Saturday, December 31, 2005

Sorry for the Late Responses

Introduction

I created my
blog on June 20, 2004.

I belonged to a couple of poetry message boards and I received some positive feedback on my poetry.

One of the boards also afforded its members an
“Open Discussion Forum” . I not only posted my poetry, but I began posting threads or adding to threads that discussed social issues in the “Open Discussion Forum”. I found that I wasn’t alone in my outlook on society, political or otherwise.

Before I’d ever heard of internet message boards, I wrote letters to the editor expressing my views on social issues of the day, especially issues of a political nature.

So I was naturally very interested when I began hearing about blogs. People could actually keep a journal, a diary of sorts, on line for anyone and everyone to see. There was no charge to become an owner of a blog. Many people use their free internet diaries as just that, diaries. I've read about vacations that people take with family and friends. I guess people feel the need to share their happiness.

I've read blogs that are a bit sad as well. Writing about one’s personal trials and tribulations has always been considered cathartic.

Of course, there are the spamsters and the smutsters. Give people a forum and for sure they’ll try to sell anything from drugs to sex.

However, I see nothing wrong with anyone keeping a public journal. It’s part of that freedom that The Regime is murdering people to sustain. Kill Iraqis and get a free online journal, right?

Well, that sort of gets me into why I created my
blog. I wasn’t really interested in sharing vacation narratives with the general public, but I was extremely interested in sharing my views on social and/or political issues. This interest has become almost obsessive since the blatantly obvious takeover of The Regime. They’ve all but drawn pictures of their misdeeds and people still refuse to see them. It’s sad and a bit frightening.

A free public forum was available from which to expose the direction in which society, especially American society, is being driven and I took full advantage of it.

I created another blog for my poetry because I wanted to keep the two genres separate. Yes, some of my poetry surrounds social issues, some even political issues. But much of it is about romance, love, love lost and personal issues. Some of it is abstract, though still meaningful for me.

One of the message boards even allowed its members to upload their music so that readers could actually hear the lyrics being sung. Unfortunately, the board had so many members that it was a bit of a hardship for the web master to find the time to upload music.

My internet provider gives its subscribers a bit of what it calls “storage space”, 25 meg to be exact. So, between the message board and my internet provider, I could have several of my songs on the net at any given time and link to them from message boards or even a blog if I so chose.

I’ve since joined quite a few message boards, not all literary. I have a fairly sizable mailing list as well.

Although people who belong to the message boards were reading my opinions and poetry and listening to some of my music, I wasn’t getting any traffic on my blog.

I tested search words, including my name. I found that phrases such as “mind reading” or “public speaking” would get a person to my blog. People who were looking for sites to learn how to read minds or to speak in public were probably not going to be interested in my political rants.

I had to remove songs from my limited “storage” area because there was enough room for maybe five songs at a time to which I could link.

So I bit the bullet and created
The Mind Of Michael. Naming the site was a toss up between “The Mind Of Michael” and “World Conditions And Action Items”, the name by which I call my email list. With help from my wife, I went with “The Mind Of Michael”.

With the site came enough space to post all of my music. It also gave me the leverage to compartmentalize my modes of communication so that people who were interested in music could visit without having to read about social issues and people who wanted to read poetry could do so exclusively and those who were looking for diversity about sociopolitical issues could find one perspective.

As I wrote above, I’ve had my
blog since June of 2004. I created my site in August of 2005. I’ve received exactly five comments on my blog. Two comments disagreed with my point of view, one agreed with me and two were spammers. The spammers are the reasons why, if one wishes to comment on an essay, one needs to pass through a word identification gate. It’s why responders are asked to type a word that appears just cryptic enough to throw off robotic spammers.

Since August of 2005, I’ve had a fair number of comments submitted to my
site. It’s nothing like what I’ve seen at other sites and at many blogs, but it blows away the numbers of comments that have been submitted to the blog. I’ve tried to decide why this is.

One thing is that there’s no word identification gate to pass to submit a comment to my site. I had the blog for quite a while before I implemented the word ID gate. And, in spite of all of the comments submitted to the site, I haven’t had a spammer yet. I’m sure they’ll show up in time.
Another aspect is that comments that are submitted to the blog stay there for all to see. Comments submitted to the site are submitted and go away.

I don’t know why that would discourage anyone from submitting comments to the blog, however. Two of the comments submitted to the blog have been submitted anonymously. To this day, I have no idea who the people who submitted the comments are. I replied to one of the anonymous comments, but not the other.

This is what this essay is all about. I’ve definitely replied to those who included their email addresses with their submissions. I have been a little remiss in replying to those who haven’t given me a way to contact them. I’d like to reply to a couple of the comments that I’ve gotten which had no contact information.

Music

I would like to thank those who’ve extended much needed encouragement. I realize that the quality of my musical recordings isn’t perfect, but a few people have been able to see past that and to comment on, as one person put it, the potential. Thanks for that. I’ve learned more about using the mixing software and I hope that the recordings improve as time goes on.

I have to keep in mind, and I hope that you do as well, that I am recording my songs in my living room, not the best substitute for a professional recording studio. In addition to that, I certainly can’t hit some of the notes that I could reach when I was younger and my fingers aren’t as nimble as they once were - and they were never really all that nimble.

Maybe that’s why for one person my music is reminiscent of a dying ally cat. At least you’re honest with your critique. I’m not nearly as sorry about your critique as I am about your having to have gone through the torture of hearing an ally cat die. I said that I wanted “painfully honest” feedback and, well, that’s about as painful as I think that I’m going to get. I take no offense.

I do take offense at being accused of not producing my music. Good or bad, that’s all me folks. On the main
“Music” page, I made it a point to write that my music is “not played automatically. I do not program anything to play the music for me.” Yet one person insisted that, if it wasn’t for the computer, I wouldn’t even possess the “small amount of talent” that I have. That’s not true. I would possess that miniscule quantity of talent even without the aid of a computer, thank you.

Poetry

I suppose I’m most proud of my poetry. After all, 23 of my poems have been published in 30 publications, four poems in two European publications. Consequently, the encouragement I receive in regard to my poetry is very meaningful.

I’m especially touched to know that someone thinks “Tina is a very lucky lady”. I wrote
that poem because I feel like a very lucky man. Thank you nonetheless.

I know that 30 published poems hasn’t made me a threat to be California’s, or even Antioch’s, poet laureate. I also know that I requested honest feedback for my poetry. One such submission referred to my poetry as “sophomoric”. That’s OK. Don’t they say “you can’t please all the people all of the time”? I guess that was just a person who wasn’t pleased to read my poetry. I thank that person for the “constructive criticism”, however. I once worked for someone who often said that “the biggest room in the world is the room for improvement.” Without an honest critique, how can one expect to improve? I hope that you/he/her does return as there will be more poetry posted as long as I’m able to post it. Maybe you/he/her will find a piece to your/his/her liking.

Essays - The Contact Sport

Not surprisingly, my social commentary seems to be the most controversial of my writing and to promote the greatest vivacity. I’m sure that I won’t respond to all of the comments I’ve received in this area, but there’s one particular comment that I feel I need to respond to.

I’ve been called an “islamofascist”, spelled the same way, on three different occasions in three different postings.

The first time that word was used to describe me was in response to a letter I wrote to the editor of my home town newspaper, The Contra Costa Times.

Amazingly, I was referred to with the same word on my blog as well as my site.

I don’t mind a good debate, but I’ll respond to this typical character assassination just the same.

First of all, I’m not partial to anyone’s god. I guess one could say that I’m an equal opportunity atheist. It states as much on the About Michael page.

Keeping this fact in mind, how could I be an “islamo” anything? Or a “christo” or a “jewo” or a “hindo” anything for that matter? In my humble opinion, if it wasn’t for the love of god, there wouldn’t be so much hate in the world.

I find my being referred to as a fascist quite curious. I thought that the views I express in my writings would, if anything, inspire readers to call me a “commie” or a “pinko”, but not a fascist. I think that, given a choice, I’d rather be screwed by governmental incompetence than by corporate greed. I don’t feel that corporations have any business in influencing our government’s activities, especially when those activities mean the difference between life and death.

Folks, bureaucracy is bureaucracy, anyway you slice it and while the wrong government can misuse its power and/or act incompetently, most of us still remember that it’s supposed to work for “we the people”. We supposedly have the power to fire the bastards if we don’t like what they’re doing. Unfortunately, as I point out in my essay “Priority Number One”, our power to hire and fire our government is very limited by the methodology used to hire it. It’s all but out of our hands until we change it, but at least we have the potential to change it.

