But Who Will Protect Us From Them?

The Republicans like to tout there position on national security. It's their one strong point and they've used it to their advantage at every oppurtunity. But the truth is, beneath their glossy veneer, they're not really protecting the citizens at all.
The NIE that was leaked last week is one example. While Bush has been claiming the war in Iraq was protecting us from terrorists the truth is that it has been creating more terrorists. Which hs been good at protecting the security of defense contractors growing fat at the public tit, it hasn't protected our tax dollars that could be better spent here at home.
Another example is the rider attached to a bill passed by the Republicans exempting pharmaceuticals from lawsuits brought on by parents whose children developed autism from the mercury in childhood vaccines. They protect the corporations, at the expense of parents and children nationwide. It certainly seems that the Republicans are good at protecting their own.
The torture bill passed this week by Congress shows how far they will go to protect their President. Never mind that a post de facto law is unconstitutional, the actions of the president were unconstitutional as well, thereby justifying two wrongs making some twisted right. And written into that bill was a provision that the President could declare anyone who opposes him an "enemy combatant". Do you feel any safer knowing that this won't be abused by a so-called person who doesn't ever put your best interests up front?
When Hurricane Katrina hit last year, even though they received an advance warning that it would be the catastrophe it was, did the Bush regime make any effort to protect the people? Even when the Superdome was filled with dying people with no water and no hope, nothing was done to help these people.
But the icing on the cake has to be the recent revelation that Rep. Mark Foley was a sexual predator, which was revealed to Republican leadership months ago, and they chose not to do anything about it until it became public knowledge.

So here's one of their own, preying on teenage boys, and what does Hastert do? Does he act in the best public interest and do something about it? How about Boehner? Can't do anything against the party, in effect placing the party before the American people. I don't think we need them to protect us, what we need is someone who will protect us from these sleazebags.

DeVos: Christianazi In Business Suit

Dick DeVos' campaign took a tumble the other day when he showed his true colors. When asked about creationism, intelligent design, or any other label you want to put on the Christianazis attempt to put their narrow minded religious views into other people's children minds, DeVos stated he wants to put this scientific adbomination into school's cirriculum. Is that why he has stated that if elected, he'll accept no salary?
DeVos has always been about tax dollars going to create a theocracy. That's the whole purpose of his voucher plan, taking money from public schools and putting it into parochial schools. And the odds are pretty even that if elected, he'll try to get that plan back into action again, after being resoundingly rejected by the voters of this state before.
The thing is, we all benefit from having better public schools. Better educated people make for better citizens. Unfortunately, they also are more inclined to oppose DeVos' anti-abortion homophobic platform, which is why he wishes to replace studied reason with fairy tales.
DeVos is a fundie, a Christian Reformed person, and having lived around them my whole life, the Christian Deformed are the most reactionary of all Christianazis. To put their ideology in simple terms: you're all going to Hell.
DeVos has also recently started running ads featuring Lee Iacocca to appeal to the television-watchers. Lee Ioacocca is a wealthy man, so of course he'd want to have a man who supports outsourcing and tax cuts in the governor's mansion. Except that DeVos has said he won't live in the governor's mansion. Apparently, it's a step down for him.

How Much Does One Of These NIE Cost Me Personally?

"Either we're going to be fighting this battle, this war, overseas or its going to be right here in this country," said Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader.

Riiight. You'd have to be an idiot to believe that statement, especially following the release of the National Intelligence Estimate saying the war in Iraq has increased, not diminished, the terrorist threat to the US. Who are you going to believe, intelligence professionals or some guy who wants to hang onto his position as Senate Majority Leader? Personally, I'm going with the intelligence experts, not some guy playing to the television-watchers.
Remember why we went in Iraq? After all the lies had been stripped away, all they had left was Saddam was a bad guy who tortured his people. Well, now it seems that torture in Iraq is worse than under Saddam. Of course, not all of it is coming from the US occupation forces, but the fact that any of it is should leave decent Americans cold.
Today alone 14 people were killed in Iraq as the sectarian violence there continues to spread. And that violence would spread with or without American occupation, as there seems to be little US forces can do to stop the country's sectarian violence from becoming a "civil" war, if it hasn't already. So tell me again how we're saving the country?

``Now I've never criticized President Bush, and I don't think this is useful. But you do know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one- seventh as important as Iraq.''

