Friday, December 10, 2004

I Salute "The Deserters"

I was having a difficult time sleeping last night, so I got up and began to read the news on the internet. You know, the real news. I’m not talking about thirty minute news “shows” from 6-6:30 PM every evening on NBC, CBS or ABC, fifteen minutes of which are commercials, sound bites from corporate owned and operated Bush apologists CNBC, MSNBC or CNN and certainly not FOX whose newscasters are this close to presenting the news wearing uniforms that involve brown shirts.

I started reading the news sent to my inbox daily by The Rational News Digest. I could have gotten this from Antiwar.com or The Common Dreams NEWS CENTER or The American Progress Action Fund, but I randomly chose The Rational News Digest.

I read that over 5,500 soldiers have deserted since the beginning of Bush’s illegal war. Since 55,000 military personnel or potential military personnel fled to Canada during the ten years of the Vietnam debacle, it seems like we’re right on track, doesn’t it?

Does this mean that, like in 1963-1972, we just have a bunch of sissies and “girly men” living in our country?

There were a couple of pretty good examples used in the article, but one caught my eye in particular. That was the case of Spc. Jeremy Hinzman of Rapid City, South Dakota.

For me, what makes Hinzman’s case a bit more special was the logic that he uses in why he has moved up to Canada to try to avoid going to Iraq. In the article, Spc. Hinzman makes the point that, when he was in basic training, he was told if he was given an illegal or immoral order, it was his duty to disobey it.

He did his duty.

Because of Hinzman’s refusal to take part in Bush’s terrorist attack on Iraq, there will be fewer deaths in Iraq. There will be at least one less unnecessary death.

Because the others in the article have chosen not to kill innocent Iraqi men, women and children and have chosen not to be killed or maimed by people angry that their country is being occupied by our present day F├╝hrer, there will be fewer deaths and less suffering in Iraq.

I had to write a letter to the editor of The Rapid City Journal. I had to write it and I hope it’s published because I hope that Mr. Hinzman isn’t attacked, verbally or otherwise, by his hometown citizenry.

Now if we can get another 125,000 or so soldiers to do their duty, the number of illegal, immoral deaths would drop off to none, a president would be impeached and removed from office for a good reason and maybe our country would be returned to peace and prosperity.

No, we didn’t have sissies and/or “girly men” fleeing to Canada during the dark days of Vietnam and we don’t have them today.

These are people who I’m absolutely sure struggled with the idea of not “answering the call” and who should take pride in the courage of their philanthropic convictions. I salute “the deserters”.

They are what “bravery” in the face of adversity is all about!

To friendship,
Michael

“If you kill one person you are a murderer. If you kill ten people you are a monster. If you kill ten thousand you are a national hero.” – Vassilis
Epaminondou

Please feel free to comment.

Saturday, November 27, 2004

How Close Are We?

My thoughtful, insight, beautiful wife, Tina, reminded about “The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism”, an article I found on the Environmentalists Against War web site. She reminded me of how much it scared the hell out of each of us. So I’m thinking I might as well share the fear. Let’s look at the “defining characteristics”, shall we?

1. I don’t know how many of you have heard of the English comic Eddie Izzard but he did a stand up in San Francisco. It was hilarious. However, as is the case with most politically based humor, his expressed the lack of logic of many political conditions.

“Flags” was one of them. He said that when England took over India, the Indian people said that was their land and England couldn’t have it.

The English, according to Eddie, asked the Indian people if they had a flag.

“No flag, no country”, they said.

I don’t have to tell you how many flags have been pasted, posted, hung or worn since September 11, 2001. But, as Michael Douglas’s character in The American President says, it’s not the flag that makes America free, it’s the right of a person to burn that flag in protest.

If I ever went to war to defend my country, I’d be defending the ground upon which we walk, the water which we drink and the air which we breathe within the borders of my country. Most of all, I’d be defending the people who walk, drink and breathe that live within the borders of my country. Wouldn’t it be sad to know that, if people really believe that our military in Iraq is defending our country, they're actually only defending a piece of cloth?

2. Although we are keeping people in prisons who haven’t been charged with a crime, although The Patriot Act has given law enforcement a wider range of latitude, although we want to put the discrimination against a group of people into the constitution, although Walden O’Dell, the CEO of the Diebold electronic voting machine company said he would “deliver Ohio to the president”, people still voted for Bush and his cabal.

Republicans used to be known as conservatives and those conservatives used to believe in less governmental interference. However, this group of “compassionate conservatives” believes in more government when it comes to what they consider “moral” issues.

They don’t mind at all if they give up some of their rights to be protected, either.

As Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

3. In Orwell’s “1984”, The Party creates a fictitious character named Goldstien. Every afternoon at two pm, people gather for a “2 minute hate”. They gather in front of a picture of Goldstien and scream aspersions and disparagement at the picture until they work themselves up into a lather.

Notice that we supposedly waited until “Saddam Hussein” proved that he “disarmed” before we attacked “him”. We didn’t go to war against Iraq. We didn’t even go to war against the Iraqi government. We went to war against “Saddam Hussein”. We created a criminal for the American people to personally hate. And it wasn’t even the right criminal!

Bush doesn’t talk a lot about Osama bin Laden, does he? Hmmm.

4. To say that the funding for the military has been “disproportionate” would be the understatement of all time. Not only does Bush continue to ask congress for more and more money to “fund the war on terrorism”, and always seems to get it, by the way, but he’s slashing social programs like housing for the elderly and otherwise disabled Americans, education and fighting aids.

5. I don’t know that the Bush cabal is sexist as two women, Condolizza Rice and Karen Hughs, are two of its most important and hateful members.

However, one of the “moral” issues that people used to vote for Bush was to hopefully put a Supreme Court in place that would overturn Roe v Wade.

And I don’t have to tell you that Bush supporters need to feel safe from homosexuals.

6. I could use Fox News as an example of how the Bush administration controls the media.

Fox is not alone, though. Of course the mainstream media is said to be a “liberal” media. That’s amusing.

I read things on Antiwar.com and CommonDreams.org that never make it to the mainstream media. People would say that Antiwar.com and CommonDreams.org are just liberal biased crackpot sites and I might say that they could use that argument if much of what those sites contain didn’t make it to the mainstream media eventually, but it does.

Of course, when the mainstream media presents it, they sanitize it so as not to upset the American people with the whole truth.

7. I won’t write much on the subject of people’s feelings about national security because I think that number 2 says it all.

8. Did I write “to say that the funding for the military has been “disproportionate” would be the understatement of all time”? If it is, trying to create a Christian theocracy in the US is a close second.

Again, people voted for Bush because he, in their eyes, stands for “good, Christian values.” The founding conquerors took over North America because they wanted the freedom of choice in how they did or did not worship.

But we’ve become a “Christian” nation and, of course the enemy, Islam, is made to appear that much more evil for it.

“The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” That statement was made by George Washington. Oh, how soon we forget

9. I wrote that this column would not be about the $136 billion in tax cuts that Bush gave to corporations, but it’s obvious to the most casual of observers that globalization of US corporations is OK with Dubya. I know this because he has defended sending American jobs to third world countries. He said that it was a “good” thing.

10. It seems to me, especially in the airline industry, a successful bargaining session between labor and management is measured by how little labor has to give up to “keep the company afloat”.

If you look at The Executive Paywatch Database, you will find other things that CEOs and top executives of corporations can do to “keep the company competitive”.

You’ll see a gap that’s basically immoral, unethical and just plain greed based.

11. One of the things that Bush supporters were calling Kerry and his supporters was “elitist”.

Now, I don’t know if Bush and his supporters were saying that they admit that Kerry and his supporters are more intellectual, but I don’t find anything wrong with being an intellectual.

Some of the phrases that the dictionary uses for intellectual are “of or relating to the intellect, rational rather than emotional, appealing to or engaging the intellect, having or showing intellect, especially to a high degree and given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.”

