Some Republicans are getting all 'het up' that Fred Thompson seems to be running in the Primary. I'm not sure what it is, Hollywood? I've seen him compared to Ronnie, I seriously doubt he's got the charm to cover as much incompetence as Ronnie demonstrated. R R is hero to the very people going nutz over illegal immigration amnesty - his deal, and we're paying for it now; terrorism - he could have had them in Beirut, pussed out even though he knew who and where; corruption - maybe 2nd only to some other real pieces of work, though not close to GWB; fiscal responsibility - give me a break, Presided over the greatest deficit up until then, tax break and break the govt. Charming and folksy were his achievements, good in a dog, not much of a recommendation for POTUS.
And Thompson is different from the current crop exactly how? A consistent conservative, oh sure, 1 1/2 Senate terms and... A real resume - actor, lobbyist, Senator, minority counsel to Watergate, and??? Which R is he supposed to be an improvement over? I don't think it would take much to improve on the current crop, but I just don't see it.
Politico has the story, but what's interesting is the comments. Desperation?
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Where To Now, Republicans?
I've been spending a fair amount of time over at Central Sanity which has several Republican/Conservative contributors because I seem to have become some sort of voice for the left as a contributor. It's a peculiar sort of mission for me, a whole lot of the left thinks I'm something odd. But as reading goes it's a pretty good place, the standards are pretty high and it's not just a regurgitation of Rightwingery. So, a question occurred, who is going to lead the Republicans? Not in a Presidential run, the Party, which will essentially be the make up of the Congressional Delegation.
There are those who vie for the lead on Party principles, Newt, DeLay, Viguerie, Boehner, Flake, Rove, and Norquist are some of the primary contenders. The Newt has a lot of ideas, I've thrown rocks at some, and some like "modernizing big government," don't seem to have much meaning to me. I don't like him, I haven't liked most of the ideas he's publicized, and I also think he's harmed himself with the Party "leaders" with his Clinton federal shut-down collision.
DeLay says so much Christian Right stuff that much of the socially moderate wing of the R's isn't going to buy in, and the corruption scandals get laid pretty much at his doorstep. His K Street project and earmarking for political gain propensities offend many fiscal conservatives. What DeLay means by rebuilding the conservative movement seems pretty unclear beyond God stuff. I've tried to read his blog, but I really can't stand that kind of abuse of my intellect.
Viguerie is a champion of civil liberties and small government with small taxes, he has a new book, "Conservatism Betrayed : How George W..." which lays out his discontent. He may be one of the more credible conservatives, but his agendas gore some pretty popular items.
Flake (AZ) and Pence (IN) are low tax small government crusaders, No Child..., prescription drug program and even Medicare are poison to them. Economic freedom, limited government, and individual responsibility are their mantra, and are nearer Goldwater than most. Whether the R's have the stomach for that battle is questionable, and selling the public - particularly the center - on the idea would entail not positioning the corporate world as the benefactor at the average citizen's expense. It'll play in sound bites, but as a policy agenda there are some real politically unattractive hits on programs.
Boehner seems to be drawn to the politics of opposition, at this point he is a BushCo creature, but national security seems to be his biggest thing.
I leave Rove out of any analysis, what he actually believes is a mystery beyond the acquisition of power. He seems to believe that co-opting government into the private sector is a method of reforming government into something market driven - whatever that is supposed to mean. Currently it means government subsidy of corporate incompetence and corruption, even Republicans are starting to find that a little difficult to swallow.
There are those who vie for the lead on Party principles, Newt, DeLay, Viguerie, Boehner, Flake, Rove, and Norquist are some of the primary contenders. The Newt has a lot of ideas, I've thrown rocks at some, and some like "modernizing big government," don't seem to have much meaning to me. I don't like him, I haven't liked most of the ideas he's publicized, and I also think he's harmed himself with the Party "leaders" with his Clinton federal shut-down collision.
DeLay says so much Christian Right stuff that much of the socially moderate wing of the R's isn't going to buy in, and the corruption scandals get laid pretty much at his doorstep. His K Street project and earmarking for political gain propensities offend many fiscal conservatives. What DeLay means by rebuilding the conservative movement seems pretty unclear beyond God stuff. I've tried to read his blog, but I really can't stand that kind of abuse of my intellect.
Viguerie is a champion of civil liberties and small government with small taxes, he has a new book, "Conservatism Betrayed : How George W..." which lays out his discontent. He may be one of the more credible conservatives, but his agendas gore some pretty popular items.
Flake (AZ) and Pence (IN) are low tax small government crusaders, No Child..., prescription drug program and even Medicare are poison to them. Economic freedom, limited government, and individual responsibility are their mantra, and are nearer Goldwater than most. Whether the R's have the stomach for that battle is questionable, and selling the public - particularly the center - on the idea would entail not positioning the corporate world as the benefactor at the average citizen's expense. It'll play in sound bites, but as a policy agenda there are some real politically unattractive hits on programs.
Boehner seems to be drawn to the politics of opposition, at this point he is a BushCo creature, but national security seems to be his biggest thing.
I leave Rove out of any analysis, what he actually believes is a mystery beyond the acquisition of power. He seems to believe that co-opting government into the private sector is a method of reforming government into something market driven - whatever that is supposed to mean. Currently it means government subsidy of corporate incompetence and corruption, even Republicans are starting to find that a little difficult to swallow.
Monday, May 28, 2007
War On Terror
We've heard this for years now, "war on terror" demands this, that, or the other thing. This phrase is truly a piece of nonsense, look at the words themselves:
"War" is a military engagement with an organized foe with a definitive goal and end,
"Terror" is a tactic engaged in by individuals, organizations, or governments.
So what we have is some kind of war being waged on a tactic. It's a bumper sticker. There is no war against terror, there has been a war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In Iraq we started a war with Saddam Hussein and quickly overwhelmed his army. Since that point we have been engaged in conflict with an assortment of "bad guys." This is no longer a War, it is a series of deadly encounters with people of wildly varied agendas having only in common an opposition to American troops and each other. "Terror" is not even a definition of their combat tactics, it is applicable to a car bomb in a crowded market, but certainly not to sniping, IEDs, and firefights. Sniping is a common military tactic, IEDs are no more than mines without the title, and a firefight is what engaged units do.