-Bill Clinton

That's right, Bill. We have only 21,000 troops in Afghanistan, fighting the remnants of the Taleban and al Qaeda there. You know, the people we claimed were responsible for the horrendous attacks of 9/11 that started the so-called war on terror. Most of our troops were pulled from there to be used in Iraq, and what was I just saying about Iraq?
My theory is of course that Bush needs the threat of terrorism to exist and increase because he can use this to gut the Constitution. There's very little of the Bill of Rights that haven't been compromised in the name of "national security" by this administration, and they have two more years to go. They can be hindered if the people wise up and deliver a Democratic majority in November. With all the recent bad news for the ADDministration, there going to have to work really hard on that "October surprise" Rove has promised to deliver, I just hope it's not another war.
Because you see, anothe NIE that was issued last year said Iran is years from having a nuclear weapons program. And that's another report the Bush regime is sure to ignore.

Osama Dead (Again)

In a bid to possibly spoil Karl Rove's October surprise, a French newspaper has reported Osama Bin Laden is dead. This wouldn't be the first time Osama has been reported to have been demised, but the first time western sources have reported it. So much for finding him alive.
According to usually reliable sources in Saudi police forces, Osama died in Pakistan on August 23 of typhoid fever. Pakistani authorities do not have any information about Osama's death, but are relieved now that the US forces looking for him (I think there are about eleven) won't be bombing their country "back to the stone age" (in the word's of Dick Armitage) in their effort to locate him.
The CIA could not confirm the report, and the Washington-based IntelCenter was not aware of any reports on the internet. So unless Osama appears, Twain-like, on videotape to announce that rumors of his death are wrong, if he were to die he'd be the last one to know about it, I'm going to assume he has passed.
This also brings a question into my mind, is this the reason for Bush's sudden interest in Pakistan's Musharraf? Were they holding Osama on ice in Pakistan until right before the elections so he could be "captured" by US forces working in tandem with Pakistani forces? Wasn't it shortly after August 23 that Bush suddenly refocused his campaign on Osama?
The Fench are launching an investigation into how this intelligence was leaked, suggesting that it was being sat on until a) it was confirmed or b)after it was used by the Bush regime as an October surprise (hey! forget all about the war in Iraq and all the torture and spying voters! We got Osama!)to retain their grip on the legislature. (I'm voting on the latter, it's been nearly a month. How long does it take to confirm a dead guy is dead. Must be a fuck of an autopsy)Perhaps they were trying to smuggle him into Iraq, or Iran, in an attempt to justify one war or trhe other in those two countries.

Terrorizing The Television-Watchers

If you ever needed evidence that the US has become a nation of television-watchers, this past Tuesday morning was a good example. Morning radio shows all talked about the memorial service for Steve Irwin, a television conservationist who died confronting an animal best left alone. Everyone marveled at the speech given by his daughter. Everyone talked about what a hero he was. Except, he wasn't.
A couple times a week, America buries it's true heroes. They don't get tributes from morning radio shows, and dignitaries and celebrities don't turn out to honor them or pay them respects. The cries of their children, their spouses, their parents aren't glamorized by glib personalities. These heroes, too, died confronting something that was best left alone. There is no thank you for giving your life from those who have benefitted the most from their sacrifice. And because these people aren't beamed into our living rooms, spouting catchphrases and mugging for the media as they molest and maul mammals, the television-watchers don't care.
Oh sure, they'll slap a magnetic ribbon on the vehicle and think they've done their part, but the families who have lost a member don't get anything from that. Some cash-craving capitalists pockets the change and gets a tax-cut to boot. Because that's all they want-a tax cut. That and the freedom to exploit the paranoia of the television watcher nation.
This November, the citizens of this country face one of the most important elections since the last one. They have a chance to vote for change that will end the sacrifices made by our heroes for a cause that has turned out to be unjust. They will have the oppurtunity to prevent more heroes needlessly wasted to fill an agenda that serves only those at the top, who have not had to sacrifice a thing.
The tyrants in power know how to manipulate the television-watchers. They know they cannot run on their economic policies, which have created record trade deficits. They have created record budget deficits. They have allowed more and more of our jobs to be siphoned off, so they can enjoy more money, and then refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of these actions. Record foreclosures. Slowing job growths. Slowing construction starts. Lay-offs. Can't take that path.
And they cannot run on their social agenda. Poison the environment. Legalize discrimination and intolerance. Establishing a theocracy to rival those in the Middle East.
So they're back to the one card in the deck they know how to play. National security. The first step, create a problem where no problem existed before. Last time, it was Iraq. Nobody liked Saddam anyway, so no-one would squeak if we took him out. Now our eyes are on another country. Our president tried to convince the world that we needed to stop them. Before they acquired the means to stand up to our agression. Every violation of the constitution is justified for "reasons of national security".
And how are they able to achieve this? The talking heads tell the televison-watchers topics to think about. Glenn Beck says Iran is up to something. Bill O'Reilly says waterboarding is safe and reliable. Free speech is bad, strip searches are good. As long as the television-watchers are terrified, they can do as they please.

