Wednesday, May 24, 2006

Decisions, Decisions

One thing about the decider, once he decides something, the decision is made. No amount of reason can change his mind, he's bound and determined to follow the course his mind is already traveling down.
Take Iran for instance. He's decided that diplomacy won't work, so he's decided not to use it. He's decided to attack Iran, even though there is no reason to. Even though Russia still wants to work out a solution, Bush has decided. Even though Iran has agreed to suspend it's nuclear activities in exchange for security assurances, Bush can't assure them he won't attack, because he's already decided he's going to.
Well, he's not going to attack, but the US will, because Bush has decided we will. The ghost of Osama is running all over Pakistan, which does have nuclear weapons, but still, Bush has decided to attack Iran. Why? Beyond the billion dollar no-bid contracts, Iran has oil, and Bush has decided that his buddies in the oil business aren't making enough profits, so he has to start World War III, just to fill their coffers a little more, because they've filled Republican coffers in return. Hey, big surprise!
The decider has decided you are irrelevant, something he decided in 2000, when he decided to stop the vote count that would have decided who would govern our land. He's decided that you should make sacrifices so US companies can compete in the global economy, with out making any sacrifices themselves.
He's decided that God wanted him to be president, which is why he decided he doesn't need to follow the Constitution. And he's decided to spy on you because he's decided that if you are not with him, you are against him, which helped him decide that you are the enemy.
Now since Bush has decided he's Big Brother, he has also decided to help his little brother, Israel, if they are attacked. Surely you remember the behavior of the kid who always started trouble, and then threatened to call his Big Brother when you had the temerity to fight back? They did as they pleased, confident in the fact that Big Brother would protect them no matter what, even if little brother bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. So if little brother decides he's the only one on the block who should have a ten-speed, and decides to destroy yours, good old Big Brother will be there like an enabler, making sure that li'l brother can do as he pleases with impunity.
Bush has also decided the war in Iraq is a success, because he's decided not to heed to the bad news coming out of there. He's also decided to only stand before pre-screened crowds that agree with his decision, which has helped him decided that the American people stand behind his decision to invade based on lies.
One would be inclined to think, that with all this deciding going on, the law of averages would be on Bush's side, and he might have made at least one good decision. (And by 'good decision', I mean one that's good for the country as a whole, not good for the country----club) But no, as much as I've tried to think of one, he just hasn't made a good one in, well, I was going to say five years, but this goes farther back than that, he just has never made one. From every Cabinet member to every political appointee, the man has not made one good decision. Maybe that's why he keeps deciding. Maybe one of these days, he'll get it right.

Monday, May 15, 2006

Bubble People!

Xanax poster queen Laura Bush doesn't believe her husband's bad poll numbers.
"I don't really believe those polls. I travel around the country. I see people, I see their responses to my husband. I see their response to me," she said.
"As I travel around the United States, I see a lot of appreciation for him. A lot of people come up to me and say, 'Stay the course'."
Of course what is said, and one wonders is if she even knows, is that Mrs. Bush travels in the same bubble her hus band does. Hand picked and pre-screened crowds of hard core supporters. Dissenters locked away in "free speech" zones hundreds of yards away from any where Ms. Bush might see them. So of, course she has no clue to the reality.
Many people have wrapped themselves in bubbles as well, preventing themselves from seeing the whole picture. watching FOX News, you may think things are going good, if only those protesters would shut up. I myself spent a lot of time thinking everything was a conspiracy, until I realized that I was only reading the news from conspiracy websites. So I started reading different sources and realized that...uh, well, everything is a conspiracy!
I was just reading an article over at Truthdig, about BattleCry!, a Christian brainwashing seminar aimed at American youths. Now, I've got nothing against the Bible (well, actually I do. What a load of crap) but it seems to me if you limit yourself to only listening to Christian rock, watching only Christian entertainment and reading only Christian literature you have placed yourself in a bubble as well. Several atendees interviewed said it was okay that Bush lied to start the war in Iraq, because God had placed him in power. Funny, I thought it was scrubbed voter rolls in 2000, and touch screen voting fraud in Ohio in 2004, but if that's the way God works, well then I don't feel so bad not believing in that shit. Let me spell it out for those whose brain may have been damaged from too much Bible reading. God broke one of His own commandments (Thou Shall Not Steal) to put George Bush in power to break another commandment (Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness). I guess that's why I have such a hard time with religion, if God is such a fucking hypocrite, why should I follow Him?
Well, actually God is not a hypocrite. However, those who follow Him blindly are, because they've never learned to think for themselves or question their leaders who exploit their belief system for their own gain. Ron Luce, and BattleCry! want to remove the peace and love from Christianity and make something as evil as they claim Islam to be.