Corporations are hired by no one. Mergers are returning us to the days of the Robber Barons. Multinational corporations are growing way out of proportion to antitrust laws and they exist for one entity and one entity only - corporations. And the goal of corporations is singular. That goal is to make money which makes more money. If anyone is under that allusion that, if our government surrendered, blatantly and unabashedly, to corporate power, the same greedheads who cut work forces to gain wealth for themselves would be in charge of maintaining an employment level, or unemployment level. Those who do everything that’s “cost effective” and advantageous to their own income would be in charge of setting wages. Those leaders of corporate America, no, corporate Earth try their best to continuously increase profits by decreasing the numbers and wages of the people who do the actual work which have a significant effect on those profits. With government pulling back from keeping these new Robber Barons in line, we can already see that the minimum wage is remaining at a paltry $5.15 with no raise in site for the immediate future, we see manipulation of labor laws so that more “managers” are created at fast food joints so that they can become “salaried” employees, preventing them from receiving overtime pay for time worked exceeding 40 per week or 8 per day, we see the generosity of corporations in their donations to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, giving maybe a million bucks out of billions of dollars of profit while the CEOs and managers who dwell in the stratosphere receive multi million compensation packages, even when they’re let go for poor performance. I am not under the allusion that “smaller government” and a stronger “private sector” would be a change that would be good for Americans or for any of the citizens of the world.

We see “free trade” agreements like NAFTA take good, middle class jobs from Americans and move them to slave labor nations. We don’t see, as promised, the boost to those slave labor nations, the evening of the playing field, the philanthropy of the “private sector”.

I’m not a fascist. Mussolini, as horrid as the man was, was at least honest enough to call fascism what it was, “corporatism”.

To repeat, I can not be an “islamofascit” for the reasons stated above.

I just wonder, is it the same person who wrote that about me in all three locations? Hmmm.

Oh, by the way, the I’ve not been spared the labels of “commie” and “pinko”.

Patriotism, The Word to Die For

Unpatriotic has been another adjective which has been used to describe me. I know I’m not alone in that boat.

Patriotism is defined by Dictionary.com as “love of one’s country willingness to sacrifice for it.”

First, what constitutes “one’s country”? Is one’s country actually a piece of red, white and blue cloth? That’s a flag. Are sane people really willing to die for a flag? The flag is a symbol of the former United States of America, but it isn’t The United States of America.

As far as I know, the first nations who occupied this land had no flags, but were willing to fight the far superior invading Europeans. What were they fighting for? They were not fighting and dying for cloth. They were fighting and dying to protect their people and their land. Those are the entities that constitute a country. And the Native Americans were defending their country against invading terrorists. The European terrorists wanted the Indian’s land and wanted it without the benefit of honest and sincere negotiations. In defense of the Native Americans, many of them were willing to enter into negotiations so the White Man and the first nations could live in harmony. Many of them didn’t even demand that the White Man “go back to where he came from”.

The Native Americans were fighting for a Chief either. They were told by the tribal leaders that the invaders were set on taking what was theirs and the members of the tribes could see it with their own eyes. They could see it as the Europeans pushed westward, displacing the rightful inhabitants of the land. The Europeans connived members of the First Nations into referring to the president of the US as “the great white father”. Andrew Jackson, after his career in Indian genocide, ate that title up as president. And he made promises to the Indians that he not only didn’t keep, but that he had no intention of keeping.

But alas, the Europeans won and have kept the original inhabitants of this land from even enjoying the amenities that they have developed over the years. And where have the Europeans come. We have come to a point to where we feel our “patriotic duty” to not question the president, our government, especially in a “time of war”. We have gotten to a place where the word “country” is not only synonymous with the word “flag”, but it’s synonymous with the decisions made by a president or his regime, no matter how blatantly obvious it is that those decisions have nothing at all to do with protecting the people and/or the land.

What happened on September 11, 2001, if we are to believe the official account, was the first time since the Europeans invaded and terrorized this land, that there was a major attack upon the form US proper. We refer to Pearl Harbor, but Hawaii was a territory of the US at the time of Pearl Harbor. Finally, after over two hundred years in existence, the former US was attacked on its own land, killing innocent citizens of the US and other nations as well. And, in the true sense, we were not invaded. Planes were hijacked and flown into important buildings in important cities.

How many other nations of the world can honestly say that they’ve never experienced a destructive invasion by a foreign power?

Well, for starters, Japan can’t claim that. Germany and the UK can’t claim that. France can’t claim that. The former US, up until September 11, 2001, had never been outright invaded by a foreign proper upon its soil proper.

We credit The Patriot Act and the wonderful leadership by the front man for keeping us safe since September 11, 2001. It may be another 200 years before that happens again. Is the Patriot Act or the front man’s leadership going to be accredited for that as well?

Yet, I’ve been called unpatriotic. If patriotism is “love of one’s country willingness to sacrifice for it” and the elements which make up a country are its land and its people, then those who want to destroy more Americans who are fighting in a land which was never a threat to us are as unpatriotic as they come.

The land? Well, yes, some of our land was compromised on 9/11, but not nearly as much land as we’ve destroyed in other nations. New York and Washington didn’t look like Dresden and they sure as hell didn’t look like Hiroshima or Nagasaki did they? They didn’t look like Iraq looks today, did they? From where I stand, we’ve been damned luck. All of our interstate highways are still easily passable. Most of the buildings in our quiet little towns and cities are still standing.

If it comes to defending our land against a foreign invader, if it comes to defending our people against a foreign invader, then, with our deepest regret, we must go to war. That, people, is defending our nation. Believing the words placed in the mouth of possibly one of the most unqualified presidents this nation has ever seen is not, prima facie, defending our nation.

Congress is there as a check and a balance to see to it that one man’s or one regime’s word must be investigated for accuracy and legitimacy and congress failed miserably. As it did with Lyndon Johnson, congress ceded its power to “the president”, putting him, The Regime, into an almost dictatorial position. The Regime is taking full advantage of that position, saying that the killing and the dying must continue until some nebulous “victory” has been accomplished. And “victory” has been defined sufficiently vague enough to make it almost impossible to know when it’s arrived. Constant warfare.

I want to protect Americans by removing them from a position which increases the possibility that they’ll be seriously injured, maybe for life, or, worse yet, killed. I want to stop inciting the rightful inhabitant on the Arab nations from destroying more American land in response to the colonization of their land by the United States, with the help of the their totalitarian potentates.

I want to protect Americans and American land from the misguided actions of those who are truly unpatriotic. If patriotism means blindly following a person or regime, without questioning their motives, motives that have already been placed in question, then I guess I’m unpatriotic.

I have received submissions that have referred to my expressions as courageous and I thank you for that. Courageous or not, I’m absolutely certain that, given The Regime’s decision that spying on Americans without the approval of the FISA court is Okey-dokey, I’m on some list and will be disappeared some day. My wife worries every time we book a flight that I’ll not be allowed on the plane and may ever be held indefinitely. I don’t know if I would go so far as to expect that to happen. However, if it does, it would be a shock to me. Wouldn’t it be a bitch if The Regime was one of the view visitors that I get to my site? I do have a prosthetic knee which set off the metal detector each time I pass through one. Luckily, they’ve not asked me to remove it and show it to them.

I hope that this very long essay has helped to respond, at least in general, to all of the submissions I’ve received. I thank those, even those who’ve disagreed with me, for submitting comments.

One thing that all of the comments have in common is that I know to which poem, song or essay the submitter is referring. That is all but one. The most recent comment.

I Appreciate the Concern

The most recent comment simply stated “You are sick”.

Now, I do see doctors on a regular basis for various maladies with which I won’t bore you at this time. I figure that response can only have been made for reasons.

First, the page on which the comment was made was not identified. So it can refer to just about anything.

It may have been made by Bill Frist, a man who, as proven in the Teri Schiavo case, can diagnose a patient from the floor of The Senate. I don’t know, though. Why would Frist be diagnosing me, unless The Regime put him up to it.

I could be that one of my doctors told someone about one of my maladies. That would, of course, be a violation of doctor/patient confidentiality and may have to be answered with litigation. I think I know my doctors pretty well, though, and I just don’t think that they would do that. But, hey, you never know.

I could be one of my doctors, but why would any of them do that? They’ve already told me face to fact that I’m sick. Maybe one of them is just trying to rub it in.

I could be the “dying ally cat” person, referring to my music. I can see why that person would come to that conclusion if he/she thinks that I sound like a “dying ally cat”. But you’d think that person would have said it in the original submission. Maybe it was just an after thought.

Now some of my poetry may be offensive to some (you ain’t seen nothin’ yet). Maybe someone thinks that the poetry can only come from a sick mind. You/he/she may be right. I’ve heard that there’s a thin line between mental illness and genius. I don’t think I’m very close to the genius part of that line, though.