I can surely see why a leader who invades a nation that was not a threat would want people to be emotional instead of rational. It’s the Goldstien thing in real life, isn’t it?

12. One of the things that Bush said after September 11 was that “The United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts.”

“Punish” is a word that Bush likes to use a lot. A look at his record as Governor of Texas as it relates to “punishing” people by putting them to death is a good way to gauge how he feels about “punishment”. His supporters like that in him.

It’s not good enough to defend and protect, but, in doing so, the “evildoers” need to be punished!

13. As we witness the dismantling of The CIA, we hear that its new boss, Porter Goss, sent a memorandum out to all of the employees stating that they will not do anything, say anything or engage in activities that are opposed to administration policies.

I’ve already mentioned Walden O’Dell.

I could mention Key Lay and how much Enron gave to Bush for his various political campaigns, but I think the examples of putting “buds” in charge of intelligence (I really hate using that word when I’m referring to anything that has to do with Bush) and voting machines sort of sums it up really well. In fact, I think that O’Dell’s pre-election statement about Ohio sums it up really well.

14. Did I say that O’Dell’s pre-election statement about Ohio sums it up really well?

Of course O’Dell had help from people who were disqualifying voters who shouldn’t have been disqualified and steering voters in the direction of the wrong polling places.

But, then, again, O’Dell’s pre-election statement about Ohio sums it up really well.

I guess the question is are we there yet?

I often wonder how long it will take Bush to start talking about amending the twenty-second amendment to the constitution because it’s not good to change leaders in mid war. I think he can get people to buy it, too.

If we’re not there yet, how close do you think we are?

Maybe you don’t see us heading in that direction at all. If not, which of these fourteen points are “lacking” and why and how?

Please feel free to comment.

"We confide in our strength, without boasting of it; we respect that of others, without fearing it." - Thomas Jefferson

Thursday, November 18, 2004

Creating or Reporting? You Tell Me

I wrote the following message to CNN using their online web form.

This morning, November 18, 2004, I was watching “Inside Politics”.

I forgot the exact quotes from the observation that follows, but I think that I’ll get the flavor of it very close.

During one segment, Judy Woodruff informed us that we were going to talk about the political future of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

She began the report by stating that, like many people, George Pataki was of the mind that native New Yorker Colin Powell would be a formidable opponent for Senator Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign.

She also said that Pataki, himself, may choose to run against Senator Clinton.

This is an abashed, blatant example of a news reporting outlet actually creating the news.

First of all, there are people who are threatening to call for recounts in Ohio, Florida and New Mexico because of suspected voting abuses in the 2004 presidential election.

Admittedly, John Kerry, who has proven to all of his supporters that he really didn’t deserve their support, is not one of the people contesting the above mentioned results.

Nonetheless, there are people who don’t believe that the 2004 election is a done deal yet.

Secondly, I’ve not read, heard or seen anywhere, including on CNN, that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has announced her candidacy for the 2008 Democratic Party nomination for president.

Thirdly, if she does make that announcement, it shouldn’t be presumed that she’ll win the nomination.

However, if CNN is already, four years before the election, reporting on people who may be opponents of Senator Clinton in 2008, CNN is, consequently, beginning to embed the idea that Senator Clinton will be the Democratic Party’s nominee.

When a report introduces a segment about the future of a politician such as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the reporter should be reporting what’s been said or done by and/or to that politician.

If there is any speculating to be done at all, it should be reports on polls taken or reports submitted by think tanks or other organizations.

CNN should stick to reporting the news. CNN should not be in the business of propaganda which may or may not have the affect of planting “realities” in the minds of its viewers.

In a debate type program such as “Crossfire”, there may be some wiggle room for inserting opinions. However, it should be obvious to viewers of programs such as “Crossfire” that opinions are being expressed and real news facts are not necessarily the venue.

CNN is not the only network committing such deeds. CNN is where I saw it happen this morning, though, and, consequently, I am writing to you to ask you not to make such presumptions.

By the way, I consider myself a progressive and may cast my vote for Senator Clinton if she was running for office and I thought that she was the best candidate at the time. I’m not a right wing radical who’s angry because the example was Senator Clinton.

Please let the American people make up their own minds when and if a candidate announces for an office.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I didn't even remind CNN that there are more than two political parties in the former United States of America.

Please feel free to comment.

Friday, November 12, 2004

Sweet Dreams

A few days ago, a person who voted for George W. Bush on November 2 said that, when she crawls into her bed at night, she feels safe and comfortable.

I did something the other night.

Let me preface this by saying I really hate sensationalism.

That’s why I hated the so called presidential campaign we recently endured.

Who served how thirty years ago?

Each candidate taking passages from his opponent out of context and making sound bites that sounded quite different from what his opponent actually meant?

Three so called debates that saw one smooth dancer and one not so smooth dancer? Neither said anything in the debates that was worth remembering, if I remember correctly.

Americans didn’t learn a thing about either candidate (as if there were only two) from the ads.

Unfortunately, the same can’t be said about what Americans think they learned about the candidates from the ads. This is not even to mention the milquetoast media whose very existence depends upon sound bites and sensationalism.

I hate reality TV shows. This nation, as well as others, I’m sure, has a bad case of the peeping Tom syndrome.

They watch reality shows because they show “real” people under “real” conditions.

Bullshit! Maybe “Cops” comes close to that description, but what’s the thrill of seeing “real” people being arrested.

We’ve become a nation of peeping Toms.

I hate reality shows.

And blood? I know a few of you are nurses and for you, I’m grateful. However, I pass out at the sight of a paper cut. I wouldn’t have done well in medical school.

So, where am I going with all of this?

The other night, I did something.

I went to Google and typed in “beheadings”. I knew that there was video of beheadings on the net and I just wanted to see, for real, what Bush’s intrusive, greed driven, disingenuous foreign policy has caused. People are suffering. I’m not suffering because I’m not on the front lines in Iraq and because I haven’t been taken captive by Islamic “radicals”. I felt I needed to empathize in a more intimate manner.

I found a site.

I began to play the video.

There were about five hooded Islamic “radicals” standing against a wall and the victim was kneeling down in front of them. I don’t think victim was blindfolded, but I forget.

One of the “terrorists”, a long blade raised in his hand, made sort of a speech in Arabic. Needless to say, I had no idea what he was saying.

Then the five descended upon the victim and the man with the knife began his torture. I heard a bit of a gurgle, but I could look no more and turned it off.

Now, the first thought is going to be that was a terrible and disdainful act – and it was.

However, there are arms, legs and other body parts littering many areas, if not all areas, of Iraq.

Some used to belong to children.

Some belonged to old men and women.

Some belonged to American military personnel.

They don’t belong to them anymore.

I imagine that, what I couldn’t look at is what that scene of strewn body parts must look like.

When we fought the misguided war in Vietnam, the American people could see some of the carnage on their TV sets. I believe that’s what continuously strengthened the antiwar movement and ultimately forced Nixon to “withdraw with honor”. It wasn’t “with honor”. It was a cluster fuck. People were grabbing the skids of ascending helicopters to try to escape Vietnam. It was a mess.

George W. Bush, like Clinton before him, has allowed the merging of media outlets. He has been rewarded handsomely by their following his orders not to show the “down side” of war. I was never in a war. Some of you were. I imagine the carnage, and that’s all you can call it, is ugly.

When bombs are dropped on towns, villages and cities, everyone has a good chance of becoming a bloody pulp.

Now George W. Bush has a “mandate”. There’s a Republican administration, a Republican congress and a Republican Supreme Court – yes, a Republican Supreme Court.

It’s said that Saddam Hussein tortured his own people and that may be true.

Do we not think that the Chinese government is torturing its own people?

Do we not think that the Saudi government is torturing its own people?