Saturday, May 13, 2006

unbrainwashed Celebrates One Year!

(Today marks the anniversary of the first post at unbrainwashed. In the past year, there has been a lot of changes in the country, and we've been here to comment on it all. We've made a lot of mistakes, but also made a lot of friends. You all have been supportive and for that I thank you, but I'd like to single out two people for thanks among all my readers. Special thanks to Joe from A Voice In The Wilderness for helping me figure some of this out, as well as encouraging me to continuing what I was doing and being the first to post a link back here at his blog. And special thanks to Lily as well, for being there back when it was "Lily said, then Lew said, then Lily said, then Lew said".
Below is my first post, and what's interesting to comment about here, is that while I suspected the Bush administration of trying to use a lie to justify an invasion of Iran, even one they had used before, I didn't think they'd use the same exact one they used for Iraq!)

What lies for Iran?
During the build up of propaganda leading up to our illegal conquest of Iraq, a number of lies were passed off as truth. One lie that sticks out in my head is the "Saddam gassed his own people" (the Kurds). At the time that it happened, 1988, then Secretary of State James Baker III absolved Saddam of any wrong doing. The Kurdish village in question was located on the border between Iraq and Iran, who were at war with each other at the time. Iraqi troops were stationed in the village when it was invaded by Iran and as they were forced out, they tossed mustard gas at the Iranians as they entered the village. The tide turned and with re-enforcements the Iraqis drove the Iranians back out of the village. As the Iranians fled, they tossed cyanide gas bombs in the village. The bodies of the dead showed all the effects of being poisoned by the cyanide gas, which acts differently than mustard gas. Still, in a bid to sway the American people, the present administration blamed this on Saddam.
Now I wonder, with the push the get the sheeple behind another illegal war of conquest, will the Bush administration use this again to sway the sheeple? Instead of blaming Iraq, will they now blame Iran? More disturbing, will the people fall for it?

Friday, May 12, 2006

Americans Lose More Freedom In the War On Terrorism

According to a recent ABC news poll, 63% approve of the recent revelations of the NSA monitoring all calls made in the USA. If it helps with the war on terror. Which leads me to the question: are we still fighting the war on terror? I mean, the Taliban has had a resurgence in Afghanistan, but all our resources are being spent in Iraq. Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, we are fighting an insurgency that has a right under international law to repel an occupation force. Those aren't terrorists, they're freedom fighters.
Then of course, there's our plans to attack Iran, another country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Iran has no plans to attack us, and is willing to work out a diplomatic solution. Of course, for the current adminbistration diplomacy is another word for bullying, just like qualified is another word for incompetent. So, as you can see, we're not really fighting a war on terrorists.
But even if we are, how is monitoring Americans phone calls helping with this so-called war? Listening to me talk to my kids at my ex's isn't fighting terrorists, in fact, it's taking manpower and resources away from fighting the terrorists. Not to mention wasting tax payer money. And violating the Constitution.
In the almost five years since 9/11, there really shouldn't be any terrorists left in this country. Maybe all the effort spent monitoring citizens phone calls would be better spent securing our borders, of course, then Mexicans couldn't enter illegally and flood the job market and drive down wages either, better to sacrifice security than pay Americans a living wage. And since prior NSA spying has been on Quakers and vegans, who else are they spying on under the guise of fighting terrorism?
One of the (supposed) freedoms that our soldiers are fighting for (well, not really) is the freedom from government intrusion into our personal and private lives. It was one of the things that made us better than the Communists in Russia. Now 63% of Americans are willing to throw away that freedom because nineteen men armed with box cutters were able to penetrate the most protected airspace on the planet, if it makes them feel more secure. But we're really not secure as much as we're turning the country into a prison. And Osama and Zarqawi walk around free. Is this any way to fight terrorists?