Or it could just be someone who possesses no platform from which to engage in a mature, dignified debate. I see this kind of character assassination go on all the time. I’m not saying that Rove or Cheney read any of my stuff, although it would, indeed, be an honor if they did. I’m more inclined to think that it’s a supporter of The Regime, taking just enough time from watching an invigorating reality show to “hurt my feelings”. They’re not hurt. I sort of feel sad for you, though. If that’s all you’ve got, I’ll cut you some slack as your intellectual reserve is very low.

I may or may not be sick, I don’t know how you’d know, but, judging from the little you let me know about you, you’ve expressed ignorance with a heaping helping of cowardice to go along with it.

But, nonetheless:

To friendship,
Michael

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

Friday, December 23, 2005

Headlights and Red Lights

Oh, yes, I remembered. I have on more "happy holiday" poem to share.

So, happy holiday!

Freeways aren’t free.
It’s x-mas time.
Pollution kisses intentions.
Money waits.
Impatience liberates.
Sudden, swift attack.
Wearisome words waltz wittingly without care.
Automobiles weave
like threads
for a seamstress.

Where are we going?
Where have we been?
Lights shine
into wide eyes,
scrambling
as time runs out.

Hs birth,
his life,
his death
contorted into
head lights
and
red lights.

Triviality

I don’t normally post poetry on this blog. I save that for my web site, The Mind Of Michael.

However, every year, I view the “holiday” season with more sadness and outright disgust than the previous year.

So, by way of explanation, here is a poem which I post somewhere every year.

Sometime,
nigh two thousand years
previous to today,
there was born a man child.
Many of us value his message
of peace and love.
Many of us believe him to be a messiah,
the light which will lead us to eternal salvation.
Most of us see greatness in the perpetuity
of his name,
Jesus of Nazareth.

Thus, in time, it came to be that we honored
this great beacon.
His genesis is a time to be
remembered and praised.

Today, this person of peace is honored
with venom and voracity.
His gifts have been unrequited.
His message has been enveloped
in that which he held in abomination.

Humanity declares war upon itself,
struggling on the offensive
to defeat the enemy.
Green and plastic are the weapons.
Elbows are the swords.
Frustration is often the culmination.
There is no truce.

Nature’s beauty is toppled to become
a flaunted trophy,
unwittingly empowering powerless pride.
It dies so that humanity’s vanity
will live in self reverence.

If, at times, we live in darkness
because our sphere’s resources are limited,
why is it fit to squander that
precious provision in celebration
of one who did not know of such luxury?

Sometime nigh,
two thousand years
previous to today,
there was born a man child.
Many of us value his message
of peace and love.
Many of us believe him to be a messiah,
the light which will lead us to eternal salvation.
Most of us see greatness in the perpetuity
of his name,
Jesus of Nazareth.
Today, too many have effaced him.

Sunday, December 04, 2005

Well They Started It!

I was debating whether to handle this another way or merely let it go, yet, again. But it came up again at a message board to which I post and, well, they started it!

The thing is, I can ask the questions, one at a time, and those who have iron clad proof that the official story recounting the events of September 11, 2001 is what actually happened and have iron clad explanations for all of the anomalies can, once and for all, satisfactorily answer them.

I truly believe that those of us who entertain another explanation of what happened on September 11, 2001 do just that, entertain another explanation. I don’t believe that most of us who have other suspects in mind would say that the anomalies are hard facts.

The difference is that those who refuse to believe that the anomalies may point to complicity by The Regime want to put the period at the end of the sentence, fini, terminado, finito, end of story. I know that if I asked every question which is unanswered that would point the guilt in another direction, at least one or two would be answered with, “Well, maybe (fill in the blank).”

Those who entertain another explanation feel that, if more than one of the questions can be answered with, “Well, maybe (fill in the blank)”, the uncertainty gives some legitimacy to the possibility that The Regime was complicit in the “disaster”. Any legitimacy that points to complicity by The Regime in the premeditated murders of over 2,000 Americans to justify the murders of another 2,000 warrants a legitimate investigation into what happened, free of any bias, free of any connection to The Regime, any Philip Zelikow, who was a member of George W. Bush’s Foreign Advisory Board and, successively, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission. As such, Zelikow was in charge of all of the investigative tasks for The Commission.

The bottom line:

If there is any legitimacy to any argument that The Regime was complicit in what happened on 9/11, there is no more important activity that can take place than to investigate the argument. If there is any chance that the cabal which is referred to as The Bush Administration had anything to do with the murders of Americans on September 11, 2001, there can be no more important or urgent task than to prove or disprove it. The heinousness of a crime of that magnitude can not be overstated and can not be more serious.

So, if I start asking the questions, one at a time, and there isn’t a definitive and/or satisfactory answer to one or more of them, then we should be able to agree that The President of the United States of America, for those who actually believe that our government is still set up that way, could have murdered, with the help of his extended staff, over 2,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, a possibility which compels a final, truly unbiased, unfettered and transparent investigation.

By the way, a definitive answer is one which is supported by experts and the opposite of which is not disputed by any other experts. This would include how and why the towers and another building which was not impacted by a large commercial airliner, collapsed.

This would include indisputable professional psychiatric evidence that, upon hearing of a catastrophe as large as one caused by an enormous commercial airliner crashing into The World Trade Center in New York City, any person who presides over the safety of the citizens of The United States of America would not become alarmed enough, albeit veiled so as to avoid causing chaos, to swiftly put an end to a photo opportunity in order to get more information as quickly as possible about such an unprecedented accident.

Of course, I could merely direct those who have absolute knowledge of why each and every anomaly took place to “The top 15 reasons to doubt the official story of Sept. 11, 2001” and ask them to read and speak to those reasons.

Or, as I said, what a sad day in America, or in any nation, when the defense of a mass murder suspect is, “What a crock. It could never happen. You’re all nuts. I’m not listening. Here are arguments against any charge of guilt. I’m just going to stand here and argue with you about why this suspect shouldn’t even be a suspect despite the fact that there is evidence that he might be guilty of said mass murder.”

Is it really that important that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, a.k.a, The Regime, be exempt from the same adjudication to which any other citizen of the US would be exposed?

Is it really that important that The Regime be exempt from impromptu press conferences during which meaningful, detailed questions are asked?

Is it really that important that people should not be allowed to be part of the live audience for an address given by a member of The Regime because they don’t agree with that member’s political positions?

Why is it so important for any member of the American public to help shield a person, a group of people, who’ve already been proven in the court of public opinion of lying about the rationale which has killed over 2,000 American military personnel?

It’s a sad day in the history of this nation when such a grandiosely depraved group of people should be so fiercely protected by those whom that very depravity serves to cripple.

To friendship,
Michael

“To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.” – Abraham Lincoln

Friday, November 25, 2005

so, I’m an idiot….

From a friend:

saw an article that was written by Ann Coultre and thought I would check it out to see if she had brought her head out of the Bush smoke screen yet... check out this first paragraph: (written Nov. 24th, 2005)

"In the Iraq war so far, the U.S. military has deposed a dictator who had already used weapons of mass destruction and would have used them again. As we now know, Saddam Hussein was working with al-Qaida and was trying to acquire long-range missiles from North Korea and enriched uranium from Niger."

I'm sure you aren't surprised, but I am at the continuation of the lies after all this time...

just thought I'd share a little outrage with you.

Meta

I don't know why, but I actually don't believe this. Well, I guess I know why. It’s because I don’t think, up to this point, I've heard any human being, thinking or not thinking, conservative or progressive, published or not published, continue to say or write that there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam or that the allegation about Niger is still legitimate. This is the first person, in any and/or all of the mentioned categories, whom I’ve seen write or heard say those things.

Add to this the letters to the editor that still support The Regime and it’s no wonder why it won’t change. As long as there’s the faintest breath of life support, it will continue to rein stupidity as well as terror.

To friendship,
Michael

“Iraq was a war of choice, not necessity.” – Senator Barbara Boxer

Thursday, November 24, 2005

News Update

Yesterday, November 23, 2005, I wrote about a news report in which a proud, and, obviously, proudly embedded CBS reporter analyzed who was winning the shooting war in Iraq. It was, if you remember, the “allied troops”.

Today, in my local newspaper, The Contra Costa Times, I read a letter to the editor entitled “Press bias taints news about war”. The letter writer states that “As long as a Republican is commander in chief, the press will support those who call the war on Iraq “Vietnam” or “quagmire” and say the glass is half empty.

This emboldens the terrorists and threatens our national security.

The mainstream press’s failure here is just more evidence that they are political agenda-driven vs. truth-driven.”

First of all, it’s obvious that the letter writer thinks the “terrorists” in Iraq are busy reading US newspapers when they’re not “sniping” at US soldiers.

