looking, they not only regained control of much of the government most of the time thereby emaciating the opposition, they also tightened control over what was left of the independent media as well. The balance of power was throughly shattered.

A key component of that warfare by the ubër rich was to emaciate or destroy the unions through new laws restricting unionization, bankruptcy courts killing labor contracts, diversion of pension funds, abusive tactics against organizers, shipping jobs elsewhere and PR campaigns vilifying the very concept of collective bargaining to redress serious economic disadvantages. Unions were the prime voice for the lower class. The only other spokesperson for the poor was churches, but the upper class managed to completely distract the ministry from their earlier biblical mission of helping the less fortunate. Now apparently, the sole interest of the clergy is the gender mix in bedrooms and conflating birth control into murder. So much for any effective voice remaining who spoke for the lower class. Keeping them ignorant of what was going on, keeping them distracted with either pablum or more pressing needs, and ultimately making them fearful of speaking up for themselves has succeeded, probably beyond the ubër rich’s fondest dreams. Although the ubër rich are few in number (and want to keep it that way), they made up for it with money and staying power.

The ubër rich war against the middle class has been succeeding too and the current economic crisis is merely one more tool to accomplish the end of reducing the middle class. The tactics there seem to be maintaining ignorance, cutting off avenues of upward mobility especially education, eliminating the good jobs that made them middle class, turning them against the lower classes and playing on fear. Fear not only of the lower classes, but fear of damned near everything starting with “terrorists,” including jihadists (pictured as anyone dark hued and of a different religion), so-called eco-terrorists (i.e. anyone who opposes corporate greed and pollution) and racketeers (usually defined as any and all labor union officials).

Whether the latest meltdown of the economy was a deliberate class war strategy or merely inadvertent side effect due to the massive move of middle class tax revenues and other resources into the hands of the already ubër rich makes no difference. The result was the same. Our large middle class is an endangered species. Downward mobility is a distinct possibility and already on the way. Those who are left as middle class have been convinced by PR that the fault is of the lower class for wanting a living wage (as opposed to the ubër rich wanting obscene amounts to add to what they already cannot spend). Cleverly done.

It also helped to have a cynical bought off journalism corp that no longer believed in quaint journalistic ethics like independence and fairness or traditional investigative reporting. Once the ubër rich controlled the reporter hiring and editorial policies, it was a foregone conclusion of how things would turn out. Of course, the subversion and perversion of the punditry was greatly helped by the laziness, greediness, and cowardice of those being hired to “report.” The capture of the media was complete when the small number of on-screen “talent” was paid so much, they had hopes of being ubër rich themselves. They certainly weren’t going to speak against the ubër rich class they hoped to join, even if they had anything in common with the lower or middle classes anymore.

Prognosis: Poor, just like what many more of the population will likely soon be. Unless we wake up and realize we are under attack, that is a foregone conclusion. Our only hope is that the economic meltdown will prove to be a Pearl Harbor in the Secret Class War of the ubër rich against everyone one else.

Click to enlarge image. The cartoon was created by Lawlessone at Funnytimes.

“A SHOENAMI OF SKEPTICISM”

Or, A Plea for Journalists to Recapture their Once Respected Integrity

Some of the Washington press corp are wistfully admitting that they wished they had done something at Bush press conferences over the years similar to the Iraqi reporter who threw his shoes to graphically demonstrate what he thought of stream of self serving misrepresentation emanating from our President.

Just think. If the White House press corp and their bosses hadn't been so cowardly, gullible, lazy, uninspired, self indulgent, mutually protective and so forgetful of their once proud heritage, we might not have had eight years of utter, unspeakable disaster after disaster. The trillions of dollars wasted, the tens or maybe hundreds of thousands dead and maimed, the lost moral high ground, the damaged Constitution and economy, might not have taken place or been less devastating if the journalists had merely done their job, what they were trained, paid and ethically bound to do.

The public sadly expects most politicians to be revealed at some point as a predator, panderer, and/or panhandler. We have become accustomed to it. We expect something better though from those who proclaim they are professional journalists. From them, we still expected the truth or at least diligent effort to find it regardless of the personal consequences.

What should be more important? A journalist’s pride, perks and continued "access" which is all that the senior corp seems to desire? Or, should it be protecting fellow citizens who cannot protect themselves. One thing is sure, the lengthy failure of US journalists to reveal what should have been obvious from the beginning as massive frauds of this Administration despite years of opportunity to uncover it has resulted in journalism as a whole stupidly squandering something ultimately more important in the long run.... Trust.

I am confident the fed up shoe thrower, al-Zaidi, would distain the weak late and ultimately meaningless accolades of reporters in this country. He more likely would want US journalists to just do their [expletive deleted] job. The only one they had in fact.

Click on cartoon to enlarge. (It was created by Lawlessone using clip art at Funny Times)

“BAILING OUT THE BAILOUT”

Or, Finding Fault with Our Financial Finagling

Let’s see if I understand the 12 (or maybe 13) digit bailout of private companies that has been proposed and administered by the Bush Administration using public funds. Its provisions seem to be:

• Little if any due diligence in advance of giveaway of public money.
• No independent audits of the private companies getting the public money.
• No appraisals of private assets being acquired by the public money.
• Limited or non existent documentation accompanying the giveaway of the public money.
• Few, if any, restrictions on how the public money was to be used.
• No voting control on the equity positions in private companies purchased with the public money.
• Little collateralization or protection of the loans to private companies made with the public money.
• No personal guarantees by the private management or shareholders receiving the giveaways of public money.
• No enforcement of what few written loan and/or equity purchase documents might exist.
• No assurance the public money would be or was used as authorized or promised to the taxpayers and Congress.
• Little if any direct help for the distressed homeowners for which the public money was set aside.
• No change in the bankruptcy laws either restricting creditors or helping mislead debtors.
• No serious efforts at prevention of bonuses or huge salaries for CEOs or other top management in charge being funded by public money.
• No serious efforts at prevention of the public money being used by private companies merely to acquire competitors.
• No investigation of what went wrong and who was responsible or even whether the means and methods were justified before spending a sum of public money that large.
• Little or no new regulation to reinstitute conservative (small “c”); i.e. safe, lending traditions.
• Little or no increase in staff and budgets of the regulatory and enforcement agencies.
• No removal of those individuals in government or the private companies whose decisions ultimately lead to the fiascos necessitating bailout.
• No prosecution or punishment of apparent criminal fraud and misrepresentation within the private companies being bailed out with the public money.
• No tracking of whether the methods were successful (and, by “success” it is not meant just putting massive amounts of the public money in the private hands of the already rich who were probably instigated or perpetuated the mess).
• No reporting to and receiving permission from Congress before the Treasury Secretary chose to unilaterally modify the use of the public funds.
• Not even disclosure of who received the public funds, how much, why or how.

Surely, a recipe for fraud, misappropriation and, more importantly, more of the same.

When “Heckofajob” Brownie was fired from FEMA after Katrina, did Treasury hire him?
All kidding aside, the government lawyers who drafted the Bailout documentation should be investigated for possible ethics violations and certainly for gross incompetence. Disbarment ought to be considered given how badly this has been bungled from the beginning. They must have gotten their law degree from schools that advertise on matchbooks.

Changing the watchdogs who failed in their duties is only part of what needs to be done. One of the primary reasons for our latest titanic financial disaster was deliberate and massive obfuscation. How can you regulate something if you can't see what is going on? How can even the active participants involved (buyers, sellers, borrowers, managers, investors) make an intelligent decision one way or the other if they don't have access to critical facts? Hell, how can even speculators adequately analyze risk versus reward without reliance that the data provided is not deceptive? It becomes more akin to a pure gamble, a bet against house loaded dice, rather then a well considered investment. Adam Smith’s Capitalism can fair, but as he pointed out, the data upon which it is based must not be false or misleading and available to all.

The reckless greedy thieves in charge of our financial institutions prior to the 1980s Saving & Loan Industry debacle, the even more reckless and greedier thieves in charge of the late 1990s tech stock bubble and the most reckless, greediest conceivable thieves of all in charge for the past decade prevented that by doing everything possible to hide what they could and mislabel what they couldn't. That strategy was combined with a condescending paternalism that they knew best; that we couldn't possibly understand; and that anyone who even asked, let alone complained, was ignorant or a “socialist.” Together those thing set the stage for utter disaster.

The misdirection and slight-of-hand was rampant and pervasive. If it had not been for the false labeling, even the village idiot, possibly even George Bush, could have recognized that you should not give a $400,000 house loan with no money down to someone out of a job and with rotten credit. That was not how it was presented to the unsuspecting public though. And, the ponzi scheme worked, worked for the perpetrators anyway, right up to the point when it was too late because the debt had come due.

The blame cannot be wholly assigned to the criminals on Wall Street, the stock brokerages, the bank headquarters and the insurance execs. They had the nasty example of Congress and the White House who do the same obfuscation with the federal budget. The national budget is not even close to being a real representation of the country’s income and expenses. Social Security, war in Iraq funds, all kinds of other things are “off budget,” called other things. Then there is the voluminous set of special tax code provisions where benefits to campaign contributors and fellow travelers are hidden in obscure, almost indecipherable clauses.

Politics as usual in Washington demonstrates that lying to the voter is okay and will not be punished or even closely scrutinized. Politicians do it because if the voters actually knew how they were being ripped off and lied to might vote for someone else. The Iraq War for instance? It would appear that it is free of cost. Someone else is supposed to pay for it, certainly not us. Our grandchildren apparently, not current taxpayers. Something for nothing dominates the centers of power, especially now that the Republicans ferreted out all bureaucrats who still had a sense of honor and foolishly believed in honoring their oath of office.

Why wouldn’t we expect Wall Street to follow the same path? The almost funny part is that they got so greedy, so caught up in their raping and pillaging while they burnt down their own structures, some of them forgot to get out of the fast enough. After a while, they could not even understand their own con schemes.

How to finally prevent this sort of chicanery? Obviously, lots more regulators and the staff and funding to let them do their job and the freedom to do so. Let the states and municipal governments enforce as well rather than federal only jurisdiction that the current Administration insisted upon.

That is not nearly enough though. If there are no adverse consequences to those malefactors who lead us into this cesspool, it will assuredly happen again. So, use the RICO laws regarding criminal conspiracy to seize their assets (the good assets as well as the worthless ones they want to stick the taxpayers with). In fact, use the Patriot Act and other sedition laws to go after them for endangering the national security. Try them as criminals. Maybe send them to Gitmo for a vacation. They after all have proven themselves far more dangerous to this country’s future security than any insurgents captured on a battlefield. Also, take back their bonuses and salaries which we know realize were obtained under false pretenses. Most importantly, impeach the politicians who aided and abetted them.

Why try them for treason? Keep in mind, the cutbacks in health care, port security, and military preparedness that will be caused by these astronomical losses are going to ultimately kill more people than the 9/11 terrorists dared dream.

Most importantly, get back to fundamentals with transparency of financials especially of the books and records of those spending money of others, with true independence of investigators and auditors, with clarity and ease of understanding documentation and with new and strong penalties for ignoring common sense in the future.

REGRETS? REALLY?

Or, What We Regret Is That Bush Was Ever Born

Bush told CNN he “regrets” some wild overstatements like “Mission Accomplished” and utterly juvenile utterances like “Bring it on!” Of course, it is only a few regrets, tiny ones, but that at least is up from earlier responses to reporters that he essentially had none except for a personnel decision or two.

I wonder if the 5 Republican Justices who intervened in the Florida election in 2000 have any regrets for the hell they caused this country.

I wonder if the families of the 3000 killed on 9/11 have any regrets cheering Bush’s flag waving on the rubble since we now know the event was due in significant part to his ignoring overt warnings.

I wonder if the 96% of the country who said they favored the President and his policies when polled shortly after 9/11 are now embarrassed and regret ever having been so mislead, often by deliberate lies.

I wonder if the 4500 soldiers killed and tens of thousands maimed mentally and physically in trumped up wars started basically for Bush’s ego regret his catastrophes committed while pretending to be warrior-in-chief of the armed forces, especially knowing he hid out during every opportunity he had to participate personally in a shooting war.

I wonder if the families of future terrorist attacks will regret all the thousands of new terrorists created by primarily Bush’s indiscriminate bombings, pre-emptive invasions, torturings, impoverishments, and emasculations.

I wonder if the millions here and abroad who have lost their jobs, their savings, and their homes to his disastrous financial policies and greed have any regrets.

I wonder if our children and grandchildren who will have to pay the enormous debt he created while doing without adequate health care and education will have regrets about their forebearers who so foolishly voted for Bush.

It is sad that child of privilege and entitlement seems to have learned nothing at all despite his minuscule number of admitted “regrets.” As evidenced by his comments, he is obviously blind or indifferent to the astonishingly massive destruction he has wrought directly as well as indirectly. Unfortunately, he still seems incapable of ever growing up or gaining wisdom. Even more worrisome, the most prominent among his followers like Palin, Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani, who hope someday to replace him, seem to have no regrets about what has happened over the last eight years other than they lost an election. As the sages say, you can never cure a problem until you finally admit you have one.

Click on cartoon to enlarge. (It was created by Lawlessone using clip art at Funny Times)

“EVERY SILVER LINING HAS A CLOUD”

Or, Don’t Forget How Close We Came To Losing

In all the euphoria of electing the first demonstrably non-Caucasian as President, we would do well to remember that:

• Despite suffering through the most disastrous, despicable, duplicitous President in the history of this country, nearly one out of every two voters tried to return Bush’s party to the White House. One out of TWO! In other words, no matter how destructive, dangerous and divisive Republican rule has been, almost half this country still fervently believes that only Republicans should ever rule. If the stream of internet anguish, anger and polemic was not enough to convince how apparently deep their hate, fear, and intolerance goes and how willing they might be to do anything to achieve their goal, what about the voices shouting out from the McCain and Palin campaign rallies?

• Despite massive money and manpower expended on never before seen levels, only slightly more than every other person marked the ballot for Obama. A win yes and not as thin as 2000, but certainly not a sweeping mandate on a person to person level.

• Despite the present President’s illegal and relentless attacks on the Constitution and its separation of powers, not to mention assaults on every human right enumerated among the Amendments (except unrestricted access to assault weaponry of course) and despite fanatical assaults against open government, public education, public lands, public airwaves, clean air, clean water, clean food, safe products, traffic safety, worker safety, job security, health security, financial security, even genuine national security security, not to mention undermining energy independence, science advancement, troop support and, you name it, he still has about one out of every four or so adults not just voting for a new Republican in office, but thinking Bush is doing a fine job.

• Despite abundant proof to the contrary and universal repetition by all the legitimate news sources, to this day apparently, almost one in four Texans for instance assumes that a Muslim has just been elected President which suggests an intractability that maybe impenetrable until those folks die of old age (or the lack of health care with which their party has saddled them).

• Despite the relatively conciliatory concession speech by McCain after losing, it is noteworthy primarily for its contrast to the earlier vitriol by which he and his running mate elected to demonize Obama. Its tones could be easily dismissed as merely trying to box Obama in so he won’t do what the Republican invariably do when they seize power which is to continue demonizing the Democrats and cutting them out from participation in decisions.

• Despite the media “horse race” hype, the election outcome was a relatively close thing and could easily have gone the other way except for the untimely revelation of just how deep a hole the Republican had dug for us financially.

• Despite what became a significant Electoral College majority, a look at the land map of election results, especially by counties, shows an astonishing ocean of red lapping from shore to shore with but a relative few tiny sized enclaves of blue mostly clustered around the big cities. Even in supposed bastions of liberalism like Oregon, most of the counties voted for McCain. In terms of US land mass as opposed to population, the country is probably 98% red tinged.

• Despite a close to unanimous vote by blacks for Obama and nearly two thirds vote by hispanics, neither is anywhere near a majority of the population or the active voters.

• Despite the Republicans continuous purging from their party over the last three decades whereby they nastily kicked out everyone even half way moderate or capable of showing the slightest mercy, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance or bipartisanship, somehow they not only still find candidates who spend most of their time appealing to the party base, they manage to reap votes of lots of other people, people who are voting against their own interests whenever they vote Republican.

• Despite paradoxically “collapsing their tent” and narrowing their appeal to serve only the religious fundamentalists, only the arrogantly militant, only the xenophobes, only the greedily selfish, only the heterosexual (at least the purportedly straight that is), only the bigoted, and only the pale skinned from European ancestry with but few exceptions, they still came close to winning and probably would have but for the deux ex machina caused by the massiveness of the financial crisis they had created. Even then, they succeeded in convincing far too many people it was really a Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi created problem.

• Despite the unethicalness, unfairness, immorality and even apparent illegality of some of the things he did, encouraged and certainly favored, Karl Rove (to name but one prominent Republican prevaricator) is not only still around and well paid, he has been given a major soapbox on a national news network and is now calling himself a journalist of a sorts further degrading that “profession.” Moreover, all his fellow predators whose tactics were primarily demonization, dissembling, divisiveness and dirty tricks still believe those are not only legitimate methods, but a successful means to their end of reestablishing a theocracy for supposed “Real Americans,” naturally defined to mean just themselves. Doubt it? Think back to the millions and years spent in the Republican’s dogged pursuit of supposed Whitewater crimes. Think back to the salacious and juvenile tone of the Clinton impeachment. That failed, but not by much. And, think back to the Swiftboating of Kerry and the scurrilous slanders of Nobel Laureate Gore which did not fail. It’s only been literally hours since the alleged buddyship of Obama and Ayer has been bandied about.

• Despite abundant evidence that they have been wrong time and time and time again, the corporate media largely continues to only put on the air those guests, reporters and pontificating pundits who missed the big stories entirely. Not only were they dead wrong on facts and predictions, but refuse to admit it. Moreover, the ones who got it right have been fired, demoted, reassigned or not allowed to appear. Some of it could be dismissed as mere incompetence, but for a large number of stories, the ownership of the news outlets clearly has its own agenda disguised as “news,” especially on matters that affect themselves and their profits. Remember that corporate media controls who the reporters will be, how many there are, what they are assigned to cover and what they will say if they want to keep their jobs. Democrats are grossly outnumbered among those asked to sit on network boards of directors. As for the entire Fox Noise channel, it remains the unashamed PR department for the Republican Party and nothing else. “Fair and balanced,” as they claim? Not a chance. Unfortunately, it still has huge viewership.

• Even as to the portion of the press whose conscience mandates an occasional effort at something approximating real journalism, despite an eternity of “false balance” where the whopper outright lies of Republicans were compared to minnow exaggerations of Democrats, the corporate media continues to act even after the election as if reciting inconvenient facts about Republican disasters is somehow “liberal bias.”

• Despite almost daily evidence that the words in the press releases, the green room spin and even in the titles of Republican legislation are intended to produce the polar opposite of their customary meaning, the press and the public has come to accept the re-definitions of almost everything. The new definition of what is a “patriot” for example would horrify Patrick Henry. The new concept that there are a select few of “Real Americans” and that those from some particular states and cities are apparently fake Americans would horrify Abraham Lincoln.

• Despite nearly universal antipathy developed against this county throughout the world including from our allies, the Republican Party nominated candidates who campaigned on being tougher and more aggressive than Bush, going it alone and that did not deter voters. No doubt the slightest dispute with anyone over anything or the slightest incident will be declared to be proof Obama is clueless, inexperienced, weak, a “surrender monkey,” a friend of terrorists, a traitor or a secret Muslim. No doubt even if he successfully obtained a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians, it would be viewed as a betrayal of Israel.

• Despite a financial meltdown of epic proportions caused primarily by greed, misrepresentation, stupidity and a lack of oversight and regulation, almost all the CEOs of the banks and other financial institutions are not only still in charge of those entities, but are steadfastly Republican and unrepentant. The same old mantra of no taxes/no regulation otherwise the economy will be “strangled” is still offered by almost all the players as the only route.

• Despite the debacle in Florida with the butterfly ballots and hanging chads, despite the conclusive proof that Diabold electronic voting machines (owned by a Republican acolyte) and even the optical scanners can be hacked, those machines are still in use and low income voter intimidation is still in vogue.

• Despite the Obama presidency win, the Republicans have had 8 years, YEARS, to purge everyone from the bureaucracy, its regulatory agencies and military command who had the slightest bit progressive, liberal, democrat or even non-partisan tendencies. If you recall from the evidence of what occurred in the Justice Department, even registered Republicans were fired if they weren’t zealous enough in imposing Republican ideology. It will be years before that mind set is reduced sufficiently by attrition of adherents.

• Worse, the Republican Supreme Court that put Bush in power and his own additions to the Court cannot be removed at all and most of the Bush appointees are relatively young. They have show their true colors and it is red indeed under their black robes.

• Worse still, the richest few percent still control three quarters or more of all the wealth in this country. Almost all of them are devout Republicans who not only want to protect that massive hoarding for themselves alone, they want to increase the amount. Greedy though they might be, they will use those resources to protect their assets. It might delay them buying this years’ newest yacht model or scale down its size, but they have been merely inconvenienced in the financial debacle in comparison to Obama supporters who have lots homes, jobs, insurance and savings. The deep pocket books and determination of the uber rich is or should be cause for concern on how the battle for the hearts and minds of voters will be fought.

So, if you are feeling pollyannish, the next time you are in line at the airport, just remember that nearly every other person voted to continue the Republican domination of government, no matter what it costs the county. Their campaign slogan of “County First” rightly should have been “Neocons First and Only.” The result was close to flipping a coin in the outcome.

The next time you are thinking about how tolerant America has become, just remember that the religious right won on all anti gay initiatives in the latest election and the segregationists won on all measures to end affirmative action.

The next time you are thinking of all the things that the Democrats can achieve now that they have control (unlike the shaky one vote majority they had in the Senate the last couple years), just remember not all Democrats are liberal or progressive. They want to be re-elected. Much of the Democrat leadership is the same craven herd that cowered, cringed, stumbled and bumbled with little effect throughout the entire Bush Administration. They were easily intimidated by their own shadows. On top of that, some are not even real Democrats as “Toyko Rose” Lieberman has proven. The Democrats still can’t even cut off a filibuster threatening to deadlock legislation. Their single vote majority in the Senate was only increased by seven at last count and that counts pseudo-Democrats.

The moral of this little tale is that for those who believe in the Golden Rule, who believe that compassionate conservatism is not just a slogan, who believe that facts and fairness should be foremost, who believe politicians and public service should actually obey their oath of office which is almost exclusively to defend the Constitution, vigilance must be even greater than before the election. The progressives and liberals who spent the last many years howling in the wilderness ever since the days of Jimmy Carter cannot rest. Sadly, having the superior candidate never guarantees success. A single victory doesn’t count for much (even assuming President Obama truly is progressive and liberal.)

Hope and Change. He convinced me there will be change. I hope he is right and that the change is what we need. Nevertheless, let’s keep reminding the public, the press and Brother Obama himself of all the “despites” that are bothering us.

“THE CONUNDRUM CONCERNING CLINTONITES”

Or, Why Do So Many Hillary Supporters Still Seem to Want to Elect McCain?

At one point it was reported that apparently as many as half of the 18 million who voted for Hillary Clinton were saying they won’t vote for Barack Obama. Since most who enthusiastically embraced the concept of a woman in the White House also still presumably embrace the bedrock concepts behind the Democratic Party, the Constitution, not to mention the Biblical Golden Rule, it is hard to understand what they have against Obama or in favor of McCain. Is it petulance, covert racism, or simple misinformation?

Let’s be generous and assume the latter. Misinformation is certainly a possible explanation. After all, a whole herd of gross distortions and deliberate lies thunder in daily to our tvs, radios and computers, loudly trumpeted in the what are known as “swift boat-style” ads and spam. Nevertheless, no matter how many times rumor mongers repeat it, Obama is NOT Muslim, NEVER was, and it shouldn’t matter anyway if freedom of religion actually means anything anymore in America.

There is abundant evidence to conclusively rebut the wild claims and thankfully Hillary herself never suggested otherwise. So, why then do many of her supporters keep mentioning Obama’s supposed Muslim roots or, even if they acknowledge he may “now” be a Christian, cite him for supposedly abandoning his “original” faith? Let us hope the die hard Clintonites recognize such baseless canards for what they are and note where such falsehoods are originating from before they endanger us all by continuing putting another disastrous Republican administration in power.

Other things being recited as reasons to disapprove Obama are not outright slander. They fall in the category of misleading half truths. It is true for instance that Obama, like almost everyone else who ever made it to the Senate, is significantly richer than you and I and has a somewhat more expensive house, which is apparently something that bothers the low and middle class voters who preferred Clinton over Obama. Fair enough, but why switch all the way over to favor McCain? After all, not only is Hillary and her hubby significantly richer than Obama, Obama was not born to privilege as an Admiral’s son like McCain. Anyone who has spent time in the military understands what that sort of privilege usually means in the way of special assistance and perks for family members of high ranking officers.