Saturday, May 06, 2006

The Blair-Bush Shuffle

When George W Bush's poll numbers kept falling, even after he went out and speechified about how wonderful everything is, his next step was to shuffle personnel in his staff. Not key people, but still. So out with Andy card, in with Josh Bolten. Goodbye Scott McClellan, hello Tony Snow. Then there was the sudden departure of CIA director Porter Goss. There has been much speculation about the abrupt nature of Goss' departure, with most people focusing on the possibility of Goss being tied to the poker game prostitute parties held by Brent Wilkes at the Watergate Hotel. When will Republicans learn to stay away from that place?
Even with the changes in personnel, the policies have remained the same. Avoid fighting terrorism and focus on Iran. Try to bully China and Russia into supporting sanctions we know they never will. Claim to be using diplomacy while refusing to meet with representatives from Iran.
Over in England, Tony Blair is having a bit of the same problem. His party suffered losses in the local authority elections, and now he's shuffling his cabinet as well. But a cabinet can only be as good as the man in charge, and on both sides of the Atlantic, the guys in charge need to be replaced. Fortunately for England, many are asking Blair to step down, while here in America, well, hopefully the Democrats, if they don't blow it before the November elections, try to rein in the "unitary executive" who seems to have disregard for everything that doesn't serve his purpose.
Some people liken the shuffling like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to me it's more like changing seats at a Detroit Tigers game, no matter where you move to, they're still going to suck. And like the Republicans in the polls, even if the Tigers are at the bottom of their division, there's always going to be people who support them. You might call them suckers, I call them masochists.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Congress The Enabler

Recently, Congress has toyed with the notion of offering Americans a $100 rebate to combat high gas prices. This, of course, won't actually bring down gas prices, while the added expenditure will surely add to inflation. But surely you all remember the early days of Bush's first term where he offered Americans a tax rebate of $300, only to take it out the next year's refund by calling it a "temporary refund adjustment". But isn't this just enabling our oil addiction?
Congressman Dr. Ron Paul (R-TX) has a three point plan that he thinks will help Americans struggling between putting food on their families, or filling the tank of their Sport Utility Behemoth so they can continue to drive to work to make more money so they can fill the tanks of the Sport Utility Behemoths so they can drive to work.

First: We must reassess our foreign policy and announce some changes.
One of the reasons we went into Iraq was to secure “our” oil. Before
Iraq war oil was less than $30 per barrel; today it is over $70.
sooner we get out of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to solve their own
problems the
better. Since 2002 oil production in Iraq has dropped
50%. Pipeline
sabotage and fires are routine; we have been unable to
prevent them.
Soaring gasoline prices are a giant unintended
consequence of our invasion, pure
and simple.
Second: We must
end our obsession for a military
confrontation with Iran. Iran does
not have a nuclear weapon, and
according to our own CIA is not on the verge
of obtaining one for years.
Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty, and has a
guaranteed right to enrich uranium for
energy—in spite of the incessant
government and media propaganda to the
contrary. Iran has never been
sanctioned by the UN Security
Council. Yet the drumbeat grows louder for
attacking certain sites in
Iran, either by conventional or even nuclear
means. Repeated
resolutions by Congress stir up unnecessary animosity
toward Iran, and
create even more concern about future oil supplies from the
East. We must quickly announce we do not seek war with Iran, remove
the economic sanctions against her, and accept her offer to negotiate a
diplomatic solution to the impasse. An attack on Iran, coupled with
continued presence in Iraq, could hike gas prices to $5 or $6 per gallon
here at
home. By contrast, a sensible approach toward Iran could
quickly lower oil
prices by $20 per barrel.
Third: We must remember
that prices of all
things go up because of inflation. Inflation by
definition is an increase
in the money supply. The money supply is
controlled by the Federal Reserve
Bank, and responds to the deficits
Congress creates. When deficits are
excessive, as they are today, the
Fed creates new dollars out of thin air to buy
Treasury bills and keep
interest rates artificially low. But when new
money is created out of
nothing, the money already in circulation loses
value. Once this is
recognized, prices rise-- some more rapidly than
others. That’s what
we see today with the cost of energy.

Of course, while all of this is feasible, it's hardly likely we'll se anyone in Congress actually doing something in support of these ideas. It's much easier to just give the taxpayer a small portion of his taxes back so it can trickle back up into the pockets of big oil, who then won't be asked to pay any taxes on it as asking US corporations to pay taxes on the oppurtunity to participate in the largest consumer market on the planet is, well, unAmerican. As is asking the government to tax the oil companies who are reaping record profits at a time when the rest of the country is costantly being asked to make sacrifices. The oil companies would only raise prices to cover the increased tax anyway.
Of course, we could just reduce our use. Cutting demand would lower prices as well, but asking an American to not use their car is a lot like asking a drug addict not to use their drugs.