Secondly, the letter writer must not have seen that jingoistic bullshit report on CBS to which I refer in my essay “Elementary School Bragging”.

The writer also missed a report today on NBC’s nationally broadcast half hour news bite in which the reporter said, “The “insurgents” will stop at nothing”, referring to an attack by “insurgents” that didn’t distinguish between US troops and civilians. The backdrop was, of course, a video of wounded, suffering Iraqi civilians, women and children, lying on gurneys.

Once again, the “liberal” media boosts blind patriotism by depicting “them” as discharging their weaponry indiscriminately, implying that the “allied troops” are careful not to maim or kill anyone who isn’t part of the enemy “insurgency”.

The implication is stretched into depicting American bombs as differentiating between civilians and “insurgents”.

The writer, the reporter in tonight’s NBC report, the reporter in last night’s CBS report and those who still, somehow, work to support the perpetuation of the blood bath in the “Mexico” of September 11, 2001’s “Pearl Harbor” remind me of the movie title “Eyes Wide Closed”.

To friendship,
Michael

“War is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality.” – Senator John McCain

Elementary School Bragging

I watched the local CBS news tonight.

There was a report concerning an “insurgent” propaganda video showing an “insurgent sharp shooter” shooting American soldiers. It was just awful.

Not to worry, though. The embedded smiling reporter said the troops weren’t worried.

“Military wisdom”, as the reporter referred to it, said that the video of the attacks by the “sharp shooter” was probably made over a period of two years. What sloppy propaganda exhibited by the “insurgents”, indeed.

American soldiers, on the other hand, proudly “took out” eight insurgents within five hours.

It was obvious that the reporter was filled with pride to be on the side which exhibited the better propaganda.

Lost in this entire jingoistic “we can kill more people faster than you” talk was one minor point.

What the hell are we doing in Iraq! What did they ever do to us!

They had no WMD!

They had nothing to do with 9/11!

This
is historical revisionism!

I once more thought of the point made by Richard Clarke. Attacking Iraq after 9/11 is like FDR attacking Mexico after Pearl Harbor.

If bragging about out killing the enemy is really admirable, can we not at least brag about out killing the correct enemy? And who is the correct enemy? That question is yet to be answered.

This is the kind of state run “liberal” media that keeps the 30-40% of the population on the side of The Regime.

This kind of propaganda is the only facet of The Regime which is transparent.

To friendship,
Michael

“No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” - James Madison

Sunday, November 20, 2005

A Misdirected Apology

A friend, a person for whom I have a great deal of respect, apologized to me for doubting the possibility of alternative explanations for what happened in New York City and Washington D. C. on September 11, 2001. This was my response.

You don’t have to apologize to me as I understand how one feels when one begins to see that what did and didn’t happen on September 11, 2001 is far too curious to be ignored.

However, we, the American people, need to apologize to those who lost loved ones on September 11, 2001.

We, the American people, need to apologize for not only choosing to ignore the obvious, but choosing to become enraged toward an entire ethnic group, which is something in which we, the American people, have had a great deal of practice.

We, the American people, need to apologize to the citizens of Iraq, a nation destined for our wrath long before The Regime was ever selected in 2000, let alone before September 11, 2001.

We, the American people, need to apologize to our own citizens, as well as citizens of The UK, Italy, Spain, Poland and any other nation whose citizens have lost loved ones fighting a so called war in a nation which, even if the unbelievable official story was true, had nothing at all to do with the acts of September 11, 2001, a fact agreed to immediately after 9/11 by Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powel and the court jester himself, front man George W. Bush (I bet The Regime was pissed at him for that).

We, the America people, need to apologize for being so filled with hate toward the Muslim community that we were figuratively dancing in the streets, an act we deplored when Muslims did it after 9/11, when the statue of Saddam Hussein fell, even though Osama bin Laden, the “Goldstein” (RE: “1984”) created by The Regime, had not and still has not been captured.

We, the American people, need to apologize for our short memory and, in fact, stupidity for allowing The Regime its not so slight of hand of morphing the reasons for invading Iraq from its WMD being a threat to the world to almost unbridled joy over Iraqi purple thumbs.

And there are still American people, and British people, such as the “wine taster” Christopher Hitchens, who continue to trip over themselves attempting to justify the mass murder commenced by The Regime.

The manner in which the buildings fell is one obvious fact away from which the American people would rather look. After all, FEMA, we know how reliable it is, and the ASCE, both part of or working for the government, said that fires, indeed, collapsed the towers.

Of course, and I have the full report, available to anyone who asks for it, the ASCE admits to not really knowing why building #7 fell. It entertains every possibility under the sun except for an intentional demolition.

The absence of action that has grown, over time, to me to be the most blatant absence of action on September 11, 2001 was the absence of action by the court jester.

If one of the largest commercial airliners crashes into one of the largest and most important buildings in the US in one of the largest and most densely populated cities in the US by accident, it is incumbent upon the nation’s president to immediately end a photo op and become the leader of the nation.

Only if he was not surprised that an airliner crashed into the WTC, only if he and his “protectors” weren’t worried that hijacked airliners would be targeting him, the “most important” figure in the US, only if he wasn’t worried that, if there were hijacked planes targeting him, that they could also possibly kill the teachers and the students of whose reading he was “so proud”, would he sit there and do nothing.

The evidence, though mostly all circumstantial, begs for a real, non-partisan investigation by a person or group who has total subpoena power over anyone and everyone in the US, bar none.

Ah, but I repeat, what a wonderful defense.

"Our government would never do that.”

Never, indeed.

To friendship,
Michael

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.” – George Orwell

Monday, November 07, 2005

Telephone Abuse Update

Below is an update from my friend who was being bothered, legally or not, by the Republican gubernatorial candidate.

In California, there are 8 propositions for or against which the voters will be voting tomorrow.

Propositions 73-78 are endorsed by our governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. They are cleverly worded so that voting against them means voting against the American family, against competent teachers, against union workers, against cutting taxes, against depoliticizing gerrymandering and against offering prescription drugs at a reduced rate to those who need them. It sounds as if anyone who votes against those six are pretty evil, hey?

If you vote for propositions 79 and 80, you’re equally as evil.

Voting for 79 means prescription drugs will be kept from those who need them by the red tape of a government bureaucracy and voting for 80 means voting for the demise of democracy.

In my hometown of Antioch, as well as in two adjacent towns, the fate of three measures, K, P and L, are to be decided tomorrow as well. Voting against any of these three measures means that you forfeit your rights to democracy.

What does this have to do with the update below?

I’ve gotten obnoxious, pre-recorded phone calls from people who are campaigning for propositions 73-78 and from those who are campaigning in favor of Measure K. I’ve gotten no such phone calls from people opposing 73-78 or Measure K.

There is also a hell of a lot more political litter on the sides of the roads in favor of those same initiatives than there is opposing them.

This tells me that 73-78 and K are supported by people with a lot more $$$ than is in the coffers of the people who oppose these initiatives.

I sincerely hope that Californians will read as much as possible about the initiatives before tomorrow if they haven’t done so already. If an initiative possesses enough positive qualities to “sell itself” to those who will be most affected, it doesn’t need large quantities of money to boost it.

It certainly doesn’t have to stoop to depths that the update below presents.

Deep Throat told Bernstein to “follow the money” if he wanted to find the crooks in the Nixon administration. Enough said?

“Well, Michael... you're NOT going to believe this!Guess who called me tonight?

It was a tape of his voice, but it WAS his voice.

I didn't answer the phone. My daughter did.

President Bush himself. Yep!

My daughter said Bush said, "Hello. This is President Bush. I am calling to ask you to vote for my dear friend, Jerry Kilgore."

Then she started laughing and hung up so I have no clue what he said after that.

Can you imagine that? The President of the United States becoming a telephone solicitor?

If it wasn't laughable, I'd be appalled! No, on second thought, even thought it IS laughable, I AM appalled!

I'm still shaking my head over it.

This Virginia race is tight, I guess. The marketing campaigns are intensive and expensive! I have been getting 4-color process large format pieces in the mail for a month from many candidates for various different offices but especially from Jerry Kilgore and his opponent Tim Kaine ... (They are running for governor).

Being in the advertising business, I KNOW how much it costs to print such fancy mailers on glossy cover stock. I can't imagine the cost to mail multiple pieces to every registered voter in the state of Virginia.

Damn.... Wish they'd spend all that money on widening the darn highways instead! The traffic is NUTS around here! (hear that, Californians? – parenthetical insert Michael’s)

Well, I hope he calls back. I'd love to hear the whole tape.If I had time, I'd start writing a column myself. It's these little laughable things in life I might like to share with people.Thanks for sending out my letter....”

