Any More Questions?

"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

On the 20 of July, 2006, Congress passed a resolution condemning the attacks on Israel 410-8. Even though Israel provoked the attacks by violating the borderwith Lebanon. And even though78% of Americans oppsed this resolution. Why?

"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

Last year, when thousands of Americans were in peril from Hurricane Katrina, the government ignored warnings of disaster. As the Superdome filled with refugees and people were going with out food, medicine and were dying, there was no impetus to do anything. However, with Israel running low on munitions to blow the shit out of Lebanon, the US speeds arms deliveries to Isreal.What makes one country more important to our politicians than it's own citizens?

"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

On July 16, President Bush rejected Jacques Chirac's call for an immediate ceasefire on the behalf of both parties. Last week, he said he was going to give Israel a week, and now they get another week.We killed any measure in the UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire, even as civilians are being killed because our embarassing ambassador saysLebanon civilian deaths are not the same as terror deaths. (A sentiment echoed by Alan Dershowitz) Why does our government stand aside and allow the destruction of the Lebanese infrastructure?

"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

Our invasion of Iraq was predicated on the notion that Saddam Hussein had dangerous WMD and wasn't afraid to unleash them. That was the major reason we were told it was time for regime change in Baghdad. Now we have claims coming from Beirut that Israel is using banned weapons against civilians, and yet there is no outcry from our government, who probably provided Israel (like we provided Iraq) with these dangerous weapons in the first place. Why do we provide dangerous WMD to countries that would use them?

"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

In America, we have freedom of speech. We can criticize bad movies, our government and even celebrities. We can criticize politicians and parties. Our freedom of religion allows even to criticize Christianity and Islam, however, even though Zionism is contrary to Judaic teachings, to criticize the Zionist state of Israel gets you labeled an anti-semite. In fact, such great Americans such as Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh are labeled as anti-semites for daring to use their position to speak out against Zionism.
So now, when one speaks out against Zionism, (which is not part of the Judaic tradition), they are immediately labeled as "Jew-Haters", or "anti-Semites". Even though The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, we find the Zionists hiding behind the religious tradition they have rejected.
The US is supposed to be a representative government. We elect people to go to the Capitol and work in our best interests. However, when another foreign government controls who we vote for, and where are tax dollars are spent, we become less free. When said government's policies endanger the lives of Americans, to the point where we must give up some of our freedoms in our own country, something is wrong. When the rest of the world condemns these actions we condone, one has to wonder, is this the right thing? And why are we continuing to allow this?

"I want to tell you something very clear, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio.

Oh, yeah. That's why.

The Only Sane Man In Washington

While the death toll rises in the newest Mid east crisis, the Republicans go fishing, introduce a resolution banning gay marriages AGAIN, or pack their bags for Bohemian Grove, one congressman is acting exactly how our President (who is busy sexually harrassing the German Chancellor)should be.
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has introduced a resolution calling for the president (if he can pry himself away from Chancellor Merkel)to appeal to all sides in the current crisis for a cessation of violence and to commit US diplomats to multi party negotiations with no conditions.
Bush, however, warned Syria to stay out of Lebanon while giving Israel more time to carry out it's military campaign, which some commentators must have been in the planning stages for weeks, even before the capture of two IDF soldiers.
So while Iran demands Hizbullah curtail attacks on Israel, the idiot President blames them for the trouble. So look for an attack against Iran as part of A Clean Break.

Israel's Apartheid, The Rapture Is A Farce, and Al Franken Is A Big Fat Zionist Shill

Israel 's Aparthied
Back when I was a teenager, a group of musicians led by Little Steven (Van Zandt, now just Steve VanZandt, of The Sopranos fame) gathered together to protest the policies of South Africa. At that time, as Nelson Mandela languished in prison, South Africa had a policy of apartheid, a separation of the black population from the white population. The song they released "(I Ain't Gonna Play) Sun City" featured many prominent artists of the time, committed activists such as Bruce Springsteen and Joey Ramone. At the time there was a cultural boycott of South Africa as well as Sun City, a Vegas-type entertainment capital where artists would play for large amounts of cash.
A lot of these people felt to play Sun City would be akin to supporting the racist separatist politics of South Africa, something these artists, all predominantly left wing, knew was wrong.
Now on the other hand, Israel employs the same tactics that South Africa used. They have built a wall surrounding "their" country that sometimes runs through Palestinian olive groves, which have been there for hundreds of years. (Although Zionist propaganda would have you believe there have been no Palestines tending them, as they don't exist) There is to be no marriages between Israelis and Palestines, because Palestinians are people who never existed. So if you look at an old map of something called Palestine and see cities, well those were really ghost towns. And no-one has lived in Jerusalem for 2000 years.
But what you don't hear from a lot of people on the left is a sense of outrage at Israel's apartheid policy.

The Rapture Is A Farce
Does Jesus come with an expiration date?
You would think that the Christian right would be upset by the events unfolding now in the Middle east. Jesus won't return until peace is acheived in that region, and recent events have pushed peace a long, long, long way away. You would think that the fundies would be doing everything in their power to work for peace, since they're so eager for the rapture, but instead they continue their unabated support of the Bush regime as it ensures the region stays unstable for a couple more generations. Perhaps they don't wished to be judged and found wanting.
My question is: After the rapture, will the acceptance of Jesus Christ as a personal savior no longer be considered a ticket to Heaven anymore? Because I'll bet you, a lot of sinners will change their ways when they've found they've been left behind. I'm sure that life will still continue on beyond the rapture, just look at all the Chinese who won't be lifted to Heaven. Will it be too late for them to convert?
Or is the rapture just a con? A farce perpetrated by two different passages in a book of the New Testament that should have been left out in the first place?

Al Franken Is A Big Fat Zionist Shill
Reading Al Franken's best seller, Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair And Balanced Look At The Right, I came across a passage unsettling. Franken describes his trip to Afghanistan to entertain soldiers fighting there, and how he had to clear his material with the military. He had proposed a routine he worked out with cheerleaders in the group where they would come out wearing burqas and then throw them off to reveal skimpy cheerleading outfits as an example of how the US is improving the life for women in Afghanistan. (No More Burqas!) the military 86'd the idea, deeming it too insensitive to the beliefs of the indigeonous personnel of the host country. He pleaded and wheedled, but no go. The military lacked a sense of humor.
Or is it Mr. Franken who's not funny. I'll admit, I bought the book, but never found Franken to be anything more than mildly amusing at best. I got rid of it because as an information source, it was futile.
besides the above described incident illustrating Mr. Franken's lack of sensitivity towards other people's religious beliefs, there was another chapter devoted to enrolling one of his interns (the people that did all his research for him, for free) at either Bob Jones or Liberty College, some southern fried Bible thumping place with rules against mixed dating, or something he was looking to challenge. I forget what it was, but once again, insensitivity to another person's religion (unlike myself, who's insensitive to everyone's religion but my own, fortune cookieology)
But waht makes him a Zionist shill is a joke he repeats that is designed to discredit the 9/11 truth movement. He mentions the story of how all Jews were warned to stay off planes on 9/11. "I'm a Jew", he states, "I never got the call". This bit of disinformation is based on the actual story that Odigo, an Israel owned instant messaging company located in Manhattan sent a message out at 7:00am on 9/11 telling employees not to report to work that day.