Do we not know that the Sudanese government is torturing its own people?

Maybe Saddam Hussein tortured his own people. I’m willing to bet, though, that the sheer volume of torture inflicted by our bombs, our illegal invasion, the “extremists” we’ve drawn to Iraq that weren’t there before our invasion makes what Hussein did, bad as it was, look like a school yard spat.

So, before she tucks herself in at night, I suggest she goes to her computer, goes to Google, types in “beheadings”, finds one and sits and watches what the ill advised actions of the Bush administration has begotten. I don’t believe one single Englishman or American was beheaded in Iraq before we invaded it.

By the way, there is a store somewhere that’s selling videos of beheadings. I bet members of our peeping Tom society are buying them up like hot cakes.

Then type http://www.blackboxvoting.org into her browser’s address line. She’ll learn how this election was different and how elections are going to become more and more “different” as time goes on. She’ll learn that most electronic voting machines are manufactured by Diebold Inc. whose CEO, Walden O’Dell, before the election, made a “commitment to deliver Ohio to George W. Bush.”

I’m not a liberal. I’m a conservative.

I want to conserve and protect our right to choose who governs us.

I want to conserve and protect our republican form of democracy.

I want to conserve and protect the air we breath, the water we drink and the very earth upon which we walk.

I want to conserve and protect human life that means us no harm and has done nothing to deserve our wrath and fury, phantom or not.

After watching the beheading and reading about how George W. Bush or someone controlled by neoconservatives and global corporations will be at the helm of the former United States of America, killing us and killing them, for a long, long time, she can then tuck herself into bed and know that all will be well.

Each day is, indeed, precious. However, days will, in the not too distant future, no longer belong to us.

Sweet dreams.

Message I Am Writing to All Progressive Publications and Organizations

I am writing to tell you what I think. I will not only write to you, but I will write to every organization and publication that considers itself “progressive”. I shall be prolific in my writing, writing the same thing over and over again. I may make some enemies. I may, hopefully, finally convince some people.

I think that the time of the Democrat and Republican should cease.

We saw, in 2004, a candidate for president from The Democratic Party whose views on almost all issues were almost exactly in synch with those of George W. Bush.

Senator Kerry’s views did not line up with those of true progressives.

He supported our invasion of Iraq on many occasions. Yes, there were those occasions on which he opposed it, I admit.

He never spoke to minimizing the adverse affects that organizations such as the WTO and GATT have on third world countries.

He never spoke to the affect that agreements such as NAFTA have on the American worker.

He spoke in broad terms of “improving health care”, but did not support the true progressive view of single payer health insurance.

He opposed the rights of gay men and women to marry, although he supported “civil unions”. Such was the same with John Edwards.

Democrats and Republicans are merely pawns of the true government of the world, The Corporacracy.

It’s almost too late, but progressives must begin today, the moment you finish reading this letter, to begin to support the obsolescence of The Corporacracy, i.e., The Democratic and Republican parties. They are two arms of the same party.

We can say that, since we have a Republican Administration, a Republican Congress and a Republican Supreme Court (despite the fact that it’s supposed to be non-partisan), we have a one party rule in the former United States of America.

However, I say the Republicans and Democrats don’t really care if they win or lose elections. Look how quickly John Kerry conceded the election, in spite of possible voter fraud.

The members, especially on a national level, of the Republican and Democratic parties are quite wealthy to begin with and most have inherited their wealth and not earned it.

Republicans and Democrats know that they have no less than an 50/50 chance of winning any election, no matter what the polls show. That’s because they’re the only game in town.

If Republicans look as if they’re in trouble, they’ll lean a little to the left. If the Democrats look as if they’re in trouble, they’ll lean a little to the right. The latter has happened in elections beginning in 1992.

However, once they get into office, they do the bidding of those who put them there, large global corporations.

It’s time that true progressives discarded this game that’s played every two years and began supporting true progressive candidates. You won’t find true, progressive candidates in the Democratic and Republican parties. They are the same, no matter what they say during any given campaign.

In discarding The Corporacracy, true progressives must turn to another organization, if Diebold allows it.

I am a registered Libertarian, but I think that the best organization to which progressive publications and organizations should turn is The Green Party of the United States of America.

Let’s all of us progressives begin today to put all of our efforts into getting Green Party candidates elected in 2006 and 2008.

This means that progressive publications and organizations should rescind their support of The Democratic Party and begin to cover the Green Party with vigor and aggressiveness.

This means progressive publications and organizations should cease being Democratic Party apologists and support, with the same enthusiasm and temerity with which they supported a candidate that didn’t even represent progressive issues, candidates of The Green Party of the United States of America.

There won’t be much corporate money with which to work, hopefully none, so there need to be fund raisers nationwide, phone banks and all of the activities that were behind the support for John Kerry.

This support needs to begin now, as soon as you finish reading this message if you, indeed, read it.

As I mentioned, it may be too late because I’m sure that the Diebold virus will spread across the nation like wildfire. Elections may be determined before anyone even casts a ballot.

But, if there’s a chance at all, it does not rest with the Democrats or Republicans. At this point in time, it looks like we should get behind the Green Party and create a legitimate second party.

Please let me know that you are going to help.

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

The Former United States of America

George W. Bush will be the president of the former United States of America. I write “former” because we are anything but united these days.

The first question that has to be asked is did George W. Bush truly receive all of the votes that were assigned to him?

I only ask this question because in August of 2003, Walden O’Dell, the CEO of Diebold, the company that makes the electronic paperless voting machines, said that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president." I think he may have kept his promise.

Of course, we all heard about the absentee ballots that were sent out to Florida voters on the Saturday before the election, much too late to get them back to the election officials. (The link doesn't take you right to the piece for some reason, but, if you go to the CommonDreams.org site, you'll see it. It's by Greg Palast).

Then there were the Republicans posing as non-partisan “voter helpers”. These scoundrels were going from door to door asking people if they’d registered to vote. If they hadn’t, they handed them a registration form and had the voter fill it out. The “voter helpers” discarded all forms that were filled out by people who said that they were affiliated with any party other than the Republican Party.

So, the first question is did George W. Bush truly receive all of the votes that were assigned to him?

Let’s say, for the sake of fantasy and argument, that he did. Where did these votes come from?

On September 11, 2001, America was devastated. We all knew who perpetrated the crime. Even Bush pointed to Al Q’aida in the eloquent speech he made immediately following the attacks.

Bush sent troops into Afghanistan to “hunt down” Osama bin Laden. He sent in about 11,000 troops who handed the search for bin Laden over to Afghan war lords. bin Laden is still on the loose and making movies.

Bush then turned his attention to Iraq.

No he didn’t!! His attention, as well as the attention of almost everyone in his administration was on Iraq on the day that Bill Clinton was sworn it for his first term as president. September 11, 2001, however it really happened, merely gave these imperialists a reason to attack Iraq.

We attacked Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein from power. We did this because he was harboring weapons of mass destruction, a phrase that has started to make me throw up, so I’ll be right back.

There. That’s better.

We attacked Iraq and took over Baghdad fairly quickly and with seeming ease.

Now, if Hussein had these, I can’t even type it, would he have not used them against the invading forces?

I can’t believe my ears when I hear people say that he buried them or had them moved to Syria or some such nonsense. What was he saving those things for, a rainy day? Maybe it wasn’t raining in Iraq on the day we began our illegal invasion.

We finally found Hussein in what they called a “spider hole”. He didn’t have his things with him either. We now have a man who could “launch a nuclear attack within 45 minutes” in one of our illegal prisons.

When it was painfully obvious that the reason given for attacking Iraq was bogus, Bush and Cheney, you always have to include Cheney because, well, after all, he is the real president, fabricated a story about an Al Q’aida operative and an operative of the Iraqi government meeting in Prague before September 11, 2001.