October Surprise?

President Bush went to the UN today to press for the case for war, er, I mean sanctions against Iran for it's nuclear program. Sanctions are highly unlikely as Russia, China, and now, even France oppose them. Look for french fries to become freedom fries again in the not-too-distant future. The UN will once become irrelevant and Bush will push ahead with the PNAC plan to rebuild the middle east.
Bush needs all this to hapen before October, so he can use the flag waving American propaganda machine the keep his rubberstamp Congress and hoping that the television-watchers will give it to him. Then, he can relax, as he knows once he keeps his congress, he can persuade them to protect his ass from any danger of impeachment for any number of crimes he has committed, and possibly save him from being tried as the war criminal he is.
Before that can happen, he needs a terrorist attack, and what do you know, he gets one. Or at least the threat of one. That's all it takes for the television-watchers' paranoia to kick in and he can violate any law there is, as long as he justifies it by using national security and invoking 9/11, although that last one is just about used up.
Bush' speech will draw distinctions between countries that want peace, such as most of the countries in the region, and those extremists who want to spread terror and violence, such as the US and Israel.

"The world must stand up for peace."

They do, Mr. President. That's why they won't stand for you.

Cheney and Hoekstra Chop Up IAEA Report On Iran

Is Ahmednejhad up to something? Glenn Beck thinks so, our at least he wants you to think so, because he wants you to join the 77% of Americans who think he is up to something. And of course, he is up to something, just not anything against the law. Not that Glenn Beck is violation of any rule of law either, since it is not against the law to deliberately distort the news. (It is interesting to note that this case was decided in favor of Fox News, who then took the ball and ran with it.) Of course, Glenn Beck is nothing close to be a journalist, he's more of a professional fear mongering propagandist for television watchers, those people who like their news chewed up and spit out in nice tidy sixty second sound bites because it's so much easier than reading.
One can't fault Mr. Beck, for even though he works for a news agency, he does nothing close to what a journalist would do. A journalist would have reported that the IAEA says US report on Iran is 'outrageous'. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN's nuclear watchdog sent a letter to Pete Hoekstra, claiming the report distorts the findings of the IAEA, which means after his distinguished career in Congress, Mr. Hoekstra can go work for Fox News.
The congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" an inspector was removed for having not stuck to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran, said the letter. Diplomats say the inspector, who was allegedly removed for stating that Iran intends on making nuclear weapons, is still the IAEA Iran section head.
Although the IAEA has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons. Building a nuclear power plant is not a violation of the NPT, which Iran has signed.
Nonetheless, Iran is considering suspending it's nuclear enrichment program to allow for formal negotiations with the EU. The US, however, has refused to join any negotiations, and is pressing for sanctions in the Security Council for it's failure to comply with the August 31 deadline set by the SC for suspension of it's enrichment activities. Sanctions that are sure to be blocked by Russia and China, which has deals with Iran, and Germany is having reservations as well. The EU is reluctant to pursue any actions that could lead to the use of force, as they still are feeling the sting of the last time they bought into the Bush regimes lies, last time concerning Iraq's WMD.
Iran has in the past mentioned security assurances in exchange for talks on it's nuclear program, something the Bush regime has steadfastly refused to agree to. Bombing Iran is part of the neocon agenda for reshaping the Middle East, and the US is under considerable increasing pressure to bomb Iran from neocon supporters.