Words count, they are supposed to be a method of communication, in this instance words have been used to lie about what is being done and further to dissemble aims. An action against a tactic can be accomplished with treaties, diplomacy, and law enforcement but it is not a War. The tactic is being misrepresented to the public, much of what is called terror are straightforward military tactics we ourselves use and while some of our weaponry carries a different name, they are the same thing. Finally there is what the phrase covers, wiretapping citizens without a warrant is not a war it is terrorism practiced on the citizenry, torture is not a war, it is terror, disappearances are not a war, they are terror. The tools the BushCo tries to use are not a part of warfare, they are assaults on civil liberties and humane behavior, these are the agendas of the War on Terror.
***UPDATE***
If you think I exaggerate see AP on the Alabama Homeland Security including gay rights, anti-war, and other single issue social issue organizations on a list of organizations which may habor terrorists. This one got publicized because blogs took it up, think there are other "lists" elsewhere?
"War" is a military engagement with an organized foe with a definitive goal and end,
"Terror" is a tactic engaged in by individuals, organizations, or governments.
So what we have is some kind of war being waged on a tactic. It's a bumper sticker. There is no war against terror, there has been a war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In Iraq we started a war with Saddam Hussein and quickly overwhelmed his army. Since that point we have been engaged in conflict with an assortment of "bad guys." This is no longer a War, it is a series of deadly encounters with people of wildly varied agendas having only in common an opposition to American troops and each other. "Terror" is not even a definition of their combat tactics, it is applicable to a car bomb in a crowded market, but certainly not to sniping, IEDs, and firefights. Sniping is a common military tactic, IEDs are no more than mines without the title, and a firefight is what engaged units do.
Words count, they are supposed to be a method of communication, in this instance words have been used to lie about what is being done and further to dissemble aims. An action against a tactic can be accomplished with treaties, diplomacy, and law enforcement but it is not a War. The tactic is being misrepresented to the public, much of what is called terror are straightforward military tactics we ourselves use and while some of our weaponry carries a different name, they are the same thing. Finally there is what the phrase covers, wiretapping citizens without a warrant is not a war it is terrorism practiced on the citizenry, torture is not a war, it is terror, disappearances are not a war, they are terror. The tools the BushCo tries to use are not a part of warfare, they are assaults on civil liberties and humane behavior, these are the agendas of the War on Terror.
***UPDATE***
If you think I exaggerate see AP on the Alabama Homeland Security including gay rights, anti-war, and other single issue social issue organizations on a list of organizations which may habor terrorists. This one got publicized because blogs took it up, think there are other "lists" elsewhere?
On Memorial Day
***Cross Posted From Central Sanity***
Today is Memorial Day, barbecues, races, travel, and just maybe some remembrance. The first up should be remembrance for those who have served and given, sometimes all. So, let's stop and think about some things.
Those who serve do so at the behest of our government, and whatever your view of whatever conflict our government has conducted, it is still our government and they are or were our soldiers. The soldiers made the decision to serve the nation, to act for all of us, knowingly. Their jobs range from creative to stupefyingly boring, from safe to incredibly dangerous, but they are all done in our service for poor pay and often in anonymity. We owe all of them more than we can repay with a little holiday, so let's at least make something of the holiday.
Whether they've died, been mangled, had their minds torn, or simply filled their time, they have done the extraordinary, they have served for others. They have gone beyond the simple living a constructive life, they have taken on the burden of people they do not know, people who may not even appreciate what they've done. Finally, there are the headstones marked with flags, these mark those who gave their futures to us and whose family and friends shared in that giving. Dying in combat is not glorious, it is a dirty terrifying thing, but there is glory afterwards, we give that back to them when we honor them today, and all the other days. Their memory and their loved ones deserve that glory - that acknowledgement of their sacrifice for us.
Please give this a thought today, remember who paid for this day.
Today is Memorial Day, barbecues, races, travel, and just maybe some remembrance. The first up should be remembrance for those who have served and given, sometimes all. So, let's stop and think about some things.
Those who serve do so at the behest of our government, and whatever your view of whatever conflict our government has conducted, it is still our government and they are or were our soldiers. The soldiers made the decision to serve the nation, to act for all of us, knowingly. Their jobs range from creative to stupefyingly boring, from safe to incredibly dangerous, but they are all done in our service for poor pay and often in anonymity. We owe all of them more than we can repay with a little holiday, so let's at least make something of the holiday.
Whether they've died, been mangled, had their minds torn, or simply filled their time, they have done the extraordinary, they have served for others. They have gone beyond the simple living a constructive life, they have taken on the burden of people they do not know, people who may not even appreciate what they've done. Finally, there are the headstones marked with flags, these mark those who gave their futures to us and whose family and friends shared in that giving. Dying in combat is not glorious, it is a dirty terrifying thing, but there is glory afterwards, we give that back to them when we honor them today, and all the other days. Their memory and their loved ones deserve that glory - that acknowledgement of their sacrifice for us.
Please give this a thought today, remember who paid for this day.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
You're Under Attack, and Have Been
The citizens of the United States of America are under attack and no, it is not by the maniacs of Al-Qaeda, it comes from within. The sleeper cells are our own citizens and their foreign partners. We stare out across oceans worrying and the attack is already here. You think GeorgeII is the problem, if you look in.
There are four pillars of actual government and three supporting ones, there are in the pillars the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial and then the free and independent press. The support system consists of and electorate, the free expression of religion, and the freedom to associate for the redress of grievances. These, the absolute foundation of American government, are now under sustained and determined attack. The attack is carried on without bombs and bullets, the blood and smoke are elsewhere.
