Speak Your Mind And Read Mine

This Blindness Can Be Cured

2009-12-29T06:05:00.000-08:00

(originally published by OpEdNews)

So, now who are you going to vote for in 2012?

I’m going to inform you, yet, again, of who you can and cannot vote for in 2012 and what the differences will be.

You can vote for Sarah Palin. You can vote for Barack Obama, if he’s nominated. You can vote for Joe the freakin’ plumber. You will receive the same results.

Oh, no, you say? There’s this great big difference between Democrats and Republicans?

If you believe that, you are a lost cause. No matter who gets the most stupid electoral votes or who gets the most popular votes, the nation will progress in exactly the same way.

Maybe some left wing radio head will say, “Don’t vote for the third party candidate. If you do, then the Republicans will win.”

And what will happen if the Republicans win?

We won’t get a universal health care plan that takes care of us like those of other industrialized countries?

We’ll start another foolish war?

Get my drift or would you still rather continue to play baby games?

There is no government of The United States of America. There are no three branches of government keeping one another in line. We lost our government a long, long time ago.

Dennis Kucinich supported John Kerry in 2004. One of the first things that Kerry said he’d do is to increase the troop strength in Iraq, where we shouldn’t have been in the first place. Kerry talked about the surge before Bush did. And Kucinich, who had the gall to read articles of impeachment against Bush, supported the surge. He supported Kerry.

I don’t hear anyone reading articles of impeachment against Barack Obama. He’s sending troops to Afghanistan. He’ll send them there whether or not Congress gives him the OK and/or the money to do so. That is against the law. He has no power to send troops into battle. Only Congress can declare war. He’s as much committing an impeachable crime as did Bush’s Regime.

Back to Kucinich. How can a person who consistently said we should never have gone to war in Iraq support a candidate who promised to increase those forces.

I wish Kucinich could really be elected president. Maybe then you will see that the president, the Congress and the Supreme Court are getting paid for doing what they’re told. Kucinich wouldn’t get his department of peace but he’d end up sending troops somewhere or he’d be assassinated.

Ron Paul. Oh, yeah, Ron Paul’s a regular peacenik. I wonder how the view is from the cheap seats. Oh, no, Ron Paul wouldn’t go to war. He’s a good boy.

“I’ll never be elected”, say Paul and Kucinich, “so I can say stuff that’ll make people like me and I can criticize Bush and Clinton and Obama. People will say I’m brave to stand up to my own party.”

Stop it, people! Please, please stop your madness. Stop! Stop arguing over Democrats and Republicans. Please stop saying stuff like, “At least Bush did this” or “At least Obama isn’t doing that.” You see the words? The words I’m talking about are “at least”. That’s the only thing anyone who gets enough of whatever kind of magic vote it takes to be president can do – the least.

We are fully and without compromise under the control of the global corporation. It’s been called a Corporatocracy. I’ve called it a Corporacracy. It really doesn’t matter what you call it, it’s in total control.

It’s not the government of The United States we have to overthrow, if, by government, we mean an executive branch, a legislative branch and a judicial branch.

But, people, we have to overthrow the government of The United States, The Corporacracy!

We are under the control of an entity which itself cannot be controlled. It can move anywhere in the world it wants to move. It can make people ill and stop people from getting better. And there is no so called legitimate government in the world that can or even wants to do anything about it. People who feign public service are paid handsomely by The Ruler.

As early as 1976, Paddy Chayefsky, through the character played by Ned Beatty in the film Network, had already figured it out.

It took Obama $700 million to become president. All of you disappointed “Progressives”, are you that naïve? Oh, sure, Barack raised that money through nickel and dime donations over the internet. Have our brains been that dissolved that we can’t see, won’t see, don’t want to see?

“I want my country back,” whines the left while Bush is president.

“I want my country back,” whines the right while Obama is president.

When do we start with the real, legitimate taking back of our country?

First, if anyone raises more than $10,000 for any campaign from dog catcher to president, he or she shouldn’t get your vote.

Second, if anyone approves of a campaign ad, in print, on radio, on TV or on the net which says one word more than, “Vote more me”, he or she shouldn’t get your vote.

Please, people, this is no conspiracy theory. This isn’t 9/11 truthers or birthers or Kennedy assassination investigators or alien invasion followers. I’m not judging those. Those may or may not be real.

What is real, people, what is undeniable to anyone who has one eye half open is that The United States of America does – not – have – a - government, nor has it had one for a very long time.

We tell corporations if they can or cannot exist. We tell corporations to clean up after themselves. We tell corporations to keep their freakin’ money out of our government and our politics. We still have that power. Let’s start using it!

Corporations exist to serve us, not the other way around. There are more of us than there are of them, especially if the measurement is who benefits from their unethical dominion.

Stop it! Just stop it! Please, just stop playing these games!

To friendship,
Michael

“A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward.” - Franklin D. Roosevelt

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
“A Song For Two Friends”

The United World of The Corporacracy

2004-07-07T21:06:00.000-07:00

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”

“Patriots” in the Health Care Debate

2009-12-08T00:25:00.000-08:00

(originally published at OpEdNews)

There have been a great many reasons given for steering clear of government run health care.

At the bottom of it all is an 1886 Supreme Court decision which did not give the status of natural personhood to corporations but which subsequent Supreme Court cases have cited as if it did give that status to corporations. The case of Santa Clara County v. The Southern Pacific Railroad was as flawed a Supreme Court Decision as any Supreme Court decision and more than most. It should and, hopefully, will be the subject of future articles.

This article, however, must unfortunately be written accepting the premise that even those in the highest levels of our country’s judiciary are still under the false impression that corporations are natural persons and should be treated as such. Under the guise of using their First Amendment right of free speech, health insurance corporations have been able to round up “grassroots” supporters from a small, noisy pool of uninformed “patriots” and neatly place these supporters inside town hall meetings facilitated by members of Congress. These people are anything but neat once the meeting begins. They not only shout down the members of Congress if those members of Congress support health care reform, but have been known to shout down people who are ill or otherwise down and out because of the thieves and the boards of directors who run the health care insurance business.

What are some of the things these “patriots” complain about in opposing health care reform?

First, we have to talk about Socialism. To the uninformed, Socialism is a tyrannical form of governance in which the federal government owns everyone’s lives. Socialism is a form of government which reviews high stepping paraders on the first day of every May. Under Socialism, the government taps the phones of all citizens and intercepts all communications. It reads everyone’s emails and secretly opens everyone’s snail mail before it’s delivered to the intended recipient. To learn the details of how this kind of government operates, read DAYBREAK; UNDOING THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY AND FORMING A MORE PERFECT UNION by David Swanson, co-founder of the After Downing Street Coalition. This wonderfully revealing book talks about the so called George W. Bush administration or, more appropriately named, The Regime.

Socialist governments tie the hands of commerce for the good of the state. Under Socialism, only a privileged few can even get into a position of national governance. In the inspiring rags to riches capitalist democratic republic of The United States of America, it’s heartening to know that one can become president by raising and spending a modest $750 million, as did Barack Obama in 2008.

People are thrown in prison because they disagree with the state. Thus, it’s only natural that under a Socialist government, a nation would have more people imprisoned than a nation which is not a Socialist nation.

The fact that the US, home of possibly more Socialist fearing people than any nation in the world, has the highest incarceration rate in the world, giving it the highest documented prison population in the world, is merely a product of the manifest destiny which ultimately became American exceptionalism.

Responses to the fear of domestic spying and open elections have been offered over and over again and most who are reading this article don’t need to be reminded of the irrationality of the comparisons between the anti Socialist US and the rest of the world. They neither have to be repeated nor reproved here.

However, those “natural” people who seem to have more power per person than other “natural” people are able to say of Socialism, “Be afraid. Be very afraid.” And those smaller people who don’t seem to feel the need to be self informed, are, indeed, very afraid of Socialism.

Just as the large natural persons have convinced the smaller persons that marijuana is a gateway drug and will ultimately lead to one stealing money from one’s neighbor to get the next heroin fix, those large persons have convinced those very same smaller persons that socialized medicine will for certain lead to those goose stepping parades and balcony reviews.

The “patriots” want their country back. Giving Barack Obama eight months to take their country away from them - the above mentioned town hall meetings began in August of 2009 - was unconscionable of the 52% of American voters who voted for him. Although he’s since proven disappointing to many voters in this country, including the independents and liberals who voted for him, these corporate fabricated grassroots movements knew before he was ever elected that he was too “uppity” to even run for the office and totally incapable of doing the job.

The article “Socialism and Democracy; The People’s Combination” attempts to explain that the word “socialism” shares its roots with such well accepted words as “social”, “society” and “sociable”. The article shows that, when thought of in that light, socialism or Socialism isn’t a very frightening word at all. Not only that, but if the premise of Socialism can be expanded to other, possibly private sectors of society, we see that not much that we do isn’t of a socialist nature. Many of those activities don’t even have a democratic component.

For example, how many workplaces, especially private sector work places, are democratically governed? Those who remember what it was like to work in a manufacturing factory in the US know that, once a worker enters the corporation’s property, democracy is left at the gate. How many of a Fortune 500 global corporation’s workers have a say in who the leader of their corporation will be? How many workers have a say in how the company can become more “competitive”? Certainly not the workers who are laid off, that’s for sure.

Where there is no union representing a workforce, corporations claim to have the freedom to “pay for performance”. Yet, the payroll, especially for the workers on the lower rungs of the employee ladder, is only so large. One worker may receive a higher salary than another worker based upon some far from democratically decided rating or ranking system, but the difference between the highest and lowest paid worker isn’t much more than a few thousand dollars a year, mere pocket change for the top employee, the CEO. In spite of the fact that many corporations have instituted what are called 360º feedback processes, many of these processes are based upon hearsay, rumor and interpersonal relationships, not upon a well thought out review of the performance of one’s peers. The decision by many large corporations to expunge front line supervisors who emanate from the ranks of the workers makes this feedback system even more of a farce. When one goes to work, one goes to a place where every non executive worker is basically treated the same by an elite management. It’s socialism of the worse kind. It’s undemocratic socialism.

This analogy can be used in the health care debate as well. Uninformed “patriots” claim that Socialism won’t work and that’s why any health care reform in the US will be dangerous. This is because a “deserving” person will be forced to pay for the health care of an “undeserving” person.

How does the private sector health care system differ from this?

The private sector is made up of groups of people, millions in some cases, who don’t know a thing about one another. These people pay premiums which create a central fund whence their health care coverage comes. However, not only do these people pay into a central fund, but they’re expected to pay more money called co-pays and deductibles before they can even draw anything from the central fund.

Why isn’t the premium paid into this central fund enough to cover the client’s health care? The overhead for private sector health care institutions is over 30%. This overhead not only covers necessary administrative costs which would exist in any business, private or otherwise, but it covers a payroll for upper management, in particular the company CEO. This is not an insignificant amount as the five top paid CEOs in the health insurance business make an average of $12,211,480 per year. This overhead is made even greater when the plush buildings which house the corporate elite are taken into consideration.

Those who oppose health reform in which government possesses any meaningful role do so, as mentioned, because they claim that government bureaucrats will simply build one more link in the bridge towards Socialism. The subsequent governing body will become far too intimately involved in the personal lives of US citizens and there will be parades on every first of May.

Consequently, by fighting government run health care, these “patriots” are saying that they’d rather be part of a privately owned and run socialist association. They’d rather the CEO and top managers of this association collect personal information about them. They’d rather take the chance of paying for the health care of people who they don’t know through this socialist association than through a governmentally facilitated association. It’s possible that these “patriots” assume that other members of the association are as “deserving” as they are because, like them, the other members can afford private sector insurance which means that those members must have jobs thus, consequently, aren’t lazy. It’s possible that it doesn’t occur to these “patriots” that there are people who do, indeed, have jobs but the health care “assistance” provided by their employers, if their employers provide any, is so lame that they still can’t afford the ever increasing premiums, deductibles and co-pays.

It’s also possible that those who oppose health care reform which includes government involvement believe that all of those who get a piece of their premiums are honest, hard working people. That’s right. Every privately owned socialist health care insurance community is populated with the most honest among us. Not one of the private sector comrades would even consider defrauding the health insurance corporation which, of course, is the socialist health care community.

Belonging to this social network not only debunks that particular society’s irrational fear of Socialism, it takes from its members any chance of having a democratic say in how the society functions. It’s already been observed that most who work for the corporation don’t have a say in how the corporation functions, but how many who pay premiums, another word for private sector taxes, have a say in how the insurance company operates? How many times have the tax paying members of those societies engaged in democratically implemented votes to decide if the private sector taxes should or should not be raised?

Charlene Frizzera, interim head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services earns a yearly salary of $172,200. This is less than the $250,000 per year that candidate and now President Barack Obama has used as a cutoff for raising taxes. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama and Hillary Clinton each said that they would not tax people making under $250,000 per year. Thus, Ms. Frizzera’s salary is less than what Obama and Clinton appeared to consider wealthy and a far cry from the $12 million dollars raked in by the average health insurance company CEO. The most absurd choice that the “patriots” make when they choose private sector, undemocratic socialism over government enabled health care is their willingness to pay 30% of their private sector taxes towards $12 million salaries for CEO and executive pay and accept that only 70% of those taxes will actually be used to help care for their health.

Overhead costs for Medicare are 3-5%. Instead of paying taxes of which 97% go toward actually caring for their health, the “patriots” opt to pay taxes of which 30% go to exorbitant salaries and expensively decorated buildings.

Until an amendment to the Constitution of the United States passes in which it specifically states that the Bill of Rights protects natural human beings and not corporations, the “patriots” have decided that they’d rather give all of their personal information to, pay taxes to and be dictated to by another person. This person is interested in its wealth and not the least bit interested in the health of its socially connected clientele.

Finally, an explanation for the repeated use of the word “patriots” when referring to those who oppose socialized health insurance (socialized medicine hasn’t even been proposed). Those who oppose health reform on the basis that they don’t want any Socialism to sully their wonderful American democracy tend to be people who are outraged by those who speak out against America’s involvement in warfare. They tend to be the same people who used phrases like “America, love it or leave it” during the Vietnam War. They tend to be the same people who support the president if the president is leading America down the path of death and destruction. They tend to be the same people who fly the American flag from their homes and have stickers of that flag pasted on the bumpers of their vehicles. They also have stickers which read “Support The Troops”. I’ve yet to see a sticker with the words “Support Americans”.

These people are “patriots” who believe America and its government excels at destroying but generally sucks at repairing. Their statement is America can be trusted to kill you but it doesn’t have the ability that the governments of all other industrialized nations have to save you.

“Patriots”, indeed.

To friendship,
Michael

“The world is governed more by appearances than realities, so that it is fully as necessary to seem to know something as to know it.” - Daniel Webster

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Your Magazine

The People's Health Insurance Company

2009-09-15T11:58:00.000-07:00

(originally published at OpEdNews)

Were not Americans almost certain that universal health care would be legislated into existence during the next four to eight years? Were not Americans almost certain that at least one financial burden would be removed from their shoulders over the next four to eight years? Were not Americans almost certain that it could hold its head high as it showed the rest of the world that its government can be as compassionate and as competent as the government of any other nation in the world? Was this not part of the message that Americans sent when they went to the polls in November of 2008?

What have Americans learned about hope and its government?

Americans have learned that its government is neither willing nor able to do what the governments of every other industrialized nation in the world are able and willing to do. They have learned that their government is unable and unwilling to meet its mission statement. Lest we forget what the mission statement is:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Our government has decided to ignore the promise to “promote the general welfare”.

The Democrats, the political party that’s supposed to be a loyal opposition to its only competitor, the Republican Party, has violated a political anti-trust guideline. It has joined with The Republican Party to ensure that Americans continue to pay premiums to insurance companies which guarantee the CEOs and top managers titanic incomes the likes of which should embarrass them. They should be embarrassed by those incomes because they should know that US citizens just recently obtained the ability to work for no less than $7.25 an hour. They should be embarrassed by those incomes because those incomes are gained from the illnesses and injuries of Americans. It is only by charging premiums, co-pays and out of pocket payments which are strains on middle class Americans and out of reach for lower middle class and poor Americans that these individuals are able to collect such monumental paychecks.

We got our government’s message, though, didn’t we? We don’t need no stinking government handouts. We’re a proud people and we choose to support ourselves. We choose to support ourselves in spite of the fact that a large and growing number of us have no means of support. We choose to support ourselves in spite of the fact that wealthy CEOs and top managers in the private sector make the jobs in their companies and corporations available not to Americans, but to those who live in foreign nations, preferably poor foreign nations. We choose to support ourselves, which includes having the wherewithal to pay for medical care, without worrying about becoming poor or poorer or just plain broke, in spite of the fact that CEOs and top managers of American based corporations pad their salaries by hiring workers in nations where workers are happy to receive what in this nation would be a poverty level income. We choose to support ourselves in spite of the fact that CEOs and top managers in the private sector grab and maintain their wealth with such a protective spirit that they manufacture their goods in countries which are not wealthy enough, powerful enough or ethical enough to protect the air which their citizens breathe or the water which their citizens, paid poverty level salaries by American corporations, drink.

That’s OK, Mr. President, members of Congress and true leaders of our nation, the heads of American based corporations, pay us no mind. We can take care of ourselves. After all, you decided to stop paying us a living wage and allowing us to lead what we came to know as an American middle class existence a long time ago, didn’t you?

What if A People’s Health Insurance Company was organized and incorporated? What if The People’s Health Insurance Company should differ from other insurance companies is some significant ways?

First, the structures in which every employee of The People’s Health Insurance Company worked would be modest. They would be comfortable for the employees because, unlike the insurance corporations that presently exist, the leaders of The People’s Health Insurance Company would realize that most of their employees, those who make whatever profit the company may incidentally make, are people in need of fairly priced health insurance and a living wage. The People’s Health Insurance Company would use the greenest of technologies to provide comfortable working conditions for its employees. There would not be one unnecessary gadget, decoration or other expense put into the structures in which every and any employee worked.

Secondly, although no one would earn less than a living wage, no one would earn more than a living wage. Granted, the more responsibility one has in The People’s Health Insurance Company, the more one would be paid. This means that employees in the highest positions in the company would earn about $250,000 per year. The top employee, whether a president or a CEO, would earn no more than four times what the lowest paid employee earned. That would be the guideline which The People’s Health Insurance Company would always use for defining the pay scale for its employees.

Thirdly, when any one of its employees fails to meet her or his expectations and a decision is made that he or she is not a good fit for her or his position the company would do whatever it could to keep the employee and find something of value which the employee could do. However, if the company must part ways with any of its employees because that employee refused to do the job for which she or he was being paid, the company would cease to pay that employee. This may not seem unusual and it should not be unusual. Nonetheless, one way in which The People’s Health Insurance Company would differ from other insurance companies is that this policy would hold true for all cases, including those involving the highest positions of management, including the CEO. The CEO or leader of The People’s Insurance Company would not continue to be paid if she or he left the company on unfavorable terms.

The employees would, of course, have the right to organize so that the fair labor practices which were put into place in the beginning would be able to withstand the unforeseen leadership of a potential future greedy leader.

The lack of ornamentally extravagant surroundings coupled with the fair pay practices would be the reason The People’s Health Insurance Company would be able to offer everyone and anyone who is a citizen of the US or is even visiting the US any medical care necessary. It would not be free as our government insists that a profit must be realized from the illnesses or injuries of Americans. There would be a payment expected. That payment would be a monthly premium based upon a sliding scale. That premium would be the only payment expected of the clients. There would be no one in the United States who The People’s Health Insurance Company would not cover. In fact, it is quite possible that those who now receive coverage through their employers would view The People’s Health Insurance Company as a competitive option. It is quite possible that The People’s Health Insurance Company would help to lift the burden of providing health care support from businesses large and small. It is quite possible that The People’s Health Insurance Company would even provide “special” arrangements for people who worked for large American based corporations who kept their manufacturing facilities in this country or returned those facilities to this country. The People’s Health Insurance Company would reserve the right to audit the pay practices of corporations to make certain that they pay their employees what The People’s Health Insurance Company would consider a living wage.