Moreover, Obama did not abandon an ill first wife like McCain did to trade up to a prettier one with such enormous inherited wealth that he can’t even seem to keep track of how many mansions they own these days outright. Is there any likelihood that you or I would not know instantly how many houses we owned? Better yet, any money Obama has seems to have been earned largely by his own efforts. In other words, Obama’s working class roots are far closer to Clinton’s than McCain’s is. Which is the better role model? Consequently, which candidate, Obama or McCain, would be more likely to better understand the legitimate concerns of the lower and middle class who are having aggressive war waged against them continuously by the uber rich like McCain? Is McCain going to champion the less fortunate? Hah. Surely you jest. McCain may occasionally look and dress like a high school football coach, but given that he proposes enacting a tax cut that would result in a permanent yearly benefit to his family approaching half a million dollars speaks for itself. Obama is proposing a tax cut too, but it is mainly for you and I, not the uber rich.

Look at the voting records. Except for the ineffective campaign finance law passed, McCain is against almost anything that would curtail the current voluminous transfer of wealth from the lower classes to the top 1%. While it is theoretically possible to be inheritance rich like Kennedy was and still act as an advocate for the poor, does any Clintonite seriously expect newly rich McCain to act like Kennedy? If not, then why do disgruntled Clintonites keeping naysaying Obama for being somewhat rich? By the way, have the Clintonites check out the bank balance of the Clintons lately?

Speaking of war, it is undeniably true that Obama did not serve in a war zone, although giving up cushy jobs in law firms to serve as a community organizer goes at least part of the distance. Besides, neither Hillary or her husband earned any combat infantry badges dodging bullets (except for that one supposed Bosnian incident). And of course, neither did any of today’s other leading Republicans except McCain.

Moreover, even as to war record, being a fighter jock who managed to get shot down instead of completing the mission is probably not what should recommend someone to run a huge bureaucracy like the federal government. While McCain does deserve some kudos for putting himself in harm’s way (unlike the current fearful leader in the White House who just likes to dress up in flight suits), the best military experienced Presidents tended to be administrators while serving their country in wartime, not those leading charges. Have the die hard Clintonites, who are now neo-McCainiacs, forgotten the greatest leaders of Democratic Party such as Franklin Roosevelt or, for that matter, Bill Clinton did not wear uniforms? Even if McCain has an arguable factual edge over Obama on this single issue of war record, why is that one issue outweighing everything else that once mattered to Clintonites?

The rest of the “complaints” cited by angry Clinton followers are even less viable as genuine reasons to harm Obama by favoring McCain. Take the “pointy headed intellectual” label being bandied about. Smart? Yeah okay. Unquestionably, Obama has more native brainpower than you or I, lots more apparently. Harvard is one of the two or three toughest law schools in the country to even get into. To be selected as editor of the Law Review while there is proof positive that he was one of the two or three brightest students in a class representing the best of the best of that generation. It is recognized that might seem intimidating to anyone who struggled in school. Still, wouldn’t it be nice though to finally have a President again who could speak English and would not embarrass us? To be fair, McCain seems brighter than the current occupant of that office. On the other hand, the comparable academic record between McCain and Obama is not even close. The undisputed fact is McCain was among the bottom of his class. He likely only got in and allowed to graduate because he was an Admiral’s son.

Rock star celebrity-ism? Arrogance for being filmed in front of phenomenally large crowds? Sort of an anti causecleb concept for which Obama should be knocked? Least we forget, nothing is more rock star centered than a carrier based jet pilot as evidenced by their Iceman, Ghost, Maverick monikers and jock demeanors. To be fair with five thousand men and a billion dollar ship there just to support a few dozen macho types like McCain during the Vietnam fighting could hardly produce anything else. So, why is that a reason to demean Obama when he shows some of the same signs. As for arrogance being a disqualification for the job, that would be nice in a perfect world, but it is almost a threshold criteria for running for the job. The job description is entitled these days: LEADER of the ENTIRE FREE WORLD. The latest claim seems to come down to Obama being more successful at it abroad and at home. Good grief. This particular excuse for choosing McCain is so silly, it does not bear further examination.

Similarly, should choice of leafy green veggies be the test for President? Should choice of booze? Should bowling ability? Haven’t we learned that selecting a President by who we would like to have a night out or party with is not a good idea? Besides, you have more chance of being eaten by a shark in Kansas than the possibility that McCain would want to spend anytime with you. And, what have you got against Arugula? They sell it at Safeway. It is a little tart and somewhat like eating weeds to my personal taste. On the other hand, I have never thought my personal taste in food should have any bearing on who deserves to be elected President. I can understand why the Clinton supporters might be disappointed, maybe even angrily and bitterly so. Yet, how can that possibly translate into Obama should not be President if the only other choice is McCain?

Of course, none of those issues just mentioned above, all ones so dear to frivolous Mainstream Media, are really what we should be using to select a President. Hillary fans would do themselves well to look instead at real issues, ones that matter or should matter to even white, beer drinking, bowling night, church going, workers, female or otherwise.

● Obama is the best and only chance we have to put some justices on the courts who believe Rowe v. Wade and female right of choice is the best choice. In light of the recent revelations the Republicans want to allow health workers to refuse even birth control assistance, four more years of any Republican whatsoever in the White House almost guarantees the death of any choice whatsoever, let alone abortion rights.

● Female rights and the distinction between Obama and McCain is not limited to just birth issues. McCain wants to give us glass slipper fairy tales or at least mukluk ones. Obama in contrast seems to worry about glass ceilings in the workplace. Have the Clintonites forgotten how McCain’s favorite Supreme Court Justice, the ones he wants to duplicate if President, just recently torpedoed a woman’s right to sue for equal pay for equal work? They said that if her unequal pay is successfully hidden from her for long enough, she loses the right to complain about it. Expect more of the same with McCain.

● As for saving those jobs in the first place (not to mention the accumulated pensions and bank deposits they earned) and keeping good paying jobs here in this county, Obama is the best and only chance we have to put some restraint on the rapaciousness of Republicans, lobbyists, CEOs and Wall Street by reimposing some regulations and rehiring honest regulators and by putting limits on sending it offshore. Will the Clitonites’ children be able to get any credit? Will they be able to get a home? The financial disasters of the Republican consistently uniform platforms have dumped the burden on Clintonites’ children and grandchildren, the ones who are not and never will be uber rich. Is that fairness? McCain thinks so.

● Doesn’t McCain think about the future generations at all? His campaign’s catchy slogan regarding our eternal oil addiction is a simplistic “Drill, Baby, Drill” which unfortunately translates simply into “Drain America’s Today” and save nothing. So what if consuming our pitiful 3% of the oil reserves we have puts us at the mercy of those with oil tomorrow? So what if burning hydrocarbons increases global warming and drowns some cities? Why bother to stop to think about consequences? Why bother to apply some long term common sense cost/benefit analysis?

● Obama is also the best and only chance we have to recapture some of the respect and trust the world once had in America and its ideals. That has already been shown in the reaction of the world populace, the world press and the world leaders to Obama’s travels. Surely that has value if a future presidency of Hillary is to be worth anything. Electing another old white guy is not going to do it. Why squander the chance and how does it help Hillary to not have a minority elected for the first time ever?

● War? Well, that is a disappointment about Obama, but at least he is not the one saying we must be there for 100 years at whatever cost to our troops, our treasury, our future, our credibility. Maybe Obama will move us out before we are told to leave with our tails between our legs. What an interesting irony that Bush cannot seem to get his force extension agreement signed by the “democratically elected” government he newly put in power.

● Supporting the troops? McCain says he likes the sound of that. It sounds “patriotic,” but despite all the sound and fury, when it comes to adequate equipment for those troops, adequate care for the wounded, living up to the education and other benefits promised as inducements, he is pretty quiet. And the record of his party is abysmal over the past several years on those things. Since Clintonites have sons, daughters, and spouses going into the “danger zone,” we need a loud fighter for those things.

● With the many other wars McCain wants to continue also comes a war on our Constitution. US sponsored torture, abandonment of the Geneva Conventions that protect our own troops as well, abandonment of bed rock principles such as spying without warrants, arrest without counsel or confrontation of supposed witnesses, jail forever without trial, human rights violations galore, both at home and abroad. Is that really what recalcitrant Clintonites really want to support?

● Moreover, death and destruction is not limited to that brought by bullets, bombs and waterboarding, there is death and disabilities from our environmental degradation for profit, our oil addiction, , housing, savings, and most certainly an almost broken health care system.

● Divisiveness has been the central theme of the McCain campaign. Wedge issues as usual. The list is long.

Between the minority voter intimidation, the deliberate voter misinformation being sent, the electronic vote machine hacking, and the Republican Supreme Court standing by to overturn the results again, the nation desperately needs the Hillary supporters to recognize their own future best interests and support the one candidate who believes what she does.

Click to on the drawing to enlarge

“THEN WHAT?”

Or, What to Do with the Enormous Mess Left Behind by the Bush Administration

Bush is neither out of office, impeached nor imprisoned yet (although he deserves to be all three). And, we need to continue to concentrate on that fact since in the agonizing months remaining, he unfortunately can continue doing incalculable harm to our troops, our treasury, our health, our economy, our Constitution, our other laws and treaties, our morale, our prestige and our reputation.

Now is the time to insure those seeking the job commit on the things necessary to clean up the political toxic waste spewed behind Bush and his co-conspirators in seemingly unending piles of offal. As much as we would prefer to simply put the unpleasantness behind us, we cannot. If we do not dramatically, publically spotlight and undo the damage, if people are not punished for their attempted putsch to topple us into a perpetual dictatorship controlled by a small group of Neocons, then some successor might someday claim under some pretext that it’s okay to repeat some or all of what the Bushites practiced. There is always the risk that next time it might not be a barely articulate bumbler attempting it. Using the same techniques, but less clumsily so, someone else could have successfully accomplished the coup d’état which is obviously what the Neocons had in mind.

No, we must ferret out and undo everything, absolutely everything, Bush has done since being illegally placed in power by the five Republicans appointed to the Supreme Court. To begin with, expressly repeal every law sponsored by those in Bush’s cabal, officially terminate all his executive orders, and denounce each so-called “signing statement” purporting to amend laws Bush didn’t happen to like. To drive the point home, perhaps we should even ask some of the recipients of his “Medal of Freedom” like L. Paul Bremer III, Tommy Franks and George Tenant, three of the idiots responsible for the Iraq occupation fiasco, to return their medals on the grounds they were awarded the “honors” on false pretenses.

Once Bush’s paperwork is formally canceled and his camp followers removed, we can start over re-examining each item to see which, if any, merit reasoned consideration. This re-examination, the second half of the cleansing procedure or perhaps more appropriately triage, needs to be followed through because we do not want to be like Bush and his Neocons, automatically rejecting for all eternity anything originating from the other side solely because it came from the other side. There might be something or someone useful to salvage.

There is probably little worthy of reclamation. After all, even the titles of many of Bush’s laws are really just deceptions, the exact opposite of what was actually intended by the various Neocon drafters or, more appropriately Neocon obscurers. Egregious examples of the Bush legislative excesses include the so-called Patriot Act, perhaps the most unpatriotic act of all our history. Or, just look at some of the lofty names the Bush folks came up with for their subterfuges like the Healthy Forest Initiative, the Bankruptcy Reform and Consumer Protection Act, and the Clear Skies Initiative. Then, compare how such legislation was used by this Administration once it got it passed. Still, the effort to search for something worth saving must be made. It should be done in an adult matter applying cost/benefit analysis to each and every one which was always missing when the Bush White House was in charge.

In addition to removing the written framework for Bush’s excesses, every single person in the Bush Administration implementing them should be removed. Everyone ever recommended for office during Bush’s tenure must be required to tender a resignation, starting with those in charge of funds, troops, contracts and regulators. Possible exceptions might be those who were in place already prior to Bush’s being crowned king, those who subsequently quit in disgust or disillusionment and those who were fired because of whistle blowing or not being sufficiently loyal to Bush personally. Those removed should never again be allowed in positions of power and trust unless and until they can affirmatively prove they are worthy of it or a reconciliation council is set up similar to the concept used in Mandela’s South Africa working its way out of apartheid.

Yes, it’s “profiling” of a sorts, but it’s not an illegal or unconstitutional profiling since this particular reason for discriminating is not among the constitutionally prohibited list. Consequently, Bush’s favorites can be treated with suspicion that they were active and knowing participants in the attempt to overthrow our democracy. An investigation of their finances and conduct should be undertaken to determine whether that was so. Maybe we can recover some of the trillions stolen, diverted, lost or wasted. Lots of prosecutors and investigators should be hired and their offices fully staffed and funded to facilitate the investigation. To insure the message is received that this should not happen again, let’s convict and jail some for crimes like torture and conflict of interest. Unlike how the Bush Administration has conducted litigation, the defendants here should be allowed the benefits of legal counsel, habeas corpus, bail, confrontation of accusers and all the other civil rights in open court that have been shelved these past several years. Once again, the effort should be to dissuade violations of the Constitution from reoccurring whenever wannabe warlords are squatting in the Oval Office.

Detractors might argue that mass removal of Republican bureaucrats and functionaries would eliminate a large group from the pool of potential public officials and might diminish the general caliber of replacement future appointees. In normal circumstances that might be true, as turned out to be the case when even the most nominally Baathist Party members were banned in Iraq. However, the arrogantly hapless and often malicious ideologues that tended to flock to the Bush banner from the dark recesses of the Republican Party have proven to be so horrifyingly harmful, it would appear replacements selected at random out of the phone book could hardly be worse. Let’s have higher standards for hiring their replacements, although that is a very low bar given all the “Heckofajob Brownies” that were installed. The party affiliation should not be a criteria. In the Justice Department for instance, the hirees should be those with the best grades. For judges nominated, let’s start looking at the non partisan American Bar Association recommendations again to see who will be the best judges, not the best zealots.

Moreover, new laws should be put in place to forbid former officials of all sorts from becoming lobbyists for at least six years after they were in office. We don’t want Democrats taking advantage that way anymore either.

Maybe every appointee should be required to pass the same test new citizens must pass and must show they can add a column of figures and come up with the same answer twice running. We definitely should indicate that their oath of office in which they swear to defend the Constitution does not mean party or personal loyalty comes first. We also need to affirm that violations of the oath have consequences.

We must investigate every contract entered into by the Bush Administration with private companies, especially the no-bid contracts that were awarded to companies which were campaign contributors of Bush or were companies in which Bush officials held stock. It will be like turning over rocks to reveal the slugs and bugs skittering away from the harsh light of day.

Corruption, bribery, profiteering and gouging should be punished and severely so for both the companies who profited and the individual officers and officials on both sides of the transaction. Failure to perform timely or otherwise should be grounds for seeking damages for breach of contract. Instead of ignoring costly nonperformance, let’s require it be done as promised or force disgorgement of the ill gotten lucre.

More importantly, perhaps the General Accounting Office should investigate whether we need some of the contracts at all. For instance, why do we need to pay Blackwater guards in Iraq five times what we pay our own troops for the identical tasks? Why should Blackwater employees be given immunity in advance from all laws for whatever they might do? To the extent possible, we should get out of such contracts immediately and move such contractors to the bottom of the list, if at all, for future work.

Lots of regulators should be hired to once again insure the safety of our air, water, food, toys, etc. For each, we should be conservative (small “c”) because so much is at risk with each. Greater conservatism (small “c” again) should be practiced once again with our bank deposits and our resources.

What else should be done to prevent a repeat of not only the tragedies of 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, the Bush Recession, global warming, and the dissipation of our military? For one, we need some new laws to insure no more voting fraud by paperless hackable electronic voting machines. We need some better laws on campaign financing to stop buying of elections. We need some new laws to insure government transparency and less secrecy, at least less secrecy designed solely to cover up malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance. Maybe we need to go back to the old equal time rules on access to the media in political campaigns. We certainly need to find a way to have less centralization of the news, the airwaves and bandwidth. Maybe we need to think about enacting something like the European Vote of No Confidence to oust dangerous Presidents prior to the end of their term. Maybe we need a “None of the Above” opportunity on voting to allow a different slate of candidates to stand for election. We definitely need better debates. Perhaps let the League of Women Voters run some again and ignore the pressure from the candidates. Definitely let the minority parties participate.

We need to start obeying once again our international treaties we long ago agreed to like the Geneva Conventions and the Kyoto Accords. Maybe we should disbar the attorneys who asserted we did not have to do so.

Without question, we need to reduce the temptations for foreign adventuresome. On the top of the list should be a reduction of the need to use petroleum for fuel. Both conservation and alternative sources of energy should get the subsidies and priorities that oil production and ethanol does now.

We definitely need to get out of Iraq. We can save a little face by saying we’ll be back if the country acts up again or actually attacks us or invades Israel or others. That’s probably what we should have done the moment we seized Saddam anyway. It would not have justified our highly illegal invasion without cause, but at least it would not have subsequently revealed our serious vulnerabilities and our utter inability to govern Middle Eastern countries from afar. There will be pain getting out. On the other hand, it will be less than the pain and cost of staying forever. Besides, we got kicked out of Vietnam. They were as fiercely suicidal as the Muslims, but none of them followed us home once we left their country.

Perhaps we should stand up and apologize to the rest of the world for being such jerks for the past eight years. Maybe we should turn Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld over to international tribunals to see if they are war criminals. That might go a long way toward showing we mean it when we say we are sorry.

The bottom line is that it will take effort and expense to eliminate the rot that is infesting us. We must fumigate the entire house so to speak. Unfortunately, unless we dig it all out now, the infestation will spread and the entire house might collapse.

"THE WOULD HAVE BEENS, COULD HAVE BEENS, SHOULD HAVE BEENS OF TAXES"

Or, It's Not the Fact We Are Taxed, It's How the Conservatives Waste Our Taxes

Oh yeah. The eternal drum beat by so-called "Conservatives" of no new taxes makes soooooooo much sense. Especially when they are the ones spending taxes faster than the Treasury can count the revenue. Judging by what Conservatives do as opposed to what they say, they apparently want to try and show government can't possibly work. They're right. . . at least as to a government run by what passes for Conservatives these days.

After all, we could be providing health care for all children like most civilized nations do. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead wasting our troops killing and maiming foreigners so we can occupy their country in a pointless war commenced on admitted false justifications?

And, if we must send our troops to fight in wrongheaded wars, we could provide them with adequate armor, sufficient supplies, enough reinforcements, treatment for wounds, and the post service education they were promised. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead for wasteful, too often unworkable, pork barrel "Star Wars" projects benefitting only the CEOs of the military/industrial complex?

We could be providing for regulators to insure that stupidity, greed and duplicity does not occur in our financial institutions. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead to reimburse wall street bankers and stockbrokers for their stupidity, greed, and duplicity?

We could be providing a small amount for inspectors to insure that we are not poisoned, killed, maimed and cheated by manufacturers, suppliers, importers, retailers and advertisers. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead due to illness, death, lost productivity and fraud?

We could be providing a sound education of our young and funding basic scientific research. But, apparently why do that when we can lose trillions instead making ourselves uncompetitive at home and abroad.

We could be providing for upkeep on roads, bridges, parks, schools, and other critical infrastructure before the too long deferred maintenance costs us trillions to replace them. But, apparently why do that when we can pay trillions instead for more tax cuts primarily for the already unspeakable rich?

We could be providing a small amount for alternative energy sources which will wean us from oil addiction. But, apparently why do that when we can continue instead to pay trillions filling the treasuries of countries that hate our guts?

We could be seeking better ways to prevent or minimize global warming, pandemics, air pollution, water pollution, soil loss, fishery destruction and the like. But, apparently why do that when we can risk instead trillions in property damage and lives lost?

We could be seeking better protection for cargo ports and points of entry to insure fewer terrorism risks. But, apparently why do that when we can risk instead trillions in losses from just a single well placed terrorist bomb?

Taxes are what get things done which only government can do. But, they can't be done when self-styled Conservatives get a chance to spend them instead on foolishness or lining their own pockets.

Why is it that apparently no Conservative politician or pundit has ever heard of the concept of cost/benefit analysis? Did they all flunk math in grade school? Are they just incompetent or deliberate deceivers or both? Least we forget, alleged "Conservatives" have cost us more money in the past few weeks than all the welfare cheats in all of history put together.

So, the next time a Conservative, whether a Republican or for that matter a pandering Democrat, hysterically tries to shout the usual knee jerk mantra of "NO TAXES!" or wants to peddle you hatred of government bureaucrats for trying to do their job, keep in mind the following counter mantra:

If you truly want to be conservative, you need to oppose the Conservatives.

“A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE UNDECIDED”

Or, Debate Yourself

Polls indicate there are many undecided voters even at this late date. That’s understandable. Far too much of the information received from party partisans, the internet, talk shows and even the Main Stream Media tends to be unsupported, distorted, misleading, downright contradictory or even outright wrong. (Examples of complete falsehoods amazingly still circulating include claims that Obama is or was a Muslim and McCain is or was a racist.)

So, for those still puzzling, perhaps they should forget what they have heard or read over the last 20 months from others. Perhaps they should forget the questions deliberately evaded by the candidates on the so-called “debates.” Perhaps instead they should ask themselves a number of common sense questions which are good in any election and which only they themselves can truly answer.

Here are a Joe-the-Baker's Dozen to start.

1. Are you better off today than at the last change of administrations?

2. If not, which individuals, industries, institutions or agencies do you see as having contributed the most toward causing that unfortunate situation? And, which party or party members own, dominate or most strongly control most of those problem entities?

3. Certainly if there was a problem, it must then be asked next who hires, fires, funds and directs policy for any regulators of such entities?

4. Which party seems to you most likely to not only generate or attract new jobs and business for the country, but good wage jobs and business which create things? Perhaps more importantly, which party seems most likely in this era to keep them in this country once created or attracted?

5. Which party seems most genuinely interested overall in protecting your own job and your family’s investments, home, safety, education, and health?

6. Pick an issue to which general knowledge and common sense can apply. Take oil for instance. We all know petroleum is not only a fossil fuel (which means once it’s burnt and dumped in the atmosphere, it’s gone forever), most reserves of it are in countries that seem to prefer to do us harm. If so and those are deemed undesirable, which party is most likely to want to wean us from oil dependence?

7. Are you embarrassed, angered or frightened by any of the recent decisions of the two parties and are they likely to continue those policies if put or kept in office? An example of a major decision, to mention but one of several possibilities, would be going to war. If that is a decision that you feel deserves close consideration, then you ought to then ask were the justifications for the most recent war both good enough and credible, how was the war conducted and what were the results? Other examples of major decisions where such self analysis might be applied include trade, environment, food inspection, social issues or anything else you deem critical to your well being and/or the country’s future. On average, how to those comparative decisions stack up between the parties?

8. Do you perceive there to be competing countries outside the Middle East to which Washington ought to be paying more attention such as China, India, Russia, or South American ones? Assuming you believe other international interests have been neglected, ask yourself if we are really in a position today to do anything about those if they fester and swell up? If not, which party has the most responsibility for that condition? You don’t need to have a master’s degree in foreign policy to ask yourself these questions. At a minimum, you at least know whether or not you feel comfortable about whether those in charge are asking the right questions themselves.

9. A corollary is if you believe we need any allies in today’s world, who do our most important ones seem to prefer head this country? Which party has a candidate most likely to ease their concerns and obtain their full cooperation when and if needed?

10. Although perhaps not as important as some other questions, since it remains these days a distinct possibility that the President could die or be killed, what do you think of the abilities of the Vice Presidential choices of each party?

11. Probably more revealing than politicians and pundits endorsing their own party’s candidate would be whether there are any high profile defectors from the parties endorsing the other candidate? If so, who are they, what are they saying, why have they done so and do you respect their opinions?

12. You’ve seen rallies of each party on tv and listened to the crowds. Which crowd and which attitudes of such crowds would make you most proud and happy to be identified as a member? Who in those audiences is the candidate appealing most to and why? Whatever his or her talents in firing up a crowd of loyalists, is he or she genuinely a uniter or a divider of this whole country after being elected assuming you believe that matters in the long run?

13. Maybe most important of all, what will your children and their grandchildren think of your choice?

“MY HOBBESIAN CHOICE”

Or, Who’s Circle is Filled In On My Ballot

If you have read much of this blog, there is probably little doubt who I have voted for. A friend asked if I would vote for Obama because he’s black. I told him no, although I strongly suspect that aspect would (1) go far toward restoring the trust and confidence of the rest of the world in the US which has been so badly lost and squandered and (2) finally offer indisputable proof this country actually means what it says in the Declaration of Independence (certain opening words anyway) and in the Constitution (certain amendments anyway).