The Executive branch has become a political tool, people forget that the vast majority of bureaucracy is within the Executive and its hiring policies are now politico/religious. The aims of the political heads of the Executive are now the rule enforcer's bible. The nuts and bolts of the running of government are now in political hands. Hatch act be damned. The mechanisms of government are now in the hands of the political faithful and the infrastructure is used as a Party extension. The enduring strength of the Executive was the brake applied by the rules and those in whose care the rules resided - no more.
The Legislative branch is held hostage by the high cost of election, placing the funding in the hands of wealth and elite businesses. Be under no illusion that the situation is of an accidental nature, the reinforcing elements are intimately entwined, both organizationally and economically. The cost of actual legislation is huge, the research and drafting costs are beyond the budget of most legislators, this cost is passed on to those with an interest and those most able to afford expressing that interest are wealth and business elites. The growth of the non-voting electorate and of the non-affiliated vote drive up the cost per vote and make more likely a rule The huge costs of reaching voters is borne increasing by corporate wealth which is the ownership of the method of reaching out, thus the owners of dissemination are the financiers of the politicians. Beyond the actual financing is the spread of the canard that a vote does not count and is somehow for sale, while in absolute terms the vote is still in the hands of the voter, a constant drumbeat of media propaganda leads to the devaluation of grassroots contributions and the depression of the vote.
The Judicial branch is under constant attack from religious zealots, partisan interference, and the Executive and Legislative. Nominations second competency to partisan issues and religious correctness, interpretation of law is seen as legislation from the bench by the right as they engage in exactly the same behavior. Judicial funding is threatened by Legislators, the body responsible for the writing of the law. The Executive, who nominates federal judge ships, refers to the Constitution as a mere "piece of paper."
A free and independent press is virtually non-existent today, the constriction of media ownership and its concentration in non-media corporate hands leads to a situation where the ownership has a vested interest in the corporate viewpoint. News and programing reflects the desires of ownership and the constriction means a narrower range of desires is reflected. Political careers depend upon that media, to express their policies and votes and then their qualities as candidates. Restricted news budgets push journalists into an unhealthy dependency upon government sources and their good will to get news, resulting in the parroting of official positions. Programing can easily become propagandist, violence and ethical disconnects are a steady fare, protagonists frequently violate both actual legal limits and ethical/moral constraints "for the general good." The moral depravity in media so frequently bemoaned by the religious right is sexual in nature rather than the violations of their creed in actual morality, which they approve. The media is attacked as left or right biased, canards, the bias is corporate supporting the pursuit of profit rather than an actual political ideology.
The attack on the electorate is multi-pronged, it comes from the four pillars and the corporate interests. The Executive operates as though it has some kind of "mandate," ignoring that it represents the interests of the entire citizenry, regardless of their vote or party, the Legislative panders for votes and then represents its financing constituency or a narrow base, the judicial refuses to enforce the very real franchise rights of citizens, bowing to political and media pressures. The press leaves the electorate uninformed and propagandized, increasing the advantages of incumbency. Legal fictions and corporate interests are allowed to drive down voter rolls through disenfranchisement, and to spread the propagandist notion that voting is a purchasable commodity of little value to the ordinary citizen. While the media will run public service announcements touting voting, the ordinary runs devalue it. The electorate is misinformed, mislead, and discouraged to the point where it is considered a success to achieve a 53% turnout, resulting in elections won by nearly a quarter of eligible voters.
Free expression of religion is being consistently undermined by Executive writs, legislation, judicial fiats, press slants, and religious pressure. Religion is co-opted by government monies and promises of government interference in public neutrality. Tax exempt religion is used in political activities prohibited to it, and religious activities permissible are harassed on tax basis. There is across the board encouragement of legislation of religious tenets and a lessening of the teaching of the actual core beliefs of the religions.
Free association is discouraged and prevented, dissent is framed as traitorous and union organization is complicated to the point of prevention. Free speech zones are established to keep expression away from officials and media. Low power radio is restricted and prohibited, political organizations are ignored if not in favor or unless they commit a gaffe. Grass roots organizations fight for public notice, corporate favored organizations need only reach out.
This is only a light overview, it should be frightening, if you'd really like to be frightened take any one of these core elements of the US government and research it. If you wonder why government is ineffective at representing the ordinary citizen, think about this, and who it is that benefits.
There are four pillars of actual government and three supporting ones, there are in the pillars the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial and then the free and independent press. The support system consists of and electorate, the free expression of religion, and the freedom to associate for the redress of grievances. These, the absolute foundation of American government, are now under sustained and determined attack. The attack is carried on without bombs and bullets, the blood and smoke are elsewhere.
The Executive branch has become a political tool, people forget that the vast majority of bureaucracy is within the Executive and its hiring policies are now politico/religious. The aims of the political heads of the Executive are now the rule enforcer's bible. The nuts and bolts of the running of government are now in political hands. Hatch act be damned. The mechanisms of government are now in the hands of the political faithful and the infrastructure is used as a Party extension. The enduring strength of the Executive was the brake applied by the rules and those in whose care the rules resided - no more.
The Legislative branch is held hostage by the high cost of election, placing the funding in the hands of wealth and elite businesses. Be under no illusion that the situation is of an accidental nature, the reinforcing elements are intimately entwined, both organizationally and economically. The cost of actual legislation is huge, the research and drafting costs are beyond the budget of most legislators, this cost is passed on to those with an interest and those most able to afford expressing that interest are wealth and business elites. The growth of the non-voting electorate and of the non-affiliated vote drive up the cost per vote and make more likely a rule The huge costs of reaching voters is borne increasing by corporate wealth which is the ownership of the method of reaching out, thus the owners of dissemination are the financiers of the politicians. Beyond the actual financing is the spread of the canard that a vote does not count and is somehow for sale, while in absolute terms the vote is still in the hands of the voter, a constant drumbeat of media propaganda leads to the devaluation of grassroots contributions and the depression of the vote.
The Judicial branch is under constant attack from religious zealots, partisan interference, and the Executive and Legislative. Nominations second competency to partisan issues and religious correctness, interpretation of law is seen as legislation from the bench by the right as they engage in exactly the same behavior. Judicial funding is threatened by Legislators, the body responsible for the writing of the law. The Executive, who nominates federal judge ships, refers to the Constitution as a mere "piece of paper."