This has been discredited in many ways, but the most telling way is that, if we didn’t remove Hussein from power, Al Q’aida would have. For Al Q’aida, there is no room in The Middle East for a secular government and Iraq was a secular state. Terique Aziz, if I have the spelling correct, the former Iraqi ambassador to the United Nations, is a Christian. Al Q’aida and Iraq would never have formed a partnership.

Bush and Cheney finally knew that we were on to that scam, too (even though Cheney, to this day, says that there was such a partnership).

Finally, we settled on the fact that we invaded Iraq to “free Iraqis from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein” and spread democracy, American style.

How philanthropic of us. But why did we start with Iraq? There are other countries with even more than the twenty-nine million people who are under tyrannical rule.

Why didn’t we start by invading China, whose 1,300,000,000 (that’s one billion, three hundred million) people are under the rule of a government just as tyrannical as the government that was lead by Saddam Hussein?

Oh, that’s right, Arabs attacked America, so we needed to invade an Arab nation.

So why didn’t we invade the nation from which 19 of the hijackers hailed, Saudi Arabia?

We were lied to by our leadership. It should be well known. Even the mainstream media has said that there were none of those things and there was no tie between Iraq and Al Q’aida.

Then why would the majority vote for a president who lied us into an illegal war?

One reason is, even though they’ve been told that it has been proven differently, almost half of the voters in the former United States of America still believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the September 11 attacks.

I think a couple of quotes from Orwell are appropriate here.

“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

“Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

But, really, now, did enough people believe Bush and Cheney’s foreign policy lies to reelect them?

No. Maybe his domestic policy was so overwhelmingly successful that people could look at Iraq and say, “Well Clinton lied but his domestic policies were so successful that he was reelected.”

Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, Jon Snow, said, basically, that outsourcing American jobs to third world countries is good for Americans.

On July, 9, 2004, the president, himself, said “Pennsylvania's unemployment rate is 5.1 percent. That's good news for people who are trying to find jobs.”

He is, indeed, the first president since Herbert Hoover to have lost jobs, a negative net job “gain”. I know it’s an oxymoron, but it’s the best way I know how to say it.

People say, as I have written, that outsourcing is philanthropic. By giving our jobs to people in the third world, we are creating parity among nations.

Since corporations don’t outsource to lose money, they are taking advantage of the low wages that third world country workers will accept. Corporations are not outsourcing jobs to help third world countries. They really don’t care about the working conditions of the people in the third world who are making their product.

I do agree, though, that outsourcing will eventually create parity among nations. In addition to keeping the third world population impoverished while extracting goods from their sweat and blood, American corporations are, by that very same endeavor, driving what used to be middle class Americans towards the same impoverishment suffered in the third world.

What does this have to do with Bush?

He allows it. He rewards it. He has recently sent a bill to congress that would give even greater tax breaks to these very same corporations.

Can he do anything about it?

Of course he can. He can make it so that the borders aren’t so opened. He can not reward corporations who outsource American jobs.

If it’s his domestic policy that people love, it certainly doesn’t have to do with the security of their employment.

Maybe it’s his protection of those less fortunate people. And, obviously, since he condones outsourcing and, consequently, putting Americans out of work, he must be beefing up social programs to help the increasing unemployed.

Social Security was enacted, along with a number of “I am my brother’s keeper” laws by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. President Roosevelt knew that, no matter how the economy faired, there would always be people, who, for one reason or another, couldn’t work at certain points in their lives. So he started taking money from those who were working and putting it aside to help those who weren’t and those who retired. He actually enabled retirement with impunity.

George W. Bush wants to stop taking money from those who work for the purpose of putting it in a fund for those less fortunate. He wants people to take responsibility for their own welfare, using their income as they deem necessary.

This would include putting money aside in case your job is outsourced.

This means putting money aside for when you retire from the job that…oh, that’s right, your job was outsourced. You didn’t get a chance to retire.

He wants to privatize Social Security so that, like HMOs, social security corporations can make money from the money you’re putting aside in case you see bleaker days.

We all know how HMOs work. They know better than your own doctor what’s best for you. They know well enough to deny you services and medications that your doctor says you need.

Well how do we think social security “HMOs” are going to work? Their first responsibility will be to their profit. Will they charge you interest to hold on to your “rainy day” money? You put money into one of these accounts and, when and if you need it, you withdraw significantly less than you put in.

Yes, you don’t receive the wage you were making from the present government run unemployment system when you’re laid off. And, yes, the government decides if you’re really eligible to receive social security, disability or any other governmental payout.

I can assure you, though, that corporations whose CEOs feel the “need” to be paid millions of dollars in wages and perks will treat you with the same respect that HMOs treat you with now. In my experience, that respect has been very grudging.

So, let’s see, Bush thinks it’s OK to move jobs from the former US to third world countries, even though the CEOs and top executives of the companies who do so are paid outrageous wages and perks. He wants to put the safety net of Social Security into the hands of these very same CEOs and top executives, which can only lead to making social security something more difficult to acquire.

Maybe it’s his health plan that moved over half of the nation to vote for him.

Bush knows that people can get prescription medications from Canada at prices that are much lower than the costs of getting those same medications in the former US, but he opposes making it legal to do so because he’s worried about your safety.

Folks, we’re talking Canada here. I don’t know if anyone is suggesting that we get our prescription medications from Ghana. In fact, it’s probably more accurate to say that Ghana doesn’t have enough medication for its own people.

Canada is an industrialized nation whose pharmaceutical practices at least equal those of the former US, if not surpass them.

I write this because George W. Bush, along with giving corporations enormous tax breaks, no matter how they hurt the American worker, wants to help those same corporations even more by taking the burden of environmental and other regulations off their shoulders.

So, this begs the question are Canadian pharmacies, which are tightly regulated by the government, really dispensing prescription medications that are less safe than those dispensed in the former US?

It appears that the Bush/Cheney foreign policy is getting a lot of people killed based on a lie and that his domestic policies aren’t really geared to help Americans either. So why does half of the country think that Bush deserves their votes?

Bush is a Christian and a born again one at that. Far too many people vote for Bush because he is a Christian, he wears his Christianity on his sleeve and people falsely believe that the former United States of America is a “Christian nation.”

I don’t understand how anyone could not have learned at some point in life that the people who jump started this nation made damn sure that The United States of America was not and could never become a theocracy.

Yet, people say we’re a Christian nation.

Are they implying that Hindu/Americans, Muslim/Americans, Jewish/Americans, Atheist/Americans should all leave this land? I’m sure I’ve left out other beliefs and I apologize for that, but you get the point.

But people voted for Bush because he’s a Christian.

People voted for Bush because they don’t want to allow men to marry men and women to marry women.

Let’s back up. I firmly believe that it’s anyone’s right to disagree with another person. That’s what this nation was founded upon. If you don’t believe that same sex marriage is “right”, that’s your prerogative.

How does the marriage of a man to a man or a woman to a woman affect those who are so opposed to it? Other than the fact that they don’t like to view this phenomenon, it doesn’t. The couple living in the house next door to you does not have an affect on your life unless they’re unruly, loud, criminals or otherwise intrusively obnoxious. If the couple happens to be made up of members of the same sex and they don’t bother you, then why do you want to make their partnership illegal?

It’s because The Bible says it’s wrong.

Well, guess what? Do you remember the statement about theocracy and the founders of this nation? Since we’re not a theocracy and, consequently, not a Christian nation, not everyone reads and/or believes what’s in your bible, nor should they be expected to.

People voted for Bush because the candidate against whom he was running is a member of the same party, just a different “arm”.

John Kerry takes money from corporations and, folks, you can bet that, if he was elected, he’d be paying up, just like George.

John Kerry believes that the war in Iraq is the right war, no matter what he says on occasion. He voted for it. Yes, he says he expected Bush to try harder at diplomacy than he did, but Kerry lies. He speaks about fighting the Iraq war in a “smarter” way.