This is a sad exhibition by possibly the most detached president in the information age, since televisions were owned by more people than not, using a detached, impersonal methodology to try to gain support for a revisionist gubernatorial candidate. The only politician that I know of that is more secretive and detached than Bush (or Bush’s character), yet garnered the same kind of “obedience” is “Big Brother” in Orwell’s “1984”.

There’s a saying – “It don’t get no better than this.”

In the case above, it don’t get no sadder than that (and more obvious).

To friendship,
Michael

“Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it.” – Noam Chomsky

Sunday, November 06, 2005

True Passion

The following is a letter that a close friend of mine sent to her congressman.

The passion contained in the letter is stunning and don’t we wish that more Americans, true Americans, not flag draped, self-anointed “earthly representatives of God”, would feel and express this kind of passion?

A wonderful letter:

“Dear Jerry Kilgore -

Your campaign includes telephone solicitation by taped voice. There is no way to talk to a person when the phone rings and it is your campaign headquarters attempting to solicit votes for you. By carrying on this type of campaign, you interrupt households with unsolicited calls.

I am on the Do Not Call List. Please take my numbers off of your list of phone numbers immediately!

You called my fax line and left a taped message. You have broken the law by making calls to phone numbers on the Do Not Call List.You called my home line and left a taped message. As if it is not enough to have my day interrupted by your solicitations, you also represent everything I do NOT believe in!

I would NEVER vote for ANYone who does not believe in allowing a woman the right to control her body and her own life. I will not allow anyone to come uninvited into my home and preach the archaic insistence on reversing Rowe vs. Wade and taking away women's control away of their own bodies. You insult my intelligence and my morals.

I will vote for Tim Kaine for the very reasons which you try to tell me not to vote for him.

I will vote for him because the Death Penalty is barbaric and should forever be eliminated from this state and every state and this entire planet! Where's your biblical "Thou Shalt Not Kill" come in if you preach killing?

I will vote for him because abortion in NOT killing, it is stopping a life from forming which a woman may not be able to care for physically, psychologically, or financially.

I will vote for him because he supports gun control. Guns kill people!!!!!!

I will vote for him BECAUSE the effort to place the motto "In God We Trust" in all public schools IS "ridiculous." Have you ever heard about the separation of church and state? America was built on allowing people of ALL beliefs to reside here, even people who decide they don't believe in ANY god, let alone YOURS. How DARE you try to push your God down people's throats through a political agenda?

I will vote for him because gay people have just as much rights as anyone else to be a parent.

I will vote for him BECAUSE he's Harvard educated and smart enough to be proud of who he is. I am liberal and proud of it, just like Tim Kaine.

The current adminstration in the White House are liars and imperialistic warmongers. We need to vote AGAINST every person which works for that administration and that includes YOU!

Please NEVER call my house again or I will have no choice but to call the authorities and report you for breaking the law. I am on the DO NOT CALL LIST. Therefore, DO NOT CALL ME.

Thank you!”

To friendship,
Michael

“How do you have patience for people who say they love America but clearly hate Americans.” – Annette Bening, from “The American President”

Friday, November 04, 2005

Another Quick Reality Check

Maybe I’m looking at the proverbial glass as half empty instead of half full. If the subject wasn’t life and death, I might be able to agree with that assessment. However, when it comes to losing one’s life or the life of a loved one, the glass isn’t half full or half empty. The glass is broken.

Having said that, here’s another quick note to draw our attention to reality.

The two articles published by Capitol Hill Blue were encouraging albeit too little too late for many Americans, British and Iraqis.

I, nonetheless, thought it necessary to sober us up a bit.

According to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released today, when asked, knowing what the present goals are in Iraq, if the number of casualties suffered by American troops has been acceptable or unacceptable, an outrageous 25% of those polled answered “acceptable”. It’s a low number and, if you see the trend, it’s been decreasing.

Yet, with evidence that the intelligence was cooked strengthening and getting more airplay, 25% of those asked think that the number of casualties, deaths, the end of life, for American military personnel is acceptable!

Even if this war was “legitimate”, whatever that means, would the deaths of young Americans ever be acceptable? Think about it. If you’re a soldier who is fighting in Iraq, how would you feel if you knew that 25% of your countrymen, according to this poll, felt that it would be acceptable for you to be killed?

If you had a loved one fighting in Iraq, how would you feel if you knew that 25% of Americans, according to this poll, think that it’s acceptable if your loved one is killed?

25% of Americans approve of your or your loved one’s demise, knowing that there were no WMD in Iraq and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I’m not in Iraq nor do I have a loved one who is but I truly believe that, if I learned that 25% of my countrymen thought that it was OK for me or my loved one to be killed so that Iraqis can vote, I’d question the grasp that those who make up that 25% have on the words “patriotism” and “finality”.

I’d also wonder if they had a loved one in Iraq or if they were eligible to be there.

If they were eligible to be there and they weren’t yet they were saying that it’s OK for me or my loved one to disappear from the face of the earth to enable Iraqis to vote, it would be the ultimate insult. The ultimate insult!

There are answers to other poll questions that not only are shocking but that just don’t fit in with what we hear about Americans overwhelmingly finding the war, as well as The Regime, repugnant.

You can find the shocking answers to these polls at PollingReport.com.

To friendship,
Michael

“The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments.” – Ludwig von Mises

This is not Necessarily Cheerful News

I hate to preface two perfectly good articles with a diatribe, but I don’t hate it enough to refrain from doing it.

I would say that these two articles bring a smile to my face, but they don’t. Here are four reasons why they don’t.

First, as one who rallied against the “upcoming” war before March of 2003, I find it heartbreaking that it’s taken this long for the American people to see deceit for what it is and, even more sadly, for the Democrats in Congress, the only people who could do anything about it, to act. That’s in terms of time.

We can’t overlook the fact that 30% of those polled still support The Regime. It’s a small number, but it’s a number above 0% and that’s unbelievable.

Secondly, the toll it’s taken in terms of lives is unconscionable. Did the Democrats have to wait this long to act?

I think Barbara Boxer is the best potential mainstream candidate for the 2008 presidential election, but, on the day that Reid called for a closed session of the US Senate, she said, “I’m proud to be a Democrat.”

I’m sorry Senator, but, with all due respect, your party waited for The Regime to begin to self-destruct before it exhibited the “courage” to act upon what many had been saying for a very long time.

Where was Kerry in ’04? He was talking about escalating the war.

Where was the Democratic Party’s outrage when The Downing Street Memos were released? It was on hold so that they could vote to give more blood money to The Regime.

The Democrats should have played hero before the 2000th death. The Democrats would have been heroes if they acted before the 200th death! The most heroic action, of course, would have been unanimous Democratic Party opposition before the first death!

Thirdly, what this entire nightmare says about at least half of the American people is absolutely stupefying. The Democrats didn’t act because they had no political need to act in accordance with the narcissistic nature of American partisan theatrics. Indeed, Democrats didn’t want to appear “unpatriotic” so close to September 11, 2001. They knew that their respective constituencies smelled Arab blood and they didn’t want to be political victims of that pogrom.

Finally, there’s the matter of who succeeds Bush should true justice prevail. I get all the way past the Vice Presidency, the Speaker of the House, the President pro tempore of the Senate, the Secretaries of State, Treasury and Defense and the Attorney General before I get to anyone that I know sufficiently little about to even entertain the idea of finding an acceptable replacement. There is, in actuality, a regime which sits at the seat of the American government.

I'm thinking that a lot of us aren’t particularly overjoyed that enough people have finally awakened since November of 2000 to help administer Extreme Unction to The Regime.

Here are the articles:

“Bush's Increasing Mental Lapses and Temper Tantrums Worry White House Aides”
“GOP Leaders to Bush: 'Your Presidency is Effectively Over'”

To friendship,
Michael

“Justice in the life and conduct of the State is possible only as first it resides in the hearts and souls of the citizens.” – Plato

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

The Loyal Opposition

Yesterday, I heard that New York Democratic Senator Charles Schumer made a statement on “Meet The Press” this past Sunday, 10/23/05. When asked if he, knowing what he knows today, would, again, vote for the resolution giving Bush a blank check to start a war wherever he thought it was “necessary”, Schumer said, “Yes”. Yes!

Democratic Senator Charles Schumer would vote for the resolution for which he voted, even if he knew then what he knows today!

Schumer would vote for the resolution knowing that Iraq possessed no WMD!

Schumer would vote for the resolution knowing that the facts were “being fixed around the policy”!

Schumer would vote for the resolution knowing that top military officials strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq or at least opposed the method that was used to execute it.