Then this weekend, he stated at DemocracyFest (thanks Dusty!):"Israel was provoked". Let me see, they killed a family of ten on the beach a Gaza, lied about it, denied it, never apologized for it, assassinated the Hamas chief of police in Gaza, arrested Hamas officials,buzzed the Syrian president's country home with fighetr jets(this was in June, before Hizbollah captured two IDF soldiers), and crossed the border into Lebanon before the two soldier were captured that started this whole mess in the first place. Sounds like some provocation was going on, but it was on the part of Israel itself. I guess being a lying liar is okay, as long as you're a liberal.

Dubya Drinks While the World's On The Brink

Remember the stories from the right of how Bush had single-handedly conquered his substance abuse problem? There was no need to worry he might fall off the wagon because he found Jesus.

Remember how as New Orleans was drowning Bush was at a fund raiser, struming a guitar?

Now, as the world heads towards WWIII, here we see Bush, looking soused. And what's that bottle in front of you Mr. President? Looks like a beer to me. And it looks like he's had more than one.

Once one admits to a substance abuse problem, they are admitting that the substance is more powerful than their will. They can never use the substance again, as it will lead them back down that road again.

This picture thereby gives creedence to the rumors that Bush has been drinking again.

Why Don't You Have Another Glass Of Kool-Aid, Mr. Bradbury?

George Bush is not a great leader. Anyone with half a brain and a yardstick sould tell you he's not even a good leader. He doesn't have to be one because he has something else: good followers. Bush says what they want to hear and for that they'll follow him anywhere like a lost puppy starved for attention and hungry for food. They want to believe that exposing criminal government behavior aids the enemy more than it hurts our country. They want to believe that the war on terror can be won by dropping bombs on civilian populations.
Take a good look at the gentleman in the picture above. Notice the glazed over brainwashed look in his eye? He is good follower. You need to be in the Bush ADD-ministration because if you offer an opinion different from the one Bush wants to hear, you may as well start packing and sending out resumes. So when Senator Patrick Leahy asked head of the Justice Department's office of legal counsel if Bush's interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling in the Hamdan case was right or wrong, what did Steve Bradbury say?

The president is always right.


Yes, he actually said that. Even Bush admitted yesterday that prisoners rights were violated at Guantanamo, after refusing to acknowledge it for five years. So when was he right? The former or the latter? Personally, I think Mr. Bradbury needs to lay off the kool-aid myself, for I can't think of one instance where Bush has ever been right.
"They hate us because we're free"-sorry, they hate us because we show no regard for their sovereignity and no respect for the basic human rights.
"Heckuva job, Brownie."
"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."
There are many more instances where Bush has been completely wrong, and I could sit here all night typing. And I'm sure you could think of more instances when he's been wrong, such as ignoring the PDB stating Osama determined to strike US, but has there ever been an instance in this ADD-ministration where he's been right? I didn't think so.

No, No, It Was The Other Muhajir

How does the US Government decide who the number two guy in alQaeda is? Do they stick a bunch of Arabic names in a hat and draw out enough for a sinister sounding name? Do they tack photos of known alQaeda operatives to a wall and then throw a dart?
This isn't the first time the govewrnment has been wrong in the war on terror. In fact, the first time came hours after 9/11, when 7 out of 19 hijackers named by the FBI turned out to still be alive. Even then FBI director Louis Freeh acknowledged "we don't know who these people are", and yet never bothered to remove them from the list nor find out who really was on the plane. There are evn some who suggest Osama is dead, even though he has yet to stop making tapes (no more videotapes though, since the last actor playing him barely resembled him) to be released at convenient times for the Bush administration.
Now comes word that Zarqawi's successor as number two guy in alQaeda has been in jail for the last seven years!According to his lawyer, Abu Hamza-alMujahir sits in a prison in Cairo and hasn't been anywhere near Iraq. Of course, that means little to the Bush ADD-ministration, as long as they have a mean looking man of Arab decsent to shake at the American people, they can keep them terrified long enough to remove more of their civil liberties.
The US media center in Iraq had no comment on this matter, and said they had to clarify this with the Egyptian government, but until that time, all alQaeda activity in Iraq will be blamed on al_Muhajir.

Let Me Count The Ways

War supporters say that the only reason that people oppose the war in Iraq is because they hate Bush. While many may hold a certain enmity towards him, there are many reason why we oppose the war. Here are just a few. Pick one, or use them all, either way you slice it up, this is not a 'good war'.


1.Raped Iraqi woman feared US troops: reportWho's the terrorists?
2.Abu Ghraib
3. Depleted UraniumCauses diabetes, as well as cancer and deformities.
4. Cost of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to top $500 billion
5.Many US Iraq vets return to homelessnessWay to support the troops! Use them up and throw them away, disposable citizens.
6.US didn't find WMD despite claimsNo ties to alQaeda either.
7.Documents obtained from Army relating to Halliburton subsidiary no bid contractsDick Cheney had a hand in their acquisition by his old company.
8.Keeping Iraq's Oil in the GroundSo we can fund hundred million dollar retirement funds for all oil executives!
9.The Lie of the Century
10.Iraq War Started To Protect Israel.Shhh! Don't tell anyone!
11.HadithaEyewitness account.
12.Bush uncle set to earn millions from company that profited from Iraq warKeeping it in the family!
13.Iraq in Civil war As if any war could be considered civil.
14. 8000 troops desert during Iraq warBecause it's not a just war!
14.One third of US Iraqi Vets seek mental health careApparently they found out Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
15.90% of Troops think Saddam had role in 9/11 72% say end war in 2006
16.There is no war on terrorism Something I've always said!
17.NSA spying on UN delegates To gain leverage for a resolution. If they've done that for the UN, what makes you think they haven't done that for Congress?
18.U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press Otherwise they'd never read good news!
19.Use of white phosphorous at Falluja a war crime.
20.50% of Americans approve of the use of torture Would you approve of watching soldiers torture your children?
21.Who gassed the puppy?We know it couldn't have been Iraq!
22.Forged Yellow cake uranium documents
23.Afghan war planned before 9/11.As well as the invasion of Iraq!
24.P2OG Remember the Miami 7?(scroll down)
25.The real reason we invaded Iraq Saddam starts trading oil in euros.
26.CIA agent name leaked in retaliation for her husband's op-ed piece in NYT.
27.2538 dead US soldiersAny of the above reasons justification? I think not.
28.Over 250,00 Iraqi civilians deadBut we did get those WMD, right?

Thanks to the archives at What Really Happened and Information Clearinghouse for allowing me to plunder their links. I could really go at this for a week, but wouldn't have this finished for today!

God Bless America is Just Some Song Written by an Immigrant

(Continuing on with reposts for the holiday weekend, I thought I'd repost this little gem. The town I grew up in is home to the World's Largest Musical Fountain, colored lights and splashing fountains synchronized to music. Sometimes it's pop music standards from the 30's 40's and 50's, other times it's vintage rock from the late sxities, like Cream and Hendrix. You haven't lived until you've heard Purple Haze played through a sound system so loud it reverberates through the whole town. They even have a special presentation where most of the music from Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is set to lights and water. But every July Fourth, they pull out all the stops with a show of nothing but patriotic music, capped off with Kate Smith's stirring rendition of God Bless America, followed by a fireworks display that ineveitably sets the hill behind it on fire. My home town is a very conservative town, they ran Peanuts on the editorial page until the middle of the seventies as it was deemed too controversial. And there is an implicit mistrust of the migrant workers who drive up from Texas every year to harvest the area blueberry crop. So it is in that spirit that I repost this one, which was from last summer, before the Bush ADD-ministration began it's amnesty for illegal immigrants program.)