Actually, my first choices for President might surprise you. Early on, I wrote to Bill Moyer, a former Republican speech writer and currently PBS journalist, trying to persuade him to consider running. His insight and apparent honesty has always attracted me. My second choice, someone I tried to encourage back more than a year ago was New York Mayor Bloomberg, a former Republican, now officially an independent. My next fallback hoped for candidate was among those who initially announced, the very experienced New Mexico Governor Richardson. And, fourth was former VP candidate Edwards (although he like too many politicians subsequently let his testicles fry his brain). Still, I liked what he had to say. And, at least his was hetro-stupidity rather than what several across the aisle seem to want to indulge in.

I might even have considered the McCain if he was still the vintage 2000 McCain. Sadly he isn't. His choice of Palin really bothered me, but that was long after he had seemed to abandon most of his early principles. Wanna know why that particular decision rather irrevocably turned me against McCain, even if I had not already been so disappointed in him over the last year?

Most Americans and most of our allies in the World would welcome a female US Vice President or even President. Many would prefer it after what has gone before in the past few decades. Me too. Female Heads of State have been quite successful elsewhere (although no panacea) in both war and peace.

And, there are probably hundreds of thousands of very talented, exceedingly bright, highly educated, well experienced, extremely strong American women McCain could have selected. They include judges, attorneys, professors, CEOs, diplomats, politicians, career administrators and bureaucrats. Most are mothers. Most are married with socially acceptable spouses (read: males). A huge number of the possible choices no doubt are registered Republican. Many are fiscally and/or culturally conservative. Some believe intensely in preventing or restricting most abortions.

Yet, McCain chose Palin. Palin of all people. Palin despite the incredibly long list other females he could have chosen. Worse, despite months of opportunity to search, he appears to have insultingly pulled her out of his (hat) after mere days or maybe just hours of “vetting” her supposedly “qualifications.” Was that mere impulsiveness? Was it crankiness, reckless indifference, outright stupidity or a more sinister disregard for the risk to this country which Palin and her “First Dude” hubby may present?

Why did McCain force us voters into such a questionable choice, even for those of us who have supported McCain in the past? Unfortunately, it makes us think of “Heckofajob Brownie” that Bush picked to head FEMA thereby seriously exacerbating the Katrina disaster. Choosing Palin sure speaks ill of McCain’s decision making capabilities as far as I am concerned given the myriad of alternative choices so much better. Who will he select for all the other critical jobs?

We can disagree how good or bad Obama might be, and maybe if Obama is elected we will have to turn him out in 4 years. Frankly, given how badly the Republicans have hamstrung us with debt and sunk us in the Middle East quicksand, a reincarnated Thomas Jefferson himself probably could do little. Nevertheless, of the two Hobbesian choices we have in November, the combination of McCain picking Palin, plus his tar baby adherence to continuing the Iraq War, plus his being a member of the particular party that must be held primarily responsible for the astronomical financial mess we are in, makes me want to insure that there is at least a change of which parties get to appoint people to the regulatory agencies for the next election cycle. And, as a matter of general principal, I firmly feel there needs to be some penalty for what went wrong, something along the lines that the Captain of the ship always ought to take responsibility whether he personally caused the wreck or not. It might make future Captains more careful.

Unfortunately, we no longer have the useful Custer Concept where the leader in charge bears the burden of the bad decision along with all the others he harmed in the process. Now sadly, the person who screws up is the one least likely to suffer.

There is one opportunity available in this fiasco to do something really helpful if we are smart enough to seize it. Let’s use this opportunity to enact new laws that would put on the ballot for each office a choice of “None of the Above” so that if that button/oval/chad is pressed/darkened/punched winning the most votes, a new election is held shortly thereafter. In that new election, the only people ineligible to run again would be those who wasted our time the first time. It might cost more, but maybe there would be savings in the long run since maybe the parties would start giving us better first choices.

“I’M CONFUSED”

Maybe you can help me?

I'm a little confused by some of the news reports. Let me see if I have this straight.....

• If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you’re “exotic, different.”
• Grow up in Alaska eating moose meat, you’re a quintessential American story.

• If your name is Barack, you must secretly be a radical, unpatriotic Muslim.
• If you name your kids Willow, Trig and Track, aah, how cute.

• If you graduated from Harvard Law School, you are elitist.
• If you were third from the bottom in your class, you're well grounded.

• If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veterans' Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
• If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, 20 months as the governor of a state with only 650,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.

• If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
• If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a paragon of virtue and honor.

• If you advocate womens’ choice, you are a murder.
• If you favor the death penalty, pre-emptive attacks, extensive bombings and shrug off hundreds of thousand of civilian casualties as inconsequential, you are a realist.

• If you insist all the Constitution be defended as required by oaths of office, you want to endanger the country.
• If you support spying without warrants, imprisonment without counsel or trial, and that torture is just a word easily redefined, you are a man of honor.

• If you dare to question a policy or ask for less secrecy or accountability, you have committed treason and probably support al Quida.
• If you oppose dissent and are afraid to talk to the press, you are tough.

• If you seek to find out what went wrong in order to correct the problem, you are stuck in the past.
• If you insist that despite what your opponent says about cutting taxes for all except the uber rich he must be lying because his party always raises taxes, then you merely drawing appropriate inferences from what has gone before.

• If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control and warnings about sexual predators, you are eroding the fiber of society.
• If, while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your state's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.

• If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
• If your husband is nicknamed 'First Dude', with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.

• If you change your mind on how to fund your campaign, you are a foppish Flip-Flopper.
• If you abandon all your previous stated principles from the prior decade in order to solidify your base, you are a pragmatist.

• If you long ago was on a large committee with someone who once advocated bombing to protest war but never actually harmed anyone or did jail time, you nevertheless consort with terrorists who can never ever change.
• If you share the same stage in the last year with someone who advocated assassination or on a radio program with someone who illegally ran guns to terrorists and welcome their endorsement, well . . . people should be forgiven.

• If you make any observation you are black, you’re a militant, black power racist.
• If you remind everyone your opponent is black and allow buttons to be sold at your rallies saying that if a black man is elected we can no longer refer to it as the “White House,” you are merely being fair and pointing out the obvious.

• If you favor getting allies to support positions and seek international accord before invading, you are a wussy.
• If you have a nasty temper and threaten Russia despite having no military resources to back up the empty threat, you are macho.

• If you favor getting out of a war that has lasted longer than any other except the Vietnam one based on a timetable that your allies and the President agree on, you are a surrender monkey.
• If you chose to ignore all your allies including those you placed in power, you are an independent thinker.

• If you pack stadiums both home and abroad, you are a worthless celebrity.
• If you are a female Republican doing so, you are merely interesting.

OK, much clearer now.

(Note: Normally, everything in this blog is my own musing, but thanks are due and a tip of the hat for some of the above bullet points to an anonymous internet item in circulation.)

“ANOTHER MICKEY MOUSE THEORY”

Or, Why Are Republicans Really Attacking Non-Profit ACORN?

John McCain insists that ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, and it’s efforts to register low income and other under represented residents encouraging them to turn out for the vote will somehow be the biggest voter fraud in history. An astonishing claim.

As supposed “evidence,” Republicans like Senator McCain and the pundits in their pocket cite that some petitioners have signed voter registration cards with names of non-existent people such as “Mickey Mouse,” conveniently forgetting of course that anyone actually showing up on November 4 claiming he is Mickey Mouse will have to produce ID to that effect. As usual though, little in the way of genuine hard evidence to support the Republican’s theory and wild speculations is ever produced as to any actual voter fraud that resulted from such silly false names. And if any is trotted forth, it typically is exaggerated and anecdotal at best. In other words, there are never any verifiable totals provided which even remotely hint this really is any sort of a significant problem.

Ignored entirely is the efforts of ACORN itself to prevent fraud from occurring and the fact that many such instances were only exposed because it was ACORN, not Republicans, who revealed them so they could be deleted. It is even possible in light of prior dirty tricks by Republicans that some of the false names may even have been submitted covertly by Republicans hoping to discredit ACORN. In any event, false signings may be a fraud against ACORN, but it is not vote fraud against the state unless and until it is attempted to be used by someone to actually vote in an election. There are already laws against that.

And, have you ever noticed how it is almost exclusively Republicans, who mantra is usually to loudly assert their party is the one supposedly all for “freedom” and “democracy” When was the last time you heard about anyone other than Republicans attempt to prevent others from voting? Yet, the mere suggestion of the remote possibility that Mr. Mickey Mouse might show up to ask for a ballot is sufficient for Republican legislatures to quiver and pass laws making it increasing difficult for poor, new, elderly, disabled and/or minority voters (i.e. those who would likely vote Democrat), and only such potential voters, to exercise their rights.

In contrast, the far greater possibility, in fact the proven opportunity, of hackable electronic voting machines with their secret “proprietary” software built and often serviced exclusively by Republican zealot owned companies like Diebold is completely dismissed. Dismissed despite tests showing again and again how quickly and easy it is to do so with such no-paper-ballot generating machines. Also, largely dismissed by the same Republican legislators and pontificating pundits is the unquestionably large number of legitimate votes by low income groups almost routinely blocked or thwarted by misinformation given to prospective voters either deliberately or inadvertently, by purging of rolls without timely alerting the voters purged, by direct and indirect nuisance intimidation of such groups though use of police or press or partisans, or by unequal treatment of voting stations regarding maintaining a convenient number of voting machines and polling staff available which adversely affects length of time and stress on voters election day. And, have we forgotten difficult ballot formatting (remember the Florida “butterfly ballots”)? All of these tactics tend to punish or totally disenfranchise primarily the poor, new, elderly, disabled and/or minority voters who tend to vote for anyone other than Republicans.

All the sound and fury sure on this subject looks like nothing more than Republicans attempting once again to divert attention from their own propensities for potential voter fraud. In psychology, the trait exhibited by the Republicans touting this latest anti-ACORN theory would be known as "projection." In litigation, when you have the facts or the law in your favor, pound them. If not, then as used here by the Republicans, the tactic becomes just pounding the table. Loudly. Accuse others and maybe they will neglect to investigate you.

Over time, it is becoming increasingly clear that Republicans would apparently secretly prefer that the only people who should get to vote in America are white, elderly, males who are registered Republican . . . and sit on the US Supreme Court.

“WHO’D YA SAY WAS A TERRORIST???”

Or, If Obama Is a “Terrorist” or Has Terrorist Leanings, Then McCain, Palin and Their Boss, Bush, Surely Must Be Too

Let’s see if I correctly understand the Palin/McCain theory about Obama’s minor association with William Ayers (who admitted once upon a time having maliciously damaged some buildings with explosives back in the turbulent 60s era but is now a respected professor and certainly not in jail or under indictment). The Republican theory, fed as raw meat to engage (enrage?) supporters at rallies, is apparently that:

(a) once a “terrorist,” always a terrorist since no one can ever ever ever possibly change and

(b) anyone whoever has ever had contact with a “terrorist” is probably a terrorist too or at least a supporter of terrorism.

I don’t understand the Palin/McCain obsession with the subject because if the theory is valid, then it would seem to follow that McCain, who all his extremely long political life (except for the past few weeks) loudly supported deregulation of the Wall Street must be LYING to voters when he says he now wants to re-regulate them and throw the bums out. The same for all his other numerous what-could-only-be-called 180 degree “flip-flops” on abortion, fundamentalists, etc., which he only started to espouse since he announced his latest bid to run the US? If Ayers cannot be trusted to ever change on anything, then how are we expected to believe McCain can or has?

As to supporting or consorting with those advocating terrorist ideas, which is the other half of the Palin/McCain charge against Obama, how about McCain’s new buddy, the self-declared “man of God,” Pat Robertson? Robertson, the man who openly called for assassination, yes, assassination of foreign leaders? Robertson has appeared on stage with McCain, yet McCain doesn’t seem to be branding him as terrorist or asserting he can never ever change? I guess the difference is that Robertson is Republican and, by definition, Republicans are supposedly incapable of either terrorism or torture.

Maybe the Palin/McCain ticket was only referring to terrorist acts against Americans, not foreigners. (Say, I wonder if Timothy McVey was a Republican?) But, using the Republican definition, isn’t that precisely what some of the things G. Gordon Liddy was doing and more recently than Ayers was last doing things? Least we forget, Liddy, unlike Ayers, was convicted and did jail time. Liddy is as equally unrepentant as Ayers, but a court formally confirmed Liddy’s guilt. Ayers merely made an “admission against interest” as it is now in the rules of evidence. No prosecutor choose to indict him for his “confession” those. If McCain truly believes his mantra he is claiming, why then has McCain, unlike Obama, never thoroughly repudiated that acquaintanceship with Liddy?

Interestingly, if the Republicans want to assert that the supposedly criminally inclined can never change their (prison) stripes, then Liddy, not Ayers, would actually be a better argument for that theory. After all, Liddy in his radio program and in print seems to still be advocating from time to time various reprehensible acts of murder and mayhem on fellow Americans.

Perhaps Palin and McCain were only referring to doing harm to American property. Well then, how about the Alaskan Secessionist Movement that the “First Dude” was in until his wife got crowned the GOP VP nominee? Loss of Alaska would certainly diminish the assets of the US. We haven’t heard if that group (which Palin welcomed in a speech while serving as Alaska’s Governor) advocated domestic violence to serve their cause, but Republican Lincoln certainly considered advocates of such secessionist causes to be dangerous to the United States. Did Palin perhaps forget her oath of office to defend the Constitution which doesn’t have an escape clause for states? No one (at least no Democrat) is saying the Alaskan’s First group doesn’t have a right to exercise free speech, but it sure sounds like consorting and aiding at least. Why then for consistency isn’t McCain denouncing his partner’s actions? Why isn’t she denouncing the sessessionist group her husband was in? Oh yeah, that’s right. No one can ever change if McCain is right.

Moreover, what is to be made of President Bush’s decision recently (while Palin and McCain were loudly ranting about terrorists never changing) to proclaim that North Korea, a supposed charter member of “Axis of Evil” club, has changed and is not conducting state sponsored terrorism anymore? Remember exactly what recent act it was by North Korea which prompted Bush to hurriedly lift the ban on North Korea? It was North Korea’s decision to reopen it’s potential nuclear bomb making facilities. So apparently, Bush has decided a terrorist country gets declared a non-terrorist country only if does something truly terrifying. Does that mean Bush favors terrorists? Shouldn’t then McCain be advocating Bush be immediately impeached as a traitor?

Well actually, maybe that last thing would be a good idea.

"WHO Really DESTROYED THE ECONOMY?"

Or, It Must Have Been That Evil Clinton Again (Bill, that is)

I have been trying to figure out how the Republicans would finally manage to blame the last thirty years of Republican financial irresponsibility on Bill Clinton. After all, they have blamed everything else on earth on him. At last, the answer.

According to the latest explanations by Republican shills, apparently he “pressured” the poor defenseless Republican CEOs of the Republican owned banks to assist more low income people get into home ownership. Supposedly, they instantly capitulated and made loans to everyone who walked through the door no matter how risky it was in doing so. Yes, they made obscenely huge profits in doing so, but it was practically entrapment. They had no choice except to line their pockets and endanger the nation.

Yes, the Republican dominated stock market seeing the huge profits wanted some of it and made stock and insurance bets disguised by a bunch a phony names, but that only magnifies Clinton’s guilt for putting the idea in their heads. The fact that the Republicans making all the critical decisions were deciding in essence either (a) nothing could ever possibly go wrong or (b) they could stick the Treasury with the bill for the bet. . . . Well, that was irrelevant.

Shame on that nasty old Clinton for tempting them that way. Didn’t he know the Republican CEOs weren’t capable of resisting the greed? Didn’t he know they would over react and take his literally without restriction or restraint? Didn’t he know those heads of the big corps weren’t sufficiently educated or experienced in financial or security matters to see the danger or where it might lead? Didn’t he know they didn’t have the smarts, the tools or the guts to obstruct, let alone effectively resist a man whose guts they so thoroughly hated? Didn’t he know the Republicans had dismantled or controlled any regulatory agencies and laws that might have spotted or prevented the problems? Shame shame shame on Clinton for taking such terrible advantage of the Republicans’ weaknesses and utter ineptitude.

Is it too late to impeach Clinton in absentia for his high crime and misdemeanor of giving those poor innocent Republicans an excuse to rape our economy? If it’s too late, then maybe every Republican CEO, banker, lender, stockbroker, pundit and“regulator” at least ought to start wearing blue dresses to subtlety remind the rest of us how Clinton forced all those thousands of Republicans to their knees in service of his favor for subprime borrowers.

click to enlarge image

“PHONY FINANCIALS AND OTHER FOLLIES”

Or, Some Questions to Ask About the Bailout

NEWS FLASH: Republican leaders and their PR department announced the sun rose in the West yesterday. The Main Stream Media, in their daily effort to prove they are not now and never were the slightest bit scientific oriented (since that might be construed as liberal or elitist), promptly publicized the announcement about the sudden new direction the sun has supposedly taken. Republican voters and many independents who depend on letting others do their thinking for them immediately looked West waiting for the sunrise. Textbook publishers revise astronomical charts rather than risk loss of sales.

Apparently, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and the Democrats are to blame for the economic meltdown we are facing, at least according to the latest Republican press conferences. Perhaps before accepting that at face value, blaming what will ultimately be a multi-trillion dollar debacle solely on the gullible Democrats in Congress, I would recommend voters review some pretty unquestionable history and ask themselves some simple, relatively common sense questions. That way we can find out who to debit and who to credit, or at least who has less credibility.

Start with asking what party was in control of both the House and the Senate over most of the last 30 or so years? What party had the strongest or actual control over most of the period? For instance, wasn’t the latest switch in supposed “control” of the Senate close to a single vote in favor of the Democrats (i.e. little real “control” at all) and wasn’t one of those supposed votes giving Democrats finally control someone who was also a keynote speaker at the Republican convention? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Opportunity?

Meanwhile, who controlled the White House over most of that same period and not only proposed new laws, but controlled submission of both the budgets of the regulatory agencies and appointment power dictating who is hired and fired at regulatory agencies and what their philosophy of enforcement or non-enforcement will be? Have voters read the report out in the past few days regarding the Justice Department in the Bush Administration and see what such appointment power can do? Those are only the first questions. In a criminal court case, that would be who had Means?

During that same period of the last three decades or so, which party had as its platform the free and unrestricted market place, especially in financial and trade matters? Which party had and still has as its platform a goal of small government and massive deregulation? Which party sought the most deregulation and proudly announced each success in doing so? What party appointed all the current federal regulatory commissions and agencies? In a criminal court case, that would be who had Motive?

How many years have they been on the job? Wasn’t seven years long enough to spot something like that? If the party that did the present regulatory agency appointments and gave directional control to such agencies wins the election, isn’t it likely that will continue for additional years? Who will they likely appoint to the federal regulatory commissions and agencies if they are given the chance? In a criminal court case, that would be who had the Last Clear Chance?

Maybe the question should be, how many such debacles can we afford?

Certainly ask, what party do the CEOs and senior officers and directors of most of the financial institutions, public and private, especially those that have had either bailouts given them or sought bankruptcy law protection, belonged to? What party demanded that lobbying agencies hire Republicans as lobbyists? Who is it contemplated that will receive all or almost all the “bailout” funds? How long have they been in their positions? Were any indicted or jailed for fraud? What party did most of them belong to? Who did they give the most campaign contributions to? Democrats or Republicans?

Were they at least on the job while the supposed chicaneries of the bare majority Democrats was going on? Why didn’t they object over the years if that was true about the bare majority Democrats? Did they not see it (in which case they are effectively incompetent and should be replaced)? Or, were they gleefully in favor (in which case they are essentially co-conspirators and should be replaced)? Who pocketed the most profits that was obtained by the supposed chicaneries? If they were pocketing money knowing what was happening, what happened to the concept of Country First? Has that really been applied over the last several years if greed was an easy alternative? What party do you suppose most of the investors, speculators and shareholders of such companies belonged to when the money was flowing in during the go-go days? In a criminal court case, these would be cross examination Weight of Evidence and Credibility questions.

Didn’t they stop to wonder whether the Adam Smith’s Law of Supply and Demand had actually been magically repealed? Why didn’t they speak out or go to the press if debt was being given to homeowners with little means to repay the amounts? For that matter, why didn’t they notice or report debtor banks taking debt with little or doubtful security? Who devised the complicated financing schemes and the bundling that has lead to much of the unfettered disaster? Who was basing their action on an apparent assumption the bubble could not bust and housing prices would always go up? In a criminal court case, that would be more credibility or Veracity questions.

Yet, what party has always declared for public consumption at least it was the supposedly conservative party while simultaneously insisting it is always a good time to lower taxes, especially for the rich, no matter what the economy happens to be doing? In a criminal court case, that would be Admissions Against Interest.

Weren’t there any signs this could happen as a result of such policies? Were they truly that ignorant? Weren’t there some Democrats arguing for more and closer scrutiny? Who shouted them down as ignorant claiming nothing could go wrong? Where there any Republicans arguing for more and closer scrutiny?

What Administration was in power during the similar, albeit smaller scale, destruction of the Savings and Loan Administration? That only cost billions. Wasn’t the tactics back during that crisis, such as inflated appraisals, poorly secured debt, etc. much the same as has been going on now? Didn’t the bill for that implosion get stuck with the taxpayers too? Does the word “Enron” ring any bells?

Weren’t any lessons learned? Doesn’t anyone remember or at least read history and economic textbooks?

What Administration and party took away the power of the bankruptcy court to adjust mortgages of individuals to real market value and interest, but refused to restrict credit agencies in any way, shape or form? What Administration thought that it was a good idea to send manufacturing and jobs overseas?

What Administration proposed the initial “bailout” plan unveiled a few days ago? How long has that Administration been in office? Why didn’t they see this coming so such a bailout would not be needed? If it was not their job, then who?

Did the bailout first proposed by the Republican Administration have a single restriction on the Treasury Secretary’s powers or even freedom from prosecution? Why not? Did the bare majority Democrats draft that proposal?

What industry did the Treasury Secretary come from? Does he strike you as credible when you listen to him and watch his face? What college degrees does he hold? What degrees does the President hold? MBA and business degrees, right? But, somehow it was the bare majority Democrats cleverly conning them all? Do the bare majority Democrats strike you as genius that way?

Where did the $700,000,000,000.00 bailout figure come from? Wasn’t it admitted that was pulled out of the air? Are anyone convinced more won’t be needed? Do anyone have confidence in those in charge in the Administration who will administer whatever bailout plan is approved? Remember when we were told that the billions on the bailout of AIG and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac probably wouldn’t be needed just days before they were bailed out using all the money set aside? Who told us that? Who is now claiming we must act immediately and without question?

Feel free to question the bare majority Democrats. Use “enhanced interrogation techniques” so favored by the White House. Use them on all residing in Congress if you want so long as the same techniques are used on those in the Administration. But, for the moment voters should ask themselves who is trying to divert attention by claiming even asking any questions about the plan specifics will somehow destroy the nation? Who is trying to say we must not look at blame before acting even though finding out the cause might be important to deciding what to do for a cure? Why would they not want us to know such information? Who would benefit the most if there was no inquiry into blame?

Has this Administration proven itself credible on most other warnings and predictions it has made? Come to think of it, has this Administration proven itself credible on any major warning or prediction it has made on any subject?

Why wasn’t anything other than the “nuclear option” of the huge bailout even seriously discussed by the Administration? Has the Administration been persuasive in their evidence? Is it sufficient for such a price tag? Do you feel there has been adequate debate allowed? Even with the cosmetic changes the Democrats and some Republicans have added to the bailout of the subprime lenders, do you believe it affects any systemic changes so this won’t happen again?

So.......voters should ask themselves those questions. Most of them truly are just common sense, gut credibility, elementary math, and basic history questions. They should be asked no matter what their party affiliation is. Voters should think of themselves as a jury. Was it crimes of passion or just greed? In any event, did those in charge honor their oath of office?

Then, voters should ask themselves if it really was just the bare majority Democrats as alluded to by those who want the Republicans to continue as the sole appointers and suppliers of the regulators. If it was not just the bare majority Democrats as the excusers would like us to believe, then in light of all the circumstances does the Republican Party genuinely deserve a kiss and four more years? Like the captain of a ship, shouldn’t there be some consequence to being in charge when the ship runs aground? Unlike the criminal law system, those questioning do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The test is mere preponderance of the evidence.

Criminently (yeah a silly pun)!

Still no doubts? None at all gnawing?