Schumer would vote for the resolution knowing how close investigators are getting to exposing The Regime’s complicity in the events of 9/11!

Schumer would vote for the resolution knowing that Bush lied in his 2002 State of the Union address when he said that Saddam had attempted to obtain uranium from Niger!

Schumer would vote for the resolution knowing that The Regime would punish people like Joe Wilson, Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neil and Sibel Edmonds because they dared to speak the truth about its actions in Iraq!

What Schumer said in essence is that he would again vote, knowing what he knows today, to send 2,000 Americans to their deaths in spite of the fact that the reasons for doing so have all been exposed as having been fabricated!

I saw a Carl Levin press conference this morning on C-Span. Levin, the Democratic Senator from Michigan, said that Bush was conducting the war in Iraq all wrong. He said that, if it was up to him, he’d tell the Iraqis to settle their political differences in a timely manner or he would threaten to consider setting a timetable for the withdrawal from Iraq of American troops. He said we just can’t “cut and run”.

Levin, if he was in charge, would threaten to consider setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq - threaten to consider setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq!

If you take the time to read my essays “Representative Ellen Tauscher – The New Neocon” and “Representative Ellen Tauscher – The New Neocon - A Response to a Responder”, you’ll see what Tauscher, a Democratic member of The House of Representatives, thinks about our role in Iraq and about withdrawing American troops. You can be reminded of how she feels about the Americans who are dying daily in Iraq.

Am I missing something?

I know I missed something on November 2, 2004 when, after writing several essays presenting reasons for not voting for John Kerry and posting them on this blog, I caved to “progressive” groups like MoveOn.org and voted for Kerry. I can’t even explain why I did that as I was convinced that Kerry was, and still is George W. Bush with a different face and a different voice. I joined the ABB gang but really didn’t vote for anybody but Bush. I voted for Bush with a different face and a different voice.

I ask you, why are we talking about “fixing the Democratic Party”? Why are we talking about the “two camps” of the Democratic Party? Why can’t we see that the Democratic Party has made it very clear that it doesn’t represent a progressive platform? Why can’t we see that the Democratic Party is just another arm of The Corporacracy, the real political party which sits atop the government of not only the former United States of America, but most of the world?

“Progressive” organizations such as MoveOn, The Progressive Democrats of America, TrueMajoirity, etc. are Democratic Party apologists, nothing more, nothing less! If they won’t lead the way in wiping out the “red state/blue state” mentality, then we must search for groups who will. If they won’t call a Corporat a Corporat, then we must find groups who do. If they continue to look at alternatives to Democrats and Republicans as possessing the “third party disease”, then we must find groups who don’t.

We’ve got to stop asking what’s wrong with the Democratic Party and how do we fix it? We know what’s wrong with the Democratic Party. It operates in lock step with the Republican Party! As George Wallace said in 1968, “There ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between ‘em.” As someone once pointed out to me, they both drink from the same trough.

We have to stop pretending that red and blue are the only two colors in the spectrum. We have to begin to see that neither of the two so-called political parties represents America and Americans. We have to break out of this box into which precedence and the mainstream media have placed us, without our consent, against our best interests and while we weren’t paying attention.

If we want the United States of America to be a nation belonging to all Americans, present and future, we have to start paying attention and showing everyone with whom we come in contact how to pay attention.

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

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

An Email Message I Sent to Senator Barbara Boxer

Most of the professional politicians who belong to the two corporate supported political parties are corrupt. I’ve expressed my opinion about this previously. As I said in my essay, Priority Number One, until the way we hire those who work for us is changed, the issues which we so passionately hold close to our hearts will be the “ball” that the disingenuous professional politicians will toss around.

There are a couple of professional politicians whom I believe may still incorporate some sincerity in their speech.

During the 2000 primaries, I thought that John McCain, with whom I disagree on most social issues, actually believed what he was saying. I thought that he was honest.

When Bush was selected, McCain forgot that the slime machine all but said that he was in favor of breast cancer and slid under their rock. I was wrong.

In 2004, Dennis Kucinich provided some hope for many of us.

After Kerry was nominated, he became George Bush with another face and another name. Kucinich, however, supported Kerry.

After The Regime manipulated what is falsely called a “Bush victory” again in 2004, the Congressional Black Caucus, the only body in the US Congress that seems to have any courage, once again challenged the electoral vote.

This happened in 2000 and not one senator would sign on with the Congressional Black Caucus to initiate a review of the 2000 election.

In 2004, Barbara Boxer did sign on with the Black Caucus which, in turn, initiated such a review. The review was, of course, a farce as the Republican lead Congress would never find fault with any aspect of that election. Even if they did, the complicit and compliant Democrats would have laid down, agreeing with what their Saturday golf buddies said.

Boxer has taken quite a few stands against The Corporacracy. This is not to say that she hasn’t accepted the same kind of “aid” from some of the same kind of “donors”.

It would be helpful in exposing the truth that we all seek if someone within the system who has national name recognition rose to a leadership level.

Boxer’s made herself a target of the slime machine with her “extreme” views on society. At present, she seems to be just about the only person with national recognition that may put truth before self-promotion.

The following is an email message that I wrote and sent to Senator Barbara Boxer of California.

Dear Senator Boxer,

My name is Michael Bonanno and I live in Antioch.

I’ve been bugging you for some time now to at least test the waters for the 2008 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

There is a genuine fear among progressives that Hillary Clinton is a shoe in. The fear, of course, is that Hillary Clinton is not a representative of people, she is a professional politician.

I once heard someone say that Bill Clinton may very well have been the best Republican president is history. Hillary, if elected, would put that claim to bed.

Senator Clinton supports raising the troop level in Iraq. This ill-advised move is based upon the assumption that, somehow, the American occupying force will someday turn Iraq into a democracy in the image of the US. I know that you don’t believe that, Senator Boxer.

You are maybe the most progressive person in the Senate. Like Dennis Kucinich before you, your views are in stark contrast with the views of more “moderate” members of your party.

Representative Kucinich pursued the Democratic Party’s nomination for president in 2004. What Kucinich ultimately did was to support John Kerry in spite of the fact that many of Kerry’s views were views that Kucinich reviled.

Senator Boxer, the “red state, blue state” phenomenon has got to end. You are just the person to end it.

Here is my brief attempt to counsel you on a possible presidential bid:

1. Search the net. I am not alone in pleading with you to make a move. Here’s the URL of one site out of many that supports you –
Barbara Boxer 2008 a strong voice for freedom & truth. It’s not the only one.

2. Senator Boxer, you shouldn’t have to make your intentions known so early, but you do. As long as those who can actually make a significant change to the Electoral College, if not
ban it altogether, are the same people who benefit from its existence, they will never try to make such a change.

You may think that banning the Electoral College is a national, widespread goal, but it isn’t. It has a trickle down affect. The Electoral College perpetuates the exclusivity of political ambition. It reinforces the “red state, blue state” phenomenon.
Third parties are as appealing to the American voters as is having a third eye.

This is why Kucinich didn’t walk away from a party that was promoting everything that he wanted to change. Kucinich didn’t have the courage to split with the lemmings in the party and run an independent campaign.

Unfortunately, Senator Boxer, this is why you need to make your intentions known quickly. You need to see what kind of support you receive from the political party to which you belong and, if you find support is lacking, and you very well may, you need to separate yourself from the party and run under the umbrella of a political party with which you can better identify. If nothing else, Senator Boxer, you will need to run as an independent.

I firmly believe that if Kucinich took this bold stand, he would have garnered a great many votes, even though the so-called “progressive” pundits were asking Ralph Nader to bow out. I respect Nader for seeing that Kerry was offering what Bush was already giving us and for standing his ground. If he took votes away from Kerry, it was because Kerry didn’t earn those votes in the first place.

4. If there are skeletons in your closet, and the slime machine will find them if they’re there, you mustn’t run from them. Unless you’ve murdered someone in cold blood during your lifetime, there can be no skeleton from which you should have to run.

If you had an affair, say that you had an affair.

If you belonged to some kinky sex cult, say that you did.

If you lied, say that you lied.

My point is this. Every time a politician’s closet is raided, said politician lies about what is found.

So where does that get one? One has not only done something that is, prima facie, distasteful to many Americans, but lies about it, compounding the controversy.

If Bush, for example, had said, “Yeah, I was scared to death. I didn’t want to go to Vietnam so I had my daddy get me out of it. But I regret that. I wish I would have fought for my country and that’s the reason I have so much admiration for those who are patriotic enough to do so now,” his supporters would have had even more “ammunition” with which to support him. They could have said he made a mistake but at least he’s owning up to it.

The same with Clinton. Admit that you’re having an affair, say that you and your spouse are receiving marriage counseling and, other than that, say it’s nobody’s business.