You see it all over, magnetic ribbons, bumper stickers, church signs, business signs, every where you go. People say "God Bless America" as if it is from the scripture or the Constitution. Ironically, most of these people are anti-immigrant, which if you were native American, would make sense, but if you're not, somewhere down the line someone in your bloodline emigrated to the US. But the song's author, Irving Berlin, was himself a Russian immigrant who moved to the US with his family when he seven years old, to avoid religious persecution. When he wrote the song he was not saying that God prefers America (the United States), he wrote it as a request to God to bless this country, because in1938 when he wrote it, it was a country worthy of blessing from a supreme being.
Now the song has become the mantra for the brainwashed, those people too ignorant of history to understand what had made America so great in the past and how far we have strayed from it today. In 1938, as war was imminent throughout Europe, America was still an isolationist country, leaving Europe's problems to Europe. There were some here that felt we should stem the tide of Fascism that was rising in Germany, there were others here in America supporting the Nazis, well past our entrance into WWII, among others, notably were Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush (Our current President's grandfather and great-grandfather), who were convicted under the trading with the enemies act.
As is typical, most people couldn't sing more than two or three lines of the song, or understand what they mean. Such is the same with George W. Bush, who claims his favorite song is "Fortunate Son", written by John Fogerty and originally recorded by Creedence Clearwater Revival. And I'm sure that Bush has no capacity to understand what that song says, either.

Some folks are born, made to wave the flag
Ooh that red, white and blue
But when the band plays "Hail To The Chief"
They point their cannon at you

What Mr. Fogerty is saying in this verse that those patriots who supported the US's illegal involvement in Viet Nam (Dick Cheney? Donald Rumsfeld?) were people who found ways to avoid serving their country overseas, leaving draftees to fight for them. This is a true sign of cowardice. If one is not willing to fight for wht they believe, but rather send someone else who maybe doesn't want to fight in their stead, they are cowards. Such is the same with the current war. The brainwashed who support it the most are the ones less likely to actually have to go fight in it. So they cower in front of their television sets, waving their flags as the corporate media (or the Bush regime) feeds them lie after lie to keep them so afraid of the "terrorists" that they are willing to not only give up their rights, but to viciously attack any one who doesn't want to lose their rights or feel we need to continue on in one illegal war after another.
The second verse of the song deals with the priviliged, who weren't sending their kids to the war they supported and were profitting from it, and who felt that they shouldn't be required to pay for it. When Mr. Fogerty sang on the chorus, "It ain't me, it ain't me, I ain't no senators/millionaires son," he understood just who was fighting the war and who wasn't. In the final verse, Mr. Fogerty takes a swipe at those who feel a military solution is the only viable answer to our problems.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes
Ooh they'll send down to war
And when you ask them "How much should we give?"
The only answer's more, more, more

Because as in the sixties, the people who support the war and are profitting from it no that they'll never lose a family member in it. Neither of the Bush twins are fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan, neither is Chelsea Clinton for that matter. As a matter of fact, recruitment levels keep falling as no one wants to get greased in Iraq, die on the way to a military hospital in Germany, not be included in the official war dead, effectively dying for no reason.
I'm holding out for a magnetic ribbon that says "Fight For Your Right To Party". At least that something I believe in.

Driving Across America

(This weekend, while most of the country is traveling, most likely stuck in a traffic jam, I thought I'd repost this little gem in honor of, well, driving across America)

We cut down trees and we plow down hills
To increase our motor skills
We're driving across America

Refineries can't match the pace
As we fill the space between each place
We're driving across America

Someday my friend
This all will end
And it will never be here again

We've all been spoiled by the cheap oil
We sucked it dry beneath the soil
We're driving across American

There is no way we will be saved
The whole country has been paved
We're driving across America

Someday my friend
This all will end
And they will never be here again

One thought prevails as we hit the trails
We'd rather move like snails than ride the rails
We're driving across America

(c)2005 KD Murphy
Thanks to James Howard Kunstler for inspiration

The Centrifuge of War

When is a war really necessary? Or not even a war, but a military action? Right now, we're faced with that question as North Korea is getting ready to test it's new Taepodong-2 missile, with a range of up to 9,300 miles. Walter Mondale, former Vice-President and one time presidential candidate has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea's missile program if they refuse to dismantle it. While the tough rhetoric is not surprising, even for a Democrat, one should note it is an election year. And of course, such a strategy doesn't allow for a follow-up, i.e., what to do when North Korea unleashes chemical weapons against Seoul? Well, the war planners haven't thought that far ahead, but they rarely do. Just look at Iraq.
North korea, which has had a moratorium on it's missile program since 1998, has been eager lately to hold talks with the current ADD-ministration. Even though it has been named by the Bush regime as a member of the Axis of Evil, there has been no desire to open talks with them. I'm sure the thinking has been "we'll get around to them", but they got sidetracked threatening every country in the Gulf Region. Like Iran.
Well, as far as Iran goes, back in 2003 Iran offered to hold talks with the US, putting everything from it's nuclear plan to recognition of Israel and end of support for Palestinians on the table, only to nbe rebuffed, by, you guessed it, the Bush ADD-ministration. they were busy planning war with Iraq, well, like our plans for North Korea, the bombing part, not the dealing with the aftermath part, but when you suffer from ADD, you always remember-baby steps. This led to the replacement of a moderate president with a hardliner and voila! Another reason for war! So now we have two potential wars that could have been potentially avoided, if the White House wasn't occupied by neocon war mongers, intent on enriching Republican contractors in the centrifuge of war.
Well, how about Iraq? Certainly that war was necessary, right? Well, not really. You see, Saddam, perhaps reading the writing on the wall, offered to make a deal to avert war as well. This deal would allow US soldiers and weapons inspectors in to search his whole country, hold elections, recognise Israel, and hand over a suspect in the 1993 World trade Center bombing sitting in an Iraqi jail. Of course, the offer went through the self-avowed prince of darkness, Richard Perle, who stepped down from his position on the Pentagon's Citizen Advisory Board rather than give up the oppurtunity to make billions off said war with Iraq.
So, there you have it. Wars started for solely for the necessity of a group of greedy bastards to siphon off more tax payer dollars (while getting a nice tax cut in return). What the fuck, blood money spends the same as hard earned cash, and maybe they'll pull a Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and donate large chunks of their billions to charity. But I wouldn't count on that any more than I would count on the US ground based interceptors actually averting a missile attack. And you can rest assured that after $43 billion it doesn't work, neither does the guy who got the defense contract to build it.

"Abducted", Or Captured?