The People’s Health Insurance Company would not turn anyone away who needed health care support. This includes those who are today protesting on behalf of wealthy insurance company CEOs and/or protesting our president’s skin color. Those people would come to The People’s Health Insurance Company for health insurance in spite of the fact that they are today not allowing our government to provide health care support for them.

Finally, there are medical providers who also want to see universal health care implemented, but who want to make sure that they are also treated fairly. The People’s Health Insurance Company would operate under the premise that providers entered the occupation to provide medical care to people, not to become wealthy from merely doing a job. The People’s Health Insurance Company should look forward to working with doctors, nurses and medical facilities whose main goal is to promote the general welfare. These would be proud and patriotic Americans who realize that illness and injury do not exist for the purpose of providing them a generous paying job.

Admittedly, this is only a straw man for what The People’s Health Insurance Company could do.

The People’s Health Insurance Company would need to get support from those who have a significant financial fortune and who are today in favor of the kind of universal health care that every other industrialized nation provides. The People’s Health Insurance Company will never even get off the ground without straight out donations from those who can donate significant sums of money. This should not be a problem as we all have seen people who are wealthy by almost any standard express support for universal health care. And that is exactly what The People’s Health Insurance Company would be providing, universal health care. If this never happened, we would have the right to question the sincerity of people who are expressing support for universal health care.

Universal health care is something the US government should be providing for American citizens.

It’s sad that Americans who believe that ours is a “we” society and not an “I’ve got mine so screw you” society would have to fill the gap left in the Founding Fathers’ mission statement with no help from their government. However, as stated, we heard our government’s answer to the question, “Do you intend to promote the general welfare of Americans?” and that answer has always been, is now and will no doubt always be a resounding, “No!”

To friendship,
Michael

“The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think.” - Edwin Schlossberg

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
“A Sad Song”

Taking the Trash to Task

2009-09-13T19:33:00.000-07:00

(published by OpEdNews)

It took almost the entire presidency of George W. Bush for people to understand that The Regime was lying about why it sent people to die in Iraq. There, indeed, were comparisons to Hitler by those who saw Bush, Cheney and others promoting and actually carrying out overreaches of the executive branch. For the greater part of the so called “Bush Administration”, those who opposed The Regime were marginalized and dismissed by the mainstream media.

Immediately following 9/11, it would have been very difficult to find an American who did not stand firmly behind his/her president. That loyalty, although misdirected, was carried into the invasion of Iraq.

The real “attacks” on The Regime happened not only after it was selected in 2000, but after it began leaking the fact that it intended to invade Iraq. This was in 2002, almost two years after the 2000 election. Furthermore, the opposition was based upon policy and only policy. It was based upon policy that it took The Regime almost two years to formulate.

Before Barack Obama was even inaugurated in January of 2008, there was already one well organized web site dedicated to impeaching the then president-elect. That’s how long it took people to realize that Barack Obama’s “presidency was a failure and based upon a lie”.

Yesterday, September 12, 2008, 8 ½ months after that inauguration, Glen Beck and the corporate sponsored FreedomWorks Foundation led what was described as tens of thousands of people in a march on Washington, DC. Naturally, the sponsors of the event claimed that there were a million or so people in attendance. If there were truly 400 or 500 people in attendance, one could dismiss the event as being overhyped by its organizers. However, MSNBC claimed that “tens of thousands” of so called “fiscal conservatives” showed up to “protest government spending”.

As proven when the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled in Paradise Square in Bagdad, the positioning of the camera taking the picture can veil the truth about the actual number of people in attendance at any event.

However, MSNBC is not likely to give the sort of crowd that showed up yesterday in Washington an inch more credit than it deserves. Several camera shots reinforced the numbers of people claimed to be in attendance by MSNBC and other news outlets. There are a lot of people in the US who may not like what Barack Obama has proposed for the nation during his 8 ½ months as president. More importantly, however, since what Obama has proposed has mostly been for the benefit of the kind of people who are in the financial class as most of those attending yesterday’s rally, it should be difficult to understand why in such a short time so many would express such deep rooted hate of Obama’s policies so early into his administration.

An email made its way around cyberspace earlier this summer. It was a copy of a letter which was supposedly written by an executive of The Proctor & Gamble corporation. As you will see, the letter doesn’t deal much with policy, but it is, nonetheless, a letter attacking President Barack Obama. It is also an insight into what drove so many people to Washington DC on September 12, 2008.

The letter is an example of the kind of unsubstantiated trash that those who are for the most part uninformed send out. Those who originally sent the letter out felt that everyone should read it and find out the “truth” about our president.

I partially agree with these people. I believe all should get a chance to read the letter, not to find out the “truth” about our president, but to find out the truth about those who write such letters and those who showed up yesterday in Washington DC.

Well known writer/author Ron Suskind wrote an article for The New York Times in October of 2004. The title of the article is “Without A Doubt”. The article dealt with the then potential consequences of the results of the 2004 presidential election. The following is an excerpt from Suskind’s article:

"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

"The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

It seems clear that the letter writer, as well as those who “marched on Washington yesterday, may still believe in the practice of trying to create reality. The letter, after all, is extremely creative.

I read this ugly, lie riddled letter and I felt obligated to point out some of the fantasies.

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
Senator Barack Hussein Obama truly began running for the presidency of The United States after delivering an enlightened, powerful and revealing keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Party convention.

Obama used the first 314 words of that speech to briefly introduce himself, his background, his family and their backgrounds.

He spoke of his father, his mother, his grandmother and spoke with extreme pride about his grandfather who signed up for duty after Pearl Harbor and “marched across Europe” as part of George S. Patton’s army.

It would have taken mere moments of attentive listening to begin to learn about Barack Obama on the evening of July 24, 2004.

I googled “Obama biography” and it returned 4,670,000 hits. If one doesn’t know anything about Barack Obama, it can only be because one doesn’t want to know anything about Barack Obama.You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
I began to read some of the multitudinous biographies in an attempt to find out just how President Obama paid for his expensive Ivy League education and the letter writer is correct, there isn’t an awful lot about how he made those payments.

Then it dawned on me. I began to read biographies of several presidents and their methods of payment for post secondary education aren’t exactly crystal clear either. The question, then, becomes, “Why does it bother the letter writer so much because he can’t find ledgers documenting this particular president’s college payment schedules?”

I did get the following quote from one of the many, many, many biographies:

“With a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. He was raised with help from his grandfather, who served in Patton's army, and his grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management at a bank.

“After working his way through college with the help of scholarships and student loans, President Obama moved to Chicago, where he worked with a group of churches to help rebuild communities devastated by the closure of local steel plants.”

This is more than one would find about many presidents.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
Are those who live in parts of our nation called “Little Italy” or “Chinatown” culturally American? I submit that the letter writer would answer, “No.”

It’s difficult to pin down who is and who is not culturally American in the United States, a truly multicultural nation.

After his birth in the US state of Hawaii in 1961, no matter where he resided, Barack Obama remained the son of an American woman and the grandson of another American woman and, as mentioned, a member of The Greatest Generation.

There were presidents who knew only of foreign lands through what they may have read and been told.

This was completely understandable in the 19th century. However, for an American president to not have traveled abroad before being selected president in 2000 is inexcusable and, considering the wherewithal of the man of whom I speak, is lazy and apathetic.

On the other hand, Barack Obama learned first-hand of cultures that were far from American and the richness of that hands-on education has and will continue to serve him well during his presidency. Considering the cultures with which the US has recently been at odds, it is to our benefit that our president knows those cultures intimately so he can avoid looking at them through purely hubristic, jingoistic eyes. He is intelligent enough to avoid arrogantly calling any conflict involving these cultures a “crusade” and flaming the fires that much more.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
Does the letter writer know how may presidents have run a company and met a payroll? I didn’t think so. This and the next point of “fear” are just “close your eyes and throw the dart” types of irrelevant and/or hypocritical nonsense.You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

More hypocritical nonsense. It takes less than two hands to count how many people in the previous administration, an administration who sent over 4500 American soldiers to their deaths, had any military experience.

The same goes for the administration prior to that one.

So, I guess, “C’mon, who are you trying to kid?” is an appropriate response for this “fear”.You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

“Always blaming others.”

“Always” is quite often. I can name times when Obama has said “my bad”. And blaming others makes him different than most other politicians – how?

If he’s ever blamed others, is it possible that it might be that others are to blame?

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
Here’s a place when all that can be said is, “The truth is that Barack Obama has not aligned himself with radical extremists who hate America for half of his life – pure and simple.” I guess that makes the above statement a lie, the vomitus bile that extrudes from such toxic places as Fox Fake News and Rush Limbaugh’s well paid fat mouth. That’s the mouth that’s paid to keep this country as divided and self-flagellating as possible. The people that the letter writer obviously listens to are paid to spread lies, many which I believe they, themselves, know are lies. But, money talks and money means more to some than a United States of America.

Of course, Bill Ayers “are the radical extremists” with whom Obama has “aligned” himself. Yes, at the age of eight, Obama was right there at Ayers’ side.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America ' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
Of course, here the letter writer is referring to the president’s speech in Cairo. The president said:

“More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”

To be fair, it would be the onus of the letter writer to disprove that the US has, indeed, colonized the Middle East, with the help of its unscrupulous leaders. It has done so to the point where we in the US extract and use more Middle East oil than do the people who live atop of that oil.

So, on the one hand, we have one president who calls it as it is and, on the other hand, a former president who chose to insult the people of the region by exclaiming that ours is a “crusade” against the people of the region. Those people and their ancestors know the horrors hidden behind the word “crusade” all too well. You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
The United States has a Constitution and, although I pride myself on getting to know the Constitution better and better as time goes on, I had to, yet, read it again to try to find where it states that the private sector should “dominate” the social discourse in our country.

For sure the private sector has a major role to play in the US, especially in the area of commerce.

However, it is not the place of the private sector to declare war or to make laws which “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to (the American people) and (their) posterity”. That is and always has been and always will be the job of government.

If the writer is saying that, despite what The Constitution says and in total defiance of The Constitution, the private sector, through its illegal lobbying and payoffs of members of Congress, actually make these decisions that should be made by the government, then I’d have to agree. This is an unfortunately widely accepted illegal practice that anyone who claims to be “patriotic” should be working very hard to stop.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
The letter writer, as all who oppose government involvement in distributing and assuring health care for all Americans, should not fear government control. They should be embarrassed and ashamed that The United States of America is the only industrialized nation in the world who sees health care as a privilege, not a right.

It never ceases to amaze me that people will campaign against their own best interests.

No one wants to do away with Medicare or the VA, two “socialized medicine” systems which are managed efficiently and effectively by the government. I don’t hear members of Congress wanting to do away with their health care plan; another government provided, paid for and administered system.

We trust government when it comes to making life and death decisions under the most catastrophic of circumstances, war. However, suddenly government isn’t up to the task of implementing and overseeing health care delivery. The double standard is palpable and the hypocrisy in ubiquitous.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
Let’s look at the earth as a closed system, sort of like a space ship. The resources inside a space ship are finite. So are the resources inside the space ship earth. Eventually the resources on this space ship will run out. Isn’t finding a method of creating the energy we need from that which will not “run out” the intelligent thing to do?

I also wonder if the letter writer actually realizes what kinds of things happen when we mine the types of carbon based energy sources about which he speaks.

Is humanity the only life form upon the earth? Of course not.

Is it humanity’s right to extinguish other life forms so that humanity can continue to live the unsustainable life style to which it’s accustomed?

If you answer, “Yes”, I strongly suggest you research the word “ecosystem”. The basic meaning of the word “ecosystem” says that humanity will reap what it sows. What we destroy while mining oil, coal and shale reserves are parts of the ecosystem that we need. Indeed, it is far, far more important that we keep the ecosystem intact than it is for us to mine oil, coal and shale reserves.

Humanity needs to use the intelligence that has evolved with it to discover and/or create new sources that can give us close to what we are used to without using finite resources and damaging ecosystems.

The letter writer not only insults human intelligence and resourcefulness, but displays a total disregard for all other life forms on earth. More seriously, he shows his ignorance of the necessity of a balanced ecosystem.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
According to the UN, the five countries with the highest standard of living are Iceland, Norway, Canada, Australia and Ireland. The US ranks 15th. This makes the premise of the above “fear” a lie on its face.

In a speech he made on July 17, President Obama said,

“I've always been a strong believer in the power of the free market. It has been and will remain the engine of America's progress -- the source of prosperity that's unrivaled in history. I believe that jobs are best created not by government, but by businesses and entrepreneurs who are willing to take a risk on a good idea. I believe that our role is not to disparage wealth, but to expand its reach; not to stifle the market, but to strengthen its ability to unleash the creativity and innovation that still make this nation the envy of the world.

“That's our goal -- to restore markets in which we reward hard work and responsibility and innovation, not recklessness and greed; in which honest, vigorous competition is the system -- in the system is prized, and those who game the system are thwarted.”

What the letter writer doesn’t speak about is the “recklessness and greed” which has been the true assailant of American capitalism.

Unfortunately, the derivatives market was based upon reality and involved peoples’ mortgages, savings and retirement accounts. As with all gambling, the house won most of the hands and the sources upon which these high stakes gamblers bet, lost and shared their losses, thus creating the untenable and immoral economic downturn which began in 2006, were mostly so called subprime mortgages. This disaster was inherited by President Obama’s administration.

Warren Buffet, the wealthiest person in the entire world, reached that position not by leading a Socialist revolution, but by using the tools of capitalism. In Buffet’s case, the tools were honest, indeed, legal economic tools.

Thus, Buffet’s 2002 exposure of the greed that was taking hold inside American corporations, especially financial institutions, and his prediction of economic catastrophe, should have been heeded, but was not. This greed manifested itself through derivatives, instruments more risky and less certain than those used by t-shirted men with unshaven faces who show up at the horse track or the casino day in and day out.

The following is a summation of what Buffet, who even the letter writer has to admit should know something about economics, had to say in 2002, six years before Barack Obama was elected president of The United States:

“I view derivatives as time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system. Basically these instruments call for money to change hands at some future date, with the amount to be determined by one or more reference items, such as interest rates, stock prices, or currency values.

“… before a contract is settled, the counter parties record profits and losses – often huge in amount – in their current earnings statements without so much as a penny changing hands. Reported earnings on derivatives are often wildly overstated. That’s because today’s earnings are in a significant way based on estimates whose inaccuracy may not be exposed for many years.

“…the parties to derivatives… have enormous incentives to cheat in accounting for them. …often there is no real market…. This substitution can bring on large-scale mischief. In extreme cases, mark-to-model degenerates into what I would call mark-to-myth.

“Almost invariably, they (derivatives) have favored either the trader who was eyeing a multi-million dollar bonus or the CEO who wanted to report impressive “earnings” (or both). The bonuses were paid, and the CEO profited from his options. Only much later did shareholders learn that the reported earnings were a
sham.

“Another problem about derivatives is that they can exacerbate trouble that a corporation has run into for completely unrelated reasons. …It all becomes a spiral that can lead to a corporate meltdown.

“Derivatives also create a daisy-chain risk that is akin to the risk run by insurers or reinsurers that lay off much of their business with others. In both cases, huge receivables from many counter-parties tend to build up over time. A participant may see himself as prudent, believing his large credit exposures to be diversified and therefore not dangerous. However under certain circumstances, an exogenous event that causes the receivable from Company A to go bad will also affect those from Companies B through Z.

“In banking, the recognition of a “linkage” problem was one of the reasons for the formation of the Federal Reserve System. Before the Fed was established, the failure of weak banks would sometimes put sudden and unanticipated liquidity demands on previously-strong banks, causing them to fail in turn. The Fed now insulates the strong from the troubles of the weak. But there is no central bank assigned to the job of preventing the dominoes toppling in insurance or derivatives. In these industries, firms that are fundamentally solid can become troubled simply because of the travails of other firms further down the chain.”

How prolific was this risky trading of derivatives? The worth of the derivatives now out, the bets that have been made against such resources as mortgages, is now $1.4 quadrillion. That’s right, quadrillion dollars. The GDP of the entire planet is $45 trillion. There are more derivative “bets” out right now than there is money to pay them off, should they come due. Exactly how is Barack Obama to blame for this madness which began in 2006?

As you can see, President Obama has not killed any goose, capitalist or otherwise.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
As you can plainly see from the previous response, those who hold banks and corporations hostage are the CEOs and top executives of those banks and corporations.

In 1980, the median pay for CEOs of multinational corporations was 42 times that of the workers who made those companies tick, who actually produced the wealth.

Today, that number is 344. The median income for CEOs of multinational corporations is 344 times that of the people who actually create the wealth.

What is patriotism? Is it patriotic for the CEO of an American based corporation to ensure the unemployment of American workers while they rake in millions and millions of dollars? As of late, much of this compensation is in response to a job well failed. CEOs do something that they are trying like hell to stop their workers from being able to do. They sign contracts before they begin working for a company. Not only do these contracts ensure them an obscene salary while they are employed. These contracts ensure that the CEOs receive severance packages when they leave the company which are worth more than the front line worker will ever earn in her or his entire career. These are the same CEOs and top executives who throw American workers out into the streets in favor of slave labor found in Asia, Mexico, Central and South America. These CEOs receive these obscene severance packages whether they retire or are fired. It doesn’t matter if they’ve failed. Even if they’ve failed, they take an enormous amount of money with them when they leave the company. That’s money that could be paid to front line workers who, in turn, would spend it, consequently strengthening the economy.

Who are the extortionists, indeed?

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
Democrats support Democratic presidents and Republicans support Republican presidents. However, no party has supported a president in such tight lock step as did the Republicans of the 108th and 109th Congresses. They supported a president who spent money he didn’t have to wage war with a country who did nothing to The United States of America. They, and Democrats as well, supported the president and his illegal war that took the country from a $128 billion budget surplus to a $496 billion deficit. Now that’s a congress that shrinks from its responsibility.You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

Barack Obama is well versed in communications technology and is using it to encourage and accept interactive, two way communication with the American people. One tool he’s using is what is called The Open Government Blog. Never in the history of the United States of America has a president been so open with the American people. Granted, he has more technology on his side than most previous presidents. However, the Clinton and the Bush administrations could also have used the very same technology to open the debate and the discussion, but chose not to do so.

It is apparent that intelligent people are just the people with whom President Obama wishes to interact. This may be the reason the letter writer isn’t aware of the president’s Open Government Blog.

Additionally, do we know of any other president in modern history who would have invited the two parties involved in a local police matter to The White House for a beer to talk the situation through? No, we don’t.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
Ah, and the truth begins to ooze out! The letter writer is presuming to know what Barack Obama believes about himself. Where does the letter writer get this inside, very inside, information?

We can only learn what people believe about themselves if those people choose to tell us what they believe about themselves.

I’ve heard Barack Obama say that he has enough confidence in himself to be president of the United States. George W. Bush, John Kerry, Bill Clinton…on down to Theodore Roosevelt; each person has told his contemporaries that he believes he can be president. Expressing and sharing that belief is necessary if one wishes to run for the presidency. It’s anything but arrogant.

I’ve come to the conclusion that the letter writer hasn’t heard President Obama say much. I honestly believe that I’ve heard more of what the president has said than the letter writer has heard and I’ve never heard President Barack Obama say the he believes he is omnipotent and omniscient. Furthermore, I know that President Obama is far too intelligent to believe that about himself or about any other human being.