If not, then I guess I am really lucky on the Oregon shore where I will be able now to watch the sun come up over the Ocean.

click for larger image

BIASES, BINGES, BOONDOGGLES AND BAILOUTS

Or, 13 Reasons for Ruin and ... maybe, a few Routes for Recovery

Dear Senators, Representatives and those who want to be President:

As near as I can figure out, up until the last few days, the Republican policies regarding our nation’s financial institutions and financial security seem to have been to:

(1) eliminate most scrutiny and regulation of financial institutions of any sort by changing or reinterpreting the laws,
(2) cut the staff and funding of the existing regulatory agencies,
(3) put agency heads in power who come from the regulated financial institutions and/or who are openly opposed to scrutiny and regulation on principle,
(4) replace the remaining professional staff doing the day to day regulating with either party zealots or those who will do what they are told,
(5) encourage embarrassingly massive campaign contributions from the institutions that were supposed to be scrutinized and regulated,
(6) conduct most public business in private,
(7) arrogantly and patronizingly insist that the “experts” (i.e. themselves and only themselves) know best no matter how obvious or elementary the proposition,
(8) attempt to impose a particular ideology on the market regardless of present circumstances,
(9) proclaim that the many questionable practices being produced such as loaning large sums to people who could not possibly pay it back secured by overpriced housing were somehow sound investments,
(10) assume sales prices of stocks, bonds and homes would continue to increase forever,
(11) cut taxes whether the economy is going up or down,
(12) discourage savings while simultaneously allowing heavy, heavy borrowing by consumers, businesses and the government itself to accumulate to ridiculously high levels thereby shifting the burden to future generations, and
(13) mortgage that future to largely foreign country creditors.

There seems to be little doubt left that above mentioned “baker’s dozen” of boneheaded decisions, bilious due diligence, bad deals and big debt not only busted our dollar’s standing, but caused a cascading collapse posing a deadly threat to our entire economy. The failure has been spectacular to say the least. It is not as if this was impossible to predict though. Some of the reasons behind the disaster are not too dissimilar from the destruction of the Savings and Loan Industry a few years ago, a debacle by the way in which another Bush, Neil, played a prominent role. In hindsight, if the question had been posed as above, that is reciting simply the 13 financial policies on which the economy was retooled starting with Ronald Regan, how could anyone with even a high school education not concluded those cumulative policies could lead to a new meltdown? It is one thing to gamble, but on this scale?

Has no one in the Republican Party ever heard of the Mini/Max concept in which you try at least to minimize your maximum losses. Has no one with a (Chinese made) American flag pinned on their pin stripe suit read Adam Smith? Did everyone in charge assume the law of supply and demand can be violated with impunity? How did “Conservative” with a large “C” come to mean the opposite of “conservative” with a small “c”? Does an MBA degree stand for Must Blow All?

The harm may have been unintentional, but speaking as a practicing business lawyer, the case law has always been quite clear on such situations. Those whose wilful acts or omissions cause reckless endangerment of others should be held responsible. And, it was dangerous, extremely so given the size and interlocking aspects of the undertakings. Frankly, if the five Republicans on the Supreme Court had put self declared terrorist, Osama bin Laden, in the White House in 2000 instead of the self declared “Business President,” bin Laden probably would not have been able to do as much harm to our nation. At least his policies would have received better scrutiny than the current occupant.

There were some greedy Democrats among the many, many Republicans who were more interested in lining their pockets and protecting privileges than protecting the country. And, other Democrats no doubt deserve a certain portion of the blame for being too weak, too cowardly, or too ineffective to be able to stop the looting that has gone on for the past decade or so when Republicans either controlled Congress or had enough votes to block changes. I am not a Democrat and do not care for the present Democratic Party leadership and almost all need a swift kick in the pants or replacement. But, for the most part, blame for this latest in a series of monumental crippling fiascos must be laid squarely at the feet of the Republican Party as a whole and those the party members gleefully selected to lead them. Democrats may be stupid or naive, but the Republicans are truly scary. Extremely frightening to me, in fact. Worse, they succeeded at all or almost all they sought and the direct result is the potential equivalent of bankruptcy not merely for millions of citizens and companies, but the country itself.

Good grief. The number of zeros in the amount demanded by the White House, $700,000,000,000.00, for its so-called “bailout” plan to hopefully slow down the hemorrhaging is approaching the gargantuan sized pile the Pentagon spends on everything it does including two separate wars and trying to refit a tired and badly used military. Yet, the hundreds of billions in supposedly needed instant “bailout” was not even on the budget. Talk about budget busters, it is the biggest “bailout” of all time and may be greater than all the past ones put together especially when the other buyouts of the past few weeks are counted in dramatically upping the total. It’s staggering in its implications, almost unimaginable in scale. In any event, much of it is likely a net loss, maybe all. And, there is no reliable evidence that the hemorrhaging stops at a mere trillion or so. Shouldn’t there be some nagging doubt or scepticism about the concept as well as the amount since those telling us so are the same ones who told us the Iraq War would “only” cost $20 billion?

So, what to do? Bush’s Treasury Secretary has proposed a “bailout” which will give him an initial three-quarter trillion to play with. That Treasury Secretary and his boss had the nerve to initially demand Congress abdicate its Constitution responsibility to oversee the taxpayer resources being possibly squandered. The Secretary (who came to his position straight out of the same group of preening, cover storied, “geniuses” on Wall Street who made a lot of other promises and representations) asked, no - demanded, that he be given the power to do whatever he jolly well pleases with that huge pile of cash. He insisted that there be no oversight and especially no penalties or future liability for him. As to what he plans to do with it, he has already indicated he intended to simply hand the money over to the malefactors who caused the problem with no strings attached. He apparently planed to buy up his buddies stupidities (or thefts) and happily stick the tab with the taxpayers. If there are any profits later, those would have been kept solely by those who caused the losses. The Treasury Secretary still insists this be done almost immediately with next to no debate or investigation. The unmitigated gall and arrogance of such a proposal is something only the current Administration could have come up with. In light of their track record on this and almost everything else, they could have at least acted humble when they were proposing a pocket picking and power grab of such magnitude.

Since Senator McCain has said only days ago he greatly admires that Treasury Secretary. Of course, the Treasury Secretary McCain likes so much is the same guy who in March of this year was still going on TV to say the economy was great and let’s keep doing what we have been. McCain has voted for almost every financial deregulation plan his party has proposed over the past few decades and is showing us nothing really different even now. So, McCain just lost my vote for sure.

That leaves the rest of you in Congress such as my own Senator Gordon Smith, who wants to be re-elected for another two to six years even though he has supported so many of those Republican policies that lead us to this juncture. Whether I vote for him will depend on what he and the rest of you do about this between now and election.

If you vote in Congress to pass anything like what has been proposed by the Treasury Secretary, you do not deserve mine or anyone else’s vote. What might get my vote for an incumbent?

• For one, there needs to be denunciation of President Bush and the Treasury Secretary for even proposing such a “bailout” as initially proposed. There should be a public admission by Republicans that the Republican platform and policies on the economy over the past decades was a terrible idea. As for the Democrats, no gloating. You spineless wonders caved in on the abandonment of the concept that financial institutions should be fiscally conservative (with a small “c”). You have complicity in the tragedy thanks to your incompetency in stopping the rape of the system by the Republicans.

• Words are not enough though. If there is to be a transfer of taxpayer money from desperately needed other programs such as rebuilding our national security readiness and protecting our health, jobs and infrastructure, then NO CASH FOR TRASH!!!! Either buy the assets at current market value or buy appropriate shares of the company stock so that taxpayers can have at least a chance as owners, albeit a slim one, of protecting their investment. Or, possibly only allow the money to be given out loans secured by all the assets of the businesses obtaining the money.

• Maybe instead of giving the money to the idiots and maybe criminals directly responsible, perhaps use it instead to take over the mortgages of those poor homeowners suckered into the subprime mortgages with the escalating rates. By the way, didn’t anyone in charge begin to have suspicions once they heard about the “miraculous” growth of what turned out to be aptly named “subprime” mortgages? What part of “subprime” did they not understand? Certainly change the bankruptcy laws to once again allow the court to write down interest rates to fair market rates. Why should the banks be given a write down unless the people they duped or mislead get one too?

• There must be far better oversight and it better be both open and nonpartisan. Congress should closely and frequently oversee progress. Moreover, not all the money should be spent instantaneously. In other words, no bailouts without open and public hearings on each including looking at the books of the target institutions.

• There must be investigations to pin point what went wrong. How can we avoid another debacle unless we know what caused it other than voting Republican in the 21st century? Better yet, there must be criminal investigations with subpoena power to ferret out what appears to be some likely fraud and other criminal activity. Some jail time for the worst offenders might prove to have a deterrent effect.

• In that regard, a significant amount of the money allocated to “save” us must go to funding lots more professional non-partisan regulators and sufficient staff for them to do such ferreting. And, let’s roll back the roll back that was done by Republicans when they set out to restrict any serious regulating since the mid-80's.

• Encourage more savings and less spending by consumers. See that interest rates improve for those who want to put money into banks as depositors.

• We definitely need more transparency on accounting, auditors, appraisals and other “due diligence” practices. Ralph Nader had a good idea for reducing conflicts of interest. He suggested taking away power for auditor and rating agency selection from companies and placing it in the hands of the SEC to be administered on random assignment. Maybe create stiff penalties for those who refuse or fail. Certainly no bailout funds unless the companies receiving it agree to new practices and accountability. Prudence and conservatism ought to once again become the principles on which financial institutions make decisions. Increase their fiduciary obligations to protect the money of others.

• Perhaps ask Ralph Nader about another of his suggestions, to create a securities speculation tax, starting with derivatives, to deter what he accurately styled as “casino-style capitalism.” Also look at his proposal to avoid future housing bubbles by removing implicit government guarantees for new mortgages that exceed thresholds of greater than, say, 15 times the annual fair market rent value of the home. Doesn’t that sound like a prudent conservative thing to do? Why reject a suggestion simply because of who proposes it? Maybe Nader is on to something.

• In contrast, maybe there should be a continuing suspicion hereafter of those opinions coming from the now fully discredited (no pun intended) financial institutions. Maybe we need more consumer advocates or taxpayer advocates on financial company boards and regulating bodies. Certainly any member of the FDIC or Federal Reserve ought to be subject to Congressional approval.

• Maybe there ought to be warning labels placed on bailed out companies and executives of those companies similar to warnings we put on food, so that future customers know who were idiots and who weren’t. It could be a mandatory part of their prospectus, offerings, advertisements and websites. That would be a good idea even for the nincompoop pundits who should have known better and lead us to this juncture. Journalism will never be a genuine “profession” unless its members have a license before holding themselves out as practitioners. To be a true profession, it should be one with enforceable ethics and occasionally some getting fired for getting it so wrong.

• It is time to lower expectations. Wall Street rules lead to the breaking up of profitable newspaper chains because they weren’t making enough profits. Banks for the same reason made really risky investments because the bank owners and managers didn’t feel the rate of return was as high as it should be to be attractive. Expensive company CEOs made similar risky short term decisions primarily because their personal rewards in stock options and bonuses were tied to short term income, not long term safety or viability. Every silver lining has a cloud. Or, the proverbial “perfect storm” as this is turning out to be. Those might not have occurred if expectations were realistic.

• Certainly NO bailout of uber rich CEOs! If a company gets any funds, there must be no golden parachutes and none of the executives should be allowed to earn more than the President.

• And, enough of the tax cuts, especially for the massively rich. That includes reimposing a reasonable tax on estates of a million or more. Estate taxes can’t harm the financial institutions and would provide desperately needed funds for essential programs which will otherwise be crippled by the bailout.

• Maybe there should be a restriction on lobbying by companies being bailed out.

• Maybe there should be renewed questioning of aggregations, especially in the communications industry and control of news outlets by holding companies with potential conflicts of interest. It is hard to expect vigorous investigations of GE or Disney for instance by the networks those two own. The antitrust laws were created for a reason. The age of the Robber Barons of the late 1800s is not too dissimilar from today. Then, as now, that puts too much influence on the economy in the hands of too few.

• Do we really want to bailout foreign countries that own big pieces of some of the distressed companies? How will that enter the consideration?

• Whatever you do, do not act precipitously. How about asking for some corroborative proof to the extravagant claims of the Administration officials and those desiring to fleece what is left of our nation’s treasury?

The bottom line, as they ironically say in the financial world, is if you vote on a “bailout” without genuine study and reflection, then your foolhardiness becomes evident. So, what’s it going to be? Do you want my vote or do you want to continue with the binge that has been recklessly destroying our country? Your choice. Then, I get my choice.

“McCAIN’S UNCHAINED MELODY”

Or, Cain’t Keep Listening to McCain and the Lame Dame Proclaim the Same Ol’ Dang Thing

With Senator McCain, we can’t possibly gain.
He’ll continue the pain. It’ll fester and remain.

More economy strain. More military drain.
More pollutants in rain. More torture and shame.

The Constitution is stained if not totally slain.
Health’s not maintained. Folks dying in vain.

We’re hated from Bahrain clear up to the Ukraine. Whether Haitian or Dane,
Even in Spain, we’re hotly distained whether village or city or mountain or plain.

Why his pals acted so wild and insane, he still has yet to begin to explain.
From all that we can currently obtain, McCain is proclaiming just their usual refrain.

It’s a long, very long, culpability chain. So, why keep it the same and suffer again?


As for that questionable dame he chose to campaign,
Her main claim to fame seems to be her lipstick and aim.

Her confident claim is we assuredly sprang without contradiction from Able and Cain.
As for sex, just simply abstain. No need to worry if you’re upright, not layin’.

Her statements are so silly, you’d think she’s Mark Twain.
As far as the facts allow us to ascertain, Palin’s deranged and should be detained.

I shouldn’t be angry and loudly profane, but where the &#@% did McCain leave his brain?
The question to frame is do we want her to train when all of her answers focus on drilling and cranes?

She’s not a boon; she’s a bane. So, please pick again, not someone so lame.
She’s only more of the same of those who would reign.

Why in the world would you vote to retain someone from the party responsible for most of the blame?


This isn’t a game. It’s not arcane or mundane. Logic and research makes it quite plain.
Unless you really like to complain, select real change in those to ordain.

Barack is our man. Obama’s the name.
He’s bright and urbane. Look at all he overcame.

And what McCain won’t even feign to tame, Obama at least, will try to restrain.
With him in office, in the same vein, our principles and honor won’t tarnish and wane.

At least, he knows what we need to regain. A weather vane is not what he became.
So what if he bowls down the wrong lane? So what if he likes bread with whole wheat grain?

So what if he has a strange sounding name. So what if he drinks not beer, but champagne?
So what if he’s black? To what does that pertain? Is racism forever and always ingrained?

“Vote for Obama,” we proudly exclaim! Let him be the one in that big Air Force plane.

click on cartoon for larger image

“CHOICES AND CHANGES”

Or, Do As I Say, Not As I Do

The Woman who wants to tell us what to do as vice-president says she is all for “Choice” at least for whether women with disabled infants and pregnant teenagers should be allowed to work full time as a governor and potential president or stay at home and take care of the kids.

She says in her campaign propaganda she wants to allow all kinds of happy Choices once she is in control. . .
• so long as the Choices do not involve women learning how to prevent pregnancies,
• so long as the Choices do not involve women having sex prior to marriage, and
• so long as the Choices do not involve women terminating an unwanted pregnancy even if the lack of Choice threatens the life or health of the women.

That’s not really much of a Choice, is it? And, don’t you have reason to suspect that if she herself was not stuck with a disabled infant plus a pregnant teenager, she would be insisting there should be no Choice on even that? In light of her other positions, don’t you suspect she would normally deny choice for someone in that predicament?

The voters do have a choice though. Voters can chose to say no to those who want to order women what to do even when it is a woman doing the ordering.


The Man who wants to tell us what to do as president says that he is all for “Change” at least as to which particular Right Wing thinking, Evangelical preaching, war loving, Neo Con touting, 95% voting Republican sits in the Oval Office. That is a change, of a sorts, I guess so he is not technically lying to everyone.

He says in his campaign propaganda he wants to make all kinds of happy Changes once he is in control. . .
• so long as the Changes do not involve taxing the incredibly rich,
• so long as the Changes do not involve eliminating our fatal dependence on oil,
• so long as the Changes do not involve regulating or cleaning up the environment in a useful way,
• so long as the Changes do not involve removing the proven nincompoops and partisan zealots in the current bureaucracy,
• so long as the Changes do not involve keeping jobs in America, worker’s rights or equal pay for equal work,
• so long as the Changes do not involve requiring insuring health care is available for everyone,
• so long as the Changes do not involve maintaining social security or welfare for those who need it,
• so long as the Changes do not involve expanding benefits for veterans or wounded,
• so long as the Changes do not involve enhancing college and upward mobility (except through rich trophy wives),
• so long as the Changes do not involve granting same sexes the choice of marriage,
• so long as the Changes do not involve freedom from religion,
• so long as the Changes do not involve free speech for dissenters, open meetings, equal time or continued public control of the airwaves,
• so long as the Changes do not involve restricting corporate consolidation of businesses and farms in the few,
• so long as the Changes do not involve regulating greedy excesses and stupidities in the business and financial world,
• so long as the Changes do not involve restricting access by Republican lobbyists or their deep pockets,
• so long as the Changes do not involve verifiable paper ballots when Republican built electronic voting machines are used,
• so long as the Changes do not involve redistricting or changing prior Republican gerrymandering,
• so long as the Changes do not involve revealing crimes or blunders of the prior Administration,
• so long as the Changes do not involve admitting the economy is in recession, any wrongdoing or saying sorry,
• so long as the Changes do not involve giving up the right to spy without warrants, to torture, and to prison forever without trial or counsel,
• so long as the Changes do not involve restrictions on threatening, invading and occupying foreign countries without cause,
• so long as the Changes do not involve allowing Democrats any say in future selection of judges.


There is at least one change though that we can be assured he will attempt – to change the Supreme Court so that Roe v. Wade can be overturned to eliminate the right of Choice for women. Well, actually it’s not entirely true that he wants to eliminate all Choices for women. Women will still retain the choice of using coat hangers in back alleys or not. That is both a Change and a Choice.

“ASSUMPTIONS VERSUS TRUTH”

Or, What Is Asserted about Obama and What Is Reality

1. ASSUMPTION: Obama is a Muslim and was sworn into office using the Koran instead of a Bible.
TRUTH: No, he’s not and never has been anything except Christian. He was sworn in using a Bible. The only so-called “evidence” to the contrary is a photo of him as a young man wearing a native costume that looks vaguely arab. If costumes are “proof,” then every Shriner seen wearing a Fez must be one too.
QUESTION: Even if true, should a religious test determine who should be president?


2. ASSUMPTION: Obama is Black.
TRUTH: No, only half right. Short of a paternity test, it is hard to be conclusive of who a father is, but passing through a womb is always conclusive of who the mother is. And, Obama’s mother is as white as McCain.
QUESTION: Even if true, should the amount of melanin in the skin determine who should be president? And, if the skin color should be considered, wouldn’t it help restore trust in the rest of the world that we really believe what we said in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence by electing a “Black”?


3. ASSUMPTION: Obama is an elitist because he eats Arugula and is thin. TRUTH: McCain apparently prefers designer bread.
QUESTION: Even if true, should a food preference test determine who should be president? And if it should, shouldn’t the president be a role model for healthy choices, especially in our obesity plagued nation?

4. ASSUMPTION: Obama is not a “patriot” because he doesn’t wear a flag pin 24/7 and because he questions the president’s decisions.
TRUTH: Anyone who says such nonsense ought to look up the definition of “patriot” and ponder exactly what our Founding Fathers were doing in 1776. Sewing the flag on the bottom of shorts is not proof of patriotism. And, the flag pins seen on most lapels are made in china.
QUESTION: Besides, shouldn’t the test of patriotism be more than blindly following orders or acting in conformity to others in fashion? If obedience is the test, that would mean the guards at Auschwitz were supremely patriotic.


5. ASSUMPTION: Obama can’t bowl.
TRUTH: Bet he can beat McCain bowling and would kill him in basketball. QUESTION: Even if true, except to insure the candidate is healthy enough to survive the rigors of the office, should an athletic test determine who should be president?


6. ASSUMPTION: Obama is young.
TRUTH: McCain is old.
QUESTION: Which is a greater risk – that a person will get ill in office or that a person will look too young?


7. ASSUMPTION: Obama is a celebrity.
TRUTH: Got me on that one. The first Black selected by any party ever to run for the highest office in the land can’t help but be a celebrity. Of course, most of our best presidents have been celebrities. One, idolized by conservatives, was even an actual “star” of movies (a B-movie star perhaps, but clearly a celebrity nonetheless). Besides, for every Brittney there is a Bono.
QUESTION: Isn’t to some extent determine, a popularity contest exactly what voting is about?


8. ASSUMPTION: Obama is popular with foreigners and attracts huge crowds.
TRUTH: Got me on that one too. Could it be jealousy because the crowds dwarf the small audiences McCain attracts?
QUESTION: Since we cannot go it alone in the world, wouldn’t it help to have a president who was popular abroad with both the leaders and their countrymen? Wouldn’t is be better if he was not distrusted or hated?


9. ASSUMPTION: Obama is rich.
TRUTH: By any test, McCain is far richer than Obama.
QUESTION: Should wealth disqualify an individual from the presidency? Shouldn’t the test be whether the individual uses the wealth to assist others or serve himself?


10. ASSUMPTION: Obama owns a house worth more than a million.
TRUTH: McCain owns several houses worth more than a million and can’t seem to remember how many he owns.
QUESTION: It is hard to find a good sized home for less than a million these days. On the other hand, how many homes does one person really need?


11. ASSUMPTION: Obama is uppity and egotistical.
TRUTH: Based on what?
QUESTION: Even if true, is it even possible for there to be a candidate for the office of president


12. ASSUMPTION: Obama is immoral because he does not want to ban or punish gays.
TRUTH: Obama is still with his first and only wife and did not abandon her because she was ill or not rich enough. McCain cannot say the same thing.
QUESTION: Shouldn’t the morality test for president be how they conduct their own life and not what they tell others to do?


13. ASSUMPTION: Obama is inexperienced.
TRUTH: Ah, at last a substantive issue raised by opponents to Obama. Obama obviously has spent less time in the Senate than McCain. Fair enough. McCain however has spent his time in the Senate voting for Bush fiascos 90% of the time.
QUESTION: Shouldn’t the test be whether the decisions derived from “experience” were intelligent ones? Perhaps better an unknown in office, than to continue a known candidate who continually courts disaster.


14. ASSUMPTION: Obama did not get shot at in combat serving his country.
TRUTH: Neither did great war leaders like Franklin Roosevelt. Or for that matter, neither did lousy war leaders like the current president.
QUESTION: Should being unskilled enough or unlucky enough to get shot in combat be the test for an administrative leader?


15. ASSUMPTION: Obama thinks he is smart.
TRUTH: Obama is smart. No one graduates from the top law school in the court and is selected to edit its law review unless they are proven smart. McCain graduated among the bottom of his class and still supports Bush and Bush’s ideas.
QUESTION: Shouldn’t we want a recognizably intelligent person in office?


16. ASSUMPTION: Obama is going to increase taxes.
TRUTH: Yes, the uber rich do need to worry. They will not be able to buy the second yacht if Obama is elected and will have to look at Mercedes for a new car each year instead of a Rolls Royce, but for almost everyone else, a tax cut is promised. McCain intends to transfer wealth from the lower and middle classes to his own kind by cutting benefits to those who can least afford it and shifting the costs of war to the children and grandchildren.
QUESTION: Shouldn’t the test be whose taxes are increased and why? Shouldn’t we look at benefits cut as well as taxes since both come out of the pocket in the end?


17. ASSUMPTION: Obama doesn’t want to drill off shore or in wildlife refuses so he must not care about high gas prices.
TRUTH: Such drilling will have little or no effect on gas prices for literally years. On the other hand, conservation and renewable energy sources like wind power will have more immediate affect not just on prices, but also on global warming.
QUESTION: Shouldn’t the question be reducing the dependence on oil, not just foreign oil?

Click on cartoon to enlarge

“DRILLING INTO OFFSHORE DRILLING”

Or, the Obvious Flaws in McCain’s Supposed Plan to Lower Gas Prices

McCain says extract all the oil from all our reserves immediately so we can have a temporary few cents lower price today. Has he given any thought to the fact that will leave us no oil tomorrow and we’ll have to beg for some later from countries who weren’t such spendthrifts? What is it about Conservatives that they don’t seem to believe in conservation?

And, if reducing the price of gas at the pump is the sole objective worth pursuing and is justified at absolutely any cost, then why not nationalize the oil companies as a first step? Do that and we wouldn’t even have to wait the months or years of development time for new wells to increase the supply (temporarily). Nationalize the industry and we could instantaneously lower the price at the pump by eliminating the billions paid out in profits, extravagant oil executive salaries, not to mention advertising costs which would all become unneeded components of present prices.

Sure it would violate the Constitution, but as McCain's mentor Bush has demonstrated with his torture approvals, warrantless searches and supposed limitless executive power, that is a "quaint" document with no real restriction on whatever a President might desire.

