(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
Friday, June 30, 2006
Sunday, June 25, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
"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.
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
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?
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?
Sunday, June 04, 2006
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!
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!
Thursday, June 01, 2006
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?
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?
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.
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.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Friday, April 28, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
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.
Saturday, April 22, 2006
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.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