A free and independent press is virtually non-existent today, the constriction of media ownership and its concentration in non-media corporate hands leads to a situation where the ownership has a vested interest in the corporate viewpoint. News and programing reflects the desires of ownership and the constriction means a narrower range of desires is reflected. Political careers depend upon that media, to express their policies and votes and then their qualities as candidates. Restricted news budgets push journalists into an unhealthy dependency upon government sources and their good will to get news, resulting in the parroting of official positions. Programing can easily become propagandist, violence and ethical disconnects are a steady fare, protagonists frequently violate both actual legal limits and ethical/moral constraints "for the general good." The moral depravity in media so frequently bemoaned by the religious right is sexual in nature rather than the violations of their creed in actual morality, which they approve. The media is attacked as left or right biased, canards, the bias is corporate supporting the pursuit of profit rather than an actual political ideology.
The attack on the electorate is multi-pronged, it comes from the four pillars and the corporate interests. The Executive operates as though it has some kind of "mandate," ignoring that it represents the interests of the entire citizenry, regardless of their vote or party, the Legislative panders for votes and then represents its financing constituency or a narrow base, the judicial refuses to enforce the very real franchise rights of citizens, bowing to political and media pressures. The press leaves the electorate uninformed and propagandized, increasing the advantages of incumbency. Legal fictions and corporate interests are allowed to drive down voter rolls through disenfranchisement, and to spread the propagandist notion that voting is a purchasable commodity of little value to the ordinary citizen. While the media will run public service announcements touting voting, the ordinary runs devalue it. The electorate is misinformed, mislead, and discouraged to the point where it is considered a success to achieve a 53% turnout, resulting in elections won by nearly a quarter of eligible voters.
Free expression of religion is being consistently undermined by Executive writs, legislation, judicial fiats, press slants, and religious pressure. Religion is co-opted by government monies and promises of government interference in public neutrality. Tax exempt religion is used in political activities prohibited to it, and religious activities permissible are harassed on tax basis. There is across the board encouragement of legislation of religious tenets and a lessening of the teaching of the actual core beliefs of the religions.
Free association is discouraged and prevented, dissent is framed as traitorous and union organization is complicated to the point of prevention. Free speech zones are established to keep expression away from officials and media. Low power radio is restricted and prohibited, political organizations are ignored if not in favor or unless they commit a gaffe. Grass roots organizations fight for public notice, corporate favored organizations need only reach out.
This is only a light overview, it should be frightening, if you'd really like to be frightened take any one of these core elements of the US government and research it. If you wonder why government is ineffective at representing the ordinary citizen, think about this, and who it is that benefits.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
War, McCain, Romney, and Assorted Nitwits
Candidates Hillary and Obama voted against the War funding bill so John McCain shoots from the hip stating that the nay vote is, "waving a white flag to Al-Qaeda." Um, John, the Iraqis would be happy to take care of Al-Qaeda with us there or not, Afghanistan and Pakistan are another issue. Your hot shot cowboy let that one slip out of our grasp, he wanted to go play for oil, not national security. The Republikans have made much to do about what tough sonsabitches they are, with other people's money and other people's kids for the benefit of those who couldn't even see the troops past their noses.
Romney's opinion of the Clinton/Obama votes was, "a vote that singularly defines their lack of leadership and serves as a glaring example of an unrealistic and inexperienced worldview on national security," showcasing no doubt his vast experience in the world arena and national politics. Maybe that book of Mormon creates magical world view. Either of the criticized candiates meets or exceeds the ex-governor's total experience.
Now it's been pretty apparent that I have little use for Hillary as a Democrat, even with all her baggage she's got more sense in her little finger than these two. McCain, of course, touted his military experience and his behavior as a POW was exemplary, but guess what flyboy, a jet and the crap in the dust and streets of Iraq have not squat to do with each other. It also didn't have anything to do with with the ground pounding in 'Nam. Next time you'd like to take a tour of a market, go to one of Pence's.
Chief chickenhawk GWB was backed up by a coterie of them, Cheney, Rumsfeld, ad nauseum and you can add Romney, unless them 'durn varmits' count, and truthfully add in the flyboy. Sure, you don't have to be an infantryman to qualify for national office, you don't even need to be one to command troops successfully, but whanging the war drums and touting your experience had better be backed up, ask AWOL in Chief... If this is the best the Republikans have to offer, they deserve to be in the wilderness for awhile. When the most sensible one of the bunch is Libertarian Ron Paul...
Romney's opinion of the Clinton/Obama votes was, "a vote that singularly defines their lack of leadership and serves as a glaring example of an unrealistic and inexperienced worldview on national security," showcasing no doubt his vast experience in the world arena and national politics. Maybe that book of Mormon creates magical world view. Either of the criticized candiates meets or exceeds the ex-governor's total experience.
Now it's been pretty apparent that I have little use for Hillary as a Democrat, even with all her baggage she's got more sense in her little finger than these two. McCain, of course, touted his military experience and his behavior as a POW was exemplary, but guess what flyboy, a jet and the crap in the dust and streets of Iraq have not squat to do with each other. It also didn't have anything to do with with the ground pounding in 'Nam. Next time you'd like to take a tour of a market, go to one of Pence's.
Chief chickenhawk GWB was backed up by a coterie of them, Cheney, Rumsfeld, ad nauseum and you can add Romney, unless them 'durn varmits' count, and truthfully add in the flyboy. Sure, you don't have to be an infantryman to qualify for national office, you don't even need to be one to command troops successfully, but whanging the war drums and touting your experience had better be backed up, ask AWOL in Chief... If this is the best the Republikans have to offer, they deserve to be in the wilderness for awhile. When the most sensible one of the bunch is Libertarian Ron Paul...