Well, if it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, why fight it at all?

Kerry also tries to overcome his aloof persona with Bush type John Wayne talk.

He’s going to hunt people down and kill ‘em.

Neither “candidate” wants to admit that we’re doing to the average person in The Middle East what many of our ancestors did to the indigenous people of North America. Our leaders are making deals with their leaders that make their leaders very wealthy. Meanwhile, our ownership of their resources is keeping the average Middle Eastern occupant in poverty.

When they show their opposition to this unfair alliance, we bomb their cities and ruin what possessions they do own. We kill their citizenry when it gets in the way of our extortion, just like we did to the Native American.

We’re told that they attack us because they despise our freedom.

They attack us, ladies and gentlemen, because they want us to give them their freedom and that shouldn’t even be up to us, but it is. It is because we support the tyrannical governments that govern them. We enrich those governments so that we can hoard the resources of their land.

It’s odd, isn’t it? We are losing Americans and killing Iraqis to free them from the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein, yet we enrich other tyrannical governments.

Finally, here’s what I think’s gonna happen.

The people who voted for Bush in 2004 will begin to see things differently.

First, they’ll see Bush trying to amend the twenty-second amendment of the constitution. That’s the amendment that says that presidents can only be elected to two four year terms.

With everything being Republican from the Senate to The House of Representatives to The Supreme Court (The Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partisan, but it’s really Republican and will shortly become more so), Bush may be able to pull that one off.

If people who voted for Bush don’t see that because he can’t pull it off, they’ll see Jeb running in 2008. He’ll use the same unethical tactics used by George in the 2000 primaries, in the 2000 general election, in the 2002 mid term elections and in the 2004 general election.

But, will they vote for Jeb? Will there be even more Diebold Bush machines and will it matter if they vote for Jeb or not?

Before they see any of that, I think that they’ll see that same sex marriage, Christianity and other so called “family values” that led them to vote for Bush in 2004 will begin to become less and less important.

What they will see is their jobs disappear.

What they will see are their fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters dying trying to spread democracy, American style, to the rest of the world.

What they will see is a system of medical care that is all but inaccessible. Maybe the basics will still be there, but, looking at the flu vaccine crisis of 2004, in spite of warnings that this administration had that this crisis was imminent, I don’t even know about the basics.

What they will see is a super stratified society in which a few people are very, very wealthy while others, including themselves, are poor.

What they will see, as mentioned, is that they are not able to change any of that through balloting. Voting will be useless because the outcome will be already determined.

What they will feel is their blood boiling because they aren’t used to living under a fascist dictatorship.

What they will ultimately see is the following quote from Thomas Jefferson become reality.

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Ladies and gentleman, I tell you today, November 3, 2004, the final day of existence for the United States of America as envisioned by those who ordained it, that the next national change of government will be a violent one. The tyranny that was so readily allowed to continue in 2004 will not be able to be removed by any other means.

Sunday, October 31, 2004

Where Has Alll The Employment Gone?

I recently had trouble with Norton Firewall. Basically, it made it so that I lost everything on my hard drive.

I went to the Norton web site to find a telephone number through which I could speak to a human being about my problem.

I finally found one, but it cost $29.99 to talk to a human being.

I figured it was worth it.

So I called the number.

I waited for one hour listening to music I didn’t like the first time I heard it.

Finally, a man with a very thick East Indian accent came on the phone. We struggled first to understand one another and then to figure out how to resolve the problem. We struggled for two hours.

Finally, he was able to talk me through taking every and any piece of software that had to do with Norton and/or Symantic off my computer.

I think he was about to tell me how to get it back on correctly when, yep, we were disconnected. I guess the communication between California and India is OK, but not perfect.

Outsourcing jobs to people who will do the job for considerably less of an income is something that corporations love to do.

I heard recently that outsourcing is good because it creates parity among nations.

Well, I agree, it creates parity.

Corporations send their work out to people who are poor and pay them the wage that they’re used to, $1.00/hour or less for 24/7, 365 days a year, and they take jobs away from the workers in industrialized nations, like the former United States of America, dropping those workers to the same level as the workers who get the work. So, yes, there’s parity. Only the parity does not happen as it was presented to me.

We don’t make workers in third world countries better off by outsourcing. We just keep them poor and make American workers, or former workers, just as poor.

Yep, parity.

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Hallelujah!

Hallelujah!

It’s 5:15 AM here on the west coast and I just heard that there’s been a mutiny of sorts in Iraq this morning.

Several soldiers have refused to go on what they consider a mission that is too dangerous.

I just purchased F-911. I saw it at the movie theater, but I watched it again last night on DVD.

Let's continue to support our troops. If they start doing this, they'll need it more than ever.

For you that pray, thank God!

For the rest of us, hallelujah!!!!

Friday, October 15, 2004

The Future of Our People

It seems that no on has ever read this blog. I hope, however, that some one or some ones read this posting.

This made me very angry.

Are we living in a fucking banana republic or a third world country?

I feel that Kerry is merely Bush with a different voice and a different face.

I will vote.

But, we don't vote. Debates include only two "political parties", as if they're the only two in existence.

The American people don't know, but they're finding out - more and more of them are finding out.

And when the deed is finally done, when there is no more middle class, there will be change.

Ashcroft, I'm sure you and/or your flunkies are reading this

But I will say this tonight. Voting won't get our country back.

Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

We are. today, standing on the precipice of that point.

Friday, October 08, 2004

OK, Let's Pull Out All Of The Stops

I sent the following letter to my local newspaper, The Contra Costa Times.

Hello,

It’s your weird and whacky ex chemical worker again.

Please, before you immediately delete this, read it. Then you can delete it.

You have 26 days to perform a service to your nation that maybe no one else in the history of The United States of America has had. You may have 26 days to save us.

Thus far, I’ve given you reason to think that I’m orbiting some other planet. Well, at least that’s what I think considering you’ve not responded to me.

The article about chemical and nuclear energy plants that I sent to you last night, the one written by Robert Kennedy Jr., should give you some hint.

In the next 26 days, someone needs to inform the American people of their fate.

I’m not a big John Kerry fan. I think that politics in America is the possession of The Democratic Party and The Republican Party. I don’t think that you can get as far as Kerry or Bush or Pelosi or Tauscher or Chris Dodd without money. I don’t think that you can even be in a position to run for the presidency of The United States without the backing of some very depraved sources. I think everyone from Pelosi to Bush accepts payola from global corporations.

For a person with a conscience to be president of our nation would take a complete overhaul of our electoral system. This won’t be happening anytime soon since the people who can make the change are the same people who benefit from the presently corrupt system.

So, this is not an anti Bush, pro Kerry political statement.

This is an admonishment to you and all of the main stream media for overlooking what many of the rest of us know.

Why isn’t Bush forcing chemical plants and nuclear energy facilities to protect themselves better from catastrophic events?

Why doesn’t Bush care whether or not Americans are employed?

Why didn’t Bush call up the National Guard and Reservists, as he did, but keep them home, forming a human wall around the entire US borderline? Wouldn’t spending money doing that be more logistically protective of our land than spending it on a war in Iraq?

Why has Bush turned his back on our allies?

Why has Bush turned his back on doing our part in nuclear nonproliferation? Why is Bush rushing to get The Guided Bomb Unit-28 manufactured, otherwise known as “bunker busters”?
Why are global corporations so supportive of Bush’s environmental policies?

Why does Bush have such little interest in protecting the environment?

Why is Bush so dramatically non-curious about things scientific?

Why hasn’t Bush picked up on the Israeli/Palestinian peace process that every president since Nixon has worked so hard on?

I will tell you that the answer lies in the word “Dispensationalism”.

I can tell you that the answer lies in the word “Armageddon”.