The letter writer has begun projecting and the truth begins to come to the surface.You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
The media gives a president a free pass when it does not question a president who uses resources that should be used to capture those who took down The Twin Towers on September 11, 2001 to invade a nation who had nothing at all to do with that event.

The media gives a president a free pass when it knows of a British cabinet meeting held on Downing Street in which it becomes clear that President Bush intended to invade Iraq, whether or not it possessed so called weapons of mass destruction. What mainstream media outfit ran with this?

Bush lied to Congress and to the American people when he said that Saddam Hussein had 48 hours to leave Iraq or face an American invasion. According to the notes taken during the July 23, 2002 Downing Street Cabinet meeting, The American Regime was going to invade Iraq no matter what the outcome of the UN vote was and no matter if Saddam Hussein stepped down or not.

This lie was not as large and as important as the lie that forced Nixon out of office. The Regime’s lie was much, much bigger than Nixon’s lie and much, much more important and involved putting American troops in harm’s way for absolutely no good reason. Where were investigative reporters like Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward? This should have brought The Regime down and brought it down quickly.

That’s a shameful pass given to a murderous regime by a compliant press.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
First of all, we should all be thankful that there aren’t “Limbaughs”, “Hannitys”, “O’Reillys” or “Becks”. We should be thankful that there is only one of each of these people.

Secondly, the letter writer shouldn’t fear any attempt he believes the president is making to silence the above mentioned people because, if there is such a plan, it’s unfortunately not working.

The people mentioned above are paid handsomely to keep Americans divided and to keep the flames of hate and discontent burning.

I said that people can’t know what others believe. However, I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that one, some or maybe all of the people mentioned above and those that spew anti-American venom on the Fox Fake New Network may not believe what they shout. Some of the people do, indeed, seem intelligent and, if that’s the case, they know very well that what they do is build obstacles to a truly United States of America. They are paid handsomely to do this.

They are as successful as they are because, judging from the kind of trash contained in this so called letter and judging from what I’ve heard their followers say, their followers listen to them, watch Fox Fake News and are loathe to do any research on their own. Keeping a loyal following is easy if one’s followers take what one says as the gospel truth and don’t check the facts.

My sense is that the followers of Fox Fake News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck unfortunately get all of their information from these people and do no investigation on their own.

As far as the president’s trying to silence these people, I have to, again, point to the Open Government Blog. Anyone, even those mentioned above, can add to the blog.

However, these people don’t want to add to an open and honest discussion of issues. These people, like the letter writer, want simply to shout at the moon and anger those who are too lazy to read.

I challenge anyone who believes the lies to begin to become an independent student of current events and of history. Do your own reading and researching.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
The problem is there hasn’t been any governing for at least the past eight years.

In fact, an important advisor to the previous Republican administration made the following statement:

“I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

Remember derivatives – the wealthiest people in the world have more worth tied up in derivatives than there is worth in the world. People like this need to be at least regulated, if not, indeed, controlled.

An American government who cares about all of its people, not just the wealthy, will regulate those who, for some reason, believe they have an unfettered right to all of the wealth in the world.

Read the polls. Look at the results of the last election.

Americans want America to ensure that their children receive a good education.

Americans want America to ensure that all Americans have access to needed health care.

Americans want America to keep its citizens safe.

Americans don’t want America to spread what it thinks would be an appropriate form of governance to other nations by bombing those nations into submission.

Under President Obama, there is, once again, a democratically elected American government which is trying to bring back the conditions that created the great American middle class.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
President Obama did not produce The Patriot Act, a shameful piece of legislation, approved by members of Congress with both Rs and Ds after their names. Those who voted for this intrusive, invasive and illegal “law” should have been removed from office and not been allowed to hold any public office in The United States. That’s the kind of legislation that should make the letter writer “scared” and not feel safe to write what he thinks.

However, this letter writer didn’t write this letter out of a concern for America and Americans. I submit that the letter writer is probably repulsed by more than half of the American people. I say this because more than half of the American people are not Caucasian.

This letter, like yesterday’s “march on Washington, was created out of hatred and racial intolerance.

Remember “America, love it or leave it?” It’s what I was told so many times when I thought that the government of this country was engaged in wars it should not have been fighting. I was told that to disagree with “your president” or “your government” was unpatriotic.

I will not use the same line for those who believe that this letter contains anything substantive and should be sent out to everyone so everyone can see what President Barack Obama is “really all about.” I will not say to them, “America, love it or leave it.”

However, if the reason they find this letter so “awesome” and are passing it around, hoping to create hate toward our president; if the reason tens of thousands of them rallied in Washington DC yesterday, carrying hateful posters which depicted President Obama as Hitler, Stalin or in any other disrespectful manner is that they are racists, then they should just say so. They need to cease attacking the character of the President of the United States of America by pointing to anything that resembles policy. The fact is they don’t care about President Obama’s policies. They need to admit that. They’re ignorant, intolerant racists and I will say that there is no longer any room for them and their racism in The United States of America.

There is no need for them and their racism in The United States of America.

In fact, I submit that most of us, the vast majority of Americans, actually desire that they exit our country and take their racism with them.

To friendship,
Michael

“It's not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting.” - Tom Stoppard

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
“Your Magazine”

Message to a Racist

2009-09-13T19:15:00.000-07:00

(originally published at OpEdNews)

OK, let’s get real. There are several reasons why it’s so easy to talk people into opposing something that could be for their own good. In the case of health care reform, the biggest reason is racism. And this time around it’s a twofer.

First, you oppose health care because it’s being proposed by an American racist’s worse nightmare, a Black president. That’s right, Barack Obama has saved you from having to blame the potential beneficiaries of health care reform.

When others like President Clinton have proposed reform, you had to be a bit more open. To paraphrase something I heard with my own ears, “I don’t want to pay for health care for Leroy or José.”

Take note, Sparky. How many dead bodies have you had to drive over or step over today? None, you say. If you’d like, I can explain that to you.

We’ve not yet gotten to the point of outright denying health care to people just because they can’t pay for it. Poor people with black skin, brown skin and, yes, even white skin ultimately receive medical treatment. Granted, they get it by going to hospital emergency rooms and they get it when their condition is so bad that the care they need winds up costing more than it would have cost if they had insurance or the wherewithal to go to a doctor earlier.

No we haven’t yet begun to just let people die out on the street. I’m thinking you actually know who pays for the care of those poor people who have no insurance and end up going to hospital emergency rooms. In case you don’t, I’ll tell you who pays. I do and so do you. So, want to or not, you’re paying for Leroy and José and even some White guy named, let’s say, Bubba.

If that’s not enough to get you to stop shooting yourself in the foot, consider this.

I’m assuming that you have health care insurance. I think this because, if nothing else, you’re selfish. You may have to hold your nose, but, if you didn’t have health care insurance and there was a way for you to get it, even if it’s on someone else’s dime, you’d be for it.

You pay premiums no doubt. Do you know all of the people in your health insurance network? Are you one of those manly men or manly women who never get sick? It’s just that you wouldn’t be crazy enough to be without health insurance because you know that you just might need medical care one day. Besides, your employer still kicks in a little something, for now.

I’m going out on a limb here, but I suppose that you’re not a big believer in mental health treatment. I’m going to assume that you don’t believe that mental illness is caused by anything biological or physiological. You probably think that people who claim to have or who have been diagnosed with depression, panic/anxiety disorder or obsessive/compulsive disorder are pussies and are just hiding behind those phony words.

Here’s a shocker for you. Not all Leroys, Josés or even Bubbas are lazy bums who don’t have jobs. Some work and some are even in your health insurance network. It gets better.

The fact that you don’t think that mental illness is a biologically based disease doesn’t prevent mental illness from actually being a biologically based disease. Your insurance company knows this and covers mental illness treatment. It covers it for a person whose name is John, Bubba, Leroy or José. That’s right, my racist fellow American, you may be paying for someone you disdain because of how he looks to receive treatment for an illness you don’t “believe in”. Furthermore, instead of paying for it with a small tax donation, you’re doing it with your outrageous insurance premium.

This is fun, you know? And I’m not even finished yet.

I haven’t checked, but I would be willing to bet that not one CEO of a major health insurance company is Black or Hispanic. However, I worked for a Fortune 500 global corporation and, even though I’m not proud of that fact, I was able to watch as that corporation was promoting people with dark skin to major positions. In spite of what you believe, once they get there, they are legitimately there, just as our president is legitimately our president.

So, Mr. White, you could be paying for dark skinned people to receive emergency room treatment with your taxes, dark skinned people to receive treatment that you don’t even believe is needed with your premiums and possibly a $1, $2 or $3 million dollar or more salary for a dark skinned executive who works for your private sector insurance company.

Hold on, I have one more.

If you are beating yourself up by turning your back on the chance to maintain health insurance whether you keep or lose your job, I’m going to posit that you supported your president when he invaded Iraq. You no doubt had a love/hate relationship with 9/11. Even you, like the rest of us, were angered and, dare I say, saddened by what happened on 9/11. However, you might have liked it just a little bit because it gave you the opportunity to use the pejorative “towel head”. 9/11 even helped you learn a new one, “haji”.

You don’t want your tax dollars paying for health care for Leroy or José, but you don’t mind paying for bombs, at least you didn’t mind and I’m betting, even if you turned on Iraq, your support was good to the last drop. After all, it enabled you to call people like me traitors and unpatriotic. You just love calling people names, don’t you? I used to do it, too, when I was in first grade. Well, I admit, referring to you as a racist is a bit cathartic for me, but I only do it because you are one.

What’s a bomb? What’s that precious tax dollar paying for?

The government gives a private contractor lots of money, some of it yours, to take some steel, mold it, possibly fill it with something volatile and then load it onto a plane. The plane then flies over some “target” in Iraq or now, maybe, Afghanistan, and drops that molded metal or propels it into a building. What happens to your tax dollar then? It breaks into billions of little pieces, never to be of any use ever again. Bye, bye tax dollar.

Of course, you’ll justify it if there are 100 members of The Taliban inside the building and they’re all burnt to a crisp. You won’t entertain the possibility that your tax dollar collaterally burnt 100 Afghan children to a crisp because that might even bother you.

Well, that’s it, I guess. Continue to shill for your HMO protectors, even though they won’t protect you if you should lose your job. And continue to pay for what you think you’re avoiding. I see no good reason for you to start thinking logically now.

To friendship,
Michael

“In journalism, there has always been a tension between getting it first and getting it right”. - Ellen Goodman

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
“A Sad Song”

And Then There Was This Two Year Old

2009-04-20T15:34:00.000-07:00

(originally published by OpEdNews)

You may have been asking yourself, “Hey, where’s that guy who wrote those outstanding articles about letters written to the editor?” nutritious

Well, I don’t know where that guy is, but you may remember I wrote some columns which were inspired by letters to the editor as well. I stopped doing that, at least for a while. Maybe for good, who knows?

One of the reasons I’ve stopped writing those particular columns was that far too many of the letters to which I responded were written by people who were exercising their first amendment right to exhibit the courage to write about subjects without the safety net of factual information. I found myself lately defending President Barack Obama. The issues that the people were choosing to write about dealt mostly with the economy. The letter writers were accusing Obama and the Democratic Party of attempting to create a Socialist nightmare within the borders of The United States, as well as Hawaii and Alaska. I felt it necessary to remind people that even a Libertarian government which federalized a miniscule armed force would be practicing socialism. A lot of the benefits of living in the US are the results of socialist systems.

A lot of the real estate upon which tax hating, tea bagging racists held their “passionate”, “grass roots” protests were state or federal parks paid for with taxes. It would have been neat if Obama showed up at one of those so called rallies and said, “All of you tax haters, get off the grass.”

There was the letter writer who wrote that Obama was pushing that rotten Stimulus Package, meant to help the economy “unBush” by giving the states money to pump into their education programs, fix godawful roads and other infrastructure. He wrote that Obama’s methodology of getting this legislation passed was a “my way or the highway” approach.

I don’t think I reminded the writer of anything because I don’t believe the writer has ever heard of OpEdNews or even Common Dreams or maybe even MSNBC. Besides, who has time to read or watch that propaganda when you know exactly where to go to get a “fair and balanced” news report? However, I did respond by reminiscing about Bush’s Iraq War, preemptively started to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction punish Iraq for its part in 9/11 as proven by the infamous yet mythical meeting in Prague free the Iraqi people from the torture of Saddam Hussein and give them some variety by introducing them to our own brand of torture knit some democracy for the Iraqi people. I reminisced about The Front Man’s diplomatic “You’re either with us or against us” message to our “allies”.

Of course what makes the Stimulus Package so disgusting is the fact that it’s going to strap future generations with taxes needed to pay for it. The invasion of Iraq? That’s going to strap them as well, as the money for most of that worthwhile war was extracted from The Department of No Fucking Thing.

The final letter I’ll mention is one written by a woman who was certain Obama was not going to close Gitmo, that he made that promise just to get elected and that he was either a liar or too stupid to realize that closing Gitmo would not be a piece of cake. The letter was published on the day on which Obama signed the order that would have Gitmo closed within a year. I hope that this fortune teller, aka, Obama hater, doesn’t dabble in the horses or hounds. It appears that she may possess a propensity for guessing wrong.

As mentioned, I defended Obama in some of my responses. However, I was frustrated with the shallowness and even the poorly veiled racism that propelled these writers to write first and check facts – never! Maybe, just maybe, as I was “giving Obama his chance to prove to me that he was really sincere and was not just another one of them, I was arguing against poorly researched and emotional letters written by people that are just pissed that Senator White from Indiana or Congressman White from Georgia, all white and shiny and phony to the most casual of observers aren’t in the White House instead of a Mulatto who definitely fits the description of an African American and even likes basketball. When he speaks, he sometimes lets loose some of that “Black” accent, that homey speak which just proves his inferiority to those who protested with tea bags and Jim Crow sentiments.

I repeat that, however marveled I was that a Black man was elected President of the United States of America by a significant margin, I did listen to his foreign policy plans and I did note that he voted to give a pass to communications corporations that worked with The Regime in its attempt to secretly spy on anyone, American citizen or not, and made sport of some of the more “humorous” dialogues between two parties who they knew were not in any way, shape or form connected with terrorism of any kind.

You may believe that Middle Easterners hijacked planes on 9/11 as well as where that story goes. I submit if you believe that, you believe it because the tin foil hat conspiracy theorists are obviously wrong and you probably aren’t going to “waste your time” researching any of the facts that, basically, make a fool of you for believing the government sponsored fairy tale. I submit you haven’t read nearly enough if you disagree with any of the arguments which demand a real investigation into what happened on 9/11 to, first and foremost, decide “who done it”. If you’ve done any research, you wouldn’t be fair to deny that there was any reason to begin a real investigation starting from that point.

However, let’s say, just for giggles and whatever else, that the government sponsored attempt to outdo Grimm’s Fairy Tales is honest injun true. We all know what happened.

At first we were told that Al Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, was responsible for what happened on that day. If I remember correctly, at one of the more sober “vigils” in response to this attack, a New York firefighter or policeman, one or the other, walked out on stage, dropped drawer and honored us with a look at his crack while he yelled, “You can kiss my white Irish ass, Osama bin Laden.”

I can’t help but believe that this man and his white Irish ass were on the front line cheering when The Regime decided to send troops into Iraq, a move having nothing to do with bin Laden’s desire or ability to kiss any white Irish ass. There was yet another American surge of blind hate toward an ethnic group about which most Americans knew/know little if anything. This placed The Front Man high in his diamond studded saddle as he rode into the sunset to invade Iraq for what Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other non-Iraqi related entities did on 9/11/01. Clear, lucid thought was not part of the process in this “hate anyone who might be mistaken for an Arab” fest.

If Osama bin Laden coordinated what happened on 9/11 from Afghanistan and we had reason to capture or kill him, most preferably capture him to get him to talk, we should have sent some of our sharp shooting, never missing, super duper Navy Seals, Marine Green Berets, Army Rangers, Delta Force or The Air Force Commandos to flush out Osama bin Laden quicker than one can say “Allah is great.” We could have even sent the CIA covert Special Commandos to track down the overpowering desert rat and cave dweller, capture him and bring him to face trial for the crime he supposedly “blessed”.

I don’t know for sure, but when I hear three Navy Seals knocked off three pirates with three bullets, I can’t help but think that these special operations units could have tracked down and captured bin Laden by now with one hand tied behind their backs.

But, no, he and his magic troop of mountain climbers seem to be too much for our super duper shooters and trackers and covert James Bonds.

Why go after the guy who did it, if that’s what you insist on believing without bothering to read that “other crap” which you know has no merit? No. Listen to the Front Man tell you it was bin Laden and then hang Saddam Hussein. And, most importantly of all, no matter what the facts may prove, stick your fingers in your ears and say, “Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, I can’t hear what you’re saying, nah, nah, nah, nah” like big boys and girls.

I really didn’t want to write quite so much of what’s already been written by people who’ve poured hour upon hour over all the evidence from all angles.

I did want to write that Obama has finally proved that he is the new Front Man.

“See these? These are memos that prove The Regime tortured in violation of domestic and international law. But we must move forward so that it never happens again. If we release these memos, it’ll teach some future Regime that it better never commit war crimes or maybe the next administration will publicize those war crimes. Of course, they’ll also want to look forward.”

“OK, your honor, sure my client murdered his wife. But will prosecuting him bring her back. Of course not. She’s gone, your honor and I promise that my client won’t do it again, especially now that everyone knows. Wallowing in the past won’t bring her back. Looking to a future where no other wife will ever be murdered again is what we have to do.”

“Oh, you’re so right. You’re so forgiving in a Christian sort of way and, as we are a Christian nation, your client is released pending the promise that he will not kill another wife and, as far as he’s concerned, no man will kill another wife for fear that the murder may be revealed in a court of law.”

We invaded Iraq. It was wrong. We never captured bin Laden because, let’s face it, our lame special ops forces on whom we waste so much taxpayer money are just not up to the task. Mark that down, another tea party aimed at wasting the taxpayer money on special ops groups who can’t capture one man because they just don’t have that kind of talent.

Obama’s as much as admitted it, right? He’s not sending any special ops forces to Afghanistan to capture bin Laden. Like The Regime, he’s sending thousands of troops to build a Kabul Disneyworld. And when the first of his troops dies, he’ll make a speech, like the Front Man before him, saying, “Oh yeah, well it hurts my feelings, too, ya know. I almost started crying last night. But we must continue the effort so that Al Qaeda and The Taliban have no place to go and practice. If we make Afghanistan a democracy in our own image, where will The Taliban go and practice? Afghanistan is its last refuge. Turn Afghanistan into a democracy with a Starbuck’s on every corner and that’s it for The Taliban. Where else in the world could they go to practice being bad guys? We will have stopped them. It’s a small world after all.”

Politicians have to spend upwards of $70 million dollars to buy the presidency. That’s the way Americans like it. They like two years of stupid, brainless political commercials which talk about everything but the issues. $70 million to run for president. Is the most qualified person to be a really effective president residing here in the US? My guess is absolutely. Will he or she come up with the $70 million dollars to make a run at it? Probably not. However, if he or she does come up with it, he or she will have ceased to be the most qualified candidate. It’s just the nature of the game.I saw my two and a half year old granddaughter today. I hadn’t seen her in a over a year. My she’s gotten big. I couldn’t wipe the smile from my face or the joy from my heart. She may be taxed to kingdom come when she’s older in order to pay for what was done well before she even knew what a tax is.

Right now, today, I saw her and, believe me, she’s just beautiful. I love her. And that’s life! The rest of the stuff I wrote about above should be land-filled, along with the thespians who make their dirty money perpetuating the hate between right, left, red, blue, green. It’s their living. Keep this half of America hating the other half and the money will continue to flow into your pockets.

Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, Bill O’Reilly, Thom Hartmann, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, all of you. Your paymaster is hate and as long as he’s alive, you’ll do well for yourselves.