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Iraq, Bush, Congress, and Dead Enders
The BushCo gets its money for war with no more than hypothetical strings. So why does he get money to just exactly as he pleases with War in Iraq? Dead-enders. What? When the Vietnam War sputtered to an end without funding a group cast blame for the loss on Democrats, that group was the dead-enders. The people who insist that we would have won in Vietnam except for the traitors in Congress. This might ignore the fact that the US, despite inflated body counts, won every stand up battle and couldn't do anything with it. American troops were not defeated in battle and neither were they defeated at home, they were defeated by an untenable position, an unwinnable conflict. Military victory consists of taking and holding dirt, this proposition is to a great extent dependent on the populous in the conflict. They must either support the taking and holding or be either too frightened or too dead to resist. They were "none of the above" in Vietnam, we were not going to "win." But the dead-enders never acknowledged that and the Democrats are afraid of them.
Moving on to the true stupidity of this stance, the dead-enders would never vote for Democrats. The Democrats were convenient whipping boys for their refusal to face facts, the fact that the Eisenhower inspired domino theory and his inserting of the US into that "Asian ground war" doomed us to 53,000 dead troops in a lost cause supporting a blood thirsty corrupt dictatorship. No it wasn't LBJ or JFK, it was Eisenhower who started the game. We are doing the same thing again, a conflict with no coherent support from the populous which also is not sufficiently afraid of us to not resist. LBJ and Nixon also believed it was just a case of troops and money to "win." There is the rub, "Win." If you like the idea of winning it would be a good idea to know precisely what is meant by the term. Forget about going in under false pretences, how about false goals, or a complete lack of goals that have anything to do with reality. How in the world can the deluded dreams of a few dead-enders drive Democratic Congressional policy?
I am just exactly sick and tired of this culture of fear that's been the BushCo legacy, Rush Limbaugh talking points driving Democrats...
Moving on to the true stupidity of this stance, the dead-enders would never vote for Democrats. The Democrats were convenient whipping boys for their refusal to face facts, the fact that the Eisenhower inspired domino theory and his inserting of the US into that "Asian ground war" doomed us to 53,000 dead troops in a lost cause supporting a blood thirsty corrupt dictatorship. No it wasn't LBJ or JFK, it was Eisenhower who started the game. We are doing the same thing again, a conflict with no coherent support from the populous which also is not sufficiently afraid of us to not resist. LBJ and Nixon also believed it was just a case of troops and money to "win." There is the rub, "Win." If you like the idea of winning it would be a good idea to know precisely what is meant by the term. Forget about going in under false pretences, how about false goals, or a complete lack of goals that have anything to do with reality. How in the world can the deluded dreams of a few dead-enders drive Democratic Congressional policy?
I am just exactly sick and tired of this culture of fear that's been the BushCo legacy, Rush Limbaugh talking points driving Democrats...
Soldiers, No Fags
Nope, I won't apologize for the ugly word, if you want to talk about "don't ask, don't tell," and the military you either can play nice and get absolutely no where or you can put things in the terms they're really about. It is not a soft issue, it is an issue of military unit cohesion and discipline. That's what they say, anyhow. Somehow it seems a bit more like politics than unit security. There is a bond in military service, along with other dangerous occupations, that bond develops through shared risk and shared values, not sex. There are informal rules of behavior within any such organization which cannot be violated without risk, but these rules are known to all members and seldom violated.
The military has fired 58 Arab language specialists for being gay. It is really difficult to understand how their gayness balances against our national security needs for Arabic speakers. It apparently also mystifies Rep. Marty Meehan who has sent Rep Ike Skelton of the Armed Services Committee a letter signed by 40 members asking the committee to hold hearings regarding the linguists.
There is something much more offensive in the policy than the word used to illustrate it, there is a concept that the sexual orientation of a citizen affects their ability, capacity, or moral fitness to serve their nation. Their nation. It is not an issue of "us" versus "them," it is an issue of the United States of America against all comers, our nation. This is just plain stupidity and rank bigotry.
The military has fired 58 Arab language specialists for being gay. It is really difficult to understand how their gayness balances against our national security needs for Arabic speakers. It apparently also mystifies Rep. Marty Meehan who has sent Rep Ike Skelton of the Armed Services Committee a letter signed by 40 members asking the committee to hold hearings regarding the linguists.
There is something much more offensive in the policy than the word used to illustrate it, there is a concept that the sexual orientation of a citizen affects their ability, capacity, or moral fitness to serve their nation. Their nation. It is not an issue of "us" versus "them," it is an issue of the United States of America against all comers, our nation. This is just plain stupidity and rank bigotry.
Crossing Lines With Monica
Monica is sorry. The point of Civil Service Rules is to allow the machinery of government to run without the interference of political agendas. This is not about an Administration or Congressional Majorities which are political agendas, this is about the actual gears of government. These are the people who do the nuts and bolts of governance, in some ways your county court's clerks or secretaries. They are not elected or subject to partisan spoils, it is in fact important that the papers be done in an even handed manner, whomever they effect. An Assistant DA does not get to make political decisions about the words of the law, it is simply the law the law passed by political agendas.
Monica apologized for asking political questions of career employment applicants. She may actually not have known what she was doing is against the law for one and that the law is not a pointless obstruction in the path to BushCo godliness. She might not have known because she graduated from a half-assed school and polished her knowledge in the RNC as an oppo researcher before getting in over her head. There are 150 of her fellow alumni in the Administration. This is a perfect example of ideology trumping competence - BushCo in three words.
Monica apologized for asking political questions of career employment applicants. She may actually not have known what she was doing is against the law for one and that the law is not a pointless obstruction in the path to BushCo godliness. She might not have known because she graduated from a half-assed school and polished her knowledge in the RNC as an oppo researcher before getting in over her head. There are 150 of her fellow alumni in the Administration. This is a perfect example of ideology trumping competence - BushCo in three words.
Bush, Iraq, and More Lies
George II went to the Coast Guard Academy and...tied 9/11, Iraq, and Ossama together, again. There are few things in life that I like less than people who lie and here's some whoppers,
"Here in America we are living in the eye of a storm." Sorry, there are storms and this ain't it.
"Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a `war of destiny.'"
"Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America."