At no other time in American history has the (American) English language taken such a beating. And I don't mean the manglings by Our Supreme Leader in his speeches, either. Prisoners of War become 'enemy combatants' so we don't have to follow the protocols of the Geneva Accords. Threats against Iran become diplomacy. Insurgents become terrorists and permanent bases become an exit strategy.
Now two American soldiers have been 'abducted' by masked gun men. I guess that makes it sound more like a crime has been committed than saying they were captured, thereby making criminals out of the perpetrators. Now, I hope these men get back home safely to their families. It goes without saying that if the current administration didn't have such a hard-on for the Iraqi oil, none of this would have happened. But of all the Iraqis in US custody, not to mention the 'enemy combatants' at Guantanamo, how many of them were abducted? All? Some ? None?
Perhaps this is a new strategy of the insurgency, rather than kill Americans, which has no effect on the Bush regime or it's supporters, a dead soldier is just one more veteran whose benefits they don't have to cut five years from now. A prisoner of war, or 'kidnap victim', is more than just a bargaining chip, it is a source of anxiety for a nation already uneasy about a war we were assured would be quick and painless. Now forces must be diverted to a rescue in order to save the chickenhawks from getting egg on their face.
Why? Remember the photos of Iraqis at the hands of American soldiers at Abu Ghraib? How would we react to American servicemen in the same type of poses? Not a pretty picture, but who was the one who opened up that pandora's box in the first place? This is why America shouldn't be condoning torture, or issue signing statements to laws forbidding torture that state we're not going to follow this law. Because there will come a time when our soldiers will be captured by enemy forces. Our complaints won't be taken seriously because we're doing the same things ourselves. And the people responsible for these atrocities in the current administration will fail to take any responsibility at all, because they lacked the foresight to see this happening.

What Makes A Father Makes A Son

Does daddy need a day off? In the weeks preceding Father's Day, advertising seemed to think the best way a father could spend his day was on a golf course, or somewhere else, engaged in activities that took him away from his children. Not all family dynamics are the same, but I fail to see where a father benefits from spending even less time with his children.
At the pool yesterday, a grandmother was there with her two grandsons, swimming, when she realized it was Father's Day today."We'll have to buy a present for you to give to him when you see him next week,"she offered to them. That started me to thinking, why weren't they with him this weekend? They weren't with their mother, so why not let him have them on this weekend? I know, custody rights and all, and the divorce agreement probably stipulated that he only see them every other week, or one weekend a month, but to me it seemed spiteful on the part of the mom to keep the children on the one weekend they should be with their dad, especially since she dumped them on her mom. It made me a little more thankful my ex is flexible on the times I get to spend with my kids.
But it also started me to think about my own father, and all the Hell he went through and still managed to raise five kids. My dad loved us, and enjoyed being with us as much as possible. But growing up, that was difficult, as he had to put in long hours at his job to cover medical bills incurred by my mother's bout with cancer.
At times he could be fun, I remember the games of hide and seek in the dark in the whole house we used to play. We lived in a spooky old house, with three floors and a full basement, and nights after dinner, we would turn out all the lights and play hide and seek. It was fun until everybody had been found except dad, who could be lurking anywhere in the shadows, waiting to jump out at any second.
But he also very strict, having spent time in the Marines, rising to the rank of sergeant. He had my mother's old sorority paddle that he would use on us if we misbehaved, until we hid it from him, which made it worse, as he would then resort to his belt, conveniently located around his waist. Back then, corporal punishment was still acceptable, and my father, being raised by two alcoholics, probably didn't know any different. I still cringe when I hear some WT wish they could "still beat their kids", we were paddled as a punishment, not beat out of frustration as these people seem to want to do. Even worse, though, was the yelling. Get his "Irish" up and you'd be wishing he would hit you. His eyebrows would come together, his ears would turn red, and our friends down the block would ask if that was our dad they heard yelling.
Politically, my dad was a reactionary. In the sixties, he belonged to the John Birch Society, which he joined, because he was concerned about protecting the rights of the individual, and left when they became convinced everything was a communist plot. In fact, I remember a tract he had that us kids enjoyed because it reprinted all our favorite top forty song lyrics. Who knew the Monkees were so subversive? But as we grew older, he became less reactionary and more conservative libertarian.
This was following my mother's death, and after her struggle against cancer. Often times, he would have to work all day, come home and take care of five unruly kids and a bedridden wife, and never lost his faith (although we children all did). He even switched careers before she passed, giving up his job in the insurance industry so he could spend more time at home.
I often wonder, what he would be like now? Before he passed, he was a Clinton hater. He may have listened to Rush Limbaugh, so would he be a Bush supporter? The highlight of any Father's day barbecue was the chance to argue politics with him, and we all ganged up on him, be as we were all to the left of him. But there was one thing I remember to this day that leaves me wondering.
When I was a teenager, and his anti-communist stance had settled down some (we were kicking their ass in the Cold War), I asked him, what was wrong with communism?
Well, he said, for one thing they spy on their citizens. You can't trust your neighbor, as they might turn you into the government. You can't sign a treaty with them, as they would never keep it, and break it as soon as possible. They torture people, and don't allow the people to speak out against the government. So I wonder, would my father accept this if it came draped in an American flag?
Probably. He was a Fox News watcher, after all.

A New Number Two (But The Same Old Shit)

It didn't take long. In less than a week, a new leader was chosen for al-qaeda, which makes me wonder what kind of campaign process they must have. What, no mudslinging (Abdul gets his IED materials from Zionists!) or outlandish campaign promises (vote for me and I promise twice as many virgins when you die fighting the infidels!)? You'd think they'd be lining up for miles to be the point man for the US propaganda campaign against Islam.
But now the US has a new face and voice of Al Qaeda to put fear into the hearts and minds of the beer swilling flag waving chemically imbalanced brain damaged NASCAR watching monkeys before they had time to think "Well, we got Zarqawi, isn't it time to bring our troops home?" Even though most of the fighting between US troops and Iraqis involve the insurgency, the US makes no distinction between Al qaeda and the insurgency (just as it makes no distinction between combatants and civilians) . As long as they have a boogey man to wag at the people who'll make video and audio tapes to be released right before election time, everything's cool!
What this really points up is the futility of the currents strategy of the war on terrorism. Terrorists are like dandelions, mow one down and ten more pop up in their place. And, like dandelions, to get rid of terrorists, you have to get at the roots. But there is no intention of ending terrorism by the US, only exploiting it and defining every military action in the Middle east as part of "the war on terrorism", such as the impending war with Iran, as an excuse to establish a permanent military prescence in the region.
Which means that the war will go on for generations. Someday, you may be able to tell your grandchildren that you remember when we actually had the rights and freedoms that the troops are dying for overseas. And I'm more than certain there'll be a new number two al Qaeda guy.

Is This The End To The Iranian "Crisis"?

