Posts
2008/03/31
"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.
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.
2008/03/27
“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.”
“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.”
2008/03/26
“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.
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.
2008/03/20
“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.
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.
2008/03/13
"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.
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.
2008/03/05
"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.
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.
2008/02/06
"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
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
2008/01/19
“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.
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.
2008/01/18
“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 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.
2008/01/13
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.
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.
2007/11/29
“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.
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.
2007/11/28
“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, . . .
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.
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.)
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.
2007/11/19
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.
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.
2007/11/07
"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!
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!
2007/09/04
“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.]
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.]
2007/08/11
“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?
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?
2007/08/10
“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]
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]
2007/08/08
“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.
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.
2007/08/04
“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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)