Exploiting A Tragedy

The way a person responds to a tragedy is a measure of their character. Some people react with true compassion, some with anger, and some use that tragedy to set forth their own agendas.
In the days following 9/11, a group of rock musicians got together and put on The Concert For The Americas, to raise money for the Red Cross. True, a lot of the money was sucked up by administrative costs, but the move was a genuine effort to rally the people together positively.
And how did the right react?
Christianazi religious terrorist Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell told their flock that God allowed this to happen because America had accepted the gay lifestyle. They couldn't come out and say that God is powerless to stop the actions of men, or that there is no God favoring any country, so they took the route that reinforced their political agenda, and exploited for their own gain. No compassion there.
The corporate terrorist media, always looking for a way to pump fear into the television watchers, exploited the terror to keep people tuned in for late breaking stories to boost their ratings. Higher ratings means bigger advertising revenues.
Neofascist neocons in the Bush administration like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, used the tragedy to start wars with countries that had nothing to do with the tragedy. However, replacing regimes in those countries were part of their agenda before the attacks, they just exploited them for their own gain.
Others in the Bush administration exploited the tragedy to pass laws that took civil liberties away from the citizens they swore to protect. Others, working in concert with the corporate media exploited the tragedy for political gain, to retain their party's hold on the legislative branches of the government.
The president himself benefitted form the tragedy himself, which boosted his sagging approval ratings to the highest of any sitting president. he has since then, at any given oppurtunity, invoked the tragedy to justify every constitutional violation, exploiting it at every turn.
The fifth anniversary of the tragedy was Monday night, and there was Bush, his numbers in the dumpster, his rubber stamp congress in danger of being lost, the support for a war that had nothing to with the attacks dwindling.
He attempted once again to exploit the fear:

"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone,"

He attempted to exploit the alleged perpetrator:

"If we yield Iraq to men like bin Laden," Bush said, "our enemies will be emboldened, they will gain a new safe haven, and they will use Iraq's resources to fuel their extremist movement."

He exploited people's ignorance:

"I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," Bush said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.

It is the last quote that is the most weak. Saddam was no threat to anybody, outside of his own country. Sanctions imposed on him following the first Gulf War had left the whole country weakened. Which is why those who exploited 9/11 for an invasion thought it would be an easy battle.
What is lacking, in all the right wing responses, is a sense of compassion. Rather than using this tragedy as an oppurtunity to examine the root causes of terrorism, and how to address them, they attempted to root out terrorism by becoming like the terrorists themselves. And that is the real tragedy.

Computer Issues

The people who write and unleash computer viruses are the same as terrorists in my book. Nothing more annoying as when you're banging oout a post and your screen freezes. It's bad enough when it's blogger's fault, but when some idiot hacker thinks it's his(or her)business to point out flaws in operating systems, they deserve to be shot. Computers are expensive pieces of machinery that cost money to repair, so it's as if they are stealing from me. We all should be able to surf the net with out dealing with someone's perverted sense of righteousness gumming up our tubes!
So I propose that instead of cracking down on internet pornography, the government start going after the hackers who cost us untold amounts of dollars in lost data a year. We should be secure in our homes from people who inflict this type of crap on others. I'd feel better and safer if the government went after them, rather than some Iraqi civilian who was no threat to me at all. Death to the cryptofascist cyberterrorists!

The Real Path to 9/11: Inside Job or Republican Incompetence?

As the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 tragedy approaches, there has been a concerted effort in the corporate media, mostly television and radio, to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. They mainly have been using these two media outlets because television watchers are the people most unable to think clearly and therefore unable to form an independent conclusion on their own.
Accoring to a Zogby poll, 46% of Americans think that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. How did they reach that conclusion? Bush himself said there was no links in September of 2003, and Cheney blamed it on the media, two years ago. So why do these notions still persist?
What's more, where did these notions originate? Could it have been from The White House itself?
The effort to discredit the 9/11 truth movement in the corporate media is an attempt to again force notions on people without actually prepondering the evidence.The two main theories Let It Happen On Purpose(LIHOP) and Made It Happen On Purpose(MIHOP) are dismissed as crazy "tinfoil hat" conspiracies (as opposed to the racist "official" conspiracy theory), but never address some of the issues raised by the movement.
First piece of evidence (which falls into the MIHOP category) is the presense of explosions caused by bombs being placed in the towers that caused them to collapse like a controlled demolition into their own footprint. Moreover, they point to the collapse of WTC 7, which was not struck by a plane, as evidence that explosives were used on September 11. As Steven Jones ( a physics professor) says:

As you observed, WTC 7 collapsed rapidly and symmetrically -- even though fires were randomly scattered in the building. WTC 7 fell about seven hours after the Towers collapsed, even though no major persistent fires were visible. There were twenty-four huge steel support columns inside WTC 7 as well as huge trusses, arranged asymmetrically, along with approximately 57 perimeter columns. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 5.) A symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling” of most or all of the support columns. The Second Law of Thermodynamics implies that the likelihood of complete and symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the “official” theory is small, since asymmetrical failure is so much more likely. On the other hand, a major goal of controlled demolition using explosives is the complete and symmetrical collapse of buildings.

Professor Jones has also said this was the only evidence in history, before or after, of fire bringing down a steel framed building.
Another incident that fits both the LIHOP and MIHOP scenarios is the death of Payne Stewart in his Lear Jet, which had depressurized shortly after take-off in Florida and was shortly intercepted by fighter jets when the cockpit was "unresponsive". Standard operational procedure of NORAD is to send planes to intercept a flight when it goes off course (which is filed before take-off). Yet this was not followed on 9/11, which would have prevented any planes from hitting the towers and the Pentagon. This leads to the theory that someone had issued a "stand down" order on that day. Now consider the testimony of Norman Mineta, Former Transportation Secretary for the Bush administration, to the official 9/11 Commission:

Mineta: "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president "do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??"

The MIHOP theory claims that 9/11 was a "false flag" operation, that is, an intelligence operation carried out by one group to be blamed on another. They point to the Project For a New American Century's "Rebuilding America's Defenses", which called for reshaping the Middle East to better fit corporate America's interests. In order to catalyze the support they would need to start their aganda, a "New Pearl Harbor" would be needed to rally the American people behind the agenda. MIHOP supporters point to the fact that 7 of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were still alive after 9/11, (as well as evidence no Arabs were found on the autopsy list) that 9/11 was a false flag operation designed to frame Arabs in order to enable the Bush administration (most of them signees on the PNAC) to start their agenda. As former MI5 agent David Shayler stated last year, in his opinion 9/11 was an inside meant to " bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria." Guess which countries the Bush administration is starting the propaganda campaign for invasion of next?
Of course, another conclusion could be that the US government under the Bush/Republican regime has become so incompetent that it can't function at all. The failures in Afghanistan and Iraq certainly point to that, as well as their botched handling of a response to Hurricane Katrina. It does appeal to those of a partisan stripe who feel that these pathetic bunglers aren't capable of pulling off such a complex scheme (neglecting, of course, their capability of pulling off two election frauds).
Another example of incompetence or complicity is the actions of the Secret Service on September 11. With an airport four miles away, untold numbers of hijacked planes in the sky that day, Bush's location at the time being made known days in advance, the secret service allowed the number one terrorist target to sit in plain sight, surrounded by children, instead of immediately whisking him away to safety. But they didn't. Was it merely incompetence, or did they know that Bush was not a target (MIHOP)?
And yet, the only defnse that people can muster up against such theories is the insanity defense. You know, you must be wearing a tinfoil hat to believe the government would lie to us and kill their own people. The same government that deliberately manipulated intelligence to start a war in Iraq causing the deaths of over 12,000 soldiers (who, the last time I checked were people too)and gave defense contractors, construction companies, and oil companies billions of dollars in no-bid contracts. It's an old ploy, when you can't refute the evidence you must therefore attack the ones presenting it.
And what of Osama? You know, the one that Bush blames for the attacks, even though it's not on his official FBI 'rap sheet'? The guy who turns up on audio and video tapes almost conveniently timed to benefit the agenda of the Bush administration? The one Bush claimed we had no idea where he was or how to capture him, without carpet bombing Afghanistan? He recently turned up again on another videotape just as the GOP needed him for their fall election strategy, which is based on selling fear to the masses.
It's the fear that got the PATRIOT Act passed. It's the fear that keeps people from questioning the actions of the Bush administration lest they be bundled with the 'terrorists'.
When a crime is committed, the usual investigative techniques involve finding out who committed the crime by determining who benefitted the most from it. Did alQaeda, whose goal is to remove the American infidel presence from their lands, as well as having Israel leave Palestine, benefit? Not really, as the attacks brought more US troops to the Middle east. The PNAC benefitted by having their agenda of "creating a new Middle east" advanced. Israel benefitted because, in the words of Binyamin Netanyahu on 9/11:

"It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

allowing them to build a "security" wall through Palestinian territory, as well as perpetuate collective punishment against the Palestinian people without much outcry from the US. Defense contractors, Halliburton, they certainly benefitted.
So excuse me if I think the government at least LIHOP, if not MIHOP. I've looked at all the evidence, too much to go into here, and reached my conclusion. You can think I wear a tin foil hat if you wish. But I hope you don't mind if I call you an anal ostrich. You know, hiding your head up your ass in fear of the truth.

No Shit!

Well, it's only taken the Senate three and a half years to reach the conclusion most of us knew already. There was no link between Saddam and alQaeda. The mind boggles at the amount of time and money (all courtesy of you and me, the US tax payer)wasted on this conclusion that any one of my two faithful readers could have told you. This pretty much makes every piece of shit excuse hurled at the television screen in hopes it would stick by those assholes in the Bush administration to start an unnecessary war a blatant lie.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow belittled the reports as "nothing new", in other words, yes even when he was a "journalist" (well, as close as you can be when you work for Fox) regurgitating these lies who knew they were in fact lies. Gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that you can be deceived with impunity by the people sucking them dollars out of your pocket, doesn't it?

The Letter The Grand Rapids Press Will Not Print

The other night, I decided it was time to send a letter to the local paper. With Michigan's gubernatorial election in November, I thought I would way in with why the Republican candidate, Dick DeVos, would not make a good leader for our state. I ahd sent this letter in under my pseudonym, as I have been effectively banned from having my letters published in the paper under my real name.
This all stems from a letter I had sent to the Press in December 2002. I was responding to an article in which Karl Rove compared to Bush to Abraham Lincoln. I had suggested this was odd, as the rest of the world compares Bush to Hitler.
The press has a policy of only publishging your letters every 90 days. But I had found a way around this by sending letters from my (then) wife's email address under her name. I did this with her consent, as she understood, I was opposed to the upcoming war with Iraq (we were in the propaganda stages at that time, just like we are now with Iran) as part of the neocon plan for endless war, as I have two children who I do not want to grow up and kill and/or die for a pointless war.
As it was, there was another woman in town who had the same name as my wife's. She wrote the paper and asked how could they dare print a letter like that and sign her name to it. That's when my wife spilled the beans to the editor that I had in fact written the letter, and I effectively became banned. Later on, we split up, (for other reasons), and I had a new address and phone number (prerequisites for getting your letter published), so I created an email account for one Lew Scannon, and was able to have two letters published under that pseudonym in the paper.
Now, however I have since moved again, and while I am using a different ISP, my email is similar to my old one, and it's the only account I have, so I sent the following letter to them yesterday. But I think my browser uses my real name in emails, so the letter will not be published. Not because it's bad (although, I will admit, it's not my best, and I've read many worse), but because the editor recognized me as the banned person from almost four years ago.
So here it is:

Michigan's economy is in the toilet. People like Dick DeVos blame Gov. Granholm for our state's current economic woes and say we need leadership to get us out of this.
Let's look at DeVos's leadership. In the last decade, he shipped 1400 jobs out of Michigan, as well as millions of investment dollars into Communist China, while at the time, Michigan was under a Republican governor. If every other manufacturer followed DeVos's lead, there'd be nothing left of our great state.
If DeVos had faith in Michigan, not only would 1400 jobs still be here, but investing the money in Michigan and not China would have created more jobs. 1400 more people could have bought cars, bought homes, or could have afforded newspaper subscriptions. Because those jobs are now gone, 1400 orders for new cars were never made. Because new car orders fell, autoworkers had to be laid off. Many parts manufacturers throughout the state that supply for both the cars and the machines that help build them had to lay people off.
Many other businesses who did follow DeVos's lead also shipped jobs to China.Now, the country is beginning to see the results. Automakers shutting plants. Housing markets starting to slow. Trade deficits are up. The new service jobs created do not pay enough to drive the economy, nor do they create enough goods to close the trade gap.
DeVos likes to blame Jennifer Granholm for a lack of leadership, but part of being a leader includes taking responsibility for your actions. A leader is willing to make sacrifices, unfortunately, under DeVos, once again it will be the working people of Michigan who will be asked to make that sacrifice.