Not to pick nits, but Ossama could give a rat's patoot about winning in Iraq, he can't and he knows it - unlike George II - what he wants is to kill Americans and destabilize the area.
All of the stuff he trotted out was old news and mostly speculation about "credible" but unconfirmed intelligence. The people involved dead or Gitmo'ed, mostly dead. Iraq was posed as the center of al-Qeda, rather than Pakistan - possibly because Pakistan/Afghanistan is embarrassing.
"Here in America we are living in the eye of a storm." Sorry, there are storms and this ain't it.
"Hear the words of Osama bin Laden: He calls the struggle in Iraq a `war of destiny.'"
"Victory in Iraq is important for Osama bin Laden, and victory in Iraq is vital for the United States of America."
Not to pick nits, but Ossama could give a rat's patoot about winning in Iraq, he can't and he knows it - unlike George II - what he wants is to kill Americans and destabilize the area.
All of the stuff he trotted out was old news and mostly speculation about "credible" but unconfirmed intelligence. The people involved dead or Gitmo'ed, mostly dead. Iraq was posed as the center of al-Qeda, rather than Pakistan - possibly because Pakistan/Afghanistan is embarrassing.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
P-O'd and Not Gonna Get Over It
Boy I can't tell you how glad I am to have achieved a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, just darn ecstatic to find that we managed to get rid of the plutocratic war mongering Republikan majority so we can...have a Democratic plutocratic war mongering bipartisanship.
Yahoo. George II and BushCo can do just exactly as they please if the stamp their feet enough, you know, veto war funding with timetables and let every criminal plutocratic and wannabe criminal plutocratic business person hire every illegal alien they like. It really makes no difference that the cannon fodder is primarily blue collar and the wage depression of labor gluts crushes blue collar wages, that way soldiering looks much better. What exactly is the point of Congressional oversight if you just let BushCo do as it pleases?
Do you get it? If you can't make a living because some illegal has the job you can always go get shot at. It would be ever so technologically difficult to create a hiring verification system that matched: Name, SS, Address, No Duplicates and gave a simple Yes/No and include some very real consequences for violating both fraudulent documentation and illegal hiring. Jail for fraud and Davis-Bacon Act wage match fines for employment violation and jail for subsequent violations. Those illegally present could be given 6 months to wind up affairs and leave and by registering move to the head of the line for legal entry, those caught after the fact - deportation and asset seizure, serious jail for repeated offenses. A carrot and a stick.
Americans won't do the work is nonsense, they just won't do it for the available wages. Farmer X can't compete - when the playing field is even he certainly can, when his neighbor is hiring illegally and paying serf wages there's a problem. It certainly speaks volumes when the left and GeorgeII want the same thing and it involves the establishment of a serf class and a further depression of labor wages. What drives this particular lunacy? I've heard liberal guilt - about what I'm not sure - and I've postulated it's a "feel good" solution fixation - the idea that nobody gets overtly hurt. It is obvious when people are arrested, it's much less obvious that the guys building your house are sliding into disaster as they struggle with wages at 60% of 1980 levels. This certainly isn't because their work is easier, safer, or somehow "dumber;" it has to do with a labor glut that started with Ronnie Reagan's amnesty bringing previously hidden workers into the market and encouraging both illegal entry and illegal hiring by demonstrating the Federal disinterest in labor and law.
Here is the upshot, you can get citizenship by soldiering or for 8 years you can be a disenfranchised serf working to replace American labor and all the potential illegal immigrants know that getting in is all it takes, the Feds will eventually just amnesty again. At some point wages will be sufficiently depressed that American labor will either rebel or quit. The rebellion won't involve the people getting rich on predatory hiring, it will fall on anyone brown and speaking either with an accent or a foreign language - racism. It has absolutely happened before, Northern racism has its roots in employment competition, WWII sparked a northern migration of blacks to fill jobs vacated by soldiers and created by war production.
The Democratic Party label used to stand for economic and social justice, explain to me what these two actions stand for, go right ahead.
Yahoo. George II and BushCo can do just exactly as they please if the stamp their feet enough, you know, veto war funding with timetables and let every criminal plutocratic and wannabe criminal plutocratic business person hire every illegal alien they like. It really makes no difference that the cannon fodder is primarily blue collar and the wage depression of labor gluts crushes blue collar wages, that way soldiering looks much better. What exactly is the point of Congressional oversight if you just let BushCo do as it pleases?
Do you get it? If you can't make a living because some illegal has the job you can always go get shot at. It would be ever so technologically difficult to create a hiring verification system that matched: Name, SS, Address, No Duplicates and gave a simple Yes/No and include some very real consequences for violating both fraudulent documentation and illegal hiring. Jail for fraud and Davis-Bacon Act wage match fines for employment violation and jail for subsequent violations. Those illegally present could be given 6 months to wind up affairs and leave and by registering move to the head of the line for legal entry, those caught after the fact - deportation and asset seizure, serious jail for repeated offenses. A carrot and a stick.
Americans won't do the work is nonsense, they just won't do it for the available wages. Farmer X can't compete - when the playing field is even he certainly can, when his neighbor is hiring illegally and paying serf wages there's a problem. It certainly speaks volumes when the left and GeorgeII want the same thing and it involves the establishment of a serf class and a further depression of labor wages. What drives this particular lunacy? I've heard liberal guilt - about what I'm not sure - and I've postulated it's a "feel good" solution fixation - the idea that nobody gets overtly hurt. It is obvious when people are arrested, it's much less obvious that the guys building your house are sliding into disaster as they struggle with wages at 60% of 1980 levels. This certainly isn't because their work is easier, safer, or somehow "dumber;" it has to do with a labor glut that started with Ronnie Reagan's amnesty bringing previously hidden workers into the market and encouraging both illegal entry and illegal hiring by demonstrating the Federal disinterest in labor and law.