Actually, I am not really proposing nationalization (except maybe a cap on those truly nasty CEO salaries). I am merely pointing out that there are a lot of ways, including reducing demand, that would produce both a surer and quicker downward effect on prices at the pump than anything McCain has bandied about so far. Why is anyone listening to him on this subject especially when he does such silly things like ridiculing keeping tires properly inflated which all government sources have proven is a cheap and useful technique to increase mileage? To stage his ridicule at a rally of Harley Davidson motorcyclists encouraging them to rev their engines (a surefire gas waster) is ridiculous in and of itself.

Taken together, McCain’s actions may demonstrate his real intent which seems to be to do whatever maximizes oil company income, his biggest campaign contributors.

“OBAMA DAMMA”

Or, The Real Reason Obama's Polls Are Running So Far Behind the Percentages Favoring Democratic Candidates Generally

I have spoken to dozens of friends, family, clients and acquaintances, both Democrat and Republican, who freely admit Bush and all around him have been a complete and utter disaster. They no longer even try to defend any portion of what has happened thanks to the Neocons even if they have been life long conservatives. They seem downright embarrassed in fact for their complicity in having put such self centered, irresponsible, greedy juveniles in office. Yet, as angry as they are at the destruction and degradation wrought by years of incompetence and arrogance, they unshakably insist they will vote for anyone rather than Obama.

It gets really interesting when I question why in light of the fact that their only other serious choice, McCain, promises to perpetuate most if not exactly 100% of the same policies, pursuits and partisanship as Bush and Cheney and their minions.

When closely quizzed, some cite outright falsehoods like Obama supposedly is a really Muslim and they cling to that belief tenaciously despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Nothing shakes that excuse not to vote for Obama, even though the principles of this country are that all religions deserve equality.

Others insist Obama is rich, not a common man even though he comes from very humble beginnings. Well, that excuse is slightly true for once, but they pointedly ignore McCain's far greater riches (thanks to a rich replacement wife), allowing McCain to accumulate more houses than most men have shoes. Somehow, that's "totally different" and okay apparently because there are photos of McCain manning a barbecue grill.

There is lots of criticism of Obama's perceived personality offered as reasons. They range from his choice of leafy green vegetables to whether or not he wears a flag pin 24/7, as if his choice of food or supporting the flag production industry we shipped to China has anything to do with either ability to be President or patriotism. Such criticism often comes from those who have been observed consuming the same food and who never volunteered for military service to demonstrate their own supposed Nathan Hale/John Adams/Patrick Henry patriotism. (Of course, there are apparently only about two tests left in our current abbreviated definition of "patriotism," whether you have a "Support the Troops" bumper sticker and whether you slavishly, uncritically accept everything you are told by the those in power, which would be quite a surprise to Hale, Adams and Henry.)

Still others insists that Obama must be an elitist, pointy-headed intellectual. It is hard to argue with the fact that Obama graduated among the top of his class in arguably the top law school in the country and headed its Law Review. A remarkable feat in comparison to McCain's lazy trolling near the bottom of his class at the Academy. What is not clear is why those opposed to Obama no longer think it would be a good idea to have the proven brilliant get a chance at leadership as opposed to the mental midgets we have been afflicted with for so long.

Let's be clear. There are plenty of substantive things for which Obama deserves criticism. He was definitely not my personal first or even fifth choice. But, the "explanations" of those who admit Republicans, including McCain, have continually screwed up are so lame and implausible when examined, that I cannot help but assume there is an unadmitted reason, one that goes against the grain of everything this country and its governing documents stand for - - Obama's black and McCain isn't.

Besides the desperately needed change from years of debacle, you would think we would recognize that electing someone of a different hue or a truly different religion (if Obama actually was), would show the world for once that we really do practice what we preach, especially when most of the world we have to live in is of a different color and religious belief. Why then can't we do that at least one time in our entire history, especially when the white guys running things have done so badly? Why can't we give someone else a chance? Is it because the Obama opponents secretly don't really want a black man in the White House?

When asked that question point blank, they hem and haw and bristle and proclaim that they are not racist, that they don't personally fear the Blacks, that the amount of melanin in skin would never influence their decision on voting day. On the other hand, they can't seem to ever quite bring themselves to say they would actually want a black President if it was someone other than Obama running. When asked about Colin Powell or Condalisa Rice, many kind of choke on the words, loudly and repeatedly just declaring the mantra they have no prejudice themselves.

The vehemence of their rejection of the very question about race as a reason for their opposition to Obama combined with the weakness of any other explanations unfortunately speaks for itself. I hope they are not a majority come election day. Our nation deserves better reasons if we are going to accumulate for another four years the mucking mess we are shoveling on our grandchildren.

"TRY GENUINELY SUPPORTING THE TROOPS"

Or, Those Bumper Stickers Are Sticking in My Craw

I’ve had it.

I never want another current Republican, or Democrat office holder for that matter, ever again to utter the phrase "Support the Troops" or assert they do so.

● It is not supporting the troops if you do not adequately equip or train them to do their job.
● It is not supporting the troops if you don’t have enough of them to do their job.
● It is not supporting the troops if you keep them too long or too often overseas.
● It is not supporting the troops if you do not allow them adequate rest and recuperation time in between.
● It is not supporting the troops if you do not adequately take care of the wounded, whether mentally or physically.
● It is not supporting the troops if you do not keep your promises about how long they have to serve.
● It is not supporting the troops if you do not give them the GI Bill benefits you bragged about to entice them to join.
● It is not supporting the troops if you keep relying on the National Guard except in emergencies.
● It is not supporting the troops if you hire mercenaries like Blackwater guards with taxpayer funds to do the same thing as privates for five times the pay privates get.
● It is not supporting the troops if you fire the generals who got it right and promote those who got it wrong.
● It is not supporting the troops if you ignore the advice of them on how to do their job.
● It is not supporting the troops if you send them in alone with just token allies.
● It is not supporting the troops if you discriminate against non-Protestant members of the military or harass the females or those in uniform who might be gay.
● It is not supporting the troops if you do not abide by the Geneva Conventions or our own Constitution.
● It is not supporting the troops if you use them under false pretenses, frivolously, for your ego or arrogance or ignorance, for your personal economic gain or greed, for your political party partisan purposes, for using it as an attempt to distract from domestic woes or personal stupidity, for keeping "score" internationally or bragging about "winning" or being "#1", or without adequate attempts at all other alternatives.
● It is not supporting the troops if you have not studied history and investigated thoroughly your opponents.

It is a harsh thing to say, but I personally believe you are a liar or an ignoramus if you claim to be supporting the troops and yet you have allowed any of the above things to happen unchallenged. Worse, you are arguably a traitor to everything this country once stood for. You have made Osama bin Laden gleeful if you have remained silent these past several years.

I am not insisting you enlist and serve in a shooting war close enough to hear the bullets impact as I did, but if you want to assert you truly do support the troops, then speak out regarding the malfeasance our elected officials have been committing against our own troops. It is bad enough the cowardly REMFs in the West Wing have encouraged atrocities against foreigners and international laws. It is worse for us to metaphorically do the same thing to our own troops and laws.

In any event, you are not entitled to use the phrase hereafter if you voted for or encouraged any of those things in the "bullet list" above that are still coming out of Washington, or voted for anyone who voted for any of those things once in office, especially if you continued to do nothing about those in power once you discovered any of those things had occurred. It is particularly odious if you utter the phrase after having avoided military service for yourself or your family members, or after complaining about taxes or petroleum prices, or after sacrificing little or nothing while troops were in the field. A special place in Hell ought to be reserved for those who say they are going to give up something like the Prez claiming he was going to give up golf as long as the troops were off in mortal combat and then was filmed secretly cheating on his pledge. It was an idle, worthless, even demeaning gesture to begin with, but to then to dishonor it altogether by ignoring even that minor inconvenience shows how low some hypocrites can go.

Thoughtful, reasoned, intelligent supporting of our combat soldiers, sailors and airmen who happen to be legally doing their job is a duty of all citizens at all times. Blind obedience to a President or empty bravado or pasting a yellow ribbon or a bumper sticker on your big gas guzzling SUV or Humvee with the phase or wearing a flag lapel pin made in China to pretend you are a patriot is not. Those naked and minuscule whims cannot be considered as really supporting the troops. It is posturing.

Those troops who put themselves in jeopardy for you deserve more. If you have not at least carefully followed and independently questioned what is going on, then you have failed in your duty as a citizen and you have failed those who needed you.

Keep in mind, there will be a test on such duties. It is about time you stopped failing it.

“YOU DID WHAT WITH OUR MONEY?”

Or, a Few Relevant Questions to Ask about Yet Another National Financial Fiasco

Shouldn't some portion of the massive bailout taxpayers are handing the incompetent company officials who recklessly got us in this mortgage mess be used instead to hire more regulators to insure we don't keeping throwing Treasury money away like this every few years? Shouldn't a few of those who cost us maybe trillions be fired or jailed or at least demoted for their incompetency and greed which has jeopardized our entire economy. At what point should greed start amounting to being a traitor or a threat to national security? Why have they allowed our future to be mortgaged to the hilt to foreign countries who wish us ill? Why are we extracting all our scare resources and tapping all our limited capital today just for short term gains without saving anything for the future?

Why is it that none of those in charge can seem to think beyond the next fiscal quarter or the next election cycle? Shouldn't we finally stop listening to some of the mindless Pollyannas in the media who kept saying nothing was wrong, was wrong, was wrong? Why have we forgotten so soon the 1980s disaster these same nincompoops got us into with the now defunct savings and loan industry? Doesn't it strike anyone as interesting how often someone named Bush seems to be playing a prominent role in these debacles? Why did the Republicans when in control dismantle all the useful regulations and inspections of the finance industry? What made any sane person think controls weren't needed or that the ones profiting wouldn't help themselves to extra given the chance? Were did such arrogance and assumption of "entitlement" come from?

The Democratic Party office holders have nothing to be proud of for their rolling over whenever Republicans sneer on the subject, but is there anyone left who still believes that the Republican party deserves a reputation for knowing anything about financial security or conservatism other than how to line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else? Surely that myth has been dispelled forever by now. Surely those who voted Republican any time in this century ought to feel embarrassed. Why then doesn't this seem to make a difference to the voters? What is it about our education system that seems to prevent them from analyzing this for themselves?

It would be nice if we got a few trustworthy answers on these questions, although the corporate media we need to look into the questions seems as hell bent as lemmings to follow the corporate financial leaders right off the cliff. What is it about investigative journalists that they can’t seem to the one job we really need them for?

"THE HOLLOW MEN AND WOMEN OF CONGRESS"

Or, Why can't Democrats in Office at least Pretend to be Democrats?

Almost every Democrat in Congress deserves a hard kick in the rear end for being lazy, cowardly, clueless, witless, naive, delusional and apparently keeping their fingers crossed when they took their oath of office to defend the Constitution.

How can they live with themselves? Stranger yet, how can they continue to call themselves leaders of the Democratic Movement which used to support the concept of the Golden Rule rather than the crass He Who Has the Most Gold Rules? They all deserve to be voted out of office and would be but for the fact that the Republicans are all those things at the moment plus rapaciously greedy and infinitely scary as well. Scary trumps stupidity when deciding who NOT to vote for.

Nevertheless, if the supposed "Democrats" who are doing nothing but take up space in the halls of Congress can’t put a halt to the depredations of the Republicans such as the further extension of the odious and overtly unConstitutional FISA law, then we will ultimately find some real Democrats to run who can.

If they want to keep their cushy, guaranteed paycheck, full health coverage jobs, as Democratic Party office holders, they'd better start acting like they belong to that party.

“WE NEED TO FLIP FLOP ON FLIP FLOPPING”

Or, Why Are We Such Doctrinaire Idiots About Changing Positions?

What is with the remarkable obsession everyone, particularly political junkies and punky pundits, seems to have regarding altering political positions or "flip flopping" as it is derogatorily known in the popular parlance? The question should not be whether a politician has changed position, but what exactly is his or her new position and why did he or she change.

It is not as if Moses brought down our political positions carved on stone tablets. We were not born with political positions. They evolve over time for almost everyone, normally slowly, albeit occasionally fast as when wars and personal frights warp judgments sometimes overnight. Normally, such evolution and change is a good thing (so long as it is not hormonal or adrenalin driven). Change usually demonstrates the person is a mentally healthy, intelligent adult, one showing the ability to adapt to new evidence and information as it is revealed.

In fact, never changing positions is the mark of either a liar or someone likely anal retentive, mentally deficient and unable to properly evaluate changing circumstances. By the same token, constantly changing positions from day to day suggests a frightened individual, incapable of making a decision even when needed, an equally scary person to put in office. Both are symptoms of mental illness of one degree or another, certainly not someone to elect.

But, considered change based upon carefully considered information to the extent then available is not automatically to be condemned. That is the essence of the Scientific Method that has served us so well most of the time.

Of course, if the person cravenly changed positions just to curry favor with a particular group of voters, that demonstrates someone not to be trusted. That is the moral equivalent of lying to everyone.

Consequently, suppose a candidate has proclaimed in the past that, say, the leader of a specific religious group is a biased lunatic who spouts hatred against others. Yet now, the same candidate embraces the same religious leader. Is there anything to support the theory that such hatred is no longer being broadcast by that religious leader? If so, good for everyone and the “flip flop” is a good thing. We should reward conversions when someone comes to their senses. Conversely however, if there is nothing to suggest the religious leader is doing anything different to merit the embrace, then the switch by the politician is suspicious and deserves condemnation. Not for the fact he flipped, but for his purpose in doing so.

We need the full facts, something the media steadfastly fails to deliver with the 30 second sound bites that pass for reporting “news” these days. We need more than just the fact that a supposed “flip flop” has occurred. What and why are more important.

For instance, I, for one, am willing to change my disgusted and low opinion about most so-called “journalists.” If only they would give me a reason. Please give me a reason. They can start with stop reporting so-called flip flops unless they give more information to go with it.

FISA WEATHER FRIENDS

Attention Democrat Party Congressional Leaders and other Fair Weather Friends of the Constitution:

Just what the %&*@#% do you think you are doing? FISA, a law only dictators could love, violates a whole bunch of unambiguous prohibitions in the Constitution designed for the express purpose of preventing dictatorships. Why then are you cowards giving Bush and his Neocon henchmen, dictator wannabes one and all, exactly what they want? The so-called “improvements” you are helping pass not only violate 200 year old liberties, they wipe out what was clear grounds for impeachment and will let some egregious criminals in the Administration go free to continue their harm without penalty.

You could have defeated the entire concept merely by doing nothing and letting the odious law expire. Doing nothing is something you have proven so good at over the last several years. Why didn’t you continue doing nothing for just once in your increasingly fruitless careers instead of becoming co-conspirators in the dismantlement of everything this country once stood for?

“THE LUNATIC ZONE”

Or, The Press Insistence That Only Black Preachers Are Nuts

Why does Rev. Wright automatically have to be labeled "left wing" by the press?

Can't we, as physicists do with "string theory," recognize that there might be other dimensions at "right angles," so to speak, to the normal left-right, up-down, forward-back plus time dimensions we normal folk perceive? In other words, dimensions outside reality?

Surely all the self styled holders of supposed religious "truths" like Wright, Falwell, Hagee, Robertson, ad infinitum, are so contrary to common sense that their minds must work, if "work" is an accurate term to use in connection with them, in totally different dimensions from the rest of us. Perhaps we should label them all as existing solely in the Lunatic Dimension.

They all have a Rod Sterling-isk quality to their rantings. It makes me feel like we are living in a bizarre episode of the “Twilight Zone.”

Click on cartoon to view the entire scene.

“OBAMA RAMA”

Or, Plebeian Pennsylvanians Proudly Pontificate

There’s one thing we Pennsylvania voters will never vote for – an uppity,...I mean, elitist nigger,... uh I mean, uh, person who’s colored. We certainly don’t like someone who’s smarter than we are, ...I mean, who seems smarter than we are.... I mean who ACTS smarter than we are.

Besides, his name sounds like he’s a raghead Muslim and we’d rather vote for someone with a purer, more wholesome sounding,‘Merican name like “John.” Now there’s a name that says class. Nothing smelly about it. Who wouldn’t be proud to be known as a John?

And, what’s with sticking with the same wife all those years? That not like the rest of us. It just proves Obama is really stupid. Doesn’t his family value the riches it can bring when you trade up for a perky cheerleader with hooters who happens to be wealthy. Wealth is what makes this country great. I might own a share of oil company stock some year or win the lottery and I bet he’d tax me on that.

There is one thing in his favor. We don’t really mind he can’t bowl. Naturally, we’ll make fun of how much he looks like a duffus, but we’re secretly relieved. After all, we got enough of his kind invading our sports, like golf. Course, I haven’t ever played golf myself. But, they already took away what used to be our sports like basketball and football. People with heavy tans look out of place in a windowless bowling alley. Let him stay with his own kind and leave us a few sports to play at besides just shootin deer mano a mano with high powered scopes and beer.

Speakin a shootin, he’s not a combat vet like John McCain or George W. Bush who braved bullets in war. Of course, if Osama O’Bama comes round here, we might give him that chance. To brave bullets that is. Heh, heh, heh. Target practice as our Southern cousins say.

Yeah, for sure he’s no patriot like our current Prez. Where’s Obama’a ‘Merican flag lapel pin made in China? Where’s his stars and stripes boxer underwear? He’s probably got the traitorous Dixie Chicks on his ipod and not a single Hank Williams. He doesn’t even want to torture insurgents to save America. Damn hippie commie.

And, look at all those people that gave him money and that crazy minister of his. They probably think that Obama will owe them something when he gets in the White House. You’d never catch “our” people sucking up to crazy religious leaders or lobbyists just to get votes. We don’t tolerate flip-floppers.

On top of that, can you imagine what it would be like to have a black in the Oval Office doing something besides cleaning it? All those black and brown countries around the world might think they don’t need to be afraid of us anymore. Where would we be then? We might have to say “please.” Washington and Jefferson would turn over in their graves. They gave us a Constitution that put people who are colored in their place and that place wasn’t with their finger on the red button at three a.m.

In any event, we need jobs. We can’t expect Obama to get us any. Who’s going to listen to a skinny black man who is not a multigazillionaire? No, we need instead experienced rich folks like the Clintons or McCain to get our lost jobs back. Now McCain and even the Clintons too, they got experience up the wazu. They got track records going back years and years and years in the White House and Congress already. Just because the same record says that the NAFTA and CRAPTA they gave us sent the jobs to Asia, doesn’t mean they’ll keep doing that. They musta learned how to do better by now. So, we need to give experience another chance to do it again. Let’s hear it for the Hillary or the John.

Bitter? Me bitter? Obama makes me bitter. He ain’t so smart though that we can’t teach him his high falutin dreams talkin bout working out our problems together is nothing but a bunch of crap.

So, ....God damn Obam.

"TORTURE 101 - A NEW CLASS AT BERKELEY LAW SCHOOL"

Or, Why Has a California Law School Decided a Torture Advocate Should Teach There?

Would someone please ask the Dean of UC Berkeley Law School why he woo'd John Yoo, the author of the memo to Bush on how to get away with torturing both suspects and the American Constitution, to be on the faculty? Does the Dean suffer from Alzheimer's? Is it because like Bush he never reads a newspaper? Is it because there is some sort of Affirmative Action program at UC Berkeley for torturers? Is the school going to open a branch at Gitmo or perhaps rename itself the Torquemada School of Depravity? Does the Law School no longer teach Constitutional Law? Has the Dean never read the Constitution? Did the Dean get his own law degree from a school that advertises on matchbooks? Does the Dean think that hiring Bush's henchmen likely to get the Dean awarded the inaptly named Presidential "Medal of Freedom"? Does the Dean hate America and all it once stood for? Doesn't the Dean think America has been embarrassed enough?

Come to think of it, why hasn't Consigliere Yoo's license to practice been revoked for unethical conduct? Lawyer are not supposed to assist clients in the commission of crimes. They are supposed to act at all times as Officers of the Court. And, if their clients insist on continuing to break the law, then the lawyer is supposed to report him to the police or courts. When Yoo gave Bush cover to conduct torture at whim, to search without warrants, to violate centuries old habeas corpus rules, to deprive defendants of counsel, to do much of the grievances that Thomas Jefferson decried in the Declaration of Independence and to lie about it, he became an unindicted co-conspirator and should never be allowed to be a model for students, unless Gestapo are the new models.

Yoo should be disbarred, not at the bar drinking with impressionable youngsters. Doesn’t anyone in California remember Yoo is teaching at a Law School, not a Liar School?

If the Dean at the UC Berkeley Law School refuses to answer any of the foregoing questions, does that mean we are free to waterboard him to get answers or at least lock him away without counsel until he talks?

"BACK IN THE SCHOOLYARD"

Or, Juvenile Local Politics

I used to think most of the community governments around here, particularly the city councils, acted like they were still in Junior High School complete with the usual little exclusionary cliques, petty personality cults, domination games and vengeance seeking for perceived insults. Observing the County Commissioners over the last few years however has convinced me the perceived age level of what passes for local “politicians” must be set even lower. Those currently in power seem to act like they are on a Grade School playground dominated by bullying, sulking and name calling taunts.

Replace them ALL, every last one, and do so at the earliest opportunity.

In fact, maybe there should be a Charter change to select Commissioners by lot, perhaps out of jury pools. It would be an interesting experiment. For the most part, the typical juror has proven to be much more thoughtful, attentive, and determined to do the right thing than the typical politician acting as if he or she had a “mandate” or entitlement to do whatever they wanted.

If we can’t seem to find genuine adults volunteering to run for office, then maybe we should “draft” some. Frankly, it is hard to imagine that even selecting officeholders at random, like some of the early Greek democracies once did by the way, could be much worse for our County than limiting the choices to just those who have been arrogantly self selecting themselves for the positions. Call me a cynic, but at least with a lottery system, we might finally have a statistical chance to occasionally find some who would act responsibly, selflessly, ethically, and concerned about the future beyond merely the next election cycle.

“WHY NOT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE?”

Or, It’s Time to Stop Being Frightened by Mere Words

“Socialized Medicine.” Boo!

Like the Boogey Man, those two words are continually trotted out to scare one and all from even considering the concept. In case you have forgotten in all the frenetic hype and hyperbole over the past several decades on the subject, so-called socialized medicine - at its core - is much like insurance. It is essentially spreading the health costs over many people so that the unlucky few faced with a crippling illness do not have to cripple their family finances in the process. The primary difference is that if we had “socialized medicine,” we would not have to also fund the multimillion dollar salaries of insurance company CEOs, agent commissions, advertising expenses, and Wall Street level shareholder profits before the first dime is spent on actual health care of anyone.

Of course, those pocketing all that loot don’t want to lose it which is why they try to paralyze your thought processes to prevent you from enacting even the simplest safety net against catastrophic illness. They want to keep the burden shifted to those who were not born to rich parents and those who sadly lost the disease/accident lottery.

Their one argument of merit attacking the concept is the bugaboo that government is inefficient, as if the megalithic HMOs weren’t.

And, since they don’t have sufficient arguments on the actual respective merits, they attempt to divert attention by connotatively loading the term “socialized medicine”with associations to Sovietism and/or Communism, our once and possibly future enemy. Unfortunately, the smear tactics have worked making us forget the “Golden Rule” we learned in Sunday School about doing unto others as we would have them do unto us. Instead, they glorify that only Gold Rules when it comes to access to medical care.

What is fascinating about the opponents’ smoke and mirrors camouflaging their lack of substance is that this country is already heavily “socialized” in much of what it does and it has successfully been that way for many years. While the Socialist Party elected almost no one since its creation back in the early 1900s, most of their ideas were ultimately incorporated into law by Republican as well as Democratic administrations.

For instance, we have “socialized” schooling. It couldn’t be called anything else if you use the same voodoo linguistics favored by opponents of socialized medicine. Think about it. We have universal free education for everyone through high school regardless of ability or parentage. It is paid for by everyone out of tax dollars. That’s how you were educated. That is how everyone except the uber rich are still being educated. Is there anyone out there who thinks we should leave children behind merely because they can’t afford to go to private school?

We have had “socialized” fire and crime prevention since the 1800s. The fire department doesn’t go only to the biggest mansions anymore. It goes to what is on fire regardless of how wealthy the owner is. No one except maybe curmugeons think we should go back to the bad old days when private fire departments protected only the houses of those who paid for the privilege.

We have always had “socialized” military and national security. The Coast Guard does not check your Dun and Bradstreet rating before steaming out in the storm when the SOS is received. In fact, almost all rescue operations are socialized ones. If your child is lost, everyone shows up to search and it doesn’t have to be just someone like Paris Hilton missing.