I can tell you that the answer lies in the word “Rapture”.

I can tell you that the answer lies in the words “The Project For A New American Century”.

Well, you think I’m crazy anyway, so why not tell you what else I know?

First, Google search these words with the word “Bush” in the search title.

Secondly, I think that, before the election, you owe it to the American people to do a Sunday “Perspective” centerfold on “The Project For A New American Century”.

Do you even know about “The Project For A New American Century”?

Do you know what its driving forces are?

Do you really know what Bush’s agenda is for his second term?

I’ll tell you what I know. It can’t sound any crazier that anything else I’ve already said.

Bush believes that he’s been chosen by God to bring on the second coming of Christ. He’s been working on it by restarting The Crusades.

He’s been working on it by turning a blind eye to the genocide of Palestinians by the Israelis. I’m not anti Semitic. I’m talking The Holy Land, Israel, where Armageddon is physically located.

Because the main stream media will not pick up on such an “out of the box” story, true as it is, he will be reselected.

After he is reselected, he will use his “bunker busters” at Armageddon to bring on the second coming of Christ.

I mean, just look at his religiosity. Read his speeches.

Carter was very religious. He’s still a member of a church and teaches Sunday school.

However, Carter never wore his Christianity on his sleeve the way Bush does.

You owe it to the American people to at least investigate this craziness.

Bush has an agenda for his second term and it includes nuclear catastrophe which will bring on nothing more than the deaths of innocent people and a backlash that may very well put an end to The United States of America as we know it.

I know, I know, I should be in a padded cell, right?

No.

You should be doing your job, doing the kind of research that I, and many others, have been doing.

This time you should listen to Chicken Little. He’s been studying, watching, observing and it all makes perfect sense.

What seems to make no sense at all – what did Richard Clark say? – it’s like when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor if one of FDR's advisors said we should retaliate by attacking Mexico – this nonsense in Iraq, this bloody nonsense is just the beginning.

The end is not too far away.

Please help.

Please feel free to comment on this!

Monday, September 27, 2004

Progressives Or Democrats?

On September 23, Working Assets sent me three ActForChange actions that they wanted me to take.

The first was to write to my senators asking them to join with other members of congress to release the CIA National Intelligence Estimate to the public so that the American people can see for themselves that progress in Iraq is not being made.

In fact, the report, given to the president, presented him with three possible scenarios for Iraq. They range from the continued quagmire in which we are steeped to all out civil war. None of the scenarios are positive.

Yet, the president is telling the American people that progress in Iraq is being made and that democracy is “on the march.”

I did not hesitate to send the letters to my senators. The American people deserve the truth from the president.

The second action they wanted me to take was to urge an investigation into the ethics practices of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Although I can not support any unethical activities of DeLay, Working Assets is proving, through this request, that it is more a Democratic Party apologist than it is a real progressive group.

The unethical conduct by DeLay consists of “illegal fundraising and trading legislative advantages for corporate contributions.”

If Working Assets would urge congress to move against any and all of its members who trade “legislative advantages for corporate contributions”, I would take action.

Unfortunately, it would be almost impossible for Working Assets to urge such a thing. If we urged congress to take action against such legislators, congress, for the most part, would have to impeach itself.

When are MoveOn, Working Assets, FAIR, Air America and other so called progressive organizations truly going to become progressive organizations and cease to be Democratic Party apologists?

MoveOn is a superior money raising organization. It should be using its talent to support The Green Party of the United States of America, not the Democrats. As I’ve written here before, The Republicans and Democrats are two arms of the same party.

Kerry’s stand on Iraq is the best proof of that.

This has to become clear when the goal is to vote against a certain candidate instead of voting for one.

Kerry gives us a corporate bought and sold candidate who, because of the arcane electoral system in the US, is the only candidate that has a realistic chance of fulfilling the goal of “anybody but Bush”.

I will vote for Kerry, but I feel that I’ve sacrificed my democracy by doing so.

Thirdly, Working Assets wants me to speak out against developing Utah’s Wild Lands for the purpose of drilling for oil.

I think that’s an admirable goal.

However, I can use the same argument for not speaking out against that development as I used in refusing to urge congress to act against DeLay.

The Democrats and Republicans are two arms of the same party.

Until progressive organizations such as Working Assets and the others I mentioned above truly begin to support progressive candidates, drilling will happen.

How much clearer can it be? Our government, our legislature and, unfortunately, consequently, our judicial system are all owned by corporations.

I will not speak out against the drilling because I don’t believe these so called “progressive” organizations are any more than Democratic Party apologists and The Democrats are as bought and sold by The Corporacracy as the Republicans are.

So this merely gives me one more chance to ask MoveOn, Working Assets, Air America, etc. to become the progressive organizations that they claim to be.

Let’s make The Democrats and Republicans obsolete.

It’s time for that starting over that Jefferson wrote so eloquently about.

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Restructuring hands Bush more power

This is a parody of an article I read in my local newspaper today.

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush ordered a stunning overhaul of America’s political system on Monday in what he called an effort to unite the country against terrorism.

If enacted, as expected, the proposals would strengthen his already pervasive control over the legislative branch and regional governments.

Bush, meeting in special session with Cabinet members and regional government leaders, outlined what would be the most sweeping political restructuring -- and his most striking single step to consolidate power -- in America since its independence from Great Britain in 1776.

Critics immediately said it would violate the constitution and stifle what political opposition remains.

Under Bush’s proposals, which he said required only legislative approval and not constitutional amendments, the governors of the country's 50 states would no longer be elected by popular vote but rather by local legislatures -- and only after the president's nomination.

Seats in the lower house of congress, or The House of Representatives, would be elected entirely on national party slates, eliminating district races across the nation.

In the last mid term elections, those races accounted for all of the independents and liberals serving in The House.

After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that have shaken the country, Bush argued that the country needed a more unified political system.

His proposals on Monday, however, made it clear that for him, unity meant a consolidation of power in the executive branch.

Across the short spectrum of political opposition in today's America, reactions ranged from stunned disbelief to helpless anger.

John Kerry, the leader of the main opposition party, The Democrats, called the proposals "ill-conceived."

Ralph Nader, a liberal leader, said they represented "the elimination of the last links in a system of checks and balances."

Ted Kennedy, the senior senator from Massachusetts, said that rather than unifying Americans against terror, the proposals would simply disenfranchise them from politics and the state.

"All these measures," he said in a telephone interview, "mean we are headed toward a dictatorial form of government."

The electoral changes require the approval of congress, but because Bush’s Republican Party controls The House of Representatives, The Senate and is said to have The Supreme Court “on its side”, that is almost a foregone conclusion.

Nader said that although Bush’s proposals "contradict the letter and the spirit of the constitution," challenges to them would be futile.

"Unfortunately," he said, "with Republicans controlling all three branches of government, there are no checks and balances here in America in 2004.”

In the wrenching days since Saudis and other terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, Bush has appeared publicly only a handful of times, yet has never admitted the government's failures and weaknesses in fighting terrorism.

Until Monday, however, he had offered only the invasion of Iraq as a retaliation against the Saudi lead attack upon The United States. He has exhorted Americans to continue on with their everyday lives, especially spending their hard earned pay, but with a suspicious eye on those around them, including their neighbors.

In the years since The Supreme Court selected him as The American President in December of 2000, Bush has steadily consolidated political power in the executive branch, often by the sheer force of his will. His campaign style has taken away the power of the electorate to make sensible decisions.

He and Attorney General John Ashcroft have created THE PATRIOT ACT which grants more power and freedom to federal agencies to investigate American citizens, even without the citizens’ knowing that they are being investigated.

He also used Corporate America’s vast power over television and government resources, as well as his extensive personal popularity, to reward loyal governors and punish or push aside disloyal ones.

The proposals on Monday, however, went further than any of the other steps under Bush’s watch.

