Why do nations go to war? I don't mean the top guys. Their reasons are straightforward enough: kickbacks from weapons manufacturers and contractors. Even the most conservative Republican can justify government spending when it’s for a righteous cause like war.
I mean why does the rank and file, the average American, so avidly embrace war? The answer is boredom; war relieves the tedium of our everyday lives.
Absent war, "all the news just repeats itself like some forgotten dream." Which, of course, explains why Bush has recently lost the nation's confidence. This many years after the war's start, we no longer find Iraq amusing.
It's easy to see why 18-20 year olds long for war. Just look at their fathers, stooped and graying, tied to the same lathe, the same computer, the same dumb sales meeting for thirty years and what did it get them. War offers an opportunity, perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a little excitement, a chance to travel, to be part of a winning team.
But why would parents risk their 18-20 year investments? Ever sat in the stands at a football game? Or stood embarassed on the sidelines while the kids played soccer and their parents screamed. War is our chance to scream and yell, to unleash the hatreds we store up each day. (No choice but to store up frustrations when so much of our lives is under the control of others.)
War relieves our tensions and provides us with our one chance to excel, if only vicariously. (So what if there were no weapons of mass destruction. We wanted war and no sacrifice was too great.)
The theory that boredom results in war can survive several independent tests. Take the the born agains, self-righteous, smug, (forced to drink and fornicate under the table, to conceal their shame even from themselves), America's Mid-East crusades provide an acceptable outlet for all that ordinarily would be repugnant to a cheek turning, peace-loving Christ.
War offers the opportunity to do so much that cannot be otherwise justified. High school bullies can keep on bullying, even after graduation. And those that were bullied can now torture others.
As for the intellectuals, the peacenicks, always opposed to righteous causes, so out of step with the rest of us, this theory explains them, too. Intellectuals are like new arrivals at a party, two drinks behind. They find their avocations, if not their jobs, completely fulfilling. They solve equations, find cures, build bridges. They even get off on crosswords and sudoku. They're just not bored enough.
Monday, October 24, 2005
Monday, October 17, 2005
American Debacle By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Some 60 years ago Arnold Toynbee concluded, in his monumental "Study of History," that the ultimate cause of imperial collapse was "suicidal statecraft." Sadly for George W. Bush's place in history and — much more important — ominously for America's future, that adroit phrase increasingly seems applicable to the policies pursued by the United States since the cataclysm of 9/11.
Though there have been some hints that the Bush administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, President Bush's speech Thursday was a throwback to the demagogic formulations he employed during the 2004 presidential campaign to justify a war that he himself started.
That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision-makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated. It has precipitated worldwide criticism. In the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the imperialistic successor to Britain and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread throughout the world of Islam.
Now, however, more than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is needed. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists. It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York City. Yet, in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid, Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London.
There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The targets are America's allies and client states in its deepening military intervention in the Middle East. Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions, hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they see on television, and especially by feelings of outrage at what they perceive to be the brutal denigration of their religious kin's dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only from the Middle East but as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.
America's ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq and America's forbearance of a nuclear-armed North Korea has strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can only be enhanced by nuclear weapons. Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India's nuclear program, driven largely by the desire for India's support for the war in Iraq and as a hedge against China, has made the U.S. look like a selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.
Compounding such political dilemmas is the degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity. Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged administration but by the U.S. media. In response, the administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in the Department of Defense and on the National Security Council who sanctioned "stress interrogations" (a.k.a. torture) were publicly disgraced, prosecuted or forced to resign. The administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court now seems quite self-serving.
Finally, complicating this sorry foreign policy record are war-related economic trends. The budgets for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security are now larger than the total budget of any nation, and they are likely to continue escalating as budget and trade deficits transform America into the world's No. 1 debtor nation. At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of its early opponents, making a mockery of the administration's initial predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally relevant to America's long-term economic primacy in a highly competitive world.
It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of U.S. policy. As a result, large swathes of the world — including nations in East Asia, Europe and Latin America — have been quietly exploring ways of shaping regional associations tied less to the notions of transpacific, or transatlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.
That trend would especially benefit America's historic ill-wishers and future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America's ineptitude are Russia and China — Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.
In a very real sense, during the last four years the Bush team has dangerously undercut America's seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle. Because America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, for a while longer, a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process, America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise constructive global influence. Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.
But it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation. In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out — perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the U.S. leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.
With a foreign policy based on bipartisanship and with Iraq behind us, it would also be easier to shape a wider Middle East policy that constructively focuses on Iran and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while restoring the legitimacy of America's global role.
Though there have been some hints that the Bush administration may be beginning to reassess the goals, so far defined largely by slogans, of its unsuccessful military intervention in Iraq, President Bush's speech Thursday was a throwback to the demagogic formulations he employed during the 2004 presidential campaign to justify a war that he himself started.
That war, advocated by a narrow circle of decision-makers for motives still not fully exposed, propagated publicly by rhetoric reliant on false assertions, has turned out to be much more costly in blood and money than anticipated. It has precipitated worldwide criticism. In the Middle East it has stamped the United States as the imperialistic successor to Britain and as a partner of Israel in the military repression of the Arabs. Fair or not, that perception has become widespread throughout the world of Islam.
Now, however, more than a reformulation of U.S. goals in Iraq is needed. The persistent reluctance of the administration to confront the political background of the terrorist menace has reinforced sympathy among Muslims for the terrorists. It is a self-delusion for Americans to be told that the terrorists are motivated mainly by an abstract "hatred of freedom" and that their acts are a reflection of a profound cultural hostility. If that were so, Stockholm or Rio de Janeiro would be as much at risk as New York City. Yet, in addition to New Yorkers, the principal victims of serious terrorist attacks have been Australians in Bali, Spaniards in Madrid, Israelis in Tel Aviv, Egyptians in the Sinai and Britons in London.
There is an obvious political thread connecting these events: The targets are America's allies and client states in its deepening military intervention in the Middle East. Terrorists are not born but shaped by events, experiences, impressions, hatreds, ethnic myths, historical memories, religious fanaticism and deliberate brainwashing. They are also shaped by images of what they see on television, and especially by feelings of outrage at what they perceive to be the brutal denigration of their religious kin's dignity by heavily armed foreigners. An intense political hatred for America, Britain and Israel is drawing recruits for terrorism not only from the Middle East but as far away as Ethiopia, Morocco, Pakistan, Indonesia and even the Caribbean.
America's ability to cope with nuclear nonproliferation has also suffered. The contrast between the attack on the militarily weak Iraq and America's forbearance of a nuclear-armed North Korea has strengthened the conviction of the Iranians that their security can only be enhanced by nuclear weapons. Moreover, the recent U.S. decision to