Even Thom Hartmann who is maybe the most knowledgeable of all who own voodoo dolls does nothing with his impressive repetition of history short of validating that hateful division between one half of human kind and the other half. This keeps vegetables on the tables of people who make a living of exploiting the division.

Meanwhile, I’ve got a beautiful little girl to spend a week with. Keep up the good fight, no matter what side you’re on. It’s good for you and your bank accounts.

Oh, by the way, Sean, Thom, Keith, Ed, Glenn, Rachel, if you truly attempted a small degree of introspection, something that I’m sure scares the bejesus out of each and every one of you, you’d realize that, as much as Americans hate one another, your insistence upon broadcasting that hate does nothing but grow it. You won’t look within yourselves. After all, promotion into a higher tax bracket is your goal and that introspection would just ruin the whole thing.

“To friendship,
Michael

“When we got into office, the thing that surprised me the most was that things were as bad as we'd been saying they were.” - John F. Kennedy

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Peace Is Possible

Democrats Can't Even Win Successfully

2009-03-16T15:11:00.000-07:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published by OpEdNews)

A man writes to the Lincoln, Nebraska based newspaper The Journal Star that “comprehensive health care reform” is the next important legislation on which the Obama Administration should concentrate.

He says that “Government, businesses and families can’t keep up with the burdens this broken (healthcare) system places on them.”

He makes the insightful argument that “many of the thousands of layoffs in America can be directly traced to businesses’ inability to cover insurance costs” and that “our working families and their children deserve a system of health care that guarantees quality, affordable health care for everyone.”

Unfortunately for this gentleman and many of us who share his position, considering the 55-43 majority the Republicans hold in the Senate, there’s not much of a chance that President Obama’s $3 trillion budget which contains what Politico calls Obama’s $634 million “head start” toward single payer health insurance will pass.

If you’re at all confused about the numbers mentioned above, the 55-43 numbers not the $634 million number, it’s understandable. However, there is a logical explanation.

To review, not only did Democrat Barack Obama win the presidency in 2008 by a 7.2% margin of victory, but the Democrats won 25 seats in the House, bringing their total to a whopping 257. Everyone, including yours truly, thought that the Democrats won at least 7 senate seats in the 2008 elections as well. This would have raised the total of Democrats or Democratic leaning senators from 51 to 58. We can only assume that the state of Minnesota and/or the national Democratic Party are ultimately going to allow Al Franken into the more aristocratic and dignified division of congress. One, including yours truly, should be awestruck with the insurmountable 59-41 majority.

But, no, it will no more be an insurmountable 59-41 majority when Franken is finally seated than it is presently a 58-41 majority. No. In the name of “checks and balances”, a name which frightened Democrats dared not utter while The Regime was in power, 14 Democratic Senators have decided to keep the Democratic Obama Administration in check.

Lead by Democratic Senator Bob Nelson of Nebraska, the very state in which the author of the above mentioned epistle resides, the group of 14 have, for all intents and purposes, decided to scrutinize President Barack Obama the way that many Democrats and Progressives hoped that they would have scrutinized The George W. Bush Show.

If you remember, adding insult to deadly, heartbreaking misery, especially for Iraqis and American military personnel, Democrats had voted at every turn with The Regime on legislation in favor of throwing more money at Iraq. They gave The Regime this money in addition to helping it pass its enormous defense budget. Democrats and Republicans who kept voting for The Regime’s occasional requests knew that the money did not come from the defense budget.

As South Carolina's Republican Governor, Mark Sanford, points out, “it's not a good idea to spend money that you don't have…”

Sanford wasn’t speaking about the millions of dollars that we didn’t have yet we spent to perpetuate the ill-advised occupation of Iraq. Sanford was speaking about the reason why he plans to turn away South Carolina’s portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money. No matter how horrible the unemployment statistics for his state are, Sanford’s pride stands far above his constituents needs. I guess it’s not like the good ole days when spending money we didn’t have on Iraq was admirable and patriotic. In fact it was considered outright unpatriotic to vote against such spending.

In 2006, Democrats became the majority in the Senate, but only by a slim 51-49 margin. Yet, in November of 2008, they voted to exempt corporate communications giants from any responsibility or complicity in The Regime’s illegal intrusions into anyone’s and everyone’s private, public and, far more often than not, non terrorist-linked life.

They provided a loyal opposition, with the emphasis on the word “loyal”. “Obedient” opposition would have suited them better.

As already mentioned, the results of the 2008 elections would have given the Democrats no excuse to vote with Republicans. The Regime and its scary cast, starring the beadie-eyed Dick Cheney, were no longer in charge and the official numbers almost ensured that Democrats would finally be able to get populist, pro middle class legislation passed, with or without having to listen to minutes, hours or days of Republican filibustering. That is according to the official November, 2008 election results.

I don’t know where I heard the phrase, but I once heard someone express the opinion that Bill Clinton may have been the best Republican president ever.

Now it's possible that someday, someone may be able to say that the best Republican Senate ever was the Senate which was part of the 111th Congress. In fact, Indiana’s Democratic Senator Evan Bayh says, “If we’re going to get 60, we have to have the pragmatists, the moderates in the Senate, in the Democratic caucus working together and reaching out to those on the other side, of like minds…”

Bayh is correct in his premise that there are “moderate Republicans in the senate”. Three of them, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted for President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which allowed the bill to pass. Considering the spending cuts and tax cuts demanded by the “moderate” Republicans, the bill, already called too small by economists, was even further watered down.

The letter writer shares a great many of the concerns of his fellow Americans, the Americans who told Washington, by way of Obama’s overwhelming victory and the seats picked up by Democrats in “The People’s House” that they agree strongly with President Obama’s plan to place the nation on the road to recovery.

It’s obvious that Republicans didn’t get the message and now it’s become obvious that 14 Democrats didn’t get it, either.

Could it be possible that, even though these Capitalist greed heads didn’t listen to their constituents, they actually have heard and heeded a message? Maybe these self-serving lawmakers have understood with even more clarity the message sent to them by The Corporacracy.

I look at the present state of government and my belief that The Corporacracy owns the whole kit and caboodle, including The Executive, is being reinforced. Obama is this close to persuading me that he is, indeed, a “Corporat” (cör-pör-ãt).

I’m worrying that the hopes harbored by our sensible letter writer are too high, as were mine. There aren’t a lot of “Republicans”, including the 14 who just joined their ranks in all but name, who will ever support a single payer health insurance system or any other populist “socialist” system, for that matter. In fact, I don’t think that there are any who will.

To friendship,
Michael

“The perfect bureaucrat everywhere is the man who manages to make no decisions and escape all responsibility.” - Brooks Atkinson

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Flameland

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/some-dissent-among-democrats-on-obama-agenda-you-see-that-as-more-153917/">Some dissent among Democrats on Obama agenda. You see that as more:</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

EFCA – End of the Factory Gods

2009-03-08T21:53:00.000-07:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published at OpEdNews)

A letter writer to The Bismarck Tribune obviously doesn’t think much of HR 800 or The Employee Free Choice Act. He believes that the bill is “oxymoronical” and should be called “The Employee Forced Choice Act”. I decided to give the writer a pass on his over-syllabication because I hadn’t done nearly enough research on this bill.

Consequently, the first thing I did was to actually read the bill, which has to do with the right of employees to form a union. If I waded correctly through the legalese, I’m surprised to find no mention of one of the most contentious debating points used especially by those who oppose it. The controversial point is that this “bill would take away the right to a secret ballot.”

However, the bill does not offer direction on what methodology employees should use to decide whether they do or do not want to organize. In fact, the bill is clear that, if The National Labor Relations Board “finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations”, “the Board shall not direct an election”. The bill doesn’t give the NLRB the power to force any method of determination upon the employees. The workers would be free to choose whether to decide to unionize through sign-up cards or through a secret ballot election.

To make his point, the letter writer uses The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. As many of you know, this legislation has become known as The Stimulus Package or, to some, “The Stim”. He says that, “Legislators admit they haven't even read the whole bill…” and calls this a “disturbing method of government”.

On October 26, 2001, shortly after we were “attacked”, President George W. Bush signed The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, otherwise known as The Patriot Act.

The writer may have gotten his cue from House Republican leader John Boehner. Congressman Boehner stood before the House, Stimulus Package in his hands, and called it “1100 pages that not one member of this body has read.”

He then asked, “What happened to our promise that we were going to let the American people see what’s in this bill for forty-eight hours?”

Finally, acting as if he didn’t realize that he was holding an official legislative proposal upon which Congress was going to vote, he disrespectfully, a manner in which most Republicans have approached their jobs since the election of Barack Obama, dropped the bill on the floor.

Let’s go back to The Patriot Act.

The reason we go back to The Patriot Act is because, in his documentary film, “Fahrenheit 9/11”, Michael Moore exposes the fact that Congress, both houses, passed this “security bill” without the luxury of having read it. If we remember, and how can we forget, this “security bill” ultimately served to trespass upon a wide swath of personal liberties. If we think about Moore’s exposé, we come to the conclusion that both Boehner, an obedient and staunch supporter of The Patriot Act, and the letter writer possess a memory deficiency. The other possibility is that these two men are less than honest when arguing for or against legislation.

Returning to the Employee Free Choice Act, the myth that it takes away an employee’s right to a private ballot isn’t the only problem that our letter writer has. “If you prefer not to be a union employee under EFCA, too bad,” he writes.

After I didn’t find anything in the bill which dictates what method workers are to use to vote for or against unionization, I didn’t find anything in the bill which dictates that, if the majority of workers in a workplace vote to organize, all workers must join the union.

Having said that, the majority wins, winner-take-all society in which we live may influence the outcome of a vote and the consequence of voting to form a union may be that everyone working in that particular workplace will be expected to join. There have been so called “open shops” in the past, but no one knows what any particular workplace will do. The important thing is to remember that, even if the workplace is set up so that all who work in that workplace must join the union, there’s nothing in HR 800 which decrees such an outcome. If the union in a particular workplace demands 100% participation, The Employee Free Choice Act will not be the reason for it. This weakens the writer’s argument, to say the least.

We can look at laws that have been passed by Congress and ask ourselves if most of those laws have been passed for the benefit of society or to the detriment of society. Although there are laws with which many of us don’t agree, it’s my opinion that many members of Congress, sometimes misdirected or acting out of political panic, believe that the laws they pass are for the good of society.

Laws passed by Congress should protect the majority of Americans. At this point, my personal belief is that President Obama believes that his stimulus package will help those Americans that need the help. His naïve notion of getting his desired legislation passed with bipartisan support has impaired his efforts and diluted what he’s done so far. However, I think many of his goals are admirable.

If The Constitution and its amendments have taught us anything, they’ve taught us that laws are made for the benefit of the majority.

Of the 27 amendments which have passed, only two, as far as I can see, have penalized or victimized American citizens. One of those two amendments has been repealed.

The two amendments are the 16th amendment, which introduced the income tax and the 18th amendment which was prohibition.

Prohibition was repealed.

There may be disagreement on a few of the other amendments, but, from where I stand, they appear as though they were passed to preserve, protect and defend the people of The United States just as it’s the job of the government to preserve, protect and defend The Constitution, but it’s The Constitution’s job the preserve, protect and defend Americans.

Further proof that this opinion is still the opinion of a majority is a sampling of some of the amendments that were proposed, but didn’t pass. Among these are:

Considering all of this, on whose part has the EFCA been proposed? Let’s look at some facts which may help answer that question.

The letter writer, who begins to come across as a small business owner more than someone who worries about employees losing rights, may have a point. He states that, if the EFCA is passed, small businesses, I mean really, really small businesses, may be the entities caught in the middle which get nothing from the bill. Small businesses may be hurt if their employees join a union.

He says that, “We do our best to compensate them (employees) with wages and benefits that many others don't offer in our industry.

“If employees were required to have dues deducted from their paychecks and small businesses were forced to pay more for compensation and benefits”, the costs would be passed on to the customers. One wonders, if this person was paying his employees “wages and benefits that many others don't offer in our industry”, why his employees would even consider unionizing.”

Our present economy demonstrates that it really doesn’t matter to many customers what costs are or are not passed on to them. The so called customers are/were also employees and many of the so called customers can’t afford what the letter writer is selling anyway. One reason for this is unions have been blown away by employers, whether large corporations, medium size businesses or even small businesses. Employees have been saying for a long time that “unions have outlived their usefulness” and do nothing but obstruct and impede otherwise successful businesses.

Admittedly, there came a time when unions were at least as demanding and corrupt as management. That was the fault of the rank and file, not the fault of the entity called a union. In my humble opinion, unions could never outlive their usefulness.

The day that all unions are tossed aside by their members will be the day when workers will begin to remember the usefulness of a union. Without the protection of unions, labor will cease to be a resource over which management competes. The idea that unions have outlived their usefulness is a major cause of the “race to the bottom”. The fewer unions that exist, the more confidence employers gain to take liberties with labor. The capitalist operational engine called supply and demand takes hold and, as the supply of workers increases, the demand for them falls off and so does their worth. Employees have no support, no protection. Workers find themselves in the unenviable position in which they find themselves today.

One would think that people would rather pay a little more than to have no money at all with which to buy lower priced items. In fact, the more people we have paying union dues, the more people we’d have with a wage that allows them to spend money.

One of the letter writer’s final concerns is that, if a workplace is unionized and bargaining sessions between labor and management stall, a federal bureaucrat will “fly in and dictate local decisions.”

As it is now, the company decides whether or not talk about organizing is to be allowed on its property or during the hours for which the employees are being paid. This means that, instead of a government “bureaucrat” serving as a mediator, a corporate “bureaucrat”, not the most impartial of people, controls labor relations.

I wrote above about open shops. These are workplaces in which some workers belong to a union and others do not. The truth is, especially in the case of large corporations, most employees work in open shops, whether there’s a union involved or not.

We’ve all heard of CEOs who fail. The company and the CEO come to an agreement and the CEO steps down. Notice I didn’t write that the company fires the CEO. The reason I didn’t write that is the same reason why CEOs who have failed walk away with severance packages that are worth more than most workers will receive in a life time. The reason is that CEOs do exactly what they work so hard to prevent workers from doing, they sign employment contracts!

Wages for working men and women have stagnated while pay and bonuses for CEOs have sky-rocketed.

In a study conducted in 2001, it was discovered that 20% of Americans own 84% of America’s wealth. This means that the 80% of the population owns the remaining 16% of the wealth.

In almost every form of governance, including any government headed up by Libertarians, there would inevitably be some socialism. If the government controls even a minimal army, that army is socialized. Nonetheless, Americans fear the word “socialism” as much as a cow fears the word “rib-eye”. Even those who consider themselves “left of center” debate those who call Obama a socialist by insisting he’s not a socialist. Another, truer, more courageous response would be, “There are socialist planks in his platform.” They run from the word instead of admitting that The US has for its entire existence been a socialist society to some degree.

However, Americans will never allow the US to be called a socialist democracy, even though socialist democracies seem to work as well as, if not better than most other forms of governing. Consequently, The Employee Free Choice Act may be the last chance unions will get to fortify the American worker and ensure that worker is compensated with a living wage.

To friendship,
Michael

“Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones.” - Bertrand Russell

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Sermon

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/are-you-familiar-with-the-employee-free-choice-act-154018/">Are you familiar with The Employee Free Choice Act?</a> | <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

Jamie

2009-03-02T08:24:00.000-08:00

(originally published at OpEdNews)

I hope that you allow me this small space for a personal utterance.

I’m very passionate about what goes on in the world. Innocent men, women and children die daily so that a particular person or group can steal resources from other countries and/or gain more power over the earth and its inhabitants. These horrors simultaneously frustrate, anger and sadden me.

However, I am, as I bet most of you would be, just as deeply saddened by the lost of a close friend. Jamie, who's been with us for 10 1/2 years died two nights ago and I haven’t been up to finishing a column that I was writing about the Employee Free Choice Act.

This picture is of Jamie on the right and her mate, Bella.

Jamie was 11 and Bella’s six months younger.

Maybe it’s just me. Maybe some people are saying that a dog, used by some cultures as food, shouldn’t mean as much to a person as the horrific acts to which I refer above.

However, I received from Jamie and I receive from Bella what I think everyone needs now and again, unconditional love. In fact, if the relationship among all of the people of the earth was merely based upon conditional compassion, the possibility of the kinds of activities such as those mentioned would be unthinkable.

I intend to resume my Monday “Debatable Opinions” column on March 8.

To friendship,
Michael

Thread Does Not a Nation Make

2009-02-23T06:51:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published at OpEdNews)

On February 14, two of Philadelphia’s finest were sent to the scene of an altercation between a Philadelphia cab driver and a would be thief. The thief warned the cabbie that, if he called the police, he would shoot the cabbie and the police. The cabbie, most likely fearing for his life, called anyway.

Two policeman showed up at the scene. The thief wannabe was wearing a jacket and his hand was in one of the pockets. As the police approached the man, he quickly raised that veiled hand. The hand wasn’t the only thing that the thief raised. In his hand was a .357 Magnum.

A little after nine o’clock PM, Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey walked out of the Albert Einstein Medical Center to an anxiously waiting media.

He somberly looked up and said, “It's my sad duty to inform you of the death of John Pawlowski. What makes his death even more tragic is that his wife Kim is expecting their first child. What makes this whole thing unacceptable is that officer Pawlowski was improperly displaying the flag of The United States of America on his sleeve.”

Of course Commissioner Ramsey never mentioned anything about the flag on Pawlowski’s sleeve. In truth, he never mentioned anything about Officer Pawlowski’s wife expecting their first child, but that one is a fact.

This is not glib handling of the senseless killing of one those brave people who work day and night to protect cabbies as well as you and me.

I wonder, though, whether the man who wrote a letter to North Carolina’s Citizen-Times would, indeed, fault the commissioner for failing to mention whether or not the slain officer was displaying the flag properly. After all, he’d been noticing the “improper display of the flag of the United States on the sleeve of various uniforms.”

There’s nothing wrong with knowing the proper placement of the flag. It’s just another piece of knowledge. What’s wrong is that the letter writer states that, “Some of the offenders have included law enforcement…”

Offenders, he says! So “offender” may have been Officer Pawlowski’s status when he lost his life trying to save that of a cab driver. We really don’t know, do we? How the flag was situated on his uniform hasn’t, yet, become an issue. Unless the letter writer from North Carolina gets involved in the investigation, it probably will never become an issue.

I’d like to think that the flag is important because of what it’s supposed to represent. It’s supposed to represent The United States of America and the wonderful participative government for which the founding fathers laid the groundwork. At any rate, they laid that groundwork by penning eloquent words eloquently upon the parchment of the time.

As we know today, much of what they wrote was incongruent with what they practiced. Yet the words are there and, as time has passed, they’ve come to be meaningful. They are the words of which we should be reminded when we see an American flag. That is the purpose of the flag. The flag has a purpose; it is not, in and of itself, a purpose.

Yet, throughout American history, it has somehow become not a representation, but a raison d’être.

We’ve been told that everything’s changed since September 11, 2001. One of the “everythings” is the American love affair with sewn fabric of red, white and blue. Don’t misunderstand. “Old Glory” has always been important to many Americans, more important to some than to others. We’ve even given it a name.

There’s always been a debate between those who see the flag as a representation and those who see it as an end to a means. There have been votes in Congress to amend The Constitution so that it becomes a crime to desecrate the American flag. There could one day be a law which punishes people for “desecrating” cloth while those who desecrate the ideals for which that cloth stands go free.

There exists an opinion that, since the flag represents, for example, the premise that “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”, whenever the government of this country has, with malice aforethought, obstructed those ideals, they have rendered the flag what it really, thread sewn into red, white and blue. It ceases to represent good and becomes a piece of cloth worthy of nothing more than the same destruction of that which it represents.