Since the banning, I have discovered blogging, which I feel more rewarding, as I can post what I wish without having it edited or altered(unlike a letter I had published in the Washington Times) and reach people from around the country, not just West Michigan. But I will on occasion get a call from the subscription department of the Grand Rapids Press, asking me if I would like to suscribe. And I say:
"Why would I want to subscribe to a newspaper that attempts to censor me by banning me from the editorial page and whose politics are contrary to mine? Go peddle your papers somewhere else."
If it's just propaganda, shouldn't they be giving it away?

In Order For Diplomacy To Work, You Actually Have To Use It

Kathy at Stone Soup Musings posted a link to Lie By Lie:Chronicle of a war foretold over at Mother Jones that lists every lie told by the Bush administration about Iraq, as well as every contrary piece of intelligence that turned out to be the truth.It's a fascinating database that shows that although the Bush administration said they were doing everything to avoid war with Iraq, they were actually doing everything in their power to take us to war with Iraq.
History repeats itself.
In an interview with CNN, UN Ambassador John Bolton said,"We’re exercising a lot of diplomatic activity to try and resolve this peacefully." Of course the Bush administration has refused to meet or negotiate with anyone from Teheran to try to resolve this, so how they think they are using diplomacy is beyond me.
On March 3, 2003, George Bush said,"We are doing everything we can to avoid war with Iraq."
Weapons inspectors in Iran found no evidence Iran has a weapons program. On January 9, 2003, Hans Blix appeared before the UN, and stated the same thing.
To those who think the Bush regime won't start another war, Bolton said,"No President charged with defending the American people takes the military option off the table."
To those who think our forces are stretched too thin now, there is a draft resolution in committee right now. But there are others who feel we can take Iran with out putting a single "boot on the ground".
Part of this summer's war in Lebanon was an effort to disarm Hizb-Ullah, so it can not retaliate against Israel when the nukes are dropped. The destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure was to prevent the Iranians from using Lebanon as a place to launch military initiatives against Israel when Iran is nuked. The rhetoric is amping up,and it's not a matter of if, but of when.
Iran has repeatedly offered to suspend it's uranium enrichment in exchange for security guarantees, guarantees the US will not take military action against it, guarantees the US will not give. So this war is not about Iran's nuclear ambitions at all, any more than the war in Iraq was about 9/11 or WMD. It's all about the neofascist plan for a new American century, and it doesn't matter how many Americans oppose it, the Bush regime will take on Iran. The diplomacy ruse, like so many other words spilling from their mouths, is just another lie.

Continuing On With A Wasted Effort

For George W.'s next speech to sell his misguided war on terror, he's decided to bring representatives from countries that have suffered terrorists attacks to sit in the audience. This is not a brilliant move, unless Bush thinks the 65% of Americans who oppose the war in Iraq are idiots.
Bush is bringing people from London, Madrid, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to emphasize the global nature of his war on terror. This is a pure Rovian tactic, as while most of these places have suffered terror attacks, not one of these terrorist attacks was carried out by people from Iraq! This is where Bush thinks we a re idiots. He's already stated there were no WMD, flip flopped on his blaming Iraq for 9/11, and since we're fighting an insurgency in Iraq, the war there has no bearing on stopping worldwide terrorism.
Stopping for a moment to ignore the cost of flying these diverse people from around the globe, as well as accommodations while they visit, if Bush had put as much effort into rebuilding New Orleans as he has into selling us this quagmire, the city would be fixed and almost back to normal. I seriously have my doubts whether these people will actually come from said countries, or come from central casting. Why is Bush spending so much effort to try spin a war that's spinning out of control?
The neocons agenda, reshaping a new middle east, has put Iran in their sights next. Even though the IAEA found no tangible evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapon program, and Russia has rejected sanctions against Teheran, we still will be going to war with Iran, which is why the rhetoric has switched from alQaeda to "Islamic Fascists", because there is no alQaeda in Iran. But he can't continue on with the neofascist agenda if he's losing support from the American people.