Today, the Iran situation took one step closer to resolution, with Iran agreeing to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for some nuclear technology from the US. Does this mean that it's okay to the US for Iran to have nuclear technology, as long as it comes from the US? Perhaps that's what the current administration was so upset about, a chance for major party contributors to make billions being lost to Russia. But in a way, it makes sense for Iran to choose nuclear technology from the US.
Look at it this way, in the last, oh, we'll say, thirty years, the only problem the US has had with nuclear power was Three Mile Island, which, as bad is it was, looks like a skinned knee compared to the Russian's nuclear catastrophe, Chernobyl. I mean, if you are going to get in an accident, which would you rather be driving, a Hummer, or a Yugo?
So, perhaps this is a first, Iran and the US coming together for the first time since the Hostage Crisis of 1979 (if you don't include that whole Iran-Contra arms for hostages thing. We do, but the media and the government don't because they want you to forget it ever happened)to resolve their differences. Iran has stated that they will continue to price their oil in dollars, not euros, which miffed Hugo Chavez, who's looking for a way to end the "dollar's dictatorship". (Don't worry Hugo, Bush has two and a half more years in office)
Perhaps if the whole thing is settled, and the US has no reason to attack Iran (that grinding noise you hear is merely Dick Cheney, gritting his teeth), the price of oil per barrel will go down, as it has risen steadily with the increasing tensions between the two countries. Which means another quarter of record profits for the oil companies and Americans can remove that "For Sale" sign off their boats and SUVs. So Americans can hop in their vehicles, looking forward to another summer of "easy motoring" (Thank you Jim Kunstler!), and crank up their CD players and iPods to drown out those voices who still are there reminding us about peak oil.
Does this suggest a change in diplomatic strategies within the current administration? No longer threatening nations, but actually working with them to successfully resolve issues between them? If so, then we must applaud them for avoiding a catstrophe that would have made Iraq look like the invasion of Grenada. Perhaps this will continue, and all conflicts can be resolved peacefully.
Finally, what are we to think about the pre-war propaganda in the corporate media about the possible war with Iran being part of "The War On Terrorism"? Does it mean that the war in Iran was never actually part of the war on terrorism, but merely used as a convenient excuse to justify a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign nation, much the same way the war in Iraq was erroneously linked to "The War On Terrorism"? Or will another reason to attack Iran pop up, possibly right before November's elections?

Gay Marriages? Again? Must Be An Election Year!

They should just call it the Bush ADD-ministration, they can't seem to stay focused on an issue long enough to bring about a solution to anything. Last month, it was all about illegal immigrants, they can't seem to stay focused on the wars they are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan without wanting to start another one in Iran, leaving problems that as Bush has said himself, another president will have to deal with.
Now they're back to whole gay marriage issue again, with Bush using his weakly radio address to throw his support behind a bill in the Senate that is sure not to pass. And why not? Opposing gay marriages worked so well for them in 2004, well, that and a boatload of vote fraud, why not trot it out again? Nothing gets those red staters madder than "activist judges" who legislate from the bench (as opposed to activist executives who legislate from the signing statements) and Bush needs to get them to the polls to keep up the appearance that, despite falling poll numbers, the people prefer Republicans, so when they retain Congress through continued vote fraud, the corporate media will have an issue to point to as the root cause for their success.
So why not restrict the freedom of homosexuals who wish to take a vow in a civil service pledging their undying love for each other? Everybody else's freedoms are becoming more restricted by this administration, why not pick on the gays too? Plus Bush gets to play up to the thumpies who labor under the misguided belief that God prefers the US over the rest of the world. Yeah, that makes sense. There's a whole fucking planet, but God's only going to favor the greediest and most wasteful nation on it. If you believe that, you'd probably believe you could leg press a ton using a protein shake developed by Pat Robertson.
So while there is a wealth of real problems facing this country, and it's future, let's focus on something that isn't hurting anything. That's what you call compassonate conservatism!

Straight From The Horse's Ass

Good news! Iran has voluntarily agreed to suspend it's uranium enrichment activities! Of course, all it asks for in return are security assurances from the US that it has no plans to invade or attack. A quick, diplomatic solution to the Iranian "Crisis", right?
Wrong.
The US, specifically, the Bush administration, refuses to give the security assurances Iran has asked for. In fact, it has refused any diplomatic efforts until Iran suspends it's uranium enrichment. Is the US wrong for refusing to negotiate with a sovereign state acting well within it's rights under the NPT to acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or is Iran wrong for asking for assurances that the US has no intention of "pre-emptively" striking at Iran?
The next step, following the Iraq model for seriously fucking up the United States, is to take the matter to the UN, where it will ask for sanctions against Iran, even thought IAEA chairman Mohammed el-Baradei says Iran is not an immediate threat. And even though Russian and China, who both have deals with Iran, are sure to veto those sanctions. This is when the US once again acts unilaterally.
Says who?
CAVUTO: That we would, I’m sorry Ambassador, that we would act alone if we had to?
BOLTON: That’s why he says no option is taken off the table. But it’s also why he has, the President, has reached out President Putin and other leaders in the past couple of days to say, “We’re making a significant step here,” that will be criticized by many of the president’s staunchest supporters here at home. But he’s taking this step to show strength and American leadership and to say he’s willing to do something that may be unpopular even with some of his supporters, to remove all excuses from Iran and its supporters to say, “We went the extra mile. We gave Iran really, this last chance to show that they are serious when they say they don’t want nuclear weapons.” This is put or shut up time for Iran.

So there you have it, straight from the horse's ass, the US intends on acting unilaterally against Iran, regardless of the consequences. But at least they put on a nice dog and pony show for the beer swilling brain damaged chemically imbalanced NASCAR watching morons out there. And in the end, isn't that all that matters?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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
the
Iraq war oil was less than $30 per barrel; today it is over $70.
The
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
Middle
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
our
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.

Tumbling Dice

The US House of Representatives voted in favor of what it calls "Iran Freedom Support Act". Now, what is not known by the passage of this act is if the members of Congress who voted for it are ignorant, or if they hope that their constituents are ignorant. What it states is ludicrous:"hold Iran accountable and support a smooth transition to democracy." accountability? From this Congress? They can't even, or don't want to hold President Bush accountable for his many violations of the law and/or Constitution, now they want to hold Iran accountable for following the NPT?
But that's not even the best part! "..Support a smooth transition to democracy." Iran is a democracy, just like the US. They voted for their current President, just as we voted (kind of ) for ours. Of course, I'm sure they wouldn't have voted for such a hardliner if they hadn't felt crowded by the US Army, which is occupying countries to either side of it. But, that's beside the point. They are a democracy, so for Congress to vote to support a smooth transition to democracy is kind of like Congress voting to keep accepting favors from lobbyists.
All this is, is the same old rigoramole leading to the inevitable invasion of Iran. It's not that Iran has nuclear weapons, it's for three other reasons, the first and most obvious being it's vast oil reserves.
The second is the oil bourse that Iran is in the process of setting up that will trade in euros, not dollars. That's a big fuck you to the petrodollar that the US has been passing around for some thirty odd years, and will be sure to have a devastating effect on the US economy, much as the high fuel prices already are. Hope you've stocked up on canned tuna, powdered milk and bottled water, because hard times are coming if this comes to pass, or if the US attacks Iran and they effectively shut off the Straits of Hormuz.
But the third reason has to do with the axis of evil. Remember those countries that Bush mentioned shortly after September 11? Iraq, Iran and North Korea. While the first two are easily indentifiable as Muslim countries with lots of oils, their inherent evil is obvious. But North Korea? Here's a clue: draw a line connecting the three countries and what is immediately between them? China. The US is positioning itself to contain China, which is on it's way to becoming a major economic powerhouse. Courtesy of US corporations and at the expense of American workers. US corporations are addicted to Chinese labor like US citizens are addicted to foreign oil. All this has done is increase the trade deficit with China and weaken the dollar even more. But that's okay if you're a millionaire, not so okay if you don't make over $100,000 annually.
Fortunately, the corporate media is there to keep the US citizens in the dark. Bush just appointed FOX news correspondent Tony Snow as his new press secretary, effectively finishing Fox News' transition into the official propaganda arm of the Bush administration. Don't look for any objectivity now that each news media outlet struggles to curry favor with the White House, any more than we can look to Brewster-Jennings to monitor the number of centrifuges that Iran has to enrich it's uranium. The die has been cast, the dominoes will fall.