I’m quite certain that the letter writer, who becomes obviously upset when the flag is not displayed “as if it is advancing, that is, the union should be to the front as it would be if the flag were freely flying”, would call for the death penalty if he ever read the above paragraph. I’m not certain that I’m embellishing in this case. The flag, for some, has taken on the importance of religious dogma.

Justice may be found when the letter writer returns to his home after a hard day of covert flag inspections just to notice a figure through the window of his house. He takes out his cell phone and calls the police who send two “offenders” to his home. As the three are standing outside the home, quietly discussing their next move, our flagomaniac notices that the flags on, not one, but both of the officers’ sleeves are a bit off, not quite right.

The letter writer then says in disgust, “Please call for two more officers who know how to wear a flag correctly.” Then, maybe in that particular case, he would make an exception.

By the way, “Emblem makers offer sleeve flags in “right” and “left” configurations. The same should hold true for decals or other representation of the flag on the sides or windows of automobiles.”

It’s good to know, I guess.

To friendship
Michael

“I wouldn't trust Nixon from here to that phone.” - Barry Morris Goldwater

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Gods Of The Factory

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/the-american-flag-more-151100/">The American flag more:</a> | <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

Eugene Debs was a Socialist

2009-02-14T13:03:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published at OpEdNews)

Some time back, I wrote an article entitled Socialism and Democracy – The People’s Combination. In the article, I tried to make the point that words aren’t inherently “bad”.

As reinforcement for that premise, I invite you to read the late George Carlin’s comedic dissertation in which he substitutes the word “fuck” for the word “kill”. It becomes clear via the great Carlin’s logic that words are emotionless, lifeless character formations which have no particular agenda.

Absent the comic genius of Carlin, I used his logic in my article to talk about the word “social”. The conclusion I came to was that the word “social” in almost all of its variations carries a positive ambiance; in almost all of its variations. However, combine the word social with the suffix “ism” and, voila, Mr. Hyde! A word otherwise used to describe a desired relationship among people becomes instantly dangerous.

I don’t bring this up as a veiled attempt to get readers to go back and read my article. That having been said, I don’t write for practice, so I’d never discourage anyone from reading or rereading any of my articles.

I bring up this article to explain why the following question doesn’t shock me:

“Does anyone reading this realize how close we came to having a completely socialistic government?”

This question was submitted in a letter to the editor of Montana’s Billings Gazette. The writer reminds us that 60 Democratic seats in the senate would have given them “unbridled control of this country.”

The letter writer is determined that this “socialistic” Congress, along with its “Messiah”, would be certain to go from hunter’s home to hunter’s home confiscating rifles and ammo.

Obama’s stance on gun control, and guns need to be controlled to some extent, can be found at the On The Issues web site.

He wants most semiautomatic guns banned and he wants to keep guns out of the inner city where they serve one purpose and one purpose only. Aside from those caveats, it’s clear that it’s not his intention to take sports men’s guns away. The letter writer’s insistence that The President does, indeed, want to take them away shows the lack of research effort that was made before the letter was submitted.

According to the writer, it gets worse. “goodbye Bush tax cuts- which people living on the backs of working taxpayers hate - and goodbye freedom.”

The tax cuts that The Regime passed were passed for the benefit of those who collect their money by waiting, not by working. The tax cuts that The Regime passed lessened the tax burdens for nonworking taxpayers and corporations, not for “working taxpayers”. If people are living on the backs of these wealthy taxpayers, that can be easily resolved. The filthy rich taxpayers and corporate upper management can get them off of their backs and hire them.

“Good-bye freedom” is an interesting phrase. We see this man’s warning progressing from a hunter’s weapons search and destroy mission, to a repeal of tax cuts for people who don’t need them and whose taxes would pump needed revenue into the economy, to some kind of government driven incarceration. The writer predicts all of this because of a change from capitalism to socialism that’s never been proposed by anyone in the Obama Administration. Ah, but let’s not lose site of the “ism” that magically creates high stepping Soviet troops marching through Moscow – or, possibly, Billings - on Mayday.

Fortunately, in the opinion of the writer, “Chambliss, the Republican incumbent senator” won Georgia’s revote. There’s no doubt that the writer attributes this good fortune to the fact that Chambliss’s “Democrat” opponent brought in old drunken, skirt-chasing Ted Kennedy and self-confessed war criminal John Kerry” from the “socialist state of Massachusetts” to stump for him.

Saxby (for the writer's sake) Chambliss, on the other hand, brought in “Wonder Woman Sarah Palin” to campaign for him. Noting that Palin drew thousands and thousands of people to Chambliss events, the writer confidently states that “The liberal Democrats are scared of her.” He reminds us that, had Palin’s husband not been arrested for DUI 20 years ago, she would now be the vice-president of The United States, which, I guess, means that she would have carried McCain with her. At any rate, the writer may have reminded some of you about the twenty year old DUI incident that decided the 2008 election, but I don’t remember that being the case at all.

As far as the writer is concerned, the Palin DUI was but a minor peccadillo compared to Obama’s past during which he’s admitted to smoking pot and snorting coke. The implication is that this should have been taken into account by those who voted in the 2008 presidential election. Again, I could not have taken into account that which I didn’t know in the first place.

Neither Obama nor anyone in his administration has spoken about making the American government “completely socialistic”. I’ve heard no talk by The Obama Administration about taking over the production of refrigerators, shoes or basketballs. That would be complete socialism, wouldn’t it?

The closest The United States has ever come to having a Socialist president was in the 1908 presidential election when Eugene Debs collected 450,000 votes and again in 1912 when he received 900,000 votes.[1]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Obama is not a Socialist, complete or any other brand.

In the article I mention above, I go into much more detail, as do comments posted to that article, about how Americans are still indentifying “Socialism” with “communism” and “communism” with tyranny. This points to the sad fact that there are still Americans who’ve never heard of successful Democratic Socialism. There are still Americans who don’t realize that democracy is a form of governance and Socialism is an economic system which protects a nation’s citizens from unnecessary poverty.

This brings me to my final thought. So what if Obama was or is a Socialist? The Socialist Party and the premise of Socialism do not conflict with The Constitution of The United States. We all know that, after The Bible, The US Constitution is the most “interpreted” non-fiction work ever written.

No, I guess that wasn’t my final thought. My final thought is whence do people like this letter writer come? They seem to be let out of “the hen house” just long enough to repeat the fox’s words.

To friendship,
Michael

“There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.” - Bertrand Russell

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
The World’s Condemnation

[1] . Zinn, Howard. The People’s History of the United States, HaperCollins Publishers, p. 341

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/how-well-do-you-understand-the-concept-of-socialism-148516/">How well do you understand the concept of socialism?</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

Is Fox Still Guarding the Thought House

2009-02-08T19:16:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published at OpEdNews)

How can people still watch the Fox News Channel with the idea that they are receiving “fair and balanced” news? Nonetheless, a letter sent to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, as well as many other letters, are nothing more and nothing less than Fox News Channel lying – I mean - talking points.

A truly distinctive feature about the above mentioned letter is how few words are used to spread ridiculous misinformation. There is a ton of misinformation packed into this 91 word letter.

The premise of the letter, which, in itself is “understandable” from a Conservative’s point of view, is that HR1: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 includes too much spending. This is the ideological difference between Conservatives and Progressives and it’s a logical position for a Conservative to take.

The writer, however, goes well beyond expressing an ideological difference in how government should help those in need.

The writer accuses the “political left” of possessing a “mean spirited “our way or no way” attitude”.

Whatever one believes happened on September 11, 2001 is irrelevant in comparison to a remark made by The Front Man shortly afterwards.

On July 17, 2002, Bush said, “Almost every day is a new phase, in some ways, because we're reminding different countries which may be susceptible to Al Qaeda, that you're either with us or against us. And so we're constantly working on bolstering confidence amongst some nations which may sometimes forget that either you're with us or you're with the terrorists.”

Does the writer consider the above statement a warm invitation to nations of the world to help us track down and capture whoever it was that carried out the acts of 9/11? The statement seems more like “you will fight with us or you will fight us”. Rather than a warm invitation to help us, it’s a threat, and a “mean spirited” one at that.

The writer does admit that the stimulus package vote in The House was a bipartisan vote. He reminds us that, not only did all Republicans vote against the stimulus bill, but 11 Democrats voted against it as well. His reasoning, it appears, is that the partisan aspect of the vote was that only Democrats voted for the bill.

At first blush, one might agree with the writer. One can believe a conspiracy that Democrats met before the vote ever came up and decided that they wouldn’t even read the bill. They decided that they would vote for it in lock step just because it’s a bill originating from the office of a Democratic (that’s Democratic, not Democrat) President.

But wait! How could that be? As the writer tells us, 11 Democrats voted against the bill. On the other hand, not one Republican voted for it.

Rather than looking at the “No” vote as the place where real bipartisanship resides, let’s look at the result as showing that Democrats actually read bills and make their own decisions. They don’t march in lockstep as a party.

On the other hand, not one Republican saw enough benefit in the bill to give it a chance and make some move toward getting the nation out of its present economic tomb before that tomb is hermetically sealed. Are the Republicans still wearing those brown shirts and marching in lockstep?

This difference between Republicans and Democrats isn’t new, of course. That’s if we are to believe that there are Republicans and Democrats and that this isn’t all theater substituting for politics.

Let’s hold our collective nose and go into the way back machine. Let’s revisit the years before Obama. Let’s look at voting records.

In August, 2007, Democrats joined with Republicans in Congress to give The Regime the gift of warrantless wiretaps.

Basically, during The Regime’s reign, congressional Democrats escorted their Republican colleagues down the “unitary executive” aisle which was bespangled with “the suspension of civil liberties, arbitrary detention, official torture and more.”

Some have said that The Democrats are/were just spineless and others note that Democrats have a larger, more inclusive tent and they don’t necessarily look organized in a parade. Another way of looking at it is that they individually think for themselves and either vote their conscience or vote the way they know their constituents want them to vote. In fact, if we were to blame this large and versatile tent for many of their past election losses, we would probably be at least partly correct.

This does not sound like a group who possesses a “mean spirited “our way or no way” attitude”.

The writer isn’t satisfied with merely accusing The Democrats of having that “mean spirited” attitude. He expresses what seems to be almost ecstatic appreciation to Republicans for “finally standing up to this nonsense.”

Since Republicans controlled Congress for five out of the past nine years, it seems that there hasn't been much to which they've had to stand up. The writer could be referring to the actual physically positional status Republicans use when casting their votes, although I think that members of Congress must stand when they cast their votes.

However, let’s go out on a limb here and assume that the writer is implying that Republicans had been sheepish in standing up for that on which they have voted and have “finally” stood up to the Democrats’ “nonsense.”

The writer gives no hint whether or not he’d been on an interplanetary vacation for the past eight years, but what other reason could there be for not realizing that The Republican “President” got almost everything he wanted from a Republican House and a Republican Senate since January of 2001 and especially since September 11, 2001? If the Republicans are standing and speaking out against, HR1: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the word “finally” is an inappropriate adverb.

Many of the criticisms are born of either veiled or not so veiled racism. Maybe the obvious attempts by Republican members of Congress to make Barack Obama look as if he’s not paying attention is thinly veiled racism while the vomitus excrement oozing from the mouths of Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh is a very clear attempt to appeal to the basest character flaws of certain groups and stir up racist feelings, dangerous racist feelings. If you think about what white supremacists believe, President Obama has got to be their worst nightmare.

Democrats and Republicans are wealthy people who play this game or put on this act called politics. If you’ve gotten far enough in politics to be well known on a national level, you’ve probably got some confessin’ to do.

I admit that I’ve said and written that I’m going to stand back and see if Obama can prove me wrong. If I’m going to do that, it’s nowhere near time to make up my mind one way or the other. I’m “giving him a chance” – as if he will ever know who I am – but I believe he’ll eventually be exposed as a corporat; a member in good standing of The Corporacracy.

Not so patient have been people like the brown shirted pundits and the republicrats who’ve been hanging on Obama’s every breath with impeach forks in their hands despite the fact that the president can hardly have done anything wrong at this early stage. The ones they call Republicans only need the noose to complete the picture.

Not one Republican member of The House could lend a helping hand to President Barack Obama! It seems obvious that they want him to look like a kid in a grown up’s game.

This may be all theater and most of us are probably not the targets of any political philanthropy. Nonetheless, this theater is playing out very ominously, indeed. It looks like junior high school or high school. The cool kids aren’t even paying attention to the new kid. They’re doing all they can to make him look ridiculous.

What’s the new kid doing? He’s saying, “Can’t we all play nicely with one another?”

If there’s any legitimacy to it at all, he’s six foot fifteen and stronger than superman. It’s his Senate and his House and even his governorships. And he’s the president. He keeps saying economic relief has to be quick. We don’t have time to screw around with politics

There’s only one person who can speed up the process and that person is Barack Obama! If things have to happen quickly, then he has to morph into the famous “NO MORE MISTER NICE GUY”. There’s nothing holding him from stomping on every Republican racist in Congress and just doing what he knows needs to be done. You know, like Bush just did it? Just do it and I ain’t talking about Nikes, either.

If part of his goal was to, unlike The Regime, steer away from abusing his presidential authority, he can check that one off his list. He’s asked for and accepted more bipartisan input in three weeks than The Regime asked for in eight years. He’s even admitted to “screwing up”, a concept kept at least at arm’s length during The Regime’s reign and that’s another hole that can be punched. If the president wants to be better than politics, he has to walk away from the politicians.

Right now he’s as popular as any new president in history. The longer he waits for bipartisanship to kick in, the more his popularity will drop. It’ll be just like the 2006 midterms when Democrats were elected to effect change, but decided to support the status quo.

If he’s nothing else, Barack Obama is an eloquent and convincing speaker. Isn’t it very easy to envision Barack Obama standing before the American people, saying that he’s done all he knows how to do to combine the change he promised with bipartisanship? He can say, however, that not everyone is/was on the same bipartisan page as he is and that the economic crisis transcends waiting for that to happen.

If he doesn’t get the votes to avoid a filibuster, he should merely let The Republicans fillibust away (fillibust?). Let them all speak for hour upon hour, day after day, stalling this recovery package and trying to explain why jobs keep dropping like flies. Let ‘em do it. Even though Fox News will no doubt portray the fillibustering legislators as American heroes, Americans who are losing jobs, pensions and other benefits will view them as the tight assed, non-populist fools that they are and will begin to demand that they shut up and vote.

Most Republican governors want HR1 to pass and that should overshadow the colorful clown suits that congressional Republicans will be wearing during their useless filibuster.

To friendship,
Michael

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” - Isaac Asimov, Salvor Hardin in “Foundation”

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Cemetery Rose

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/will-republicans-vote-for-any-stimulus-package-obama-proposes-147827/">Will Republicans vote for any stimulus package Obama proposes?</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

Fighting Tolerance

2009-01-29T11:00:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published at OpEdNews)

A woman from Hebron, Mississippi sent a letter to the Laurel Leader-Call “strongly” disagreeing with advice which Abigail Van Buren (Dear Abby) gave to a 16 year old girl. The girl asked for help in dealing with a sexual orientation identity crisis.

I’ve never experienced an internal debate about my sexual orientation, but, given today’s adversarial environment surrounding the subject, I can empathize with the young girl even if I can’t understand her predicament.

I don’t know how many of us shared our thoughts with our parents when we were teen-agers. I don’t know how many of us believed that sharing those thoughts would be innocuous just to find ourselves in a knockdown, drag out “argument”. If this happened to you as it happened to me, can you imagine sharing your feelings with your parents knowing that it would result in an intolerable situation for you?

The letter writer obviously had an open and honest relationship with her parents; a relationship which nothing she said to her parents could derail. Those who have had such a relationship with unconditionally understanding parents are fortunate. I have no data which shows if more parents are accepting or rejecting of the kind of feelings the girl has. This young lady knows her parents, though, and, if we give it some thought, we would suspect that she would probably have already told them about her feelings if she knew they would accept them as legitimate. She does hint at how they would accept her feelings by saying that they attend a “church that believes homosexuality is a terrible sin.”

Of course, since the writer considers herself “a seasoned woman who happened (sic) to believe that a person’s sexual orientation is a matter of choice”, she may never have had to face what the girl sees as her moment of truth. The woman from Hebron doesn’t believe that the girl is facing any such moment. According to the letter writer, “it has not been proven that one’s sexual orientation is something a person is born with.”

Scientists who study such things are basically in agreement with her. A huge difference between the letter writer and the scientists, however, is that the writer makes her claim as if the absence of definite proof is proof of definite absence. On the other hand, the scientists are using imaging technology to study the brain and they are beginning to discover that there are differences between the brains of straight people and those of gay people. Although the scientists admit that it hasn’t been unquestionably proven that there is a “gay gene”, they’re getting closer to proving it.

Alternatively, the letter writer doesn’t give the scientific studies much credit. Perhaps, she, too, is a scientist studying the human brain and she hasn’t discovered the differences. Or perhaps, through her studies, she’s discovered that the (other) scientists are wrong. I’m not taking bets on that one.

The letter writer hopes that “Dear Abby has not advised this 16 year-old young lady to do something she could one day regret.”

This is a curious concern. The girl may discover that she’s made the horrible mistake of thinking that she’s gay when, in fact, she merely chose to think that she’s gay. What regret will she have? Will she regret the fact that she blew the chance of getting pregnant? I think not.

The letter writer states that “humans both male and female at some point in life has (sic) been at least curious about what it would be like to be with someone of the same sex, but if you want to do the right thing you don’t act on those feelings, you just put mind over matter.”

Maybe we have a situation where the newspaper limits the number of words a letter writer may use in a letter to the editor. If that’s the case, it’s unfortunate because the woman never got a chance to present data which proves that not acting upon “those feelings” is “the right thing”.

She further states that “I would not appreciate it if this has (sic) been my daughter Dear Abby gave this totally unprofessional advice to”. Ironically enough, this statement should tell us that, if the woman’s daughter was facing the same dilemma, Dear Abby may, indeed, be giving advice to her. She seems to be a parent who may become quite animated if told that one of her children is gay.

Lest we forget, we shouldn’t leave out the media’s influence. After all, “because of the media’s acceptance of same sex relationships this young lady could also be being influenced into thinking this kind of behavior is normal.” I’m thinking that the media began to accept same sex relationships as “normal” after a large portion of the American public had already legitimized same sex relationships with its acceptance of them.

The woman seems certain that giving the young girl advice which is “in direct defiance of her parents’ beliefs… is unhealthy for the child”. Many of us who did open up to our parents, thinking that they would understand, may have found that to be unhealthy.

I have confidence that science will ultimately find that homosexuality is hard wired in the human brain. However, whether it’s hardwired or a lifestyle choice, those who oppose same sex relationships should see their opposition as their choice and nothing more. It is arrogance and unwarranted self-importance that drives people like the woman from Hebron, Mississippi to try to force their opinions on others even if the issue will never affect them.

To friendship,
Michael

“Confidence comes not from always being right but from not fearing to be wrong.” - Peter T. McIntyre

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Heartbeat

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/if-youre-anti-gay-marriage-its-more-because-you-feel-it-threatens-134473/">If you&#039re anti-gay marriage, it&#039s more because you feel it threatens:</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

More Disinformation

2009-01-24T14:59:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published by OpEdNews)

I recently read a very strange letter to The Post Bulletin of Rochester, Minnesota. I consider it strange because it was posted on the twenty-second of January. This is not to imply that letters written to the editor and posted on January 22 are inherently strange.

What’s strange about this particular letter is that the writer refers to an answer President Obama offered during his January 11 interview with George Stephanopoulos. The President made the measured statement that closing Guantánamo Bay is going to be “more difficult than I think a lot of people realize.”