“Socialized” highways and bridges? Absolutely. Whether a beat up pickup truck or a Rolls Royce, the drivers of those cars are charged exactly the same for building our highway infrastructure, even on toll bridges. There is “socialized” water delivery and sewage removal. There is “socialized” airport construction and air traffic control. There is “socialized” building and food inspection to keep us safe whether it is caviar or chitlins being scrutinized for samonella. Does anyone seriously suggest it should be otherwise in this day and age?

“Socialized” air waves for radio and tv? Of course. There are some channels that are only available by paying extra, but the core networks are still free to both Bill Gates and Joe Six Pack. The air waves are actually owned by the public despite some sell off going on by a Republican Administration wanting to reward its rich campaign contributors who want the airwaves and internet for themselves.

Wanna bet whether the President wants to give up his “socialized” Secret Service protection? He is rich enough to afford his own Pinkerton guards, but for all his rhetoric about pigs dining at the public trough, he certainly wants to keep dining at the “trough” himself at every opportunity.

And, have you forgotten Social Security, one of the most successful programs of all time in just about every criteria you can name, notwithstanding the hysteria the Republicans try to create? But, that is a much longer topic that needs to be addressed at a different time. Suffice to say Franklin Roosevelt’s experiment is still useful and better than any of the other alternatives.

We even have a certain amount of “socialized” medicine already. Emergency rooms don’t discriminate depending on whether the victim is wearing a cummerbund or not. Similarly, the universal access of the ADA looks to whether there is a disability rather than the social status of the beneficiaries when enforcing such laws. All they need to be is disabled.

It is legitimate to want to insure that incompetencies, inefficiencies and potential corruption be rooted out whenever genuine instances of such abuses of any system are discovered. But, if that were the sole test for whether “socialized medicine;” i.e., health care for all, should be in a government agency rather than the mishmash of profiteering private companies, then President Bush should have been fired long ago and the Homeland Security Department would not exist. Does the acronym FEMA and the city of New Orleans come to mind?

Come to think of it, do the private companies of Wall Street, which were supposed to be so brilliant and efficient that they didn’t even need regulation, really strike you as all that incompetent-free now that the whole housing and lending fiascos have been revealed? It looks like the conservatives are screaming at the top of their lungs that we must instantly institute “socialized banking.” The current attempts to reward the incompetents responsible for our snowballing banking crisis seems to be little other than a socialized bailout using taxpayer funds and guarantees which means more taxpayer funds if something goes wrong.

Sure we need to put in place safeguards against waste and losses. But, basically, you put socialized medicine in place, perhaps as part of the Social Security Administration, and just make sure it is under close oversight unlike the secrecy allowed in HMOs and health insurance corporations.

Remember too, cutting out multimillion dollar insurance company CEO salaries, cutting out the massive profit they suck out of revenue, cutting out the massive commissions only applicable when it is a private program, cutting out the expensive office space demanded by private company egos, etc. pays for a mighty big amount of bureaucratic inefficiency, even assuming it exists and that the huge monolithic insurance companies never ever suffer from the same human weaknesses. The cost/benefit analysis seems to be clearly in favor of going the “socialized medicine” route.

At the very least, we ought to stop giving automatic credence to everything touted by those currently profiting, and massively so, from health care. We ought to suspect their words might be tainted by a basic conflict of interest. In fact, if you stop to think about it, in one sense most of those execs and other non-doctors profiting from health care might arguably be described as the societal equivalent of vultures. They do make their living off the pain, suffering and death of others after all. Of course, that analogy can’t be pushed too far since it also applies to lawyers, dentists, accountants and other licensed professionals. Nevertheless, due to that strong self interest inherent in their positions, their prescription calling for leaving our health care “system” as is ought to be consumed with the proverbial grain of salt. And, whatever “facts” opponents of change supply should be closely scrutinized, especially those about how socialized medicine in foreign countries allegedly never works. At the moment, it is hard to believe anything could be more broken than what we have. In any event, we certainly should stop making assumptions and stop listening to knee jerk type responses anytime the subject is broached. Let’s get the real facts, ones not connotatively loaded or biased.

Besides, there are also two new reasons to finally reconsider imposing “socialized medicine.” There might be new allies now. Doctors originally bought into the theories promoted by opponents of the concept that we can’t allow “socialized medicine” because they thought it would restrict their incomes. Over time though, a substantial percentage of young doctors have been relegated to being just slaves to the HMOs, stripped of their independence on just about everything including what is best for their patients. Ironic. As a result, they might reconsider and join the growing bandwagon to insure money is finally available to provide health care. If nothing else, it is a way to insure they themselves will have jobs.

Perhaps even more important, even if you want to ignore the critical moral and ethical justifications for “socialized medicine,” is that it might very well make solid economic and competitive sense above and beyond the savings possible once it is implemented. For instance, foreign manufacturers are kicking our rears because their countries have socialized medicine and we don’t. Our companies, at least the ones interested in keeping workers, pay for the health insurance costs of employees. That is a cost which must be added to the goods being sold. Foreign companies therefore automatically get a competitive price advantage because they don’t have to fund the health insurance. Their governments do. Let’s put our nation’s companies, all of them, on a level playing field, not only with each other, but the entire world. It might help reverse our horrendous trade deficit and the new revenue flowing this way help pay for the health care we need.

On top of that, data suggests it would be less expensive in the long run because right now, Americans who cannot afford health insurance tend to wait until a disease has gone so far that only the dramatically more expensive emergency room care is left rather than preventive medicine. It is usually cheaper and usually more effective to try and prevent disease than cure them. It also means that when the inevitable calamity finally does come, the individual who delayed treatment is out of work longer, thereby earning less wages, paying fewer taxes, probably contributing to the mortgage and housing industry crisis, and subjecting his or her family to danger as well.

So, for every reason (except the fictitious ones still being made up by opponents), let’s remember both our Sunday School and economics lessons. Let’s have a reasoned debate on the real facts and the merits, a debate lead by adults, not demagogues. Whatever we do, let’s not be scared stupid the next time someone uses the words “socialized medicine.”

“THE WAR AGAINST CIVILIZATION”

Or, How Bush Is Making America as Uncivilized as Its Enemies

Bush should be congratulated on winning the War Against Civilization.

Let’s see. So far, he’s canceled the civilizing effects of the “quaint” old Geneva Conventions. Check. He’s authorized torture of human beings which used to be anathema to all civilized human beings. Check. And, he’s pretty much eliminated the “checks and balances” in the Constitution designed to prevent tyranny. Check and Check.

Negated the Bill of Rights? Right. Search without warrants? Sealed it. Jail forever without trial or counsel? Nailed it. Presume guilt of everyone? Got it.

What about his oath of office, which expressly called for defending the Constitution? Well, he swore his oath back in January 2000. But, as VP Dick so aptly said though, “So?” Besides, crossing your fingers behind your back while taking an oath of office is a time honored way to undermine Civilization. Law are only for petty people who still foolishly believe in Civilization.

No doubt, the Constitution was far too civilized for our own good. As Bush constantly reminds us, we are now living in perilous times unlike any of our prior wars where we only fought against puny enemies such as Hitler, Tojo and Jefferson Davis. Fighting a tall bearded guy operating out of a cave and dragging around a dialysis machine? Now, that’s a real dangerous enemy, one who obviously can conquer and occupy us any time he wants to. Bush said Osama envied our “democracy.” Fortunately for us, Bush solved that problem by disposed of it along with all those hanging chads in Florida.

What else can Bush offer as proof of his success in his Crusade? Lying, cheating, attacking peremptorily and theft? Some would say even civilized countries do that. Okay then. What about invading other countries based upon whim supported by lies and cheating? Oh, that’s more like it. Civilized countries try to avoid that. How about doing it for reasons of coveting and lusting after oil, lucre and power games? Better yet. Referring to it as a Crusade, especially in reference to a Muslim country? Perfect. Bombs away, Bush! That’s the way to win your War to eliminate the temptations of Civilization.

Speaking of bombs, knowingly killing women and infants who happened to be innocently within the blast radius of dumb or even smart bombs? Heh, heh, heh. Aw, that’s just “collateral damage,” isn’t it? Yessiree. What a civilized word for an uncivilized act. Bush could have sent in trained troops to isolate only the insurgents and thereby minimize the deaths of the innocents, but that would not “support the troops,” who of course, were there in deadly danger where they should never have been in the first place if we hadn’t blundered into that particular cesspool. That creates sort of a double dip into the antithesis of Civilization.

Bush has fomented or encouraged multifront war between religions, war between ethnic groups and war between races. He even allowed ethic cleansing. Iraq is a nice example. In fact, much of the alleged success for the so-called “Surge” was due to the emptying of mixed religion neighborhoods in the previous rounds of violence. Harder to kill someone who left the country. Hell, Bush has even resurrected class warfare; i.e. the uber rich, like him, against everyone else. Yep, he is a real Warrior thanks to his multitudinous conflicts, fully entitled to wear fancy Warlord costumes on aircraft carriers. Our Fearless Leader (so long as bullet are not flying in his direction) is almost a one man conflagration, a bushfire so to speak.

He doesn’t even need fire. He has shown he can win the War against Civilization just using water. Anyone remember New Orleans? There is nothing so uncivilized as doing nothing while others drown. That’s a wonderful demonstration showing just how uncivilized he can be. Blaming the victims? Better yet. Golden Rule? Gold Rules!

Impoverishing and sickening millions and damaging or destroying both their environment, their health, their savings, their credit and means of making a living? Well, although not technically a necessity of Civilization, such amenities certainly made everyone feel more civilized. So, I suppose we should grant our Crippler-in-Chief those tools too as part of his battles almost won in his practically single handed war against anything that used to represent Civilization such as caring, compromise, cooperation, conciliation, consensus, courtesy, and a conventional Constitution.

Time Magazine ought to do a new cover feature and retire the trophy with an award to George Armstrong Custer, I mean George Bush, not just as “Man of the Year,” but “Man of the 21st Century” because it is going to take the rest of the Century to dig us out of the cemetery hole his War on Civilization has dug for us.

“THERE WE GO AGAIN”

Or, Challenging the Assumption We Cannot Get Out of Iraq

Even many Bush supporters now admit the war was fought on false premises and hugely damaged us. Their sole remaining argument in favor of staying seems to be essentially an assertion that "We broke it. So, we bought it." They repeat over and over, almost as a mantra, that while it is unquestionably, horrifyingly expensive to stay there, we must do so for probably decades because somehow it would be more expensive to get out.

What is missing entirely from the discussion is how they come to such an assumption. We desperately need to have some genuine research and intelligent debate regarding that conclusion. Let’s do what educated, thoughtful adults are supposed to do - a methodical cost/benefit analysis, one based on the best attainable figures and data.

In other words, let's finally stop relying on ASSUMPTIONS because assumptions are precisely what got us into this ego driven misadventure in the first place.

"TRULY TREACHEROUS TRAITORS"

Or, Why Perhaps Some of the Democrats in Power are Traitors Too

It’s an ugly word, not one to be bandied about lightly. But, if “traitor” is defined as those who violate their oath of office to defend the Constitution (which is sworn to by every elected member of Congress and every senior appointed member of the Executive Branch), then (except for maybe Ron Paul) most of those in the White House, Senate and House wearing a scarlet “R” engraved on their solid gold cufflinks are traitors. Certainly so if we go to war with Iran without a formal declaration of war as required by the Constitution, if they vote to dismantle the Constitutional protections against warrantless searches, if they have authorized unspeakable atrocities on interrogation victims such simulated drowning or if they enact any of the inanities our Generalisimo in the flight suit seems to come up with almost daily. If those actions are not High Crimes or at least misdemeanors deserving of impeachment, then what are?

The problem is that far too large a number of those sporting a blue “D” painted on their silver platted belt buckles who took the very same oath are committing the very same High Crimes.

The Republican office holders in charge since 2000 might be excused to a certain extent given their rather obvious insanity or at least mental defectiveness. They might even qualify as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Suffering as they apparently do from minimal intelligence, uncurious ignorance, sociopathic arrogance, perceived entitlement and ingrained, untamable aggression, they seem incapable of learning or obeying the law or even acting morally. We can pity them their disfunctionalities while simultaneously still fearing the unimaginable disasters they will no doubt perpetrate if left unguarded and unchecked. In some ways, they are not so different from fanged predators in the wild. Interesting to study, but dangerous when allowed to roam loose in a civilized society.

Not so the Democrats currently calling themselves leaders. They should know better. Consequently, they are not only traitors to their oath of office when they vote for tortures on suspicion, spying on everyone even without suspicion, and wars without declaration, they are the worst kind of traitor. Those who, fully knowing better, do it anyway out of timidity, laziness, personal gain or comfort deserve the universal condemnation of history.

It is not enough to assert as they do that the public allegedly “wants” supposed “security” over the basic freedoms the Constitution insists are necessary to a moral democracy whether the public values it or not. What shred of verifiable proof is there that such incremental surrenders of civil rights actually insure the alleged security? For instance, if the right to torture and spy is so purportedly effective, the proof should be available. I am not talking about the unsupported assertions of those who have been known to lie and stand to benefit from the dictatorial powers being usurped. I am talking about hard, quantifiable, court level proof that it actually works, especially since there is solid empirical evidence to the contrary. How do the Democrats allowing it explain that away. How do they explain away the history of our forefathers who managed to have both freedom and collective security (albeit hard fought) against far, far, far more numerous and worrisome foes? Where is the cost/benefit analysis showing that the short term gains (if any) from such insidious activities are greater than the inevitable long term cost in lives, treasury, good will, trust, and tyranny, not to mention the moral high ground which used to provide so much for us? The Democrats who are letting this happen to us should be required to explain how it is more worth while to do such things when our track record strong suggests the very countries we are now demonizing will likely be favored nation trading partners pampered with state visits and praise in the future as the Republicans have now flip flopped on Vietnam and China and until lately Russia?

Besides, if the Democrats allow the dissipation of the protections granted by the Constitution in order to curry a few votes to remain in office, what makes them think they will remain in office? Either the voters will someday come to their senses or the dictatorial power the Democrats are giving away will someday bite them in the rear. Ask the Roman Senators in the first century. Ask the members of the Russian Duma and the German Reichstag early in the last century. Strongmen with strong tactics are not the way to national security. They are the way to ultimately eliminate both freedom and personal security.

"EXPERIENCE, SCHMERIENCE!"

Or, Why Experience Is Not Always What Is Claimed

Some Presidential candidates tout their “experience” as making them inherently better for the office than other contenders. It seems intuitive. After all, experience in our own lives suggests “experience” is helpful. However, while it is theoretically possible for “experience” to be valuable in a job, it is seldom actually available for this particular job. There are after all but a bare handful of living individuals who have ever worked even near the Oval Office (and that’s counting Vice Presidents which before Cheney actually was a quite diminished job, more of a coat holder function).

Fewer yet except maybe Jimmy Carter or Al Gore are eligible. Consequently, “experience” can only be one relatively small component in the overall determination of who should nominated. Moreover, those reciting the word as sort of a mantra to attack or shout down opponents need to recognize there are several unproven assumptions in the assertion.

For instance, none of the current candidates has ever been even president of a large company or chief executive officer of a significant bureaucracy. Fortunately or unfortunately, the executive-type experience (which none of them have) tends to be dramatically different from the legislative-type experience which all of them have. The latter experience usually is a series of forced cooperations, conciliations and compromises in order to accomplish anything as opposed to the former which gets the luxury of resorting to coercion more often than naught.

Even if any of the present three national office seekers had been quartered somewhere in the White House, the experience may have turned them into the worst possible later re-occupants. Cheney and Rumsfeld come to mind as prime examples of the genuinely dysfunctional value of such “experience.” We might be 3 Trillion dollars ahead in Iraq alone, not counted our dead and disabled, if we hadn’t relied on their alleged “experience.”

Moreover, other than having sat through state dinners which might grant a head start on protocol knowledge and adding a few extra business cards to the rolodex, there’s no conclusive evidence that being related to a President conveys any irreplaceable knowledge of the job of President itself. In fact, maybe the opposite is true. Look how badly we were served by various sons of Presidents gaining the office. Bush is merely the worst of the lot.

And, if experience was so useful, wouldn’t Castro or Kadafi be running perfect countries? Hardly any national leader has more experience than them. Or, is the history of kings and queens trained from birth to lead their countries demonstrative that “experience” is what is needed? If so, then maybe we should encourage Prince Charles to migrate here and seek office. Do anyone believe that his long tutorial will automatically lift Britain to new heights once his head hold the crown?

But, even if we ignored our history as to the purported value of experience, at least as to Presidents candidates, shouldn’t it matter more what type of experience it was? Whether the candidates appear to have truly learned from their experience? Were they in a position to actually learn something arguably useful that cannot be learned by other means or with minimal risk on the job? Better yet, did they learn the right things when they were gaining such experience? In other words, did they make costly mistakes? Most importantly of all, if they made mistakes and who doesn’t, are they adult enough to admit it and vow to change? If not, then such “experience” if any, might do us more harm then good.

Stump speeching and sound biting silly slogans is not enough. Sometimes, it’s better to select the cautious newbie than the arrogant oldie. In any event, tough questions ought to be asked and research done on all those who blithesomely insist experience automatically trumps everything else including facts and logic.

"PEOPLE I WOULD VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN ORDER OF PRIORITY"

Or, the "X"ing out the Choices

a. John Edwards
b. Bill Moyer
c. Tie: Dennis Kuchinichs or possibly his wife
d. Mike Bloomberg
e. Bill Richardson
f. Tie: Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton
g. Tie: John Anderson or Ross Perot if they are still alive
h. Just about any office holder of any party except the Republicans and Neo Nazis
i. Bill Gates so long as we were not required to use his operating system on our computers
j. Warren Buffett so long as he donates all his money to reduce the national debt
k. George Clooney so we can have a better looking class of female interns in the White House (they must not wear blue dresses though)
l. George Lucas so long as he promised not to redo any of his movies any more
m. Someone selected at random out of the phonebook so long as they were not already a convicted felon
n. The guy currently playing James Bond in the movies so long as he agrees he must fight any future Middle Eastern wars by himself
o. Ron Paul
p. A mental retard
q. Lindsay Lohan
r. Me
s. A Republican who actually believed in the words of the Constitution such as understanding freedom of religion includes freedom from religion or a Republican who actually believed in science, law, conservation, and conservatism ( I recognize these are mythical creatures, but if one ever comes into existence, then they could be on the list)
t. Ronald Reagan so long as he agrees to remain completely dead and doesn’t do anything
u. Arnold Schwarzenegger so long as he agrees to go back in time first and insure George Bush senior never meets Barbara Bush
v. Buzz Lightyear
w. The last man on earth

x. Bush, Cheney and anybody they ever nominated to any position of authority

“WHAT? ME WORRY?”

Or, Why We Need to Impeach the Prez and Darth Vader Today!

If anyone still needs a reason why we need to commence impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney immediately instead of just waiting for their term to expire, here’s several:

1. Their arrogance, carelessness or simple ignorance could drag us into a wasteful war with Iran or any of several other countries they don’t happen to like at the moment. Or, they could gratuitously make some of those country’s men sufficiently dedicated to attack us at home again.

2. Their strutting insensitivities and perennial clumsiness could also finish alienating the few allies we have left who might still trust or like us.

3. Their egos, lack of experience and aggressive whims could finish their depletion of our military capability and morale.

4. They could auction off the national forests, parks or other important assets.

5. They could assist in sending ever more jobs, not to mention our dollars, overseas and mortgage our future and independence deeper in debt to countries that would be delighted to see us stumble.

6. They could appoint still more unremovable, partisan and injudicious judges who would then be able to rigidly continue enforcing Bush’s bankrupt ideology for decades to come.

7. They could pardon all the criminals within their current administration and among their campaign contributors. They could simultaneously dismiss all ongoing regulatory efforts and suits attempting to keep our air breathable, our water drinkable, our food edible and our goods safe to use.

8. Their spying on opposition leaders could find enough material to blackmail them into submission, although it appears that may have already happened.

9. They could even initiate a coup to keep them selves in power by suspending the Constitution to “protect” us from “terrorists,” rounding up and permanently jailing or torturing anyone protesting as an “enemy of the state.” Or if not, what they have done already in emasculating the other branches of government will likely insure that future administrations will be able or at least attempt to be equally dictatorial.

10. They could drive us into a deadly recession or depression. Oops. Probably too late for that one.

Most important of all perhaps. If they escape without punishment of some sort, it pretty much invalidates all that this country once stood for.

“FAILURE TO OBJECT”

Or, Why There Aren’t More Protests in the Streets

The problem with the Bush Administration is that it has been so bad, so often, in so many ways, for so long, it has nearly destroyed our ability to be appalled. What would have once utterly horrified us, torture by our people being but one example, now seems commonplace, even expected. What would have once had us out in the streets mad enough to do something about it, now seems impossible to confront because there are simply too many forms of evils and insanities to fight and on so many different fronts and levels. It feels almost like trying to keep the tide from rolling in. Where once there would have been youthful enthusiasm to oppose, the unrelenting nature of the disasters and attacks being perpetrated by Bush and his minions ultimately generates ennui, inertia, fatigue and hopelessness symptoms slowing our responses molasses-like. Worse yet, too many people who might once have been in the forefront of the opposition are now too embarrassed, conflicted or cowardly to do so given their earlier fear generated, mob frenzied complicity in the excesses and abuses occurring in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

It’s all so depressing, it cancerously overwhelms and paralyzes our ability to cure or even effectively combat the hideous disease emanating from the Capitol.

THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE VIETNAM WAR

TO: Editor of Commentary Section
Oped Page
Oregonian Newspaper
1320 S.W. Broadway
Portland Oregon 97201

Dear Editor:

Your paper printed a lengthy diatribe by ____________ on January 13 that “the liberal media” (not defined, but apparently any journalist who dares disagree with him) was responsible for “losing” the Vietnam War. In selecting that piece for prominent display, did you happen to notice there was not a word either by him or you on whether we should have been there in the first place? That’s surprising given the recent admission the Gulf of Tonkin “Incident” used to justify the massive escalation was entirely fabricated by our leaders at the time.

Even if the Vietnam ruse de guerre had not been a bold faced lie, did you happen to notice there was not a word about whether the government there actually deserved to be propped up? And if it did, did it deserve the profligate expenditure of young American lives, not to mention our treasury and out hard earned credibility at all levels? Even ignoring genuinely debatable issues about South Vietnamese dictatorship and official corruption, didn’t you at least find it interesting that the same Communist government of the North we fought so hard against back then was last year loudly trumpeted by avowed Conservative Bush to award them “favored nation” trading status (the same Bush, by the way, who somehow found a way to avoid going there when he was in uniform)? So much for preserving the “national honor” which Conservatives profess they love when the prospect of new sources for lining their pockets apparently so easily trumps it.

There seemed to be a lot of pride in Mr. ___’s description of how good we were at piling up bodies back then. It’s true. The average grunt, particularly of the field ranks usually did his best which was pretty good despite the risible brass foolishly dictating frontal assault tactics like at Hamburger Hill (my old unit). On the other hand, shouldn’t there have been at least some reflection by Mr. ___ or your paper that a B-52 bomb run from 20,000 feet is not very good at discriminating between armed combatants and unarmed two year olds (not that we were ever very good at telling friend from foe even from across a table). There was not a word, not even an obtuse expression of regret, about the perhaps millions of admittedly dead and maimed, many of which were uninvolved, the “collateral damage” so blithesomely still being dismissed today as irrelevant?

It is conceded that Mr. ___ is probably correct when he claims reporting the actual news, rather than merely parroting whatever the military press releases said, hastened our exit. He is also spot on that the Viet Cong apparatus was essentially eliminated during the Tet defense. Nevertheless, he seems to have forgotten, as you apparently have, that the devastating Tet “surprise” which finally converted the journalists from being Army PR flacks back into genuine reporters was how stunningly massive the Tet attacks were in contrast to what our military had been alleging the Cong was still capable of doing. That was the big “surprise,” not the mere date of the attacks. The reporters might never have stopped trusting the military so completely but for the deceptions and duplicities the military had been playing up to that point. Unfortunately, once credibility has been lost due to exaggeration, it takes a generation to rebuild.

Mr. ___ is entitled to his forgetfulness, even his animosity toward the press in general. My problem is not with him although I disagree with his conclusions. I too share a modicum of that antipathy toward the Oregonian editorial staff or possibly the ownership if it is steering the direction.

I do understand why the Oregonian would want to print traditional right wing opinions like those of Mr. ___, no matter how much they ignore now confirmed history. After all, the word “Liberal” has been so smeared by people like Mr. ___ that your paper has become terrified of a mere label. But, isn’t your job description as journalists to resist such debasing of the English language? More over, isn’t it your ethical responsibility to courageously and, more importantly, accurately report the facts rather allow your readership to be mislead out of fear?