Bush has faced unusually pointed criticism from the public and in newspapers after the 1000th military death in Iraq this past week.

Appearing to bow to pressure, he agreed to a public inquiry into the attack, though one controlled by The Administration, whose members he appoints. From that, the 9/11 Commission was formed.

Bush proposed the unification of counterterrorism efforts in a single agency, citing the examples of "a whole number of countries which have been confronted with the terrorist threat."

This, of course, is one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Bush also called for banning "extremist organizations using religious, nationalistic and any other phraseology as cover" and toughen penalties for crimes committed by terrorists, even minor ones. He suggested putting this wording into the next phase of The PATRIOT ACT.

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

Another Kerry Promise

8/4/05: "John Kerry says he can "put a deal together" as president to drastically reduce U.S. troop strength in Iraq, a pledge reminiscent of Richard Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam War and Dwight D. Eisenhower's promise to stop fighting in Korea."

I got this one from Antiwar.com.

Yep, that’s another thing that I’ll hold Kerry to.

How long should we give him before he looks like he’s really making progress toward that goal? I say six months, but I’ll be generous and give him a year. I mean real, solid progress.

Again, if there isn’t progress made toward this goal within one year, I, again, expect his present supporters to start to protest his presidency for misleading the American people.

Don’t get me wrong, he’s got my vote now, but I’ll work like hell to defeat him in 2008 should he start to show that he’s just blowing smoke with these promises.

Sunday, August 01, 2004

Letter to ABC News As Requested by FAIR

ABC News

Re: John Stossel’s July 23, 2004 20/20 report entitled “Give Me a Break”

I am writing this message in response to John Stossel’s 20/20 segment entitled “Give Me A Break” which was aired on July 23, 2004.

In that segment, Stossel attacked the profession of trial lawyer by comparing the work of Democratic vice-presidential nominee John Edwards with the work of trial attorney Richard “Dickie” Scruggs.

The work of Scruggs and Edwards may be the same, but the approach to that work may differ significantly enough that the comparison between the two men is a stretch.

John Edwards used money he earned as a trial lawyer to buy property. Are we not allowed to use our earnings as we wish in The United States of America? How much does Mr. Stossel earn and what has he purchased with some or any of his income? That, first and foremost, should be addressed on a 20/20 rebutting Stossels’ piece on John Edwards. Let the viewers determine if Stossel earns too much by creating, by implication, a negative view of the subjects of his reports and if he spends that income on what they consider to be frivolous or unnecessary items. Imply, in the rebuttal, that, whatever it is that Stossel purchases with his income, he could be doing more philanthropic work with his income.

Then segue to the fact that present Vice President Dick Cheney was the CEO of a large global corporation, Halliburton. Mention that the ratio of what CEOs earn to the salaries of those earning the money for CEOs is over 600 to 1.

Inform your viewers that it would be more philanthropic for CEOs to earn less, share the wealth with their workers more fairly and that Cheney was part of this inequity.

Also inform your viewers what Cheney did with his earnings as CEO of Halliburton and let them decide if that spending was frivolous or necessary.

Then, you will have reported both sides of the same story. Only then would a viewer be able to decide for himself or herself whether Edwards really acted in an inappropriate manner as a trial lawyer as compared to how Cheney acted as the CEO of a global corporation.

If you don’t make these facts about Stossel and Cheney available to viewers via the same venue, 20/20, then you are not reporting the news as much as you are making the news in order to politically skew the thinking of the viewers.

Thank you.

Saturday, July 31, 2004

What To Hold Kerry To If He’s Elected

I have started a new journal. I call it “What To Hold Kerry To If He’s Elected”.

My first entry is from a daily email I receive from “The Center for American Progress” that’s called “Progress Report”. The entry was in the “Progress Report” of July 30, 2004:

“KERRY PUSHES NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT BUSH IS CUTTING: Kerry said he would seriously increase funding for alternative energy research. This is a stark contrast to the current administration. In his very first presidential budget, Bush proposed cutting $277 million out of renewable energy research, while spending an additional $2 billion on coal-related programs. His FY2004 budget tried to "slash funding for numerous clean energy and energy efficiency programs, including funding for bioenergy, wind and geothermal electricity sources." Those cuts "were announced less than a week after the president announced his goal of energy independence in the State of the Union address." While the president has announced efforts to fund a hydrogen car, he took the money to pay for the program out of efforts to develop more fuel efficient vehicles in the short-term. Even the Bush tax cuts included provisions that make the energy situation worse. His latest tax bill included a provision creating a $100,000 tax writeoff for large SUVs like the Hummer (which gets just 10 miles to the gallon). Meanwhile, similar tax benefits for hybrids remain paltry.” (from “Progress Report”, “Center for American Progress”)

If Kerry is elected, I will look back on this and quotes like it to see if Kerry really follows through. If he doesn’t, I expect his present day supporters to join me in calling him on it, protesting his misleading the American public and beginning their support for his defeat for reelection in 2008.

Basically, I’m sick and tired of transparent partisan publishing, whether it’s Rush Limbaugh on the right or Randy Rhodes on the left.

Is it too much to ask talk radio hosts to call it as it is rather than to stick to party lines and make excuses?

We need to make the Repulicrats obsolete and start anew with a legitimate "third" party.

Saturday, July 17, 2004

You Don't Get It, Do You?

I just want to know how to make UFPJ, as well as MoveOn, FAIR,TrueMajority, etc., realize that the day of the worn out, tired, bought and sold Democratic and Republican Parties should come to an end. Neither party has anything to fear. They both know that they have a 50-50 chance of winning and, when they win, what is it they win? They win power. They're all wealthy sons of bitches to begin with. They have the gall to talk about two Americas. Well, they're right. There are two Americas. Theirs and ours. Unfortunately, they own both of them.

We need struggling politicians who are in it for the good of it, the good of us, America, not just for name, glory and power. C'mon, people, wake up!

Wednesday, July 07, 2004

The United World of The Corporacracy

That's right, my friends, those of you who don't read this blog may not have heard of the word "Corporacracy". You may have heard of the word "Corportacracy", a word coined by Mussilini to define fascism.

The word "Corporacracy" has been used by the likes of Ralph Nader and me to describe our form of government in the Former United States of America (the FUSA). We no longer live in a Republic, a Democracy, a Republican Democracy or a Democratic Republic. We live in what was once known as The United States of America and are just one colony in a much larger entity. This entity is global and the government is a corporacracy.

What is a corporacracy? I never thought you'd ask.

Corporacracy (co-por-AC-racy)
n. pl. co•por•ac-racies

1. A word combining "corporation" and "aristocracy".
2. Government by CEOs and top executives of global corporations.
3. Global corporations, considered the primary source of political power.
4. Wealth rules
5. The principles of gross financial inequality and fear of global corporations.
6. The reason the top 5% of the population control over 40% of the wealth.
7. A government that, by blatant disregard for humanity and the environment, is causing the American "middle class" to shrink, fading into an almost poverty level existence. They do this by taking advantage of the "middle class’s" apathy and its addiction to fossil fuels.
8. A government that buys figure head leaders, known as "presidents". These "leaders" are called Republicans and Democrats. Members of the shrinking "middle class" still embrace a fantasy which leads them to write editorial letters debating the differences between the two "parties". They are still under the false impression that there are only two "political" parties existing in the US.
9. The Corporacracy controls colonies in North America, Western and Eastern Europe, Central and South America, Asia, Africa and Australia. It’s sole rule of governance is to create money which creates more money.

When you type “Corporacracy” into a word document and it’s underlined because it’s not in the Word dictionary, choose “Add” instead of “Ignore”. It is, after all, the sole governing body on the planet.