Admitting a mistake, explaining why one would have made that mistake at that time or explaining why you believe that what you did was the right thing to do and then moving on would be almost more than detractors can stand.

In addition to that, as Bill Clinton had “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow”, a Fleetwood Mac song, as his anthem, if you do have skeletons, you could adopt Pat Benatar’s “Hit Me With Your Best Shot” to speak to detractors.

5. Unlike Representative Kucinich, you, Senator Boxer, must never let your supporters down, not even if someone else captures the Democratic Party’s nomination.

You either have to continue right up until election day in November as an independent or claim that your followers are the “New Democrats” and thus name the party which you and your supporters will be creating.

6. Begin publishing essays at sites such as
Common Dreams.org on a regular basis. Become even more popular with the truly progressive community.

All of the “Barbara Boxer updates” should be published at
Common Dreams and other progressive publications.

Senator Boxer, the voting process in the US has been corrupted and the mainstream media has reinforced that corruption. I’ve seen the color spectrum, Senator Boxer, and there are many more colors in it than red and blue.

Unfortunately, Senator Boxer, because of a corrupt system whose change you can spearhead after the 2008 election, especially if you were to win the presidency, you need to express your intentions very early and begin campaigning very early as well.

We can raise money for you, Senator Boxer, I’m sure. However, if you were to use some of your own wealth to support your own candidacy, you would be sending another strong message.

Please heed our call for your candidacy, Senator Boxer. We need you now more than ever.

To the staff member who reads this and is assigned to respond to it: even if Senator Boxer doesn’t personally read this message from one of her constituents, please ensure that she reads as many messages as possible from people pleading with her to run in 2008.

Sincerely,
Michael Bonanno

The Mind Of Michael

To friendship,
Michael

Saturday, October 01, 2005

Old/New Concept

Ever since I was 18, the first year that Eugene McCarthy became an unsuccessful candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, I’ve been struggling to find a political party with whom my conscience would allow me to register.

Thus far, I’ve registered with the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party of the United States. I even researched the Socialist Party USA. I’m presently registered as an independent because those parties possessed traits and/or planks in their platforms that I could not support.

I wrote to one of the authors of an opinion piece which was published on the CommonDreams.org[ web site. I told this person that I was both endorsing the Green Party of the United States and communicating with it to encourage it to make more of an effort to promote its candidates, especially on a national level.

The writer replied to me, saying that he had supported the Green Party for the longest time but was frustrated with what to him was a lack of initiative. He said that he was going to look around for like-minded people and try to reinvigorate the Populist Party.

I then began to research information about the Electoral College because I believed, and still do believe, that third parties are as appealing to the American voter as having a third eye. As I believe that the Democrats and the Republicans aren’t the least bit interested in banning the Electoral College, it appears at present that we’re stuck with corporate owned professional politicians for some time to come.

Tonight I finally Googled the Populist Party. On one of its pages, there was a link that took me to The Direct Democracy League.

I don’t know if this guy is the only person trying to make a case for The Direct Democracy League, but he offers a lot of information.

At this time, I’ve only begun reading the information and I have more questions than opinions. As I read, I may discover how Stephen Neitzke proposes to implement what is quite an ambitious plan.

The Direct Democracy League presents me, at least, with something to study that’s entirely out of the box.

He speaks of a “2nd National Constitutional Convention” to “renew” The Constitution of The United States. His Direct Democracy League supports the ideal of “True Republican Governance” (TRG).

I will state up front that Neitzke references federal statute 18 USC 241 very often. When I clicked on the link, it took me to the text of that particular federal law. What I was a bit suspicious of was that the text is on a page that is also an advertisement for a law firm.

In Neitzke’s defense, I believe that he’s put too much thought, research and general effort into his writing to have a hidden agenda. He’s also extremely passionate. However, if you’re at all interested, you can visit the site and decide for yourself.

I’m sending this message out to you to offer another angle from which to view how our government could potentially look. If you wish to visit the web site, the reading is extremely interesting and, as mentioned, Neitzke is extremely passionate about the league’s mission. One almost gets the idea that Neitzke firmly believes that the implementation of the league’s mission is already a done deal.

There’s a lot to ingest, but I thought some of you may be interested in learning a bit about Neitzke’s goals. I know that I’m interested.




<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/index.php?page=buzzbite&BB_id=116623">Do you think the U.S. should switch to a direct democracy?</a> | <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>


To friendship,
Michael

You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.” – Albert Einstein

The Mind Of Michael

Saturday, September 24, 2005

A Letter That I Sent to the White House on a Whim

Dear Mr. President,

I know. That’s just a title.

I thought I’d write you a letter.

My name is Michael Bonanno and I live in Antioch, California. I know that you don’t come to California very often. The state doesn’t vote for your party and you see no need to pay California much attention. I understand that.

However, did you know that much of California rests on a fault line?

A fault line is a weakened portion of earth that tends to shift now and again, causing what they call earthquakes. In case you hadn’t heard, California experienced a significant earthquake in 1989. It caused a lot of damage.

You see, when an earthquake happens, the shifting of the weakened earth disrupts the infrastructure that rests upon it. As you may or may not be able to imagine, houses and bridges and stores and golf courses and the like get moved around pretty good during an earthquake.

I was just wondering if we had an earthquake, would your administration have time to help us out? I know that you want the federal government to play a very small role in the lives of Americans, so you may hesitate to help us out. Of course, now I’m really worried that California voted for the other guy in 2004.

Small government is good, though. I mean, keep it small.

Yes, government does have its role.

I mean, if government doesn’t decide what is and what isn’t a marriage, who’s going to decide?

If government doesn’t deal with the pro athletes’ steroid issue, who’s going to do that?

If government doesn’t protect those who want to flaunt the ten commandments, who’s going to protect them?

If government doesn’t keep a good list of all of the kids that could be eligible for military service, the private sector sure won’t do it.

Government should be there for Americans some times, but only when it’s a matter of extreme importance. I understand that, Mr. President.

In case you didn’t know this, there really isn’t much of a warning system for earthquakes. As you may or may not have seen, before hurricanes make land fall, you know, when they traverse the ocean to the land, that’s called land fall, weather people have some technology to track them. They actually know where a hurricane is at any given time and they’re able to predict where the hurricane may make land fall and how powerful it is and what damage it might cause. I just didn’t know if you were aware of that stuff.

Earthquakes, on the other hand, don’t give us much warning. Granted they’re working on ways to predict earthquakes, but, with your goal of shrinking government and all, you’re probably leaving the funding of such research up to the private sector. Hey, that’s OK. If there’s money in it, the private sector will probably help out a whole lot.

Maybe you can get some churches to volunteer people to help out with the research.

I’m just a little worried that’s all.

Maybe you have some ideas about how the private sector will help us out if we experience an earthquake. Since earthquakes can’t be predicted, do you think you can share your ideas with some of your bosses? Tell them to look beyond the actual disaster and loss of property and life and think about the financial rewards they can reap. That might give them some initiative to help out.

Well, I thought this letter was timely. I thought it would give you a heads up.

I realize, Mr. President, that you are the messenger. I realize that you don’t really come up with ideas and policy. I realize that you’re just a front guy for the people who really do the thinking.

Who do you think that I should contact to really get some of this stuff looked into? I mean, who tells you what you should think and say most of the time? I’d really like to see the people with the empowerment look into the stuff that I’ve just written to you.

It’s like September 11, 2001.

I know that you realized that some damage had to be done in New York and Washington. Your bosses would never have had an excuse to invade Iraq without it. Good thing Cheney was able to get the order out for Flight 93 in time to down it. He just didn’t count on people actually interfering with the plan.

I realize that you’re not really to blame. Hey, they promised you the presidency, and, I might say, they delivered. I don’t blame you for 9/11, Iraq, Madrid, London or any of those things. In fact, I think you didn’t even know that your bosses were even going to do some of those things.

I must say that the speeches that they wrote for you after those events were pretty good. Yes, of course there were some holes in what they told you to say especially in light of all of the things that they’ve told you to say since then. But you’ve been lucky. In spite of the fact that you’re still learning the mother tongue, people like your wit and the hard work you do on the ranch. I think a lot of hard working people identify with that hard work. And the average American’s vocabulary is probably much like yours.

Did your bosses tell you that, lately, a lot of people have been disappointed in some of the things that they’ve told you to talk about?

Yes, sir, they’re called polls. They ask people questions like, “Do you approve of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?”

Lots of people are saying that they’re starting to disapprove. They don’t understand like we do that it’s not your fault. You just do and say what you’re told. You can’t help it if your bosses are telling you to say the wrong stuff. It’s not your fault, is it? I mean, you’ve got a life that you have to get on with, right?