The writer wonders if Obama had considered this fact while he was promising to close the facility during his campaign. She finds it incredulous that “only now, after high-level security briefings, Obama finally realizes the ramifications of closing Gitmo.” She tells us that, if this is the case, “then perhaps he is more of a dunce than the left has been claiming Bush is.”

The only other possibility, according to the writer, is that Obama really knew that closing Gitmo wouldn’t be a piece of cake. Consequently, she concludes that Obama “had to know he was lying every time he mentioned it on the campaign trail.”

Her sources include “the common-sense people I encounter--hard-working, blue-collar people who didn't go to Harvard”. She uses these people as references because they “immediately recognize this to be a bad idea.”

As I’m quite certain that the letter was written before it was posted, probably a few days before it was posted, the writer didn’t know the pending irony underlying the posting of her letter on the very day that The President signed the executive order ensuring that Gitmo would, indeed, be closed within one year.

Was the writer insinuating that President Obama’s statement to Stephanopoulos was a prelude to reneging on that campaign promise? If so, she obviously miscalculated.

Even if that was not her implication, she somehow considers Obama a “bigger deceiver than the left has been claiming Bush is”.

I read quite a few Obama campaign speeches, hoping to find one in which he encouraged “millions of wide-eyed idealists to ignore the reality of the situation and believe that Gitmo could easily be closed.” However, I did not find one speech made by Barack Obama in which he guaranteed that closing America’s shameful “detention center” at Guantánamo Bay would be quick and easy.

In one speech in which he opined that Gitmo should be closed, Obama said that The US should have “developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused”.

In February of 2008, Obama said that the trials of those detained at Gitmo are “too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges”.

Another Obama campaign statement regarding Gitmo was that the existence of the gulag “sends a negative message to the world” and taints even trade-deal negotiations.

“To the extent that we are not being true to our values and our ideals, (the existence of the Guantánamo facility) sends a negative message to the world, and it gives us less leverage, then, when we want to deal with countries that are abusing human rights”, Obama said in December of 2007.

During the Stephanopoulos interview, rather than appearing to have changed his mind about closing Gitmo, the then President-elect said, “We are going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have got a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication”

The last statement appears to have been made by a man who is adamant about closing Gitmo, although he is not under the illusion that it will be quick or easy. The writer of the letter to the Post Bulletin, like so many who actually want Obama to fail, took just enough from the interview to conclude that the president has already failed to live up to one of his most important campaign promises.

If there were “millions of wide-eyed idealists” who interpreted anything that Obama said during his campaign as a prediction that closing Gitmo would be fast and easy, their interpretation had and still has no basis in fact. From where I sit, which is not on top of the world, able to know what the millions of Obama supporters are thinking, most Obama supporters didn’t hear him promise that closing the gulag would be a fast and painless process. I’ll go further than that.

Not only do the millions of Obama supporters realize that he didn’t promise to close Gitmo quickly, they were and still are intelligent enough to know that the effort isn’t a two hour job. They know this in spite of the fact that many of them didn’t attend Harvard.

Barack Obama has been accused by many of being “elite”, almost too smart to be president. Witness the letter writer’s statement that the people to whom she listens “didn’t go to Harvard”. While it doesn’t take attendance at Harvard or Yale to legitimize one’s educational background, the writer, like so many conservatives, seems to be proud of the fact that she knows people who didn’t attend Harvard. The writer, like so many conservatives, pushes the idea that too much intelligence precludes possessing “common sense” and is generally not a desirable trait. The last eight years have demonstrated what the writer and her “blue collar” friends consider the degree of intelligence a president should possess.

I have no doubt that Barack Obama will make mistakes during his presidency. After all, he’s only human. His supporters, I’m certain, also believe that and hope that any mistake he makes will not be catastrophic for the nation or the world.

I would ask those who didn’t support him during the presidential campaign to at least wait until he makes a mistake before criticizing him. I would ask those people to wait, but, seriously, I just don’t believe that they possess the degree of maturity and/or tolerance to enable them to do so.

Addendum: The news about the released Gitmo detainee who became the leader of an Al Qaeda cell in Yemen was published after I had completed the above article. Many on the right have used this instance as an opportunity to reinforce the idea that the gulag at Guantánamo Bay should remain open indefinitely.

There is one obvious response to those who posit this notion and several incidental responses.

The incidental responses are:

the person who has signed the executive order to close Gitmo was not in office when the detainee was released. The Regime was in power.

detainees have been held for a very long time without the benefit of being charged, offered legal counsel and tried. Possibly if this detainee was tried in an American court under American rules of jurisprudence, his guilt may have been exposed.

to paraphrase Keith Olbermann, is it not possible that, after being held under the above mentioned conditions and possibly tortured, we turned what may have been an innocent man into a Jihadist against The US?

Here’s the killer reasoning, though.

A detainee is held for years under the above mentioned conditions
If he isn’t tortured, he’s at least not treated humanely.
He’s released without a criminal trial.
He becomes involved with Al Qaeda.
Conclusion: Obviously, Gitmo does not work!

To friendship,
Michael

“We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent man.” - George Orwell

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Save The World

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/should-guantanamo-bay-be-closed-down-143514/">Should Guantanamo Bay be closed down?</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

Don't blame it all on President Bush

2009-01-19T08:32:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published by OpEdNews)

Op Ed cartoonist Mike Thompson published a series of cartoons in The Detroit Free Press entitled “Top 10 reasons to be grateful President Bush is leaving”. As would be expected, there have been letters written to the editor which agree with Thompson’s opinion and there have been letters which disagree with it. Also not surprisingly, I chose to respond to a letter which disagrees with the opinion and with which, prima facie, I thought I disagreed.

In the letter with which I thought I disagreed, a writer reminds us that “America is not a monarchy”. He reminds us that others may have played a part in the financial woes that the nation now faces.

As I began writing this column, I found myself going even further than the writer in making his case. In this column, I don’t limit the failures of the so called “Bush Administration” to the latest economic failure. In writing this column, I found myself looking at an even larger picture.

I used to call The United States of America The Former United States of America. In the name of fairness and the hope that my cynicism toward Barack Obama is misplaced, I’ve once again begun calling this nation The United States of America. At many points throughout its history, however many states which have made up The United States at any given time were, indeed, united. Granted, some states had different ideas than others on social issues, but there didn’t seem to be a pall of hate over the nation. There didn’t seem to be real hatred between what are called “conservative” states and what are called “liberal” states. A state would actually agree to disagree with another state while conceding that the state with which it disagreed was every bit as American as it was.

Under the Bush Administration, another euphemism I’ve been replacing with the title The Regime, “conservatives” and “conservative” states have honed in on their differences with “liberal” or “progressive” states much more emphatically than the ideas and ideals which they share.

People like the The American Prospect editorialist Robert Kuttner and I are aware that the divisiveness didn’t necessarily emanate from the brain of George W. Bush. There are those of us who realize that Dick Cheney made most, if not all, of the executive decisions in the so-called “Bush White House”. It is my contention that the decision to run George W. Bush for president in 2000 was based upon the appeal he’d have with the average American, a person who has recently become known as “Joe the plumber.” Cheney, on the other hand, would have appealed to the few people who consider Lex Luthor the hero of that particular Superman movie.

More proof that Cheney is the real leader of The Regime was the fact that, by sidestepping the vetting process he was supposed to have used to help Bush choose his running mate in 2000 , Cheney placed himself on the ticket. As I, along with most Americans, was not privy to meetings that took place during that campaign, I can only submit that it’s my opinion that the set up was already determined.

Although Bush was not a signatory to The Project for a New American Century, Dick Cheney was one of the original signatories. As you recall, the PNAC is the neoconservative “club” which worked on answering the question, “Now that The Cold War is ended, what excuse can be used to continue to finance and build America’s military?” The PNAC decided that, rather than go through the trouble of manufacturing a new “evil doer”, it would use the already demonized Saddam Hussein to accomplish its goals. Who better to remind Americans how much they hate Saddam Hussein than a member of the Bush family?

There are many people, including yours truly, who believe that financing and building America’s defense was so important to members of The PNAC that merely putting another Bush in The White House would not, in itself, be sufficient to rekindle America’s hatred of Saddam Hussein and its prejudice toward and fear of yet another dark skinned population. These people, called “Truthers” for their relationship to the organization and web site called 9/11Truth.org, have gathered a large inventory of evidence which says that 9/11 was planned and carried out by members of The PNAC, aka The Regime, aka The Bush Administration.

We, of course, have gotten what we’ve deserved for having such a hair brained idea. We’ve been ridiculed and mocked, as our propensity for individual self-direction has frightened those who either can’t or won’t bring themselves to believe that American leaders aren’t a step above homo sapiens in the evolutionary chain and that, like all other people, they can be good or evil.

The writer of the letter, then, is actually correct, albeit not in the manner in which he thinks he is correct. In fact, I don’t accept the premise of the editorial with which the writer disagrees.

I submit that the “Top 10 reasons to be grateful President Bush is leaving” reinforces the deception that’s been at the core of far too many crimes, including war crimes, since January of 2001 and especially since September 11, 2001. I submit that George W. Bush’s “aw shucks”, self-deprecating, English mangling persona, intentional or not, has allowed The Regime, led by Cheney, to accomplish its Constitution bashing and corporate enriching agenda.

An editorial entitled “Top 10 reasons to be grateful The Regime is leaving” would have been closer to reality. The writer would then have had good reason to write “others may have also been responsible for America’s woes.”

We now have to sit and wait while we learn whether we are entering the era of an Obama Administration or if the results of November’s presidential “election” merely guarantees a seamless continuation of a regime of, by and for corporations. It’s quite possible that The Regime was installed in 1980 and hasn’t given up power yet. If one points to the fact that there’s been a so called “Democratic” president during this period, one doesn’t necessarily disprove the regime theory. Lest we forget, Clinton’s trade policies have served to make a mockery of the American blue collar worker and have been the seed of recent job losses. What more proof do we need that The Corporacracy is the true leader of The United States of America; the true leader of The World?

“America is not a monarchy” states the wise letter writer. Yet, by their social narcolepsy, the majority of the world’s inhabitants kneel before a liege lord whose every order is not only obeyed, but defended vehemently by those whose have died, who are dying and who will continue to die social deaths at the edge of The Corporacracy’s sword; a sword forged from the finest greed to have ever begrimed this planet.

To friendship,
Michael

“Christmas reinforces the greed of the greedy and the need of the needy.” – Michael Bonanno

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Peace Please

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/do-you-think-cheney-wielded-more-power-than-bush-during-his-terms-144394/">Do you think Cheney wielded more power than Bush during his terms?</a> | <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

Is Isolationism All Bad?

2009-01-11T14:09:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published by OpEdNews)

There were two letters to the editor of The Boston Globe stating that “more must be done” to end the civil war in Sri Lanka. One letter writer wants “President-elect Obama to reach out to allies to promote UN intervention”. The writer says that the civil war “has rendered the Tamils as refugees in their homelands”.

The second writer thinks more should be done by the Sinhalese led government to make the secessionist Tamil Tigers “irrelevant” because when provinces in Sri Lanka are freed from their “clutches”, democratic institutions emerge.

These two letters were written in response to a Globe editorial entitled “Sri Lanka's ignored war”.

When one writes that the UN should intervene, one is committing Americans to the cause. The US is part of the UN and Americans inevitably make up whatever contingent of UN forces intervenes in any global conflict.

While reading both the letters to the editor and the piece upon which the letters were based, I couldn’t help thinking of the fact that 2 million people have died in Sudan and 4 million have been displaced since that nation’s independence in 1956. What’s been happening in Darfur has been called genocide. This is why there has been a call for a “multinational military force” to be sent to Sudan to “secure access by the people of Darfur to the humanitarian relief that the government has blocked”.

“An international police force backed by some troops will be needed to build long-term security” in East Timor, according to the web site Foreign Policy in Focus.

The Council on Foreign Relations states that the US must insist upon an “expanded UN peacekeeping mandate in The Democratic Republic of Congo”.

And, of course, there’s the Israeli/Palestinian “conflict”.

I bet one of the points I’ve tried to make thus far in this column is obvious, even to the most casual of readers. There are a lot of so called “troubled spots” in the world and there are many Americans who want us to either intervene or talk our “allies” or the UN into intervening which, as mentioned, would involve sending Americans to a particular person or group’s favorite trouble spot.

It took The Regime, aka, the Bush Administration, three tries, but it eventually settled on “bringing peace and democracy to Iraq” as its reason for killing Iraqis and destroying their country. Many awakened Americans knew that this wasn’t the reason why 4,223 American soldiers have, to date, died in Iraq. I didn’t believe it in 2002, when The Regime started floating the rumor that we might invade Iraq, in 2003, when The Regime actually sent the military to invade Iraq or in 2009, when The Regime has been bragging about how much better Iraq is now than it was right after we invaded. I know that The Regime’s reasons were disingenuous then and will always remain that way. I don’t believe that anything that history, real or concocted, will reveal will ever convince me to believe otherwise. I know that I’m not the only person who feels this way.

One of my early responses to the “democracy” garbage was to question why The Regime suddenly chose Iraq for its democracy injection. It said that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant and tortured and killed his own people, but, in the grand scheme of things, wouldn’t it have been better to start big? Thinking back on the horrors that happened in Tiananmen Square in China, a country with a population of 1,330,044,544 people, wouldn’t it have been better for the US to inject democracy into China? Bam, right off the bat, we would have had a new ally with over 1 billion people and “ready to fire” nukes. The ROI on a slaughter in China would have been much greater than it has been on the slaughter in Iraq, a country of only 29 million people.

Of course we didn’t invade Iraq to help them to become democratic in the image of America. Most all Americans know that now, although there are still some who will never learn that.

Am I implying, then, that those who wish us to “become involved” in Sri Lanka, like one of the letter writers, are disingenuous? For some reason, I don’t believe that they are. In fact, among the people who want to see either US or UN military intervention in some of these “troubled spots” are Progressives, like me, who were aware of The Regime’s war crimes. Yet, they want to see military action in areas where, like Vietnam and Iraq, the landscape is known to the natives but would be completely mystifying to any US military personnel who might be sent to save one side or the other. In most of the troubled spots, English isn’t spoken well if at all and written words aren’t written in the Latin alphabet. Consequently, wherever we send American troops, they will more than likely be in Vietnam and/or Iraq-like environments and stand little to no chance of escaping without suffering traumatic losses. We can never come away from such a situation with what could be called a “victory”. As the first woman to ever be elected to The House of Representatives, Jeannette Rankin, once said, “You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake.”

Another question might be on whose behalf would the “peacekeepers” be keeping the peace? It sounds like a curious question as one might believe that peacekeeping would be somewhat like officiating a sporting event. The peacekeepers should be neutral and become aggressive to whomever it is that tries to break the peace.

It only takes a look at Korea to understand the improbability that peacekeepers can remain neutral. There are still American troops in Korea who serve as peacekeepers, but we can be certain that, should unrest break out, those particular peacekeepers have already decided that The North will be the culprit and they will keep the peace by participating, non-peaceably, in the defense of South Korea.

Whose side would American peacekeepers be on if sent to the Gaza Strip? We all know the answer to that question, but is it the right answer? One death is one too many under any violent circumstance, but would The US defend those whose death toll from the conflict is 573 or would it defend the nation who has suffered “several” casualties?

Lest I seem cold and uncaring, my heart breaks and my blood boils even though I cannot fathom 45,000 people dying per month in a war, as is happening in Democratic Republic of Congo. However, when it seemed as though The Regime was going to send troops to almost every sovereign nation in The Middle East to give them the gift of democracy in return for a few million barrels of crude, didn’t those awakened Americans wonder how it was going to produce enough American soldiers to fight all of those wars? Didn’t we oppose the war in Iraq because it was not a war of necessity but a war of choice?

If we send troops into Sudan, wouldn’t that be our choice? If we send troops into Sri Lanka, would that not be our choice?

We can all agree that The Regime lied about Iraq, but that those who sincerely want to end real bloodshed and suffering genuinely care about those who are dying and suffering. Nonetheless, we don’t have the resources to stop all of it, if any of it. Our citizens, those who we should care most about, would become victims of the same bloodshed and suffering. We would never have an agreement among our population whether the side for which our kids were fighting and dying was the righteous side or the villainous side. Most importantly the past has shown us that, once we leave, remnants of the “defeated” population could very well reemerge and the fragile peace that may result from the violent war would cease.

Are we trying to force the alcoholic to stop drinking? Isn’t the first step in a 12 step program admitting to having a problem in the first place? No matter how many troops we send to any “troubled spot” in the world, we will never change the minds of the tyrants who are causing the pain and destruction. They have to come to the realization that what they’re doing is wrong and, considering the magnitude of what the tyrants are usually doing, the probability of their coming to that realization is slim to none.

Enter Plan B. When the tyrannical leaders fail to realize the evil of their ways, the people have to become intolerant enough of those ways to rise up against the tyrants and overthrow them. This, too, is no guarantee, as the blackness that people see can become so intolerable that dark gray begins to look good and dark gray is just a shade from black.

Another quote comes to mind. John Quincy Adams is credited with saying, “America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”

To friendship,
Michael

“Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.” - Isaac Asimov

World Conditions And Action Items
CDs
Modern Propriety

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/adams-america-does-not-go-abroad-in-search-of-monsters-to-destroy-142919/">Adams: America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

Societal Irrelevance

2009-01-03T04:07:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published by OpEdNews)

Did you know that Sarah Palin is more qualified than Caroline Kennedy? A writer to The Baltimore Sun seems to think so.

The writer reminds us that Palin was a mayor “and is currently governor of a state that covers a land mass one-seventh the size of the continental United States.”

Is there some kind of special election taking place right now? Minnesota hasn’t named a senator yet, but that election’s over. Governor Paterson of New York has to appoint a temporary Senator to take Secretary of State designate Hillary Clinton’s place. Governor Palin has to choose someone to take Ted Stevens’ place in the senate. Governor Blagojevich seems to have found a buyer for the senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, but I don’t know of any special election taking place right now.

Actually, in keeping with the theme of the letter, the contest referred to above would have to be one in which Sarah Palin was running against Caroline Kennedy. After all, according to the writer, Palin is “eminently more qualified than Ms. Kennedy is to hold any position of authority.”
If you’re like me, you don’t give a rat’s ass about how Palin measures up against Kennedy or the fact that Kennedy “has held no public office”. There’s plenty of time to learn if it’s true that “Kennedy has no qualification for any office”, as the writer states in his letter.

Palin is not presently competing against Kennedy for political office and this kind of comparison is all but meaningless.

That is, of course, unless one’s already made up one’s mind that the Obama administration has failed before its even taken office. Some people have already created very well organized web sites which call for the impeachment of Barack Obama.

I watch Keith Olbermann almost every evening. He presents the news with a progressively biased slant and I’m a progressively biased person, so it’s a pretty good match. He’s also humorous. What draws me to Olbermann more than anything else is the oratory genius with which he many times exposes truths about political corruption and social injustice. It’s the potential that he’ll do one of his passionate commentaries that keeps me coming back for more.

However, Mr. Olbermann, what you call “the gift that keeps on giving” could deter viewers from watching your show. No matter what stupid thing Sarah Palin says or what stupid thing Sarah Palin does, many Progressives no longer want to hear about it. She’s finished. Her 15 minutes lasted far too long, but it’s over.

Nor do Progressives want to begin following the career of Carline Kennedy Princess Di style. Progressives don’t want all Caroline all of the time.

Granted Fox News types, mostly Conservatives, love to make the kinds of comparisons made by the writer of the letter and love to make them well before it’s appropriate. It takes them a long time to build their muddy case for tearing down people they consider “liberal”.

Right now, however, if all goes according to plan, there will be an Obama administration starting at 12 noon on January 20, 2009 and that administration will have much to prove and much with which to prove it.