Is it Zarqawi, Or Is It Memorex

A video has appeared on the internet purportedly showing dead al-Qaeda "leader" Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. This comes days after an audiotape of Osama Bin Laden was played on
al-Jazeera. On the right is a picture from the video, while on the left is a known photograph of Zaraqawi. A close examination will bring you to the conclusion that the man in the new video is most definitely not Zarqawi, as his nose is longer than the one on the left. In other words it's a fake. What makes me say that? Because he's dead, he must be if our forces in Iraq, who were able to pick the right Saddam out of his many alleged body doubles have been unable to capture some guy hobbling around with a wooden leg.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was to have reported to have been killed as the US bombed strongholds of Ansar al-Islam in the north of Iraq. Having a wooden leg made it impossible to escape. So why keep him alive, or for that matter why keep Osama alive?
Either two things are happening here. One is this is all just election year posturing by the Bush administration to get the people's focus back on the "War on Terror" instead of the quagmire in Iraq, or any of the other reasons that Bush's poll numbers are still falling. Fairly soon, they'll bring out the color coded terror threat chart again, as it seemed to work so well last time in keeping the sheeple scared. Of course, this could backfire as it shows that no matter how many bombs are dropped, or soldiers are losts, or countries we invade, we'll never catch the main bad guys. Either that, or they're softening people up with some pre-invasion propaganda. Next they'll be showing us pictures of Zarqawi and Bin Laden having cocktails at Ahmednejhad's place. For try as might, while a lot of news stories had the purported video, not one of them provided a link to the original website they got it from.

What's To Worry?

The way the US government measures unemployment is ludicrous. Instead of counting the number of people actually out of work, it counts the number of people filing for unemployment benefits. Which would be accurate, if benefits lasted until one found a position. So once your benefits run out, you are not counted as unemployed by the governmnet, regardles of whether or not you were successful in gaining employment. So when the government lists unemployment at 4.7%, is it really an accurate representation of unemployed?
I mention this because of this article which states that after the war, the major concern of Americans is the economy. If the economy is doing so well, why are Americans so concerned?
Well, the reality is, that the economy is only doing well for the top 20% of Americans. The average executive compensation to worker compensation ratio has gone from 107 to 1 in 1990, to 431 to 1 in 2003. The top 10% of Americans hold 37% of the income. And they just got a tax cut that Bush wants to make permanent to boot.
The average American worker however, is seeing none of this "booming" economy. Their healthcare costs are going up, as well as the price of gas, which will eventually drive up the price of everything else. But as long as the haves and have mores aren't hurting, don't expect the Republicans to do anything about it. As GOP pollster Whit Ayres puts it,
"We see low unemployment, but the headlines are dominated by the thousands being laid off by General Motors and Ford." So apparently, they don't see the lay-offs as being unemployed. Why not just say "Let them eat cake!" you blind and heartless bastard.
What it all comes back to is how the numbers are crunched by the government. Sure, GDP is up, but only in large enough numbers for the 10% so it averages out to appear that it's up for everyone. Sure, unemployment is down, when you discard the people who have exhausted their benefits. And sure, wages are up, when you take into account the average CEO compensation of $11 million.

Making Michigan Motor

If you live in this state, you more than likely have seen the ads. Gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos driving a car through the streets of Michigan, in an attempt to look sincere. Now, while I don't doubt that Mr. DeVos drives, I know for a fact that he's never driven through my neighborhood, and he probably doesn't live more than ten miles away. But if you live on this side of the state, you've seen the family helicopter, flying them downtown, to Ada, and to the family compound on Lake Michigan in Holland. You're not a regular guy, Dick (although you are a regular dick) so don't pretend to be one.
One of the campaign pledges Mr. DeVos is making is to get Michigan working again. Michigan's unemployment rate is running at least 2.1% points higher than the rest of the country. And with lay-offs coming at Ford, GM, and Delphi, it's only going to go up.
Michigan's economy has always been tied to the automotive industry, at least for the last seventy years. If you drove an American car, there's a good chance it was made in Detroit, Flint or Lansing. But lately this economy has been hurting, and even the introduction of employee pricing last fall didn't do much to save the Big Three automakers.
There's a lot of reasons given as to why this has happened. But here is only one reason, and it's simple economics.
When Henry Ford first started mass producing automobiles, his workers were the highest paid auto workers. They earned enough to afford to buy the cars they were building, thereby increasing orders. And as the business spread, so did the number of cars sold. Now, of course, most parts making is being outsourced, closing factories in Michigan. Since 1999, one in three plant jobs have been lost in Michigan. People who don't have jobs can't afford to buy new cars, and with the low paying jobs being created in the new economy, they can't afford to buy new cars either. When people can't afford to buy new cars, new car sales start to slump.

A ripple effect spreads and before you know it, you're sliding into a recession that spreads into other areas of the economy. New housing sales are down five percent. Support businesses that relied on the automotive industry start to falter as well. In fact, except for the executives, everybody starts to feel the pinch.

So Dick DeVos thinks he can change that. It takes more than bold pronouncements to do it, it takes a plan. And so far, all Mr. DeVos has shown us is that he knows how to drive a car. Which makes him one of the few in the state who can still afford to do it.

Time For The Ol' Dirty Trick Squad

(Note: My computer is running funny; until I get it running right, the posts here might be a bit sporadic. Sorry, Lily, if I haven't been responding to your emails, but if this son-of-a-gun is infected, I'm not sending out any emails until I get it de-bugged, in the words of Ron Nasty "If you know what I mean").
Today news out of the White House concerns the big shake up in the Bush administration. Scotty has left the building. Also Karl Rove has resigned as Deputy chief of staff. Why? here's my theory.
Rove has left to help the Republican mid-term elections, which means the revival of the dirty trick squad. Now I'm sure that the Democrats have a dirty trick squad, being craftier and less blatant, they seem to never get caught. But the republicans, suffering in the polls, need some one to work that old black magic to help them retain control of Congress. Bush needs a rubber stamp for his plans to invade Iran, I mean nuke Iran, and even though AIPAC controls Congress, and Israel is pushing for a strike against Iran, the Democrats are likelier to get a pang of conscience and demand that Bush actually try diplomacy, rather than threats and intimidation.
Also, a Democratic controlled Congress might investigate Constitutional violations made by the Bush administration and even *gulp* move to impeach the President. And a Democratic controlled Congress won't roll over and go belly up like the Republicans have every time that Bush has clearly violated the law. So in order to do that (and possibly distance himself should he be indicted in the Plame leak case), Rove has diminished his role in the Bush administration.
So, it's apparent what the Republican strategy will be again. Anti-gay marriages, fighting terrorists, and protecting the flag (while the President wipes his ass on the Constitution). Don't mind the unemployment (now at 12%), or high gas prices (while the oil company executives are walking away with hundred million dollar retirement plans) or the tax cuts for the rich (Cheney received a $1.8 million tax refund). Ignore the bad news coming out of Iraq, or Afghanistan, or from the retired generals, (but please swallow all the anti-Iran propaganda being spoon fed to you) coming out of the "liberal" media. The country's doing great and Karl Rove is getting ready to smear any any liberal tax and spend Democrat who has the audacity to state otherwise. So if I were Russ feingold, I'd stay out of any small aircraft.