Boy, I just realized how much I’ve written here. Take your time, Mr. President. It’s not like there’s any hurry for you to read this mail. Take a few days.

But I would appreciate it if you asked your bosses what they plan on doing if California experiences one of those earthquakes. I hope you remember what earthquakes are, Mr. President. I realize that I wrote about it a long time ago.

Anyway, don’t let your bosses kill anymore people with fake terrorist attacks, OK?

Remember that hurricane that just happened, the one that flooded New Orleans? You know, the one Laura renamed for us. It was first called Katrina, but Laura thought Karina and a couple of variations of Corina were better. I must say that they are sweeter names.

Well, between that hurricane and the possibility of an earthquake – take your time looking at the beginning of this very long message – there will be enough death and destruction. There will be plenty of opportunities for your bosses to make a little spending money without them staging another stunt like 9/11.

So, if you can convince them not to do that, some of us would really appreciate it.

That thing about we need to kill more kids in order to honor the kids we already killed? That was a killer, Mr. President. I don’t know who wrote that one for you, but I think it really reached a couple of people.

Don’t give up, Mr. President. I’m sure your bosses think that you’re doing a heck of a job.

If you ever feel like telling some of us about 9/11 and Iraq and all of the stuff your bosses have done, feel free. It would really make all that talk you do about god and Jesus and such seem a bit more credible, although you have lots of fans who really think you mean all that stuff.

Yep, you’re doing one heck of a job, Mr. President.

Sincerely,
Michael Bonanno
Antioch, CA

P. S. Right now, my wife and I are merely “haves”. We don’t see becoming a “have mores” in the near future. In fact, we may be looking at joining the “have nots”. You didn’t mention the “have nots” in that speech in which you mentioned the “haves” and the “have mores”.

The “have nots”, Mr. President, are those people who don’t have enough money to be a pioneer or even a ranger. I’m sure they would be if they could. Those are really swell titles and I don’t see how anyone wouldn’t want to be a ranger or a pioneer.

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Representative Ellen Tauscher – The New Neocon - A Response to a Responder

One of the people who read “Representative Ellen Tauscher – The New Neocon”, responded to me by saying that the message seemed to be, and I’ll paraphrase, inflexible. The respondent, whom I respect a great deal, said that my message presented a “my way or the highway” point of view. The respondent said that my rant almost seemed to be composed by a “Bushite”.

I didn’t immediately respond as the message prompted some serious introspection. If I’m like a “Bushite”, I want to change that.

Last night, I finally responded.

In case anyone else thinks that my analysis of Tauscher’s “win the peace” letter was too harsh or inflexible, I’ll share my response.

I was really moved when you responded to my outrage at Tauscher’s taking the “finish the job” approach to Iraq. You said that I expressed “it’s my way or the highway”. You said that I was being like a “Bushite”.

I’ve been thinking about those words and you’re absolutely right. When it comes to Iraq, it’s my way or the wrong way.

If we were speaking of Social Security, there may be some room for debate.

If we were talking about the response to Katrina, I would tell you that the reaction is nothing but partisan bullshit, on both sides. No matter who, by protocol, was the first responder responsible to prevent the disaster, when one party saw nothing being done by the other, it should have had the initiative to do something. Blaming the local authorities and the federal government for failing in that case is precisely right. Both sides said they waited for the other side to do something and that makes both sides wrong.

If we were talking about corporate welfare, I could work with that, with the help of CEOs.

But I’m talking about Iraq and you know what? I can defeat anyone who chooses to debate me. Anyone, undeniably. I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.

We were told by The Regime that, as much as we asked Saddam Hussein to disarm, he wasn’t doing it. As much as Bush wanted to avoid war, he had to send soldiers into harm’s way because Hussein wouldn’t get rid of his weapons of mass destruction.

I believe that The Regime knew that Saddam didn’t have WMD. I believe that The Regime orchestrated 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq. 9/11 stirred up hate toward any reference to Islam and as far as stupid Americans were concerned, Iraq was a Muslim nation because Muslims live there. They didn’t want to hear that Iraq was a secular state and that its UN ambassador, Teriq Aziz, is a Christian. Iraq=Middle East=Arab=terrorist. It was an easy segue.

The debate, however, is short and sweet.

We invaded Iraq because they possessed stockpiles of WMD…period!

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Bush said so himself. Even if there was, that wasn’t the reason we were given. We said we gave Hussein ample time to disarm and he wouldn’t. We invaded Iraq because it refused to give up its WMD.


The Regime talks about the election, the progress toward democracy, the success of drawing up a constitution. We didn’t invade Iraq to help them with that. We invaded Iraq because Hussein had WMD that could be used against his neighbors and even the US…period!

Even Democrats say that it was a mistake to invade Iraq but since we’re there we can’t just up and leave. Why not? We didn’t invade Iraq to protect them against radical Muslims. We invaded Iraq to disarm Iraq, to destroy the WMD that were a danger to the rest of the world. That’s the only reason we were given.

Yes, we invaded Iraq and fucked up the country. Now we want to gamble on how long it will take for Iraq to “stabilize” from our mistake. We need to stay there until it does.

No we don’t! We caused it, but I would gamble that we’ll never be able to “defeat” people who, if they aren’t defending their nation, are defending their part of the world against invaders and occupiers. We didn’t invade Iraq to be the offender against whom Middle Easterners have to defend. We invaded Iraq because it had weapons of mass destruction that they refused to get rid of…
period!

In a debate, I will continue to say that we invaded Iraq to destroy the WMD that Hussein didn’t have. When we found he didn’t have them, we should have returned Hussein to power because he didn’t have the materials for which we invaded Iraq. We should have reimbursed him for the destruction and death we caused.

If he tortured his people before the invasion and he began torturing them after we retreated, that’s Hussein’s business. We didn’t invade Iraq to stop Hussein from torturing his people. We invaded Iraq to disarm Hussein…period!

I can say that if we’re going to be in the business of invading countries whose leaders torture its citizens, we’d have a lot of invading to do. Was Hussein the worse? It doesn’t matter because that’s not the reason we invaded Iraq. We invaded Iraq because Hussein had WMD and to defend our nation against a possible attack by Iraq using those WMD. He didn’t have them and, when we found that out, we should have withdrawn and reimbursed Iraq, with Hussein as the leader and with interest.

The debate goes like this. We invaded Iraq because Iraq had WMD.

Anyone who says anything that keeps us in Iraq any longer than one more second has veered away from the debate. The only answer that might contain any logic whatsoever is that he did have WMD and we haven’t found them yet. But he had them and he could use them against us, so we needed to invade Iraq and we will find the weapons.

We’ve searched long enough, if we’ve searched at all, and we were wrong.

That is, we as a nation who believed the BS were wrong. The Regime was right. They knew he had no such weapons. They wanted to invade Iraq to control its natural resources and keep them away from such nations as China and India.

There’s some sick religious reason that The Regime wants to control Jesus’ country as well, but that’s a whole different subject.

But, it’s my way or the wrong way.

Iraq didn't possess WMD in the run up to this "war" and, consequently, the reason no longer exists and we should leave. There’s no compromise. There’s no basis for compromise. When it comes to the reason why we invaded Iraq, WMD, what compromise is there?

We need to leave. There’s no other action that we can justify.

I guess when it comes to the continuing deaths of Americans, I’m immovable.

It’s my way or the wrong way. The wrong way will get more Americans killed and that’s what makes that way wrong.

Anyone who doesn’t agree with my way, and Cindy Sheehan’s way and the way of many, many other people, agrees with the wrong way. Any way that keeps us there any longer is the wrong way.

A Bushite is indeed as adamant as I am. Bushites are so adamant about staying in Iraq and getting more Americans killed that they keep coming up with new reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with the threat of WMD. Now that’s persistency, very deadly persistency indeed.

I’ve thought long and hard about what you said and finally organized my thoughts and this is the epistle that evolved from that thought process.

Does “I can defeat anyone who chooses to debate me. Anyone, undeniably. I am right and anyone who disagrees with me is wrong” sound arrogant? Yes, it sounds arrogant, but I’m no brain surgeon and it doesn’t take one to see the logic of my argument and the complete vacancy in the arguments that keep morphing, including Tauscher’s politalk.

She’s up for reelection and, like all of our professional politicians, she’s trying to “please” everyone. I have no idea what she really believes. I don’t know what most of our professional politicians believe. I don’t think that they give their beliefs much thought.

American politics is a game played by the wealthy and, as long as the spectators of that game continue to take it seriously, like people take WWF seriously, the game will continue to be played.

To friendship,
Michael

“Every government has as much of a duty to avoid war as a ship's captain has to avoid a shipwreck.” – Guy de Maupassant