From my personal perspective, I’ve allowed myself a fraction of an idea that Barack Obama may really become President of the United States of America on the 20th and that he’ll genuinely carry out the duties of that office. I want to see that Obama was not pre-chosen for his position by The Corporacracy to carry out The Corporacracy’s agenda. I think it won’t take me long to figure that out, but I’m committed to at least allowing him to be sworn it before making up my mind.

There are issues that need addressing once he takes office or once the charade begins, whichever it is. As far as working Americans are concerned, or should I say American workers who are not working are concerned, there’s a financial crisis that’s put them out of work.

Israel has ratcheted up its defensive offense or offensive defense against the Palestinians. Depending upon how violent or self defensive Israel gets, Iran may feel the need to come to the aid of the Palestinians. If that happens, total chaos may break out in Pakistan and none of this can bode well for The U. S.

Military personnel and their families have to hold their breath to see if Obama’s promise to get us out of Iraq equals getting us out of a war or just getting us out of Iraq in lieu of getting into another quagmire in Afghanistan.

I realize there’s no way to stop contemptible partisans from denigrating and discrediting any potential public official that may not share their world view. On the other hand, serious people are people who know that the crises which presently face us have nothing to do with whether Palin is more qualified than Kennedy or even if Palin says or does something stupid.

As far as the writer of the letter is concerned, the man doth protest too much, methinks (sorry, Willie).

To friendship,
Michael

“The only thing worse than a man you can't control is a man you can.” - Margo Kaufman

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Make One More Person Cry

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/are-comparisons-between-caroline-kennedy-and-sarah-palin-appropriate-141153/">Are comparisons between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin appropriate?</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

What Goes Around

2008-12-28T22:41:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published by OpEdNews)

In keeping with my virtual national newspaper tour, to be processed in alphabetical order, naturally, I began reading letters written to The Baltimore Sun. I have to say this about people who write to The Sun. They are certainly a progressive bunch. I read letters published over the duration of a few days and I found only one for which I could express a more or less opposing opinion. Even that letter, which was entitled “Extravagant praise for untested liberal”, wasn’t concerned with subject matter that impassions me. It was about Caroline Kennedy’s bid to become a senator from the great state of New York. I was going to write that the author was wasting his time complaining about liberals and keeping the liberal vs. conservative wedge alive, just the way I’ve believed for years The Corporacracy likes it.

I wrote a bit then took a break. I like to write a bit and come back a while later to see if what I’d written still sounds right to me. During my break, I began reading my local newspaper, The Contra Costa Times. I never returned to the letter in The Sun.

A gentleman wrote a letter to The Times blaming the state of the economy on “entitlements”. As I’ve previously written, voice intonation and facial expressions cannot be ascertained by a letter to the editor. However, there were a couple of statements in the letter that seemed to send a message.

According to the letter writer, “Remove entitlements and you reduce government waste.”

He goes on to state that this “reduces government spending, which leads to balanced budgets, which leads to reduced taxes, which leads to people keeping more of their money and investing and spending it the way they want, not the way the government dictates.” (emphasis mine)

Before getting to the emphasized phrase, let’s start at the beginning. According to this fine and, obviously, presently financially secure gentleman, “doling out” entitlements is a waste of the government’s time.

The letter writer tells us that entitlements have been “brewing for 40 years” and have “come home to roost.” This gentleman could possibly stand to read more than a cursory sentence about American history or do more than listen to O’Reilly or Limbaugh. Franklin Delano Roosevelt appeared to have compassion for the 25% of the workers who were unemployed when he took office and implemented many entitlements. That was 76 years ago, not 40 years ago.

Taking care of those who do not work is but one entitlement which it seems the writer of this letter would “remove”. We’ve all heard the argument that those who do not work do not work because they do not wish to work. They’re called lazy and are accused of “living off the state”.

This has been used many times as one example of how this probably isn’t the case. Those who read this column are, by now, tired of following the link and reading about the epiphany that struck me when I hired workers for a Fortune 500 multinational corporation. Maybe someone can share a similar experience that can be interchanged with the above experience. Just the same, that experience opened my eyes to why some people hadn’t worked for many years and how it had nothing at all to do with laziness.

The writer has a point, though, when he implies that taking away an entitlement such as unemployment insurance or removing regulations that prevent employers from turning down perspective candidates for employment simply because those employers are racist or sexist will save money. The unemployed, who may not be hired without the strength of government “interference” and who would be destitute because government shouldn’t bail people out simply because they “screw up” could potentially be strewn along the highways and byways of America, starving to death or even dead. Does the letter writer consider it government’s job to see to it that these “lazy” dead bodies are removed from the emerald paved streets of his America? After all, one shouldn’t have to see such despair while one is “keeping more of” one’s “money and investing and spending it the way” one wants to invest it and spend it.

Now for the emphasized phrase.

Do you get the old argument about republican government in The U.S. when you begin to speak about democracy? Inevitably, when one person says that we live in a democracy, another person who leans a bit to the right reminds us that we don’t live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

If our form of governance worked the way that the text books taught us it works, we, ultimately, live in a democracy. Granted there are no national referenda and the loathsome Electoral College is one huge unnecessary obstacle to real democracy. Nonetheless, with the exception of voting for the president, we were taught and many of us believe that we elect those who represent us and we do it in a democratic fashion. People run for national office and the candidate who receives the most votes is entrusted to represent her or his constituency. In a perfect world, or in a perfect United States, democracy fuels the republic. I have doubts about how legitimate that national view is, but, for the sake of this article, let’s assume things are what they seem.

We elect the people who represent us, so during any given election a majority of those of us who vote shoulder the responsibility for how our government operates. Consequently, we are the government. We are the institution which wastes its time on entitlements. Ironically, many of us are the very same people who accept entitlements. Those of us who accept entitlements need those entitlements.

For example, a person who “screws up” when he causes his back to slowly disintegrate may have a difficult time finding employment. In fact, if he “intentionally” persuades his back to become so decrepit that he’s unable to efficiently and effectively perform almost any task required by almost any job, he will more than likely remain unemployed. With no income and no medical care, his back may become but one link in a deteriorating chain which leads to his death. Lazy, yes, but what a lucky guy.

Another solution that people who believe that entitlements are generally not deserved nor needed is manifested in the form of a tabernacle. They point to churches as voluntary caretakers for the one or two Americans who just may be in need through no fault of their own.

First of all, will atheists be helped with as much enthusiasm as believers? Maybe or maybe not. If someone is an atheist, does he or she want to flip the coin just to see it come up “maybe not”?

Secondly, the baskets passed around on Sundays in most churches will need to be incredibly enlarged. After all, churches will be obligated to purchase medical imaging devices, medicine from the for profit pharmaceutical companies, medical supplies heretofore not considered theocratic tools and hospital beds.

They may not have to pay doctors and/or nurses as the good people who are trained in the field of medicine may do their work gratis. The only professionals who may want compensation would be, of course, the atheists.

A final irony can be found in the list of synonyms for the word “govern”, as found on the web site The Free Dictionary by Farlex. The list includes words like lead, control, command, manage, direct, guide, handle, conduct, order, reign over, administer, oversee, supervise, be in power over, call the shots, call the tune, hold sway over, superintend, rule, decide, guide, influence, underlie, sway, determine, control, check, contain, master, discipline, regulate, curb, inhibit, tame, subdue, get the better of, bridle, hold in check, keep a tight rein on and restrain. In fact these are the only synonyms on that site.

While some of us may have heartburn with words like control, inhibit and subdue, it becomes clear that governing is not meant to be a passive activity or, to put it another way, an inactivity.

Hard as it is to believe words such as ignore, neglect, disregard, shrug off, discount, dismiss, snub and the all important “enrich my friends beyond one’s wildest dreams” do not show up as synonyms for the word govern.

Reinforcing this internet definition of govern is an old standby called The Constitution of The United States of America. It’s obvious to the most casual of observers that the authors of that fine document didn’t intend for government to sit back and merely observe American Society. It, for sure, makes no reference to people in need as lazy, opportunist or stupid. It doesn’t even attempt to foresee a time when every American citizen becomes lazy, opportunist or stupid.

The author of this libertarian-like letter is either one of the very wealthy people in America or is a middle class worker whose been convinced that he is adorned with one of those “you can’t lay me off” shields. If that shield ever fails him, and let’s hope it never does, he will be entitled. Will his outlook on entitlements change? It may or he may think that, in his case, it’s different.

On the bright side, the writer leaves us with a prediction that, after America goes “through its self-imposed socialist cycle”, Americans will look back and say, “Remember when everyone thought they were entitled to everything? Wow, were we stupid.”
At least the gentleman has the clarity of thought and presence of mind to count himself among the “stupid”.

To friendship,
Michael

“Christmas reinforces the greed of the greedy and the need of the needy.” – Michael Bonanno

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Soldiers Of Peace

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/which-of-these-two-entitlements-should-we-drop-to-save-our-ship-102212/">Which of these two entitlements should we drop to save our ship?</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

It’s OK to say “Merry Christmas”

2008-12-20T11:28:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published by OpEdNews)

Let me say right up front that it is not my intention to marginalize and disparage any religious belief in this article.

I’m an atheist. Yet, I think it’s perfectly OK to say “Merry Christmas” during what’s become Christmas season in the US. In fact, out of respect for their celebratory feelings, I might just be inclined to respond with a “Merry Christmas” of my own. By doing this, I’m not recognizing the existence of any supreme being or the story of Jesus of Nazareth. I’m merely informing a Christian friend that I hope he or she has a merry Christmas.

I may do the same with a Jewish friend who wishes me a happy Hanukkah, although, as much as I don’t believe that the New Testament is an intellectual or historical narrative, I believe that the Old Testament or Torah is even less valid. But I will tell people that I hope that their respective seasons are happy and all that they anticipate they’d be. After all, I want people to respect my lack of belief.

I’ve never had the opportunity to say “Happy Ramadan” to any Muslim friends. I just so happen not to know any Muslims personally and I don’t even know that Muslims say “Happy Ramadan”.

The same goes for Kwanzaa. I know quite a few African Americans, yet none has wished me a happy Kwanzaa. In fact, I’ve recently become aware that “Happy Kwanzaa” is not the official greeting of Kwanzaa, but the Swahili phrase “Habari gani?” is. Yes, it is expressed in the form of a question and, depending on which day the question is asked, the answer references one of the Seven Principles of Kwanzaa. With Kwanzaa, Africans reference spirituality, but Kwanzaa is not so much a religious holiday as it is a celebration of culture and family. It’s for certain that I don’t know enough about this celebration to greet Africans properly, but I hope that their season of celebration is every bit as satisfying as Christmas is to Christians, Hanukkah is to Jews and Ramadan is to Muslims. Why should I want any less for my brothers and sisters in the world? Why should I want to interfere with their religious celebrations?

So, with all due respect to Christians, why is it that they, like a writer to The Bangor Daily News, insist that everyone should be as enthusiastic about saying “Merry Christmas” as they are. Not everyone is Christian and, even if people like me respond with a “Merry Christmas”, some, many or most, far too many for my taste, become incensed if someone else responds with “Happy Holidays”.

“Merry Christmas. What does that mean to so many? Apparently nothing. Hence, “Happy Holidays.””.

This is the opening paragraph to the above mentioned letter. It’s really a non controversial paragraph as it is a statement of fact. I would bet that the writer from Caribou didn’t write the paragraph for educational purposes, however. The problem, of course, is that we can’t extract voice intonation from the written word. The phrase “apparently nothing” may be a giveaway that this woman is not writing the paragraph as merely a statement of fact. It “sounds” a bit offensive to me, as if “Merry Christmas” should mean more to me, an atheist, that it actually does.

If “apparently not” isn’t proof that the author means to express more of a message and not so much a statement of fact, what she follows the first paragraph with is, indeed, proof.

She bemoans the fact that, “Now I look around and there seem to be many stores or restaurants celebrating not Christmas, only holidays.”

Would the writer expect stores owned by Jewish-Americans, Muslim-Americans or African-Americans to heretically display “Merry Christmas” in their places of business? Would she expect businesses owned and run by atheists to disingenuously display “Merry Christmas”? It seems to me that she would.

In fact, because 78% of Americans consider themselves Christians, many Jewish, Asian non-Christians, Muslim, African-American and even atheist business owners do, indeed, display signs which read “Merry Christmas” and/or have Christmas displays in their places of business. Many businesses have Holiday Parties or Holiday Bashes for their employees, but many, even those owned and/or operated by non-Christians, have Christmas Parties for their employees.

In a land which had, until recently, encouraged other nations to:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

we have become quite selective about who we let through what has morphed from a “golden door” into a velvet rope. Only those who don’t make us uncomfortable need apply.

To say that non-Christians make the writer of the letter to the Bangor Daily News uncomfortable may be an understatement.

There are two books that most people have to prioritize. People have to weigh what the Torah, The Bible or The Quran say against what The Constitution of the United States says. That, in itself, shouldn’t be a problem. I am familiar with The Bible as well as The Constitution.

Even in The Bible, Jesus of Nazareth, if one was to believe he existed, was believed to have said, not once, but twice, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” – Matthew, 12:17, Matthew, 22:21

Was this man not saying that there is room for both secular government and religious belief?

If he wasn’t saying that, it’s for certain that the best and the brightest have said it throughout American history.

A hundred and fifty years before the American Revolution, Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, said, “The Church and State need not be…inextricably linked: 'A Pagan or Antichristian Pilot may be as skillful to carry the Ship to its desired Port, as any Christian Mariner or Pilot in the World, and may perform that work with as much safety and speed.”

Those who are disappointed that more Americans aren’t as enthused about Christmas and, ultimately, Christianity, may very well have familiarized themselves with only one of the two books mentioned above and more than likely it is the book from which they’ve gleaned their religious beliefs.

The other book, The Constitution of the United States, contains laws which people, no matter what religion they practice or even if they practice no religion at all, should be very familiar with if they want to be law abiding members of The American Society. Unfortunately, it seems that far too many people have familiarized themselves with their religious books in lieu of The Constitution and, consequently, use some of the laws contained in their religious books as laws that should be followed by everyone living in The United States.

Even though there are Christians who want everyone in the US to believe that “…our Savior was born and that makes (Christmas) a time of true celebration for us” or “God already has blessed each of us with his most precious gift: his son. His gift is yours for the receiving”, there are many Biblical laws that these very same people may not want Americans to follow or would not follow themselves.

For example, people who follow the following laws should be investigated by The Children’s Bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services:

“He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.” -- Exodus 21:17

“The eye that mocketh at his father, and despiseth to obey his mother, the ravens of the valley shall pick it out, and the young eagles shall eat it.” -- Proverbs 30:17

To repeat, it is not my intention to mock anyone’s religious book and religious belief. However, if one wants to force those Americans who, by law, are free not to be Christians or Jews, to become enthused about the religious implications of Christmas, it would almost seem that they would want the rest of us to become enthused about whatever else is written in their Holy Book. I know that I’m not the least bit enthused with the two passages above. Furthermore, in reading the passages, I’m happy that the Founding Fathers reassured Muslims in the very early days of this nation that there would be no religious test for conducting commerce by stating that “…the government of The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” Can you imagine the laws of The United States, based upon the laws of Christianity and/or Judaism, enforcing what the above passages suggest?

When George H. W. Bush stated on August 27, 1987 that, “No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God”, he was directly contradicting Article VI of The Constitution of the United States of America. Article VI states that “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” The Constitution was talking mostly about US Representatives, US Senators, The President, The Vice President and the members of The Supreme Court. However, it’s obvious that The Constitution includes all “office(s) or public trust(s) under the United States”.

Surely if the authors of The Constitution specified that “no religious test” would be administered for those wishing to serve in high public office, they would have extended the freedom from such a test to those wanting to become citizens of The United States.

When Bush made that statement, he, I’m sure inadvertently and unknowingly, added the words “as long as they’re believers” to the inscription on The Statue of Liberty.

Bush buried himself in the deepest hole in trying to define patriotism. Patriotism is a personal characteristic, a personal belief. The word and the concept are stretched almost to their breaking points during times of war.

Some say it’s patriotic to unquestioningly engage in warfare because “your government says it’s necessary”. This is patriotism through protecting your country by fighting a war.

Some say it is patriotic to at least question the government’s reasoning before engaging in warfare. This is patriotism through certainty and the genuine elimination of alternative approaches.

Some say it’s patriotic to oppose a war that the government says is necessary if it becomes clear that it, indeed, is not. This is patriotism by truly protecting your country and all who inhabit it.

Some people are pacifists who say that love of one’s fellow man or woman is enough reason to avoid a war, no matter if it’s considered patriotic or not.

Attempting to paint a segment of the population unpatriotic because of their belief toward religion flies in the face of Article VI and the inscription on The Statue of Liberty.

The last paragraph of the Caribou woman’s letter, in its entirety, is, “God already has blessed each of us with his most precious gift: his son. His gift is yours for the receiving. But it is your choice. I pray you choose wisely. Merry Christmas.”

Although I hope that she has a very Merry Christmas, I also hope that, when Christmas has come and gone, this woman searches the internet for a copy of The Constitution of The United States and I hope that she, consequently, “choose(s) wisely” before publishing another un-American, unpatriotic, exclusionary letter.

To friendship,
Michael

“Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily.” - George Santayana

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Casey’s Song

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/polls/merry-christmas-or-happy-holidays-134970/">Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

Stupid Criminal Auditions

2008-12-15T12:03:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published by OpEdNews)

A letter to the editor of The Town Talk decried the theft of the author’s grandmother’s new generator. Grandma had recently become a widow and, considering the likelihood of Louisiana being hit by a hurricane, obviously thought it a good idea and quite comforting to know she would have a plan B for when she lost her electricity. I think it’s a great idea, too.

Unfortunately, “low down sorry thieves” stole the elderly woman’s “peace of mind and measure of safety”.

An obvious fatalist at heart and a supporter of full disclosure, the “concerned” granddaughter wrote that the burglar “needs to come back and get the wheels”. She even announced that she would leave the wheels “inside…the gate where Maybelle the dog is”.

It’s unrealistic to think that this ploy would work, isn’t it? What kind of criminal would go back to the scene of a crime to steal the rest of the booty?

Not so fast, pal. Don’t be fooled by the title of this article. This is not about auditions that are so unfair they should be called “criminal”.

If you’re like me and you watch Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown” on MSNBC, you realize that the women may have a fair to midland chance of catching the criminal.

One of the regular segments on “Countdown” is what Olbermann calls “Best Persons”, but don’t let that fool you, either. This particular segment is not necessarily about people with admirable traits. In fact, it’s often not about people who execute an act better than anyone else. Much of the time, it’s about the most amazing screw up that Olbermann or his staff read about or otherwise know about. In other words, it could be considered the best of the worst. I believe Olbermann mostly wants to expose the funniest of the worst. At any rate, this segment of “Countdown” should give hope to the woman whose generator was pilfered.

For example, in one “Best Person’s” segment, Olbermann talks about a man from the UK who, after waving and smiling at a road side speed camera several days in a row while actually speeding, was caught. He told the authorities that he thought he couldn’t be arrested. What was his special circumstance? The car technically wasn’t his because he had registered it in his thirteen year old daughter’s name.

In another segment, Keith tells us about a tow truck driver who came to the rescue of a police officer who had been hit from behind by a first tow truck. Both tow truck drivers were DUI and both worked for the same towing company.

Then there’s the bank robber who waved down a cab and attempted to use it as a getaway car. Although a number of other circumstances would have blown this Willie Sutton wannabe’s cover, the fact that the cab driver went directly to the police and told them the thief’s whereabouts was all that was really needed.