What Qualifies As News

Sitting at my computer this evening, strumming my guitar as I tried to figure out a song at Harmony Central while browsing their OLGA, , a news story in my sidebar brought a WTF reaction to my head long enough to distract me.
The other night, while at Kvatch's, there was a discussion about Kitten Biting Republicans. The theory was, that these people would support President Bush even if he went on live television and bit the head off a kitten.(Kind of like the people who would vote for the Democrats even if they ran a yellow dog)
But what caught my attention was this little item: Sean Hannity Still Backs Bush. This is news? Sean Hannity is the Kitten Bitingest Republican ever. Bush could be revealed to be satan himself, or a friggin' space alien and Hannity would still be behind him. Why? Because they're both Republicans, and that means besides being pig headed, neither will admit they're wrong.
"Let me be straight with you — I like George Bush," Hannity said. "I think he's a man of principle, a man of faith. I think he's got a backbone of steel and he's a real, genuine, big-time leader ... He's a consequential figure for his time. We don't see it right now."
We don't see it right now because Bush isn't showing any of the qualities that make you fawn over him, you pugnacious sycophant. A leader? The man has led the country into two quagmires and is planning on a third. Sure, he a consequential figure for his time, but not in a good way.


History will vindicate Bush as a strong leader the same way it did Harry Truman, another unpopular president of his time, Hannity said.
No, history has already vindicated those who opposed the war in Iraq, which no matter how much Bush tries to spin it, turned out to be a bad decision. Hurricane Katrina, Social Security reform, Medicare drug program, the Dubai port deal, increased budget and trade deficits, record unemployment, recession,the Bush administration has been one failure after another. The only people who think he's doing a good job are those people in the bubble with him (who got those huge tax cuts and, like Dick Cheney, who received a $1.9 million refund, got huge tax refunds).
So how this qualifies as news is beyond me. I'd rather have another fluff story about some cat trapped in a wall than one about Hannity backing Bush. i guess the corporate media couldn't find anyone to back Donald Rumsfeld, do they went with the next best thing.

Lincoln's Dream Has Died

Once upon a time in America, a great man stood before the people and proclaimed that"government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the Earth." Well, that dream has died. And while it may be easy to blame Lincoln's own party for the failure, the truth is, that the Democrats have as much to do with it's death.
We no longer have a government of the people. By this, Lincoln meant that our representatives in Congress should be like us, farmers, doctors, people from every walk of life. Now, we just have one kind of representative, the professional politician. his job is not to represent the people, it's to increase the power of his party, and increase the contributions to his own, as well as his party's campaign war chest. Legislation detrimental to his own constituency is passed, often times against the objections of said constituency. The core constituency of the Democratic Party has always been organized labor. When NAFTA passed, a treaty that would hurt organized labor the most, passed, it was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democratic President. And in that time, we have seen more and more jobs filled by organized labor moved out of this country.
We no longer have a government by the people. Too often, issues are not defined by the needs or wants of the people, but set by the propaganda ministers of the corporate media. Illegal immigrants and undocumented workers have been a part of the American landscape. Why has this suddenly become an issue? With real unemployment at 12%, why has now been chosen to flood the labor pool, at the expense of those born in, or legally immigrated to, this country? Do the people benefit from this, or only a select few.
Congress just voted to spend $92 billion more on a war that the American people increasingly do not want. The have raised the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. How does miring future generations with a debt for a war that should never have been fought benefit America?
The answer to all these questions is, it doesn't. The only ones to benefit from any of this are corporations. We have become a country of, by and for the corporations. At a time when CEOs are posting record salaries (Capital One President Richard Fairbank at the top with $249 million) the average workers wage has fallen 2.3% since Bush took office. So who got the tax cut? The people who are gaining the most as they slowly squeeze out the middle class.
And so as I look back over the last five years, has any legislation been enacted that has benefited the American people? The prescription drug program? Social security reform? The Patriot act? The answer, in my eyes, is no, we haven't. And as for Lincoln's dream that a government of, by and for the people not perish from the Earth?

Make your own sign here

Struggling?

President Bush and his party are struggling in the polls right now. Every attempt by the adminstration to sell the war in Iraq has only led to his numbers falling more. In the mean time, we get more and more news out of Washington about the abuse of power and disregard for the Constitution by the Bush White House, and every day, we see the Republican Congress, instead of dealing with the violations of law by Bush, enabling them to continue on. They have put the party before the country, and more and more people are waking up to that fact.
Bush likes to blame the media for continuing to report the bad news out of Iraq. If the war had gone as they and their pundits in the corporate media had claimed, the Iraqis would have their own government in place, and our soldiers would be at home. but now Bush has said that the troops won't be coming home on his watch, which is something we weren't told (by the administration anyway)pre-invasion. This makes the Republicans look dishonest. Is it any wonder they're struggling?
This week saw the resignation of Tom DeLay from his House seat. Mr. DeLay is one of a number of Republicans getting caught up in the Abramhoff scandal, all of which have been Republicans. Add to that, the recent conviction of Abramhoff. Plus the indictment of Scooter Libby. Which has led to the White House being the source of the leak, after a year of denial from the White House. Then there was the arrest this week of Brian Doyle, DHS deputy press aide. then ther was randy "Duke " Cunningham, convicted of accepting bribes,the White House aide arrested for stealing from Target, a list so long that I probably couldn't name them all, nor could you.
In short, the Republicans have done nothing the public approves of. From shielding the President from any retribution for his criminal act, to passing legislation that most Americans oppose, all the while not making them feel any more secure, the Republicans have dropped the ball. (of course, the Democrats have forgot what they were playing and are now lucking for a puck, but that's another story)
In the days following 9/11, the republicans have squandered all the political capital they had (as well as much of the countires resources) on an agenda meant to further the party more than help the American people. They have spent us into a hole, not including the war on terrorism, which is off the books (and was supposed to pay for itself), and continue to expand the trade deficit. They have lined the pockets of the wealthy while doing everything they could to ensure that the working people slip further into debt. Perhaps the Republicans are struggling because the majority of Americans are struggling themselves.