Here is the upshot, you can get citizenship by soldiering or for 8 years you can be a disenfranchised serf working to replace American labor and all the potential illegal immigrants know that getting in is all it takes, the Feds will eventually just amnesty again. At some point wages will be sufficiently depressed that American labor will either rebel or quit. The rebellion won't involve the people getting rich on predatory hiring, it will fall on anyone brown and speaking either with an accent or a foreign language - racism. It has absolutely happened before, Northern racism has its roots in employment competition, WWII sparked a northern migration of blacks to fill jobs vacated by soldiers and created by war production.
The Democratic Party label used to stand for economic and social justice, explain to me what these two actions stand for, go right ahead.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
More 5th, More Immunity
Now just how swell does this look, Monica Goodling - Albie's aide takes the 5th and gets immunity, now former Rove aide Suan Ralston has taken the 5th before Waxman's House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform concerning contacts between BushCo and Abramoff. Raw Story quotes her attorney Bradford Berenson, "She has material, useful information about both of those subjects."
What could be so incriminating for a Rove aide? Berenson gives a list, "The subjects this morning that she will be unable to testify to...are the subjects of the relationship between Jack Abramoff and his associates and White House officials, including Ms. Ralston, and the subject of the use by White House officials of political e-mail accounts at the RNC," oddly political sounding subjects for taking the 5th. Politics is an art, the making possible of policy ideals, a concreting of the abstract, it really needn't be criminal - except possibly under the BushCo regime. You don't suppose Ms. Ralston is a Liberty grad? Nah, Loyolla and Keller Universities, but she is also a grad of...Preston Gates - gasp - Abramoff.
It just gets a bit more unsavory as time goes on at BushCo. Maybe after '09 we'll get to see some orange jumpsuits and handcuffs - maybe GeorgeII will trade his flightsuit in for one...
What could be so incriminating for a Rove aide? Berenson gives a list, "The subjects this morning that she will be unable to testify to...are the subjects of the relationship between Jack Abramoff and his associates and White House officials, including Ms. Ralston, and the subject of the use by White House officials of political e-mail accounts at the RNC," oddly political sounding subjects for taking the 5th. Politics is an art, the making possible of policy ideals, a concreting of the abstract, it really needn't be criminal - except possibly under the BushCo regime. You don't suppose Ms. Ralston is a Liberty grad? Nah, Loyolla and Keller Universities, but she is also a grad of...Preston Gates - gasp - Abramoff.
It just gets a bit more unsavory as time goes on at BushCo. Maybe after '09 we'll get to see some orange jumpsuits and handcuffs - maybe GeorgeII will trade his flightsuit in for one...
Conspicuous Absence At Falwell Funeral
While over 10,000 people attended Jerry's funeral, some you might have thought would be there were not. From what I can tell, AP, Tim Goeglein (White House - who???), VA Lt Gov. Bill Bolling, and VA AG Bob McDonnell amounted to the elected significant ones and the Republican Presidential candidates were not. Considering the impact of Jerry on the Republican Party something seems amiss. The RNC isn't mentioned as attending, nobody who counts in the White House, and nobody from Congress, I wasn't there either...
Seems important people had much better things to do...
Seems important people had much better things to do...
Dow and Murdoch
Rupe Murdoch's attempt to buy the Wall Street Journal is being frustrated by the Bancroft family's disinterest and because they hold the controlling shares of Dow Jones nothing will happen unless they get interested. They are so disinterested that the board has not even responded to Murdoch's $60 per share or $5 billion. The Ottaway family, with 6.2%, has stated that such a purchase would "damage" the Dow Jones name. Bloomberg , who competes with Dow Jones, while noting the "frustration," seems to believe that Murdoch will stick with his bid, for awhile at least.
Considering the nearly knee jerk conservatism of the WSJ's editorial board this would seem to be a blunt statement regarding News Corp journalism. There is little to be done about Rupe's junk, the Republicans let him in, he's here, he owes them, and he's got bucks.
Considering the nearly knee jerk conservatism of the WSJ's editorial board this would seem to be a blunt statement regarding News Corp journalism. There is little to be done about Rupe's junk, the Republicans let him in, he's here, he owes them, and he's got bucks.
Labor 'Losers'
Maybe you thought working with your hands was of some value to this nation, well, "ardent Freetrader" Cokie Roberts has this to say in a syndicated column this weekend, "losers and their labor bosses should not be allowed to dictate trade policy." It is apparently just a fine thing for Democrats to make secret trade deals with BushCo.
Now at the risk being snarky, if George W Bush likes something the proper course of action would be to 'back away slowly.' When somebody with his track record is happy about a trade deal the only question is just how badly the average American is going to get screwed. The fact that it is Democrats who are in this mix is insult added to injury. If you look real carefully you'll probably also find that these are the same people who are fans of adding illegal immigrants into the labor pool with an amnesty. If you are American labor, you just got another finger stuck in your eye. (do I sound happy?)
Go ahead and suck up the propaganda crap, this is exactly how co-option works, "free trade" and "poor poor brown people," all sounds real nice and it is exactly propaganda. Starting with Reagan's amnesty construction wages slid to presently around 50% and NAFTA has watched manufacturing jobs leave (it's tough to out-source a building so you in-source). These people do not mean free trade, they still mean managed trade - can you say patents and intellectual property rights - the question is whose benefit it is managed for. Wake up.
Now at the risk being snarky, if George W Bush likes something the proper course of action would be to 'back away slowly.' When somebody with his track record is happy about a trade deal the only question is just how badly the average American is going to get screwed. The fact that it is Democrats who are in this mix is insult added to injury. If you look real carefully you'll probably also find that these are the same people who are fans of adding illegal immigrants into the labor pool with an amnesty. If you are American labor, you just got another finger stuck in your eye. (do I sound happy?)
Go ahead and suck up the propaganda crap, this is exactly how co-option works, "free trade" and "poor poor brown people," all sounds real nice and it is exactly propaganda. Starting with Reagan's amnesty construction wages slid to presently around 50% and NAFTA has watched manufacturing jobs leave (it's tough to out-source a building so you in-source). These people do not mean free trade, they still mean managed trade - can you say patents and intellectual property rights - the question is whose benefit it is managed for. Wake up.