To friendship,
Michael

“Our ‘neoconservatives’ are neither new nor conservative, but old as Bablyon and evil as Hell.” – Edward Abbey


World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
“Flameland”



hit counter script

Saturday, July 03, 2004

Independence Day Wish

I wish for independence from the past,
might overruling right,
white men encountering
their new world,
slaughtering
its true inhabitants.

I wish for independence from the arrogance,
fostering false license
to hawk,
redeem extensions
of our own humanity
to dance attendance
upon the burdens
of wealth.

I wish for independence from the blindness
guiding us westward,
turning nature
into dirt interruptions
without offering notice
to peace,
upon which we trampled.

I wish for independence from the gluttony
which continued
to swallow whole
territories suitable
for planting white seeds,
pulverizing cultures.

I wish for independence from conformity,
born of urban sprawl,
away from cities,
conceiving jealousy
of blood pumping
within mere feet
of white picket fences.

I wish for independence from The Corporacracy,
governing body
governing bodies,
stratifying rich from poor,
life from death,
blending earth
with destruction.

Wednesday, June 30, 2004

An Open Letter to Senator John Kerry

Senator Kerry, how is sending one more troop to Iraq going to make The United States of America Safer?

What is the death of one more human being in Iraq derived from conflict involving The United States of America, in concert or not in concert with NATO or any other coalition, going to accomplish?

Will the perpetuation of the savagery in Iraq that was begun by the administration of George W. Bush eliminate the impassioned desire of the people who inhabit the nations of The Middle East to own their land? Are not those people indigenous to the land whose resources The United States of America has for years considered itself entitled to?

I dare say that the longer the savagery continues, with or without the aid of whatever we call a coalition, the more determined and united the people of those lands will become. That determination will continue to manifest itself as what we call terrorism. It will continue to manifest itself as what the indigenous peoples of North America would like to have done to Europeans some 500 years ago.

First and foremost, Senator Kerry, bring the troops home now. Let the inhabitants of those lands decide among themselves how they will govern their lands. We will never have control over that, try as we may. It may be bloody. It may be uncivilized. Many crimes against humanity may be committed, as are committed today in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Palestine. But it will be theirs and it will be.

Secondly, as long as American global corporations are in partnership with corrupt Middle Eastern governments to control the lands of The Middle East, then use those same troops, those 130,000 troops, along with the 40,000 you want to add, to stand shoulder to shoulder to guard all borders, north, south, east and west, of The United States of America. As long as the wealthiest Americans must have a hand in controlling resources that are not ours, then we must protect the innocent American citizens against terrorist attacks. Using troops here at home and using troops to guard our embassies is the best way to protect innocent Americans against terrorist attacks.

However, Senator Kerry, we must never forget why terrorists are terrorists.

Thirdly, let the nations of NATO and the rest of the world protect themselves however they deem appropriate. The United States of America is a sovereign nation in and of itself. It owns no other nation and, therefore, has no authority over any other nation.

If any of our allies is, without cause, truly aggressively and preemptively attacked by a nation state, we should, by all means, come to its aid in all manner, including military, if necessary.

If any of our allies is attacked by a rogue organization such as al Quaida, we should offer that nation humanitarian aid, if necessary, but there should be no reason nor excuse to send American citizens to any nation state for the purpose of killing and dieing.

The money that is being wasted in the destruction of life and infrastructure in Iraq should be redirected, once the national budget is fairly distributed in such a way that it takes care of the needs of the citizens of The United States of America. A large portion of that budget should be put toward intensely, urgently and, without delay, perfecting a clean and alternate energy source so that we can give the people of The Middle East their land back. This, Senator Kerry, will go the furthest toward winning the “war on terror”.

Finally, Senator Kerry, you should admit to the American people that there is and can never be a “war on terror”. “Terror” is not an object, animate nor inanimate. You should admit that it is a nonsensical phrase that is now utilized to keep people in the grip of fear and in support of war, the most unthinkable relationship human beings can have with one another.

Senator Kerry, how is sending one more troop to Iraq going to make The United States of America Safer?

It isn’t.

Saturday, June 26, 2004

Why Nader?

Not long after al Quaida flew jets into The World Trade Center and The Pentagon, “understanding, tolerant progressives” were pontificating, “Instead of hating the Muslim world, we should be asking ‘Why do they hate us?’”

Analogously, progressives, instead of writing vitriolic missives about Ralph Nader’s candidacy, imploring him to give up the ghost, telling him that his candidacy may well mean another four years of the delusional George W. Bush and his band of imperialists, should be asking why the polls show that 7% of the voters interviewed prefer him over John Kerry.

Surely, one couldn’t make the case that those polled really want another four years of a Bush theocracy. Surely, one couldn’t, in one’s wildest dreams, think that those polled support Bush’s push toward world hegemony.

So, if John Kerry is a progressive and worthy of the votes of 7% of those who surely consider themselves progressives and would never “spoil” the chance of putting a true progressive in The White House, then why are they taking the chance of doing just that?

7% of those polled are the messengers and Kerry and his supporters are ignoring the message. And, yes, they are using their keyboards and airways to shoot the messengers.

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

It Ain't Rocket Science

A vote for Bush is a vote for Kerry.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

A vote fore Nader is a vote for Kerry.

The exception: A vote for Nader isn’t a vote for Nader.

Keep war where it is.

Make war where it ain’t.

Make poverty where it ain’t.

Keep poverty where it is.

Are you gonna believe what they tell you?

Is this now and was that then?

Does then matter now?

Does now matter then?

Or are you just gonna believe your lyin’ eyes?

It ain’t supposed to be like this.

“Oh, say can you see?”

An Open Letter to Progressives

According to the most recent polls, there is a growing number of Americans who no longer support the George W. Bush's war in Iraq. This could be very good news for Bush’s presumptive challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts.

Unfortunately, Kerry’s goals for Iraq almost line up perfectly with those of Bush. The goal of each man is to stay in Iraq until Iraq is unified and secure. Each man says that failure is not an option.

Staying in Iraq will do nothing more than perpetuate the killing of more Americans and many, many more Iraqis.

Each man is wrong in saying that failure is not an option. The minute that our military set foot in Iraq under the false pretext that Iraq possessed so called weapons of mass destruction, we failed. Failure has already happened. Neither Senator Kerry nor Bush can undo that.

Failure continues to happen each time a human being dies in Iraq as a result of the combat.

Failure continues to happen each time an American civilian is mutilated in Iraq.

Failure continues to happen each time an Iraqi is wrongly imprisoned.

Failure continues to happen each time an Iraqi POW is tortured.

We have already failed. It’s not an option. It’s a reality.

Senator Kerry supported the strike. Like Bush, he is behaving as if freeing the people from the rule of Saddam Hussein was our reason for attacking Iraq.

Senator Kerry supports almost every budgetary increase that Bush asks for to fund the war in Iraq.

Senator Kerry has not articulated a time line for withdrawing our troops from Iraq.

The only difference between Kerry and Bush is that Kerry says he will include NATO in the bloodletting. Bush tried that and it didn’t work. Does Kerry have more money to offer NATO?

Those “progressive” organizations that so passionately support Kerry point to his domestic agenda.

Kerry supports “free” trade. He has yet to say he will withdraw from NAFTA, GATT or any other organization that diminishes the American middle class and keeps poor nations poor.

He’ll find it difficult to implement any other domestic programs if he, like Bush, continues to throw the American budget at an illegal, lost cause in Iraq.

A person who wishes to be known as a “progressive” should be doing everything and anything to urge other progressives to vote for a true progressive candidate. Right now, Nader looks like the only alternative. Is a vote for Nader a vote for Bush? Maybe.

As I see it, a vote for Kerry is just as much a vote for Bush. True progressives could never in good conscience support George W. Bush with a different face and a different voice. Senator John Kerry is not a peace candidate. He will be, like Bush, a War President.

Sunday, June 20, 2004

First Post

It's about freedom. That's what I want to talk about. We've lost it.