Naturally, however, the English motorist, the two tow truck operators and the bandit are small potatoes compared to Rod Blagojevich, the soon to be former governor of Illinois. If the other stupid criminals don’t give the elderly Louisiana woman hope, Blagojevich’s imbecility should. As most of us know by now, the governor attempted to sell the senate seat recently vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. Apparently, Governor Blagojevich thought he had more friends than was actually the case. Either that or he thought that he wielded so much power that everyone whose arms he tried to twist, including the arms of The Chicago Tribune and The Chicago Cubs, would fear the consequences of turning him down.

One or more of the governor’s targets did not fear him and/or did not consider himself, herself or themselves friends of Blagojevich. One or more of the governor’s targets told United States Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of the governor’s plans and Fitzgerald had Blagojevich’s phone tapped.

Let’s hope that the Louisiana women involved in the case of the missing wheel-less generator read OpEdNews or any other reputable news outlet (or even some news outlets that aren’t so reputable or just about any news outlet in the nation) or have otherwise heard of Governor Rod Blagojevich’s dumb move. The move and especially the apprehension of the reckless governor will give anyone waiting for good news about justice a reason to feel optimistic.

To friendship,
Michael

“Everything is vague to a degree you do not realize till you have tried to make it precise.” - Bertrand Russell

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Everybody Knows

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/index.php?page=buzzbite&BB_id=137053">Are you surprised by Illinois Governor Blagojevich&#039s arrest?</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

Obama Will Revive FDR’s “Failed” Policies

2008-12-06T13:31:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published by OpEdNews)

Oh, my, what have we done?

If one was to ask several people who’ve written to The Contra Costa Times, we’ve elected a “Marxist” the likes of which this nation hasn’t seen since the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Furthermore, the policies which our new commie president has promised will worsen our economic crisis, will turn it into a depression and will only be able to be righted by starting a world war.

When FDR took office in 1933, 10,000 banks had collapsed, 25% of American workers were unemployed and people were fighting over scraps of food. No matter how much people want to blame The Depression on FDR’s “hackneyed policies”, it’s obvious that The Depression had a pretty good start before he took office.

In October of 2008, three months before Barack Obama is to take office, Americans lost 240,000 jobs and in November, just two months before the inauguration, Americans lost over 500,000 jobs. If “the inevitability of disaster permeates Obama’s administration,” those 740,000 jobs create a good prelude to that disaster.

When the Stock Market crashed in 1929, stock prices were set based upon the fact that they’d been rising. Since they were rising, investors thought that they’d keep rising and, according to the laws of supply and demand, demand for the stocks rose and so did the prices.

This sounds crazy and like a risky business, doesn’t it? What if something happened to make the stocks worth less? Those hopeful investors would be investing in air. What happened to make the stocks worth less and, eventually, worthless, is that the investors suddenly noticed that nothing was backing up the stocks save for their illusory worth. As one would imagine, this brought on a landslide of selling and the industries to which the stocks were linked began to fail.

This may be an oversimplified explanation of The Great Depression, a very complex issue. Yet, believe or not, Barack Obama is inheriting an economic crisis caused in part by a similar fantasy engaged in by wealthy Wall Street traders. This fantasy is called “derivatives”. What are derivatives?

Derivatives are financial instruments which bet on the success of other financial instruments.

For example, the bank wagers on the ability of a person to pay his mortgage. Traders then come along and bet that the bet placed by the bank will be successful. Traders then come along once again and place a bet on the bet placed by the first traders who, of course, bet on the success of the bank loan.

Ultimately, traders are betting on “air”. There’s really nothing to back up their “bets”. Sound familiar?

One source of proof that the traders are betting on “air” comes from The Bank of International Settlements. The BIS reported that the total of the outstanding “bets” or derivatives is $516 trillion. To put this in perspective, the Gross Domestic Product for all of the nations in the world, combined, is $50 trillion. In other words, there’s not even enough money in the world at present to back up the total of the derivatives waiting for a “payoff”. Obviously, since there’s really not enough money or worth in the entire world for every bet that’s out there to be a successful bet, something will have to give.

Yet, the writers of the letters that I’ve referred to want to preemptively blame the present financial crisis on the “bungling and corruption of the Democrat (sic) Congress” which was elected in 2006, the “64 million groupies” who voted for Obama and on “Messiah Obama” himself and his “socialist agenda”.

As mentioned, the cause of The Great Depression and what got us out of it is far too complex to be sufficiently explained in a brief column like this one and by a person such yours truly, a person who is far from being an economic expert. However, as was the case before and at the time FDR took office, the economic situation is set up for failure as Barack Obama and his administration are set to take office.

This failure was caused by a government who believes that government should not govern. The Regime, and this goes back to Reagan and includes H. W. Bush and, yes, Clinton, believes that government should not regulate the “free market”. As with most Libertarians, The Regime believes that the “free market” will regulate itself.

Although the “free market” has the power to regulate itself, we must never forget that the “free market” is predominantly controlled by people who are like kids in a candy store knocking each other over to get the most candy, even though they know they’ll never be able to eat it all. And who suffers for this greed? The middle and lower classes of Americans suffer.

I’m also very cynical about the one party, two division political system we have in the US. However, Obama and his administration are all we have and I’m willing to sit back and see if I’m wrong about The Corporacracy in general or even if I’m wrong about the relationship that Barack Obama will have with The Corporacracy.

I am a die-hard Progressive and a 9/11 Truther. However, I didn’t join those ranks until 2004. In September of 2001, I was willing to follow George W. Bush anywhere logical to pursue those who had caused that tragedy. I was duped, of course, but I at least gave him a chance to screw up.

Unfortunately, there are people who are not as fair with Barack Obama as I was with Bush and can predict the future and know that Obama will fail. More unfortunate than that are the people, and I believe that some of the writers to The Times fit into this category, who are absolutely hoping that Obama fails.

I find hoping that one’s government will fail before it’s even inaugurated among the most despicable and unpatriotic stands an American can take.

To friendship,
Michael

“We live in a Newtonian world of Einsteinian physics ruled by Frankenstein logic.” - David Russell

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Make One More Person Cry

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/index.php?page=buzzbite&BB_id=136178">Obama job-creation plan will focus on infrastructure, technology. </a> | <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

The Failure of an American Triumph

2008-12-03T13:16:00.000-08:00

Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor
(originally published by OpEdNews)

A writer to the Chicago Tribune is very upset with an editorial by The Tribune which states, “If Iraq turns out to be a force for freedom and moderation in that crucial but troubled region, as now seems likely, it will mark an American foreign policy triumph that rivals the rebuilding of Japan and Germany after World War II.”

I don’t blame the letter writer for being upset with the Tribune. I am, however, amazed at what upsets the writer.

To call our involvement in Iraq a “triumph” of any kind is to insult any and all people who were injured on account of the unwarranted and illegal US invasion. Anyone who received a paper cut because of the US invasion to those hundreds of thousands of people who died due to the invasion were not wounded because of some morally defensible action by The US. All of the people who exited their homeland did not leave because Americans landed in Iraq to free them and rebuild their nation. The billions of dollars worth of damage to Iraq’s infrastructure and architecture didn’t happen while Americans were busy “rebuilding” the country. How could anything that The US “accomplished” in Iraq be a triumph?

It’s unconscionable to pat ourselves on the back because we helped in getting Iraq’s electricity up and running again or because we helped to rebuild bridges or roads or schools if we were the ones who destroyed it all in the first place. That we should help rebuild Iraq goes without saying.

Bob Woodward told 60 Minutes that he references Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn Rule” in his book Plan Of Attack. According to Woodward, Powell had previously warned Bush, who, as we know now, probably learned about the invasion of Iraq on the night he was to announce it to the American people, that “if you break it, you own it”. The only reason why The US has to rebuild Iraq is because the US broke it with its illegal invasion.

The possibility that any kind of American triumph can be extracted from our involvement in Iraq ended at the moment that The Regime started floating rumors that we may invade Iraq. A great many of us knew that the rumors were being floated by The Regime and those rumors, along with the stories of possible Iraqi offensives against The US, which may come “in the form of a mushroom cloud”, were outright silly. Hans Blitz and Scott Ritter, two men who had actually spent time in Iraq inspecting the country with the intention of determining if Iraq was engaging in illegal activities as described by UN resolutions, had already concluded that Saddam Hussein had not made any headway in advancing major offensive systems which may have been a threat to, not only The US, but its neighbors.

Of course, this is not what The Regime wanted to hear and it certainly was not what The Regime was about to tell the American people.

The writer, as mentioned, isn’t angry that The Tribune’s editorial refers to our involvement in Iraq as possibly one of the great US triumphs. What the writer of the letter is miffed at is the fact that, as wrongheaded as The Tribune’s conclusion is, it didn’t go far enough in praising George W. Bush and noting that, “in hindsight (Bush) now turns out to be a visionary.”

The Regime took advantage of what happened on September 11, 2001 to convince Americans, blinded by hate toward the Arab world, that 9/11=Arab=anyone who lives in The Middle East=Iraq=Saddam Hussein. At the time, making that hate induced connection wasn’t difficult. After all, if you commit a crime against Americans, especially if your skin isn’t the color of most Americans or if your language uses another alphabet, America will declare war upon people with whom Americans can link you. Get that? Granted, the people with whom criminals can be linked may have nothing to do with the criminals or their crimes. Yet, Americans have no problem making the convenient connection and going from there.

Where Americans go may be wrong or immoral or baseless or unjustifiable, but don’t tell them. After all, Americans don’t make mistakes and, even if they do, the people about whom they were mistaken needed the mistake. Even though Americans made a colossal mistake which killed many civilians and destroyed much of a nation, they can find a silver lining.

Sure there were no weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, America freed Iraqis from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. There would be no more Hussein run torture chambers. They would be replaced by torture chambers run by the American military.

America also “gave” Iraq democracy, as if democracy was something that could be wrapped up and placed under the Christmas tree. I submit that people have to yearn for democracy and be willing to die so that those they leave behind can live in a democratic society. I submit that’s the only way that any nation can move from tyranny to democracy. The people have to want it; the people have to initiate the change; the people have to implement it. Democracy cannot be given to anyone and it certainly can’t be forced upon anyone from the barrel of a gun.

Cheney said that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qaeda in planning and carrying out 9/11. I believe that Cheney knew who planned and carried out 9/11. That being as it may, Cheney was right. There was a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The connection was that the people who supposedly carried out 9/11 and the citizens of Iraq are, in general, Arabs, Middle Easterners and Muslims. Those were the only connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Meeting in Prague be damned, the fact that they could all be referred to as Arabs was all the connection the vast majority of Americans needed. They carried out 9/11. Arabs, seen one; seen ‘em all. Hate 19 of ‘em; hate ‘em all. Kill one for vengeance; kill ‘em all for vengeance.

What The Tribune forgot in its editorial and what the writer of the letter forgets in spades is that intentionally killing the wrong people cannot result in triumph. There is not now, nor could there ever be anything triumphant about what we’ve done in and to Iraq and what we’ve done to the Iraqis.

It’s up to us to continue to dampen every attempt to give The Regime credit for doing anything positive in Iraq. What we’ve done there must never be glorified. We must never let anyone, government official or blind hubristic American “patriot”, get away with saying that anything we did in Iraq, based upon what happened on September 11, 2001 or based upon the lies that were told in support of those actions, was honorable or even necessary. It most certainly was not triumphant.

To friendship,
Michael

“We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.” - Aneurin Bevan

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Everybody Knows

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/index.php?page=buzzbite&BB_id=134917">Should W. get more blame for 9/11, or credit for stopping new attacks?</a> | <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

A Matter of Space? Debatable Opinions; Letters to the Editor

2008-11-27T09:12:00.000-08:00

(Originally published by OpEdNews)

In their letter to the Idaho Statesman, a couple from Boise continued the “arguments” against voting for Barack Obama. The couple chastised The Statesman for its endorsement of Obama and said that they would no longer purchase the newspaper.

Their letter is interesting on so many levels to say the least.

First of all, although this is an assumption, I believe that if McCain would have won the election, the couple wouldn’t have cancelled its subscription, in spite of who the Statesman endorsed. This begs the question is the couple cancelling its subscription because it thinks that The Statesman’s endorsement put Obama over the top? Considering that McCain won Idaho, it seems the couple is giving the paper’s endorsement way too much credit.

Another question is does this couple believe in The US Constitution? Obama ran for president in accordance with the laws as stated in The Constitution. Granted, The Constitution doesn’t state that it should cost $72 million to run for president, but that’s a different issue which needs to be tackled at another time (but soon).

Obama is of age, is an American citizen and is not a felon. Does the couple believe that there should be an amendment to The Constitution which states that people ought not to be allowed to run for president if they don’t agree with its opinions? If that’s the case, the couple is obviously saying that 52% of Americans who voted in 2008 were wrong, while the rest were right (with the possible exception of those who voted for Ralph Nader, Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney). I bet that lots of people would say that the 50% of Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 were wrong and the 47% who voted for him in 2000 were wrong.

Is it possible that the couple believes that the 48% who voted for Al Gore in 2000 were wrong and this it’s OK for a candidate to win an election while garnishing fewer votes than his or her opponent?

I’ve written letters to the editor and, although those letters are called opinions, I’ve attempted to try to squeeze at least one fact into each letter.

However, the couple from Boise, like so many of Obama’s detractors, let their opinions speak for any facts.

For example, the couple informs The Statesman that, by endorsing Obama, it “put all that we hold dear at risk.”

What the couple appears to “hold dear” is ill advised borrowing. It states that Paul is the only winner when the government “robs Peter to pay Paul.”

Not only does the couple not back up the implication that Obama plans to steal money to pay whoever Paul may be in this case, but it describes what The Regime has been doing for eight years.

It would have been easy for the couple to see their misstatement if they only substituted the words “the middle class” for the name “Peter” and the words “the wealthy” or “wealthy corporations” for the name “Paul”. See how much better it would have worked out for them?

With no supporting reference, the couple also states that “51% of the electorate” are “on government entitlements paid for by the rest of us” or, using their logic, paid for by 49% of the electorate.

I’m going to stick my neck out here and not use any supporting reference, but I bet if I did use supporting references, I’d find that 49% of the American electorate does not support 51% of the American electorate.

The couple states that Obama's agenda “is not prosperity for those willing to work.”

Not only is the statement about “those willing to work” specious, but it seems to me that a president who plans a program that would have middle and high school students doing 50 hours of community service a year is a president who’s interested in teaching students the responsibility of earning their way and not having it handed to them. His plan flies in the face of this couple’s opinion.

I realize that newspapers limit letters to the editor to a specific number of words. This might be the reason why Obama opponents never seem to find enough space for facts. However, like the couple from Boise, many seem to find enough space for poorly veiled racism.

To friendship,
Michael

“War is a series of catastrophes that results in a victory.” - Georges Clemenceau

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Like A Million Years (Or So)

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/index.php?page=buzzbite&BB_id=134574">Do you think there are Americans who hope Obama fails?</a> | <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

The Progressive that Progressives Love to Hate

2008-02-29T11:32:00.000-08:00

(Originally published at OpEdNews.com)

Anthony Wade wrote an article at OpEdNews entitled The Nader Illusion, This is No Time for a Protest Vote.

The article was, of course, the first shot across the bow at Ralph Nader because the 74 year old activist had the gall to give the American people a real choice in the 2008 presidential election.

We all knew this was going to happen, though, didn’t we? Mr. Wade’s premise, naturally, is that the 5% vote that Nader picked up in Florida in 2000 would have been enough to make the results unquestionable and, consequently, make the results too definitive to allow The Regime to steal it.

Nobody knows what The Corporacracy would have had Al Gore do if he was elected. There's lots of talk that Gore would not have gone into Iraq or would have captured bin Laden. Was there a Gore presidency film that we’ve previously seen? Would it have been a rerun? Are that many people clairvoyant?

We have to remember the things that have been done while one leg of The Corporacracy or the other owned the person who we euphemistically refer to as president of The Former United States of America.

Whatever Truman was thinking, whatever plans Eisenhower may have had, even though Kennedy was OK with putting "advisors" in Vietnam, the person who occupied the position of fantasy during the time when most of the 58,000 American military personnel died was Johnson, that's Johnson-D.

Some believe we didn't have to get involved in WWII and others say that the first group is nuts. I won't get into how I feel about that, but Roosevelt, that’s Roosevelt-D, was playing the role when Americans died and Japanese Americans were incarcerated.

There are even more people who are convinced we had no reason to lose soldiers in WWI. That's the war that happened during the so called Administration of Woodrow Wilson-D.

If Franklin Roosevelt had anything to do with putting America on the right track for the right reasons after The Depression, I have to admire him for that. I hope he didn't use the death of war to help him.

Herbert Hoover had lots of friends and he did what Republicans seem always to do and that's cronyism America into that very Depression.

A road was built during the Eisenhower years, but he didn't stop people from dying in Korea.

Ford let a criminal go free to save the country from divisiveness which actually might have been good for the country. We may not have fallen asleep to awaken to the fact The United States were finally no longer united.

Carter, well, I'm not sure what Carter did. Some say he caused the energy crisis, some say that bills coming due from Vietnam were doing that. The point is he didn't have the diplomatic skills nor the staff with enough diplomatic skills to free 52 Americans from Iranian captivity. Of course, the presidency is a front for The Corporacracy and the Carter years were slow.

Reagan did very well and I'm sure received good grades from his bosses.
He began escorting American workers to pasture while smiling and being ridiculous enough to be considered America's human sunshine.

His bosses made him and his buddies introduce Iran to El Salvador.

We had our made for TV miniseries war as cameramen and newscasters waited for American soldiers to land on the shores of Grenada. That might be when TV news started to become really silly.

HW screwed Saddam Hussein after years of foreplay. If not for trying to stuff his buddies’ pockets with money in a short period of time, he may have accrued the legacy of being a good president or whatever they call such thespians.

Bill Clinton? Having the stage while the bosses forced the American workers' best friend, NAFTA, on a nation divided by a blow job shouldn’t be something of which to be proud.

Bush may very well be the worst person to ever play president, but it's not because he was behind 9/11. Oh, I'm a supporter of a real investigation into 9/11 and wouldn't be the least bit surprised if The Regime played a small part, had knowledge of 9/11 or did everything from soup to nuts. I don't believe, however, that the guy that some people say is a "terrible president but might be a nice guy to have a beer with” knew 9/11 was going to happen until The Corporacracy was ready to tell him.

Now we're watching more American political theatrics. We actually can now watch the phoniness daily on C-Span.

The Corporacracy won't own President H. Clinton, President Barrack Obama or President John McCain. No, they won't own them. They already do.

I don't want to be negative, but it is what it is.

It won't change anytime soon, either, because the American people don't realize what it is. Those who care about elections view them as sporting events, sort of November madness, if you will and, truth be told, the people who have the most power to change our so called political system are the very people who benefit from it most. It will be amazing if this nation will ever graduate from The Electoral College and, in light of the fact that people say we should fix smaller, more manageable problems first, The Electoral College has a trickle down effect, which is why Americans view so called third parties as they might view a third eye.

Obama, McCain and Clinton all drink from the same trough. They work for the same conglomerate or the same conglomerates. They will send American soldiers where ever The Corporacracy tells them to send American soldiers, they will continue to turn the nation into a two layer class system and maybe half of the American population will continue to argue that things are bad because there's a Democratic president and maybe half of the American people will argue that things are bad because there's a Republican president.

Meanwhile, real Progressives like Nader or The Green Party candidate or even real Conservatives like Ron Paul will never, ever be elected, not because they're third or fourth or fifth party candidates, but because people won't vote for them. And the reason people will never vote for such candidates? You got it. Because people don't believe that they’ll ever be elected.

<a href="http://www.buzzdash.com/index.php?page=buzzbite&BB_id=132233">What influence will corporate America have on Obama's policies?</a> <a href="http://www.buzzdash.com">BuzzDash polls</a>

To friendship,
Michael

“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.” - Ernest Benn

World Conditions and Action Items
CDs
Sermon