We Didn't Do It
Reuters reports shelling of an Islamist stronghold, it's in southern Lebanon and we have nothing to do with it, and neither does Israel. There's something different.
Varmints
Yosemeti Sam had a 2 gun thing for for them dang blasted varmints, hopping up and down, red mustachios bobbing the six guns would blaze - comically. The Republikans are so short of debating points that this passes for politics:
"Maybe Mitt should get out his small varmint gun and chase those Guatemalans off his yard," roars McCain in regard to the immigration bill proposal. But then, as he knows from his own record of statements, things can change rather abruptly, "wait a couple of weeks and see if the winds change and Mitt comes back around."
It has been said that, 'consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,' and it possible that BushCo suffers from the ailment but holy mackerel sometimes you kind of expect a certain amount of coherence, kinda like Hillary and Iraq... I'd be damned embarrassed to be any of them.
"Maybe Mitt should get out his small varmint gun and chase those Guatemalans off his yard," roars McCain in regard to the immigration bill proposal. But then, as he knows from his own record of statements, things can change rather abruptly, "wait a couple of weeks and see if the winds change and Mitt comes back around."
It has been said that, 'consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds,' and it possible that BushCo suffers from the ailment but holy mackerel sometimes you kind of expect a certain amount of coherence, kinda like Hillary and Iraq... I'd be damned embarrassed to be any of them.
Litvinenko Charges
According to ABC the British Crown Prosecution Service is readying charges for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. Andrei Lugovoi, and possibly also Dimitri Kovtun are expected to be accused of poisoning Litvinenko with Polonium-210, Lugovoi had tea with him the day he was poisoned and the investigators found a contaminated teapot at the Millennium Hotel. Logovoi is a former Russian secret service bodyguard whom the Russians have indicated they will not extradite.
Litvinenko was not among the most savory of people and his associations and activities no doubt led to his demise. At the same time the levels of corruption and autocracy within Russia leave one with a particularly odd smell in the nose. Putin does little to diminish this view. I suppose it pays to remember that GWB looked into his eyes...
Litvinenko was not among the most savory of people and his associations and activities no doubt led to his demise. At the same time the levels of corruption and autocracy within Russia leave one with a particularly odd smell in the nose. Putin does little to diminish this view. I suppose it pays to remember that GWB looked into his eyes...
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Newt and Jerry Show
Re-writing history or just making things up might be something you wouldn't expect at a university commencement, though with a politician making the speech it might seem a tad more reasonable - then if the pol were the Newt, it might seem downright likely. I won't hold you in suspense, the nonsense from Liberty U. follows:
"A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded. We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights."
In case you're wondering how this works,
"Too often, the courts have been biased against religious believers. This anti-religious bias must end," so it would be important for the students to follow Falwell's example, "Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created," so be ready to be converted - like it or not.
In case you're wondering "anti-religious bias" doesn't involve any actions against churches or religion, it involves not allowing them to impose their cults on the rest of the country. The hallmark of fanaticism is a statement like "convert all of America," which holds the implication that there is no other possible way and all of the country will just have to get along with it - they have the divine right.
This is the Republican Party in action, this is what they tell their young, somebody care to explain the difference between this point of view and the Taliban?
"A growing culture of radical secularism declares that the nation cannot profess the truths on which it was founded. We are told that our public schools can no longer invoke the creator, nor proclaim the natural law nor profess the God-given quality of human rights."
In case you're wondering how this works,
"Too often, the courts have been biased against religious believers. This anti-religious bias must end," so it would be important for the students to follow Falwell's example, "Anybody on the left who hopes that when people like Reverend Falwell disappear that the opportunity to convert all of America has gone with them fundamentally misunderstands why institutions like this were created," so be ready to be converted - like it or not.
In case you're wondering "anti-religious bias" doesn't involve any actions against churches or religion, it involves not allowing them to impose their cults on the rest of the country. The hallmark of fanaticism is a statement like "convert all of America," which holds the implication that there is no other possible way and all of the country will just have to get along with it - they have the divine right.
This is the Republican Party in action, this is what they tell their young, somebody care to explain the difference between this point of view and the Taliban?
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Rupe, The New York Post, Junk, and What's New
Rupert Murdoch has spent some time recently trying to persuade people that his organization publishes real journalism and rises to the level of real papers like...oh, say... The Wall Street Journal - the people being the owners of Dow Jones. You might have to look around the world pretty hard to find somebody with two active brain cells that believes they publish something beyond fish-wrappers. That might seem like a bit of exaggeration until you stop to consider that the broadcast versions are Faux News and Fox Network, and since their employees include Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Chris Wallace your hands might start shaking when you contemplate the WSJ in the same hands.
Mentioning fishwrappers brings up the latest brouhaha over at The Jew York Post and its 'gossip' showcase Page Six. Jared Stern was suspended after allegations he demanded money for favorable coverage who is considering suing and whose lawyer obtained a statement from Ian Spiegelman also a former writer alleging editor Col Allen frequented a strip club, that long time column author Richard Johnson took a $1000 gift, and that Rupert Murdoch, Post owner, directed Page Six to avoid articles unfavorable to China where he was conducting business. Page Six published the allegations and denied some of them, sort of, in a rather botched preemptive strike. It has turned out to be a rather poor version of a soap opera - you know, darn near the definition of august journalism and high journalistic standards.
Mentioning fishwrappers brings up the latest brouhaha over at The Jew York Post and its 'gossip' showcase Page Six. Jared Stern was suspended after allegations he demanded money for favorable coverage who is considering suing and whose lawyer obtained a statement from Ian Spiegelman also a former writer alleging editor Col Allen frequented a strip club, that long time column author Richard Johnson took a $1000 gift, and that Rupert Murdoch, Post owner, directed Page Six to avoid articles unfavorable to China where he was conducting business. Page Six published the allegations and denied some of them, sort of, in a rather botched preemptive strike. It has turned out to be a rather poor version of a soap opera - you know, darn near the definition of august journalism and high journalistic standards.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)