Your printing without comment correcting Mr. ___ rewriting and obfuscation of history sadly perpetuates a number of myths that became popular after that misadventure in Southeast Asia. The dangerous aspect is that because of that institutional memory loss we ended up repeating in Iraq many of the same arrogant ill considered mistakes.

So, stop being so gutless. When you print something, add the corrections. Certainly do so when the preponderance of the evidence is in. Perhaps the Democrats will never grow a backbone to stand up to such misinformation being disseminated by individuals like Mr. ___, but our democracy might not survive unless at least the press does.

“THEIR’S AND THEIR’S ALONE”

Or, Why the Entire Bill for Iraq Should Be Paid by the Republicans

They demanded we trust them because they, and they alone, knew best.

They proclaimed they, and they alone, could and would keep us strong and safe even though it turns out it was them foolishly pushing us into danger with their international chest thumping and posturing. They then proceeded to jeopardize us further with their laxity and inattention to the very details needed to actually keep us safe and strong.

When the almost inevitable blowback came, they expressed dumbfounded surprise, but still insisted we trust them, and them alone, because they were supposedly the only ones capable of bringing to justice those attacking us. Worse, they were secretly delighted because they believed it gave them a blank check to seek fulfilment of their hearts’ fondest desires, things they could never achieve otherwise in a sane society. In a cosmically comic irony, the violent response of others to our earlier ignorant arrogance was declared an excuse for new egregious excesses of our own, excesses unrelated to the real task at hand, catching criminals.

Reason, rationality, research, and reflection were all declared useless baggage. Common sense? How quaint. Something apparently to be ridiculed.

Impatient to proceed with their secret agendas, they then proceeded to lie about the most critical aspects of what they were doing and why. Heedless of possible consequences, they surged forward unprepared for future needs or end games or contingencies for the usual glitches and unintended effects that plague all wars. After all, according to them, they and they alone knew best. Plans? “We don’t need no stinkin’ plans” seemed to be their operating motto or at least their modus operandi. God was on their side or at least they declared it was. 9/11 - the violent precipitating event of our current troubles was perceived almost as a “gift from God” encouraging them to indulge in their own previously stalemated lust for violence against Unbelievers.

In any event, it became clear they had absolutely no trust in the rest of us at all, we who would have to carry out and bear the burdens of the policies they declared. Interestingly, they alternated between being terrified of us and dismissive of us. They certainly did not trust us with the truth having no confidence at all in their own persuasiveness to win any debates on the merits. They still don’t trust the courts, the Constitution, the Congress, the voters or the small portion of the press they could not isolate, intimidate, mislead, or bribe with perks.

Astonishingly, they lied about even things they did not have to lie about. They became almost textbook cases of the pathology known as “pathological liars.” Aided by their exclusive possession of all the nation’s “Top Secret” rubber stamps, they could lie with almost impunity.

Secrecy became an end in itself, especially useful to cover up mistakes and lies. Their cone of silence was broken only when revealing a state secret might prove useful to attack anyone who disagreed with them or might have proof of lies. This is yet another in the cornucopia of ironies they have gifted us. Having loudly declared secrecy was imperative and inviolate, they felt free to ignore or sacrifice it at whim. It did not seem to matter the cost to the country of the secrecy violations by themselves. That was somehow “different” and legal solely because they were the ones doing it.

When their lies or inconvenient and contradictory facts are ultimately discovered, they pretend it did not matter. It is sometimes so obvious they are wrong, they appear to be downright delusional. Their grasp on reality is becoming increasingly questionable at best.

Nevertheless, they successfully seized the carte blanc they demanded after 9/11 to do exactly what they wanted even before. They began diverting resources, bodies and money. They got all they claimed they needed. But, although a massive hemorrhaging of blood and money continues to pour out and has never stopped or slowed, about the only thing they have shown is that success in seizing power and deluding their own country is not necessarily a predictor of success in doing so in others. Beyond the subversion and perversion of this country’s former ideals, none of their stated goals, except the most minor of ones, one that could have been accomplished in other ways, were successfully accomplished.

That was probably because they tended to fire the people who understood the problems. They replaced those who knew how with liars, self aggrandizers, incompetents, zealots, crooks and even traitors (assuming the word “traitor” includes those who blatantly ignore the words in their oath of office about swearing to defend the Constitution). Many of the flunkies installed by them seemed to see it only as an opportunity to line their own pockets.

All of them, the ones in charge, the ones responsible for where we are today, repeatedly told us the task was almost finished. They told us so often that the phrase “mission accomplished” is now officially an oxymoron, an antonym for the words “success” or “completion.” Yet, what they really did was make the problems far worse, perhaps now unsolvable thanks to them. Plus, they irresponsibly cost our treasury and our grandchildren trillions. They cost thousands of our finest young dead, thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, more maimed mentally or physically. That doesn’t even begin to count the totally innocent women and children diminished as “collateral damage.” They cost us our morality, our good word, our trust, our unity, our ability to respond to disasters or future threats, and possibly even our future. They immeasurably weakened us in so many ways. They strengthened those who resolutely hate us, for good reason it turns out. So far the only things they have “accomplished” are to fulfill the fondest dreams of terrorists and those who wish us harm.

There is no end in sight as long as they are in charge. They have screwed it up so bad that thanks to them, and them alone, we can no longer “win” Iraq by any conceivable meaning of that word and the results of getting out are now almost as bad as staying. It is being to appear the only person who might have been able to do as much permanent harm to us would have been for the partisan Republicans sitting on the Supreme Court to have put Osama bin Laden in the Oval Office instead of Bush.

Yet, somehow when everything goes horribly wrong, as it has, they blame others, never ever themselves. For a religious person, the plagues we have been saddled with might make it appear that God is so irritated at those in Washington, he is aiding the other side.

Despite all that, despite the mounting evidence of stupidity and wrongdoing and costs, they still refuse to allow genuine debate and routinely refuse to listen to anyone who might disagree, no matter how conclusive the arguments or proof. They certainly never actually change their core tactics or use other tools. They cannot see anything of value in approaches except using force to get their way.

They seem incapable of cost/benefit analysis. Like a spoiled petulant child, they are utterly incapable of being sufficiently adult to admit when they are wrong so that it can be fixed. They are a party of rich white boys who continually cry “Wolf!” Worse, they have been downright thuggish in attacking anyone who disagrees even mildly on anything. They want to continue forever doing what clearly does not work.

On top of being steadfastly, unchangingly dishonest and/or outright stupid, many have turned out to be unbelievably corrupt. It can probably be said with little exaggeration they have never been right on any subject except how to steal elections, let alone any decision having anything to do with Iraq. It can probably be said as well that all the bank robbers plus all the welfare cheats of all of our history put together have not stolen, wasted or broken as much as this particular gang.

Why then are we still listening to anything they have to say? Why aren’t they impeached or already in jail? Why would anyone consider voting for any of their crowd? Not one is fit to be elected dog catcher, let alone run the country.

Granted, the Democrats have been the brightest of bulbs and they have their shares of liars, gutless wonders, cheats and moral degenerates. Yet, occasionally one or two of them break ranks and decide that their country and their oaths of office are more important than merely obtaining re-election. We can no longer assume that of Republicans.

They demanded we trust them because they alone knew what to do. Well, they got the honor, the power, the money, the volunteers, the opportunity, and year after year to do exactly what they wanted and what they said would work. The bill for Iraq is now due and rightly it is theirs and theirs alone. Let’s make them pay.

“THE EMPEROR IS NAKED, BUT STILL CARRIES A BIG STICK”

Or, the Danger in Counting the Republican Imperialists Out

Many Progressives and Liberals are gleefully pointing to evidence suggesting a truly deserved disintegration of the Republican Party. We should not be so sanguine however.

Regardless of the disarray their titular headless horseman delivers, he and his Neocons are not the only Republicans. After all, . . .

• Who owns or controls most of the ever decreasing number of mainstream media news outlets? (It doesn’t matter what the reporters find or want to say if they are not allowed to say it or can’t get a paycheck.)

• Who not only admits to secretly spying on Americans, but thinks it is a good idea? And, how likely it is they wouldn’t also use it to find potential blackmail of opposition candidates? (If someone thinks the other side is traitorous, then it is but a short step to believing that justifies any means to stop them.)

• Who builds and supplies most of the electronic voting machines and won’t allow inspection of the software codes or encourage paper duplicates of the ballots? (It doesn’t matter if you get the votes if they are not counted or reassigned.)

• Who currently appoints the investigators and prosecutors looking into voter fraud? (If potential voters or candidates can be intimidated, it matters little who they favor.)

• Who seeks out for appointment the most partisan possible judges, the ones who seem to care more for electing their fellow party members than honoring their oath of office? (If protecting those who put them in power seems more important than abstract principles, kiss the Constitution and its safeguards goodby. The number of them is going to increase between now and the election, not decrease.)

• Who had control of most of the legislatures after the last census which allowed new gerrymandering to take place? (With the next census still years away, a close to majority of seats in Congress still may be unassailable. And, the “coalition” of elected Democrats remains what only could be described as fragile given the diversity of opinions within that party. Anything less than a veto proof, filibuster proof, legislature means gridlock.)

• Who is master at exploiting the gullibility and irrationality of voters? (If lies or re-labeling are shouted loud enough, long enough and with a straight face, belief or at least confusion ensues. The fact that one person out of every four still is stating Bush is doing a good job and that one out of every two thinks Saddam had something to do with 9/11 speaks for itself.)

• Who still insists that “terrorism” or other diversions can only be handled by a dictator permanently in charge? (For most people, if theyare kept scared, they tend to be willing give up all to be safe even if the safety is an illusion, especially if there is no inference with their shopping or tv schedules. Too bad, the track records are never closely examined or compared against the rhetoric.)

• Who has been the prime beneficiary of the transfer of trillions of dollars from the lower and middle classes to the ultra rich over the past few decades? (Money still buys elections and the fact that some Democrats allegedly are drawing more openly disclosed campaign contributions prior to primaries reveals little about what can be tapped by Republicans once the post convention battle begins.)

• Who controls the stock market, the banks, and most of the means of production still remaining in this country? Who can impoverish traditional Democrat workers and their families simply by changing interest rates or moving factories or money overseas? (It used to be that there were penalties attached to such things. Now there are profits to be made and as a “bonus” organized opposition is crippled.)

Am I paranoid? Yeah. Why aren’t you? (It doesn’t even matter if the above results were unintentional. The consequences are the same.)

Combine all that with the unending incompetency and fearfulness of the Democrat “leaders” selected. If you need any further evidence, merely re-examine the results of the last two presidential elections and how different the outcome seemed at the time given the demographics. The Republicans probably cannot be blamed for the abysmal choices Democratic Party members made on who to run, but they do get a large share of the responsibility for resolutely shifting the arguments from the issues to unrelenting and unfair personal attacks. Maybe no voter bothers to listen to the issues anyway, but it is still depressing.

In any event, the current crop of Democrats in office astonishingly seem to have positioned themselves for getting tagged with both “losing” the Iraq fiasco and, if the coming recession doesn’t happen quick enough, that too. How is that even possible when Bush and his boys controlled every choice along the way? Doesn’t anyone remember anything? Yet, here we are.

Worse yet, some of the Democratic contenders seem to harbor envy of the exercise of unconstitutional, even criminal, powers exercised by the current occupants of the White House.

So, what solution? Maybe none, but here are at least a few thoughts.

1. Start writing. Write your local and national newspapers and magazines. Single out reporters by name. The addresses are easily available. Ask your local librarian for assistance if needed. Write your friends and relatives too. Remind them how critical the situation has become. Write your politicians, the agency heads and even CEOs. Remind them you are watching and shining a light on what they are doing. E-mail, snail-mail, text, handwritten notes. It doesn’t matter. What matters is you contacted them. Surprisingly, so few actually do contact others that even a few dozen letters can seem like a tsunami. Sometimes literally a handful can sway legislation as evidenced frequently by the FCC actions. We have millions of residents in Oregon, yet only about a thousand people on average write in each week of which about a hundred are published. The odds for you are one in ten at a large paper. At a small local paper, the odds of getting published start to approach 100%. Cost to you? A little time and stamps.Better yet, do all those things in person.

2. Start calling and visiting. You will be amazed how easy it is to speak to even the very top people in most organizations. Think it’s not possible? I have had governors, CEOs of large corporations and even Mike Wallace of “60 Minutes” fame returns calls direct without even having their secretary on the line first. Your local representatives will often fall all over themselves welcoming you. Just be brief and to the point. Seek a specific action and follow up to see if it is accomplished. Let them know you care enough to be persistent. If nothing else, attend the meetings and carcases. Cost to you? A little time and gas for the car.

3. File complaints. For instance, if the wrongdoer is a lawyer like the Attorney General and he suggests, say, that torture is constitutional, file a complaint with the state Bar Association and demand to know why he should be allowed to direct federal attorneys in Oregon. File a complaint with his home state’s bar to seek disbarment. Similar tactics are available for other licensed professionals. Contact their licensing agencies depending on who the miscreant is and what he does. The Better Business Bureau, numerous consumer protection and investigative agencies, the Ombudsman for the paper if it has one, the Postal Inspector if mail is involved, these are but a few of the possibilities. Filing a complaint usually cost nothing (unless it is a court complaint). Get on the agencies websites and get the forms. Remember, if the wrongdoers are tied up defending themselves in court or elsewhere, they have less time to get into mischief. Cost to you? A little time and stamps.

4. Before you start suggestions 1 through 3, do your research first. Have the facts and figures already at your fingertips when you talk to others. If they ask you a question or have an alleged fact contrary to your position, say you’ll get back to them and do more research. The answers are there. Get informed and stay informed. There is plenty of hard, convincing, downright indisputable evidence available on just about every issue in contention.

5. Suggestions for reading and listening material include The Nation, The Atlantic, “Counterspin,” mediamatters.org, truthdig.com, truthout.com, buzzflash.com, and commondreams.org. The latter two have links to others. If you need occasional levity to relieve the almost unrelenting bad news, try “The Daily Show” and dilbertblog.typepad.com.

Will it help? Don’t know, but it can’t hurt.

RAMBLING ABOUT ROVE'S RANTINGS

An open letter to the Editors and Owners of Newsweek Magazine Upon Learning Karl Rove Has Been Hired to Write for Them

Dear Newsweek Editors and Owners:

I have been a long standing subscriber to Newsweek, but your announcement that, of all people on earth, you plan to hire Karl Rove appalled me beyond belief.

Conservatives deserve a voice. I may not agree with all they say, but they have an important viewpoint that should be part of any debate. And, there are plenty of honest, moral, open, courageous Conservatives. There are intelligent, insightful, witty Conservatives capable of debating on the facts, the law and the issues rather than personalities and ego. In fact, there are even some genuinely conservative Conservatives left on the scene.

Why then have you chosen a proven ethics-abusive, narrow minded, dismissive, dishonorable, even vicious partisan who is a self avowed antagonist to many of our most precious Constitutional principles? Why have you given a formerly respectable outlet to someone who has been systematically attacking our way of life? Mr. Rove has not only been proven consistently wrong on most of the important issues (other than getting Bush elected), but probably should have been indicted in one or more of the scandals deservedly plaguing his boss’s administration.

Frankly, you have done enormous harm to Journalism. Your judgments are not longer to be trusted or given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, please cancel my subscription with the first issue of your magazine that gives Rove a new forum for lies.

I doubt anyone other than one of your interns will ever read this, but God help America. Surely, Newsweek no longer will.

"WHAT IF JACK BAUER IS WRONG?"

Or, The Alternative Torture Scenario

The Neocons’ favorite justification for legalizing torture is the now infamous “we’ve captured a terrorist who won’t tell us where the bomb is hidden.” That rationalization is popular and persuasive to some probably because it contains an unstated false premise - that we actually have captured a genuine terrorist who has useful information. This "Jack Bauer Scenario" also presupposes guilt, a determination our founding fathers insisted should be determined in a more methodical process, notwithstanding the brilliance of "24" tv scriptwriters in eternally ferreting out all terrorists.

Given the Keystone Kops the Neocons tend to put in charge of things, the likelihood of them really catching a competent terrorist who has hidden a bomb somewhere rather than just setting it off immediately is probably less than you being eaten by a shark in Kansas. Moreover, both studies and anecdotal information from professional interrogators indicate that physical torture seldom produces reliable information. It is not that the torturee won’t talk, it’s that he or she will say absolutely anything to stop the pain or drowning, true or not. In addition, other techniques, including drugs, have proven more productive even in the short run when circumstances frighten those who say all our rights must be violated.

Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let’s grant the Neocons their fantasy scenario, but change one aspect of it. Let’s suppose there is a genuine terrorist and he personally hid a bomb under the White House. Hmmm. On second thought, maybe we should say it’s hidden elsewhere since many wouldn’t mind it going off there unless it was big enough to take out the Smithsonian and National Museum of Art as well. No, let’s say instead the bomb is buried under an orphanage somewhere and we discover proof positive (as opposed to this Administration’s usual mere suspicions, assumptions and ideology). Let’s assume for once we got lucky and traced the unknown evildoer who buried it to a high rise residential building with a thousand people in it, 666 of which are innocent women and children and 332 of which are innocent men. We don’t know who among them is the bomber, but let’s say Jack Bauer has discovered the secret bomber has been residing on that particular street.

What do you do now Neocons? Torture everyone in the building? The Neocons insist it is okay to abandon the Constitution if it is just one foreigner. Is it okay to abandon it for a thousand people? Or, should we torture just the men? (Yeah right. No one under 21 ever was recruited to cause harm and no woman ever had a grievance against our society.) Torture just those who are of a darker skin tone or foreigners with an accent on the assumption that only they would bomb a building? (Oops, forgot about Timothy McVeigh, didn’t we?) Torture only the non-Christians? (I don’t think any of our abortion clinic bombers though claimed they were Muslim.) Torture just those wearing turbans? (That’s going to irritate pretty badly the entire country of India and all its Hindus and turban wearing Siekhs, not to mention everyone of that religion living in this country.) Torture only those who have guns in their homes? (Wow, that would be a tough one for the Neocons who also tend to be almost pathological when it comes to defending the portion of the Constitution regarding freedom to have guns. Their willingness to abandon almost all other Bill of Rights Amendments is almost amusing considering that Neocons insist even one regulation or hinderance of the right to own armor piercing 50 caliber rifles capable of bringing down passenger liners puts us on a “slippery slope.” ) So, what about torturing only those who have a two days growth of beard and non-blond hair? In other words, Central Casting’s concept of villains?

Remember, this scenario leaves 999 maimed and scarred on their bodies and/or their minds trying to find the one terrorist hidden among them. Neocons though seem to be saying that torture is still a good idea even then because we save more lives than will be lost. That is an unproven conclusion, but okay, suppose we know the bomber is somewhere in a city of a 100,000 and we know the bomb is a nuclear one which might kill 100,001? Still a good idea? The cost/benefit ratio is greater on the side of benefits by one. (Remember, this scenario leaves 999 maimed and scarred on their bodies and/or their minds trying to find the one terrorist hidden among them.)

Heck, let’s say the bomber is in Portland and the nuclear bomb is a hydrogen one shipped into the port of New York or LA. Now the saving ratio is perhaps ten to one. As to Portland, should we say . . . too bad? That’s the risk you take of living in a “war zone?” Collateral damage so to speak?

Neocons would probably gleefully wipeout liberal Portland given the chance although they might not be too energetic considering that only savings New York and LA rather than, say, Houston.

Neocons would probably gleefully wipeout liberal Portland given the chance although they might not be too energetic considering that only savings New York and LA rather than, say, Houston. The way to combat such nonsense is to counter with something Scott Adams suggested in his blog as a possible way to negotiate a settlement with Iran to prevent them from getting the bomb. He suggested we offer Iran the testicles of Bush and Cheney in exchange for a permanent inspection right to insure no bombs are being made. IF THERE IS EVEN A 1% CHANCE THAT IT WOULD WORK, WE MUST TAKE IT!

“SAME ARMY, DIFFERENT WARS”

Or, Rank Has its Version

General David Petraeus, a former commander of the 101st Airborne Division on its last tour in Iraqis currently in charge of Bush’s “surge” efforts there. He will be returning shortly to pontificate on how Bush’s latest plan to “win” the war supposedly has been going. The snippets he has leaked to date suggest he will proclaim it’s, metaphorically, going great guns. In an alternate view published recently by the New York Times, seven sergeants who have actually been on the streets carrying out the surge provided their own personal observations and they could not be more contrasting.

What the two versions reveal is that there are basically two types of soldiers in most wars, those with the rank of major and above and those with the rank of captain and below. The former see the war as symbols on a map or, at closest, from helicopter height. These days, their's is the world of air conditioned comfort, hot meals, and clean, even pressed, uniforms. The only natives they meet tend to be just the local warlords and ward healers, usually corrupt ones at that. These upper rank officers, the ones with lots of gold braid and shiny brass, may get out in the field occasionally, but seldom for long. And, far too many never listen to those below them, particularly those in the enlisted ranks. The field grade officers, a misnomer, typically remain isolated even when completely surrounded by obsequious underlings.

The soldiers actually in the field, the grunts, those at the sharp end, see the war very differently. They see it up close and personal. They can’t miss the puddled blood and splattered gray matter. Perhaps circumstances force them to lie in it at times. They get to smell the indescribable stench of long dead or burned flesh that never leaves the nostrils once experienced. They taste the grit. They freeze. They bake. They hear, or worse, actually feel in their chest, the uniquely terrifying deep krump concussion of mortars dropping nearby. They understand that unlike in the movies, it does not matter how much a super soldier you are if the mortar shell decides to share your foxhole or if the AK-47 bullet happens to share the same airspace. They walk at night unable to see the trip wires, notwithstanding the high tech starlight scopes and infrared gear they wear. They often have reason to curse the limits of technology toys, particularly the untested new ones foisted on them by defense contractors more interested in surging profit than supporting the troops. They know the limits of human endurance by packing 80 pounds of gear on their own backs and eating cold MREs. They experience the real effects of the war, not the sanitized versions the history professors will later write. The grimy sweaty enlisted men and the lowest ranking officers actually leading them on foot learn all too well what war does to both to their own friends and the civilians they were there to protect. Interestingly, the enemy combatant sometimes earns greater respect than the REMFs who “lead” our own troops only from bunkers located far in the rear.

In any event, the view of war from the perspective of the ordinary infantryman carrying a rifle and searching buildings is one of almost relentless stress, worry, dirt, thirst, pain and fatigue. The one good thing, and occasionally very bad thing when death sickles a buddy, is the close comradery that can develop from the shared, often communal, experience among those fighting the war as captains, lieutenants, sergeants and privates.

These two very different views of the same conflict; i.e. the “higher highers” vantage point versus those scuttling, sometimes literally, on their bellies seeking cover, are so dramatically different that it is almost as if they are fighting different wars. Neither can really understand the other, yet both desperately need to communicate because each has critical information the other lacks.

The best commanders, sadly they’re quite rare, seem to be those who have endured enough close combat at some point in their careers to develop a genuine and lasting empathy with the enlisted ground pounders permanently assigned to kick down the doors. It needs to be long enough for the commander to discover that the enlisted men have useful and practical information. It needs to be long enough for the adrenalin rush to hard wire the experience into muscle memory. Merely earning the combat infantry badge is not enough. That only necessitates being under fire once. Unfortunately, what is probably needed for the lessons to really take hold is to be under fire long enough to lose someone they really cared about. That is when they finally learn the uncountable costs of combat and to not be wasteful of others’ lives. They certainly need to have taken the combat tour assignment for something more than just getting their ticket punched to show they met all their future promotion requirements.

Is General Petraeus one of those commanders men in uniform would consider worth following up a hill? I don’t know. Having served in the 101st Airborne myself, I hope so out of unit pride. But, if it becomes a question of whether to believe the seven doubting sergeants who have been carrying out Bush’s “surge” house to house or believing some general arbitrarily put in power by Bush, my inclination is to put more trust in the observations of the ones who happened to have observed events at grenade distance. They may not have the “big picture,” but the big picture type of guys like Bush’s buddies seem to have been uniformly and horribly wrong.

Besides, when breaking in doors and interacting with civilians in other ways, it is pretty easy for the average boot wielder to get a pretty good feel for at least whether or not the locals are genuinely interested in behaving. Body language is quite eloquent in situations like that. The number of bobby traps discovered divided by whether or not the locals give warnings before such traps are discovered the hard way equals the pucker factor. It is usually a far better predictor than the ideologies and egos of those at high levels who never have contact with the average citizen of the country sought to be subdued.

And, since we are not trying to simply exterminate the populace, isn’t that the one key question in Iraq; i.e., whether they are really interested in behaving themselves? As almost every guerilla war in the past century seems to have shown, until the populace decides they really want to have peace and solve their own problems, it becomes just a bottomless pit. On that subject, the cynical pessimists (which combat troops usually become after extended months under fire) are less likely to indulge in wishful thinking except the wish to go home. Therefore, is General Petraeus routinely seeking the unfiltered comments of his enlisted men who go out beyond the concertina wire every night? If he is, I would feel more confident that his reports will be reliable.