Plamegate Summer

There's a blog name I like called Watergate Summer mainly because the name harkens back to my childhood, a time when there was nothing on television in the afternoons but the Watergate Hearings. The President of the United States at the time had been found to abusing his power, authorizing illegal wiretaps against political enemies, and break-ins to the opposition party's headquarters to acquire incriminating photographs of associate E. Howard Hunt as one of the "mystery tramps" arrested in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. The hearings were at a time when not only was our country at war, but facing the greatest Constitutional crisis it had ever faced.
During the time this was going on, as I mentioned, we were fighting a war, much the same as we are today. We were fighting in Viet Nam, a southeastern Asia country. We were not at war with Viet nam, but merely fighting against the spread of Communism, a political ideology in direct opposition to our own. The Communists weren't free, they lived in fear of the government, and had to be careful what they said because the government was spying on them and could lock people away with out a trial. The Communists were trying to take over the world, and it was the determination of the capitalist backed US government not to let this happen.
But the war was never used as an excuse to prevent hearings into what the President knew and when he knew it. And though the Congress was controlled by the Democrats, and the White House was Republican, this was not seen as a partisan move, merely an investigation into whether or not the President had been involved in breaking the law. Along the way we learned of a lot of the inner workings of the Republican party, such as the dirty trick squad run by Donald Segretti that followed 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern around and harassed him at every turn. And then, in the midst of it all, the President resigned rather than face impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Sound familiar?
The result of all this was that Congress passed laws to ensure that this type of abuse of power wouldn't happen again. Another result of this was that it prevented the Republicans from gaining control of Congress as they had lost all credibility with the American voter.
Now we have a President who is fighting a new war. And unlike the previous abuser of power, he has used this war to justify every wrong it commits. Torture? It's okay, I'm a war President. Lie to Congress about Iraq's threat to the United States? It's okay, I'm a war president. Break the law to spy on peace activists and religious organizations? It's okay, I'm a war President. Oh, that's illegal? I'll get my party to pass a law that allows me to skirt the law because we're the war party, and I'm a war president.
So it comes as no surprise that when a member of the opposition party suggests censuring the president, he finds no support in Congress. The Republicans are in charge and they can remember that the last time their president turned out to be an odious monster, it hurt the party for years. So, rather than put the country, or for God's sake, the Constitution before the party is akin to sacrilege to them.
Now the word has come from Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into the leaking of a covert intelligence agent's name to members of the press, known as Plame-gate, the authorization for this leak came from the President himself. the leak came on account of the covert agent's husband writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times denouncing the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Anyone who's been paying attention to remembers what the President said when questioned about this. (or maybe it was his press secretary, Bush doesn't do a lot of meet and greet with the press, having to answer questions just not his forte). "If any one in this administration has been found to involved in this in anyway, rest assured they would no longer have a job." Or words to that effect. Now it's been found that the line goes all the way up from Scooter Libby to Dick Cheney and the President himself, is it possible we may be looking at a Plamegate summer?

DeLay Decides to Drop

Ethically challenged human insect Tom Delay is expected to announce today his intentions not to seek re-election in the upcoming election. Mr. Delay, a Texas Republican, is part of an election year lobbying scandal that forced him to step down earlier from his post as House Majority Leader. He recently easily won the Republican primary in Texas, home of the corrupt politician.
And so the Democrats plan for the midterm election begind to unfold. Do nothing, and the Republican Party will collapse under the weight of it's own hypocritic corruption. Why move to censure Bush? Keeping unpunished for his crimes will only cause him to commit more, thereby driving more people into the Democratic fold who are weary of the incompetence and corruption of the Republicans which they swore to do away with in their "Contract On America".
DeLay, for his part, threatened to pursue an aggressive speaking and organizing campaign to promote foster care, Republican candidates (how many would want this corrupt bastard stumping for them?), and a closer connection between religion and government. Of course, being a religious man (so he claims) hasn't kept Mr. deLay's hands very clean, one wonders how many more corrupt Christian candidates he would support.

Not Another Dick In The State Capitol

Turning our attention to local politics, news came out today that GOP gubernatorial candidate Rich DeVos has already spent $2.5 million in his quest to be Michigan's next governor. One has to wonder the wisdom of spending this kind of money for a job that pays considerably less than this per annum. And this from someone who is sure to make the state's budget deficit a campaign issue. Of course, what he won't mention is that when John Engler took office in 1988, the state had a balanced budget as well as a surplus, something burned off in the next twelve years of the Engler administration, handing Jennifer Granholm a budget deficit when she took office six years ago. Of that money, most was spent on cut and run politics, cutting taxes for the likes of Dick DeVos so they run their businesses out of Michigan.
Devos' wife (and former Nation GOP Chair) Betsy did so, by selling her families company, Prince, to Wisconsin-owned Johnson Controls, who closed much of the operation in the state. Then Ms. DeVos had the audacity to claim that Michigan workers were "overpaid" (as opposed to CEO's of Michigan companies, such as her husband) . DeVos also promised George W Bush she would deliver him Michigan in 2000, a promise broken by the DeVos' insistence of putting their school voucher scheme on the ballot in the same year, sending record numbers of Democratic voters to the polls to defeat it.
And the voucher program is what this campaign is all about. Even after being resoundingly defeated by the voters in 2000, plus DeVos' failed Senate Campaign, they just don't get the message that the people of Michigan don't really want them in charge, or their voucher plan to use tax dollars to fund religious education. Taking more money away from public schools, that'll make them better. Or better yet, privatize them and have your school children being auctioned off to the highest paying bidder in their effort to imprint children with their product brand. Because just having commercials on tv, billboards, t-shirts, above urinals, parking lot spaces, city buses, semi-trailers, isn't enough, now they want to start surrounding our children with their product statement. Just how our children are supposed to get an education with all the distractions is anyone's guess.
DeVos' experience comes from his job as Alticor president, a job he got because.. His daddy started the company. And while he managed to keep the business going, how hard is it to run a glorified pyramid scheme. You see, Alticor is the parent company of Amway, which is enough said around these parts as the company's founders have ponied up enough dough to put their name on a slew of local public buildings.
So while Jennifer Granholm plans on making a voluntary financial disclosure on April 17, DeVos has chosen not to, as everything in this campaign is designed to have DeVos ("the workers of Michigan get paid too much money") as a friend of the working man, the people who are losing their jobs as more and more Michigan companies fold. The state congress, run by the Republicans, have even passed a measure to raise the state's minimum wage in a bid to keep a proposal off the ballot that would likely bring more Democrats to the polls. And that, in a nutshell, is how our political system works, only doing something for people when it serves your needs.

I'm Not All Evil!

You Are 46% Evil

You are evil, but you haven't yet mastered the dark side. Fear not though - you are on your way to world domination.

How Evil Are You?

I really think these online quizzes are the ultimate in pussiliency, but I was curious to see if I was as evil as people seem to think I am.

Give Your Children The Gift of Love, A Tumor

Everytime I see an idiot walking around or driving talking on their sell phone, I wish grievous harm upon them. Is there something so important about your conversation that it can't wait until you can devote your full energy to it? Of course not, cell phones are the new status symbol, and nothing is more evident of that then the new models with better features they bring out after the suckers have bought all the old models.
Now, I'm not entirely opposed to cell phones, there are times when a cell phone is a useful tool. It's the calling plans that force you to use or lose your minutes that keep people driving around absorbed in conversation when they ought to be absorbed in driving. But now, a recent Swedish Study suggests that extensive cell phone use can lead to brain tumors.
Sure, I know, studies funded by the cell phone comanies have suggested otherwise, but the phone companies wouldn't release a study that shows their product to be dangerous. The Swedish study also suggests that the chance for tumors in greater in younger people who use the cell phones. And this is just the group that cell phone advertisers aim for, as well as the parents of concerned parents who want to keep tabs on their children at all times.
To me, the study makes sense. Cell phones send a radioactive signal to a tower, which then sends the signal via radio waves to another, all the time continuing the intensity of the radio signal. And the signals emit from a device that is held in close proximity to the brain. How could it not cause tumors?
So, will this study stop people from using cell phones frequently? Probably not, as there are those out there who still smoke cigarettes, or methamphetamine, despite the obvious health risks. This might even increase cell phone use by teenagers who always seem to have a death wish anyway (I know I did when I was a teenager. I thought that nothing can kill me, and so far, I've been right) as they think it makes them look cool to be dangerous.