What is bothersome regarding the unknown qualities of General Petraeus is that Bush is not known to allow anyone in a position of authority who might disagree with his particular world view, even in private. Bush unconsciously seems to prefer someone more incompetent than himself so that he can look good in comparison. (How else would you explain “Heckofajob” Brownie for instance.) Consequently, a logical fear is that General Petraeus might be another crony type or an ambitious one. After replacing all the generals who accurately predicted the mess before the war even started and got fired for saying so, it is hard to have confidence that Bush’s latest selection is unafraid to report reality.

Even if General Petraeus is fully competent, inclined to speak his own mind and has good intelligence regarding Iraq’s present situation though, there probably will not be any genuine two way communication between him and Bush. In fact, General Petraeus might be expressly ordered by his commander in chief not to convey any message or facts contrary to the White House daily delusions. Remember, although Bush obviously likes to pretend he is a warrior by dressing up in flight suits, he was too gutless actually put himself where he could even hear the sound of guns which means he has no shared combat experience on even war in general, let alone Iraq, despite his brief sneaks into the county at night. Once again, it suggests what the seven sergeants and those like them have to say on whether the surge is serviceable is more likely to be accurate than what a higher ranking politically appointed general has to say.

It should be noted I have nothing per se against those who quite wisely seek to avoid places where you can be killed. If Bush had confined himself to hiding out during the Vietnam War, that would merely have been self preservation instincts at work. I do have a problem though when the person hiding out insists that the war is a great idea and that others go in his place. The reason I draw the distinction is because when our “deciders” lack that shared sacrifice under fire so important to comprehension, it almost insures a lack of understanding as to both the realistic capabilities of our soldiers and the full costs when trying to conquer.

Let us hope General Petraeus is one of the good commanders who can still remember when he was younger huddling scared in the same hole as his men. Let us hope he recognized that others had valuable information. Let us hope he has the cajones to attempt to educate his boss. A good start might be for General Petraeus to bring those seven sergeants with him on his next visits to the White House and Congress.

If Bush would ever listen to what the troops actually have to say, as the seven sergeants have attempted to share, we would be a lot stronger or wiser, at least not have as many dead and wasted. Of course, that would require that Bush actually care about the troops he so willfully expends.


[Written by a former SSG, 3rd/187th battalion, 101st Airborne, Vietnam era. Lawlessone was his radio call sign.]

“WHO WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT”

Or, Is Everyone a Lesser Evil?

Looking back and contemplating who would have been a better choice to serve as President, the urge to compile a list becomes irresistible. Here’s my top ten.

1. Bill Moyers. Intelligent, honest, researches before speaking, acts on facts rather than his guts, humble, appears to be genuinely compassionate rather than just mouthing the words for political gain, and is not tainted with cronyism and corruption. Last but not least, he always speaks excellent English instead of frequent gibberish. While he is not a professional politician, considering how badly the pros have been serving us, that’s a plus.

2. Al Gore. Since he actually won the election, it is only fair thing to include him, not to mention how he has proven to be so superior - intellectually, ethically as well as morally - to Bush. With the Academy Award, all he needs to complete a trifecta is the Nobel Prize although a Pulitzer or two wouldn’t hurt. Bush on steroids might have been an apt analogy for Gore if baseball Bonds had not put muscle juice in such disfavor.

3. Mike Bloomberg. Gosh. It is so refreshing to discover a politician acting like an adult should; i.e. showing he is not too embarrassed or too stubborn to change mind based on new info. Someone who is a fiscal conservative to the extent of believing in paying his bills while not wasting capital on capriciousness, yet still someone who seems to respect basic rights and recognizes there are some things that only government can do. If you stop to think about it, that’s probably what a true majority of Americans actually believe and how they try to lead their own lives.

4. Bill Maher. I know. He’s a comedian. But, at least he is an intentional one rather than a sad clown who shocks us by inadvertently initiating awesomely stupid stunts. How about where he is caught on film molesting the female leader of the German Republic or talks to the leader of Great Brittan with his mouth full of food? Funny stuff. Not so funny are the games played in Iraq. Sure, Maher has no foreign policy experience. That didn’t disqualify Bush though. Maybe Maher could make us laugh instead of cry as to how the White House is run.

5. Any Dead President with the operative word being “dead.” At least a dead president could do little harm. Well, come to think of it, maybe it shouldn’t be the dead Reagan. His devotees still manage to create a lot of mischief in his name.

6. Someone Selected at Random from Phone Book. Ancient Athens did it. Yes, Yes. Statistics insists that selecting office holders by lottery would result in a certain percentage of mental defectives and crooks. Fortunately though, the percentage would be smaller.

7. A typical 13 Year Old Boy. Granted, that would be putting a self centered, trash talking, violence loving, mean spirited, unthinking, hormonal driven, partially educated, braggart in the Oval Office. At the same time, at least it would have been no worse than Bush on a typical day.

8. Anyone Who Got at Least a “B” in Math, History, Geography and Social Studies Without Cheating. Come to think of it, anyone who got a B in even one of those subject and was capable of remembering what they learned would be a better President than the one we got.

9. Osama bin Laden. Yeah, I know. On the other hand, if the Republican Supreme Court had anointed bin Laden instead of Bush, at least we would have known he was a dedicated enemy of our Constitution, our ideals, our democracy, our economy, our environment, our workers, our children, our elderly and our soldiers. Better yet, we could have listened to what he said and known to do the exact opposite which is what we should have done with Bush all along.

10. Next to Last Person on Earth. Well, maybe there are a few more people than that worse than Bush. I acknowledge it. After all, I would not want anyone to think I am deliberately exaggerating or indulging in hyperbole here. But, you must admit the list of those who would have caused less harm is so long, it very possibly would be easier and shorter to list those would have been worse than Bush.

Who’s on your list?

“ARE THERE PRISON STRIPES IN BUSH’S FUTURE?”

Or, Ten Reasons Why Bush Assumes He won’t be Jailed

Other than the fact that Bush is utterly delusional and divorced from reality, why isn't he appearing more afraid of the day when a new President has access to the White House files? Surely, given what has already been found out about the many formerly secret and highly illegal activities, he must be worried about what will be disclosed when Cheney is no longer stamping all incriminating evidence “top secret” and forbidding staffers to be subpoenaed. Perhaps he forgot the classification of something as secret can be reversed just as easily as Bush himself already declassified and disclosed more important national security matters such as the Phlamegate “outing.”

Does he . . .

1. . . . believe he has actually done a great job and committed no crime? Not even Nixon seemed to believed that.

2. . . . believe that he can keep everything buried? Like cornered beasts in a cage, the Republicans are already starting to turn on and bite one another. Heck, some Republicans may want to investigate just to clear themselves of Bush’s tar baby taint.

3. . . . believe that the next President automatically will pardon him as Ford did Nixon to supposedly “heal” the country? That seems to assume a lot, especially if the Democrats gain control as seems likely given the way the nation is headed.

4. . . . believe that the Democrats are too timid, weak or ineffectual to pursue the matter once he is out of office? Well, he may be right about that in light of the timid, weak and ineffectual response of the Democrats over the last seven years on just about everything. The voters though may replace irresponsible Democrats as well as Republicans in the next election with office holders who actually care about their oath of office to defend the Constitution.

5. . . . believe that he is untouchable because all his life someone has bailed him out of his many, many, many failures? Sorry Bush, the law of averages finally catches up to almost everyone. Murphy’s Law should have stopped him far earlier, but it is a “law” of a sorts and does seem to work. Besides, no one on earth, not even Bill Gates has enough money to bail the country out of the fiscal mess he has created, let alone the moral and ethical ones.

6. . . . believe that there are no prosecutors smart enough to convict him? Granted, the prosecutors normally selected by Republicans such as Ken Starr, Alberto Gonzales and the dufus who almost got the Padilla case (where the defendant freely admitted guilt of being a terrorist) thrown out of court tend to be an amazing collection of bumbling barristers unable to tie their own shoes. Nevertheless, not every available prosecutor is a Right Wing hack put into office solely for his or her slavish adulation of Bush. Out of the million or so licensed attorneys out there, there are many relatively bright prosecutors fully competent of finding at least one criminal act for which Bush should be jailed or turned over to an international tribunal.

7. . . . believe he will be forgiven for frivolously wasting lives, not to mention our treasury, our security, our military, our soil, our air, our forests, our country’s integrity and honor and allies, and you name it ad infinitum? Good luck on that one, Bushie. Those of us who want to prevent such fiascos in the future see a need to bring you to justice if for no other reason than future crime deterrence and dictatorship avoidance.

8. . . . believe that even if disgraced and punished he will ultimately be seen as a Christian martyr in future histories saving civilization from the Muslim horde? Okay, he is free to hope for that so long as he spends a long time in jail first.

9. . . . believe that the unshakable 25% who still faithfully support him will bust him out of jail? They are a rabid unreasoning bunch to be sure, but as unthinking cult-like followers, it is not evident that they would even be capable of sufficient independent thought to pull that off.

10. . . . believe Cheney will successfully pull off a coup and entrench fellow Neocons in power for the next several decades. He did come close to establishing an despicable dictatorship and apparently dreamed of family hereditary appointment like Caesar or Napoleon hoped. Fortunately, the minions he entrusted to accomplish that permanent takeover were just too incompetent. If you use the Keystone Kops as your Korp of Korruption, you get a komedy of errors. A tragic comedy perhaps, but a happy ending for the rest of us.

Nah. It’s probably none of those. Bush probably really is just delusional and divorced from reality.


[more irreverence at http://resistence-is-possible.blogspot.com]

“APPARENTLY THE WARRANTY ON THE CONSTITUTION HAS ELAPSED”

10 Motives to Fear Why the Democrats Voted to Allow Continuation of Warrantless Searches

I can see only ten potential reasons why those currently (and hopefully temporarily) in control of the Democratic Party so cravenly caved in to Bush and conspired with him to violate the Constitution and our fundamental freedoms by granting him near dictatorial powers for spying and searching without warrants:

1. They have never bothered to read the Constitution. Maybe all they have time to read is bribe requests from lobbyists.
2. They do not understand or have forgotten how central it is to our democracy and what we stand for in the world. D’oh.
3. They can’t read or are of such minimal intellectual capacity that they cannot comprehend the plain meaning and obvious intent of the words. It makes Bush’s stumbling through a children’s story while 9/11 was in progress seem professorial in comparison.
4. Their copies of the Constitution are missing several important pages. I wouldn’t put is past Bushites to razor blade all copies they can locate, but I am beginning to doubt the ability of Democrats to notice.
5. They don’t care or they are lazy, or incompetent or cowards afraid of a fight. From their actions over the last several years, this is sadly an emerging pattern.
6. They have been bought off or being blackmailed. Wouldn’t it be an interesting irony if whatever blackmail is being used was obtained by this same illegal power the Executive Branch has been using for years to secretly search communications?
7. They are more interested in preserving their perks of office than they are obeying their oath of office in which they expressly swore to defend the Constitution. The oath, by the way, is not to defend people or places from attack by terrorists, but to defend the CONSTITUTION.
8. They do not recognize how easily the power to spy and search without warrants can be abused. Nothing prevents it from being used against Americans for purely partisan purposes such as finding dirt to blackmail or destroy political opponents. This is especially possible when there is little or no oversight such as a neutral court to help, at least a little, to discourage violations. That is why the founding fathers made the absolute prohibition such a key and highlighted provision. If the ambiguous prohibition against infringing the right of “militias” to bear arms has been interpreted so broadly that it is perceived as allowing everyone to have any guns they want, then surely an explicit and unequivocal prohibition against searches without warrants ought to be enforced as written.
9. They do not believe Bush and his monomaniacal cabal are capable of using the power in ways not allowed by law. Actually, if this is the reason, it falls into the gross stupidity category already mentioned above since how could anyone who reads not be aware of what Bush and the minions he exemplifies have been doing?
10. They see themselves gaining control of the White House and want the power to spy and search without warrants for themselves.

Keep in mind that to prevent this particular assault on the Constitution, all the Democrats had to do was simply not bring the bill up for a vote. Nothing else. It would have automatically died a natural death this Fall. They did not need to fear a Presidential veto. They did not have to worry about a filibuster stalling work in Congress for a lengthy period. They did not have to worry about having enough votes to win. They did not have to worry about looking ineffectual. They would have greatly pleased their constituents. There would have been little harm as evidenced by the fact that the millions of violations by Bush for literally years so far has not actually accomplished anything useful in saving the nation for harm. The Democrats did not have to even take a position one way or the other and would have had cover by claiming it was not their fault. They could have legitimately said hundreds of bills never see the light of day and there are other things of more importance claiming attention on their limited time. Consequently, they had little worry that doing nothing could be effectively used against them when running for office.

Why then did the Democrats bizarrely go along with a lengthy extension of the surveillance and wiretapping of Americans without warrants outrage? It is not clear which of reasons speculated above resulted in such gross offenses against the Constitution, but whatever the reason, it is scary. We apparently need to replace the present Democrats in Congress as well as the President and all his followers.

Maybe what we need on ballots is a “NONE OF THE ABOVE” option when voting so that a new election is immediately held and none of those running at the time are permitted to be in the new race.

“THE APPARENTLY PRANKSTER FOUNDING FATHERS”

Or, According to Today’s Politicians, the Drafters of the Constitution Really Had Their Fingers Crossed When It Was Written

Let’s see if I understand this correctly. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution of which it is a part expressly state no searches shall be allowed without warrants. Together they are the governing documents for our society.

The Bush Administration however was secretly and illegally searching without warrants for years although through the entire period there was an easy and quick way to obtain warrants in a totally secret court even after the searches had already been completed. That latter Act, passed in a time of unreasoning fear and shortsightedness, is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA. Its allowance of retroactively granted warrants is or should be of questionable validity. After all, anything allowing searches without warrants is of questionable constitutionality given the unambiguous prohibition in the supreme law of the land, not to mention the inherent danger of such a power being abused by the party in control of the Executive Branch. There is too much of a temptation to use it to spy on political opponents seeking dirt to blackmail or silence them. Remember after all, the Neocons touting Bush as the second coming have already publically declared at various times anyone who disagrees with them is ipso facto a “traitor” and guilty of “aiding” our enemies.

Despite Bush and his buds having an ostensibly legal Act on the books granting them permission, if they would just follow a couple of minuscule requirements, to do want they wanted, basically to secretly spy on just about anyone they wanted and search damned near all communications, they chose to ignore the Act in its entirety. The Administration implicitly acknowledged literally millions of violations. Arrogantly, the President did not even bother to seek the sweeping powers granted under FISA to invade privacy. He insisted he has an absolute right to do such searches and spying regardless of what that or any other law says. In fact, Bush and the Bush apologists seemed perversely proud of the fact that they were ignoring the Constitution. They practically bragged about it and used it in political campaigns seeking to keep them in power.

It is easy to see why the President felt he could openly thumb his nose at the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The Republican Party dominated Congress at the time and rubber stamped whatever their anointed Caesar did or desired. To show their complicity in the destruction of the Constitution and its safeguards, rather than impeach the President for admitted violation of his oath of office to defend the Constitution as written, the then Republican dominated Congress passed a new Act declaring the Constitution should be ignored on this point. Fortunately, the potential oppression under that new Act was not made permanent. It was about to expire and the Republic was about to be saved, at least from that particular attack on freedom. Hallelujah.

Better yet, the Republicans no longer controlled Congress and it would not matter that they still made the Supreme Court and the White House bark a Neocon Republican tune. The current Democratic Party leadership, had been elected for the primary purpose of putting a break on the imperialist cravings and excesses of the Bush Administration and had the ability to block re-enactment. Best of all, surely they would oppose re-enactment since they had been complaining mightily about the many, many ways Bush and his boys have been trashing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They had also been complaining that bills they attempt to pass themselves to rein in Bush II’s reign were getting vetoed or threatened to be vetoed, frustrating their efforts.

Here, they did not have to experience the frustration of a veto. They did not have to face the painful decision of using any of the 10,852 other reasons they had to impeach Bush, Cheney, Gonzales and others in the Bush monarchy continuing to gleefully violate their oaths swearing to defend the once proud and useful Constitution. Since the dictatorial searches without warrants “law” pasted by the Republicans was about to run out of its own accord, it was the perfect opportunity for the Democrats to do some good finally with their majority position in both houses. All they had to do was do NOTHING. Nothing at all, which is something they seem to be good at. They could have simply keep their mouths shut and not bring up a renewal of the obnoxious and dangerous spying law for a vote. It would have finally died of its own accord. It would have been VETO PROOF for once since the Prez cannot veto what is not passed nor can the Supreme Court overturn not passing a law.

Amazingly, astonishingly, mind blowingly though, the emasculated wimps in the Senate whose symbol is a jackass have decided to let the President continue his violations of the wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I cannot decide if current slate of Democrats in control have never read the Constitution, have only read a copy with pages missing, don’t think it is important, believe their oaths of office are quaint anachronisms, feel their personal power is more important, are gutless, are lazy, are incompetent, still believe anything emanating from Bush’s mouth or some combination of those. Do the Democrats want the spying/searching power for themselves now that they assume they will gain control of the White House?

Rather than acquiescing to Bushies constant demands for Kingship, rather than seeking how closely they can shave the Constitution, why aren’t the Democrats seeking to expand civil rights and protections or at least attempting to return them to something more closely resembling the actual wording of the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Why are the Democrats saying the new extension of the Presidents right to search and spy without warrants is only for a short period of time? Forget tacking on minor restrictions which the President has already promised to veto or ignore, why was there a vote to extend at all? Why, why, why?

Why aren’t they listening to their constituents or re-reading their sworn oaths of office? Moreover, why aren’t they looking at the general track record and proclivities of the Bushies on issues such as this when the Bushies assert such a power is needed? Has anyone in the Administration or the pundits who applaud and encourage him ever been ultimately proven right on anything? Anything at all?

We need to undo everything Bush and his minions have done. We need to undo them loudly to let the world know we are no longer a proto-fiefdom operating on whim and ego. We need to replace everyone who was ever hired or appointed Bush or at a minimum those who didn’t quit in disgust or get replaced. Why are we then perpetuating Bush aggrandizements such as his warrant less searches and ubiquitous spying on Americans?

I am starting to think we need to replace all the current leadership of the Democrats as well as all Republicans. This latest fiasco has lead me to wonder if we wouldn’t be better off having office holders at all levels selected at random similar to how jury pools are chosen. That way we might at least have a statistical chance of putting people in office who have common sense, are honest, ethical and honor the genius of our Founding Fathers who designed a marvelous document. Granted, statistics suggest a certain percentage of those who might be randomly selected for office would be morally deficient or mentally incompetent, but the percentage would be smaller apparently than what we have now. In any event, I for one am tired of the Constitution being trashed by both parties so blatantly.

At a time when Republicans are terrifying in their attempts to establish a lasting dictatorship, why do the Democrats have to be so gullible and ineffectual? Is it a sign democracy in this country is doomed? It will be unless we let the Democrats know their actions on things like renewing the warrant less searches law are unacceptable.

"EXECUTIVE DISORDER"

Or, Bush's latest Surge against the Constitution

You are not going to believe it. Go to the White House website at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html# and read the July 17, 2007 Executive Order in which Bush announces that he plans to give the Secretary of the Treasury power to, among other things, seize all assets of anyone in this country even suspected of posing a "significant risk" that they might disagree with any Iraq goals or policies of Bush. It supposedly will be confined to those suspected of undefined "acts of violence," but considering it extends to future suspected acts as well and considering Bush already has the Secret Service arrest even spectators at campaign event for merely wearing a contradictory t-shirt, not to mention he often conflates all dissenters and opposition as traitors, there is good reason to fear how he will interpret the possibility those he does not happen to like or trust might commit supposedly violent acts.

Executive Orders have the force of law and this one is scary as hell in its implications. Unfortunately, except through the Ron Paul website, no one in Congress or running for office seems to have even mentioned it.

Frankly, I would not want any President to hold such power, no matter how much I might agree with the Chief Executive on other things. And, my by now well justified lack of trust in the Bush Administration not capriciously exercising such total power is infinite.

My guess is not even the most rabid right winger on the Republican Supreme Court would uphold it when tested, but in the years it would take you to fight it through the courts, you could be without access to a dime of your assets the entire time. It gives the power to seize your home, your paychecks, your car simply because of suspicion, not proof or conviction.

If this particular Executive Order is not a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" against the Constitution as well as a violation of the President's Oath of Office, what the hell is? This is exactly what the impeachment remedy was designed by the Founding Fathers to protect against. What does it take to get our elected representatives and senators off their rear ends and convene for the process?

The only saving grace in this whole frightening effort by Bush and Cheney to apparently grant themselves essentially unrestricted control is that they have so broken our military, our domestic law enforcement agencies and our obviously ironically named "justice" department, is that they might not be able to accomplish their hoped for effective abolishment of the Constitution's ideals.

"IMPEACHMENT NOW"

Or, an Open Letter to Congress

Would someone please explain to me why a bill of impeachment has not been filed against President Bush, Vice President Cheney and possibly Attorney General Gonzales.

When you gave your own oath of office in Congress, you solemnly swore to personally defend our Constitution. Since I, and apparently nearly a majority of your constituents, already suspect no one in the nation today is working harder to subvert the Constitution than those particular officials, I do not understand why an impeachment is not already underway. Given the magnitude of the potential harm, we want to know, one way or another, if our fears are correct.

An impeachment is not only an important component of the Constitution, one the founding fathers mentioned several times, it is an investigative process with the power to force revelation of the truth under oath backed up by penalties for perjury. It was expressly designed for grave times such as these. Since we don't have the "no confidence vote" alternative of European countries, it is something we desperately need at the moment.

Filing an impeachment is not a Constitutional crisis itself. It is the genius way the drafters of the Constitution enabled us to prevent or cure any such crisis, a way to avoid the civil disobedience and even war possible when the public loses confidence in the government. It is, or should be, the adult way to finally allow, or if necessary force, dialogue on issues which are tearing us apart.

Filing an impeachment is not a pre-ordained end result in which the accused are automatically removed from office. It is simply the beginning of a necessary procedure to protect the Constitution and the nation from the occasional individuals who, because of power hunger, arrogance, ignorance or incompetence, feel the Constitution should be ignored. Perhaps these three individuals are innocent, but let the evidence, not cowardice, determine that. We need the “transparency” of government which impeachment can provide. Besides, even if Congress affirmatively acts on the impeachment and concludes removal of the offending official from power is mandated, it does not impose any actual punishment such as jail or a fine. Assuming they are not caught in a material lie under oath, there are no consequences to anyone removed from office other than embarrassment. Moreover, if they renounce the errors of their ways before a final vote, admit their mistakes and allow open oversight to insure it does not happen again, the process can be suspended.

Impeachment should not be frivolously invoked and never for a purely partisan purpose or advantage, but it must not be eternally “off the table.” If these acts of which those three are accused are not considered “high crimes and misdemeanors,” then what is? Unfortunately for our country, if impeachment is not occasionally used, it will be lost as a future protection. Do you want to be responsible for that happening?

If you do not initiate an impeachment, then you yourself weaken the Constitution by making that particular check and balance worthless. Silence is tacit approval of whatever malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance the accused have done.

So, do the right thing, for the right reason and do it right now. Convince us that your failure so far to impeach this particular President and his underlings is not merely because you hope your party wins the office and has a chance to cloak your own candidate with the monarchical powers Bush and Cheney and Gonzales have been trying to usurp unto themselves.

"BUSH'S GUILTY PLEASURES ABOUT THE GUILTY'

Or, Commuting the Sentence of Guilty White House Leaker of National Security Secrets Doesn't Compute

Bush Junior apparently has decided that Libby, an Administration senior official found guilty of deliberately lying under oath while being questioned about his admitted leaks of a national security secret regarding CIA personnel, should do no jail time for his crimes.

Obviously, the Republican campaign ads had it wrong. Why should al-Qaida ever want Democrats to win when they can have a helpful fellow like Bush and his buddies in the White House? So much for the supposed promises of Republicans to safeguard our national security and keep convicted criminals behind bars. Frankly, King Bush routinely does more for terrorists in a month than a battalion of terrorists can do in a year.

Can you imagine what McCarthy and Goldwater would have said if a Democratic President had let the criminal go? Hell, can you imagine what Bush Senior would have said. After all, he got in office on the strength of his opponent supposedly letting convicted Willie Horton out of jail early.

It was a nice additional touch of irony that Bush Junior, who routinely ordered the torture of detainees and death sentences for the mentally ill, called the few months to be spent in a cushy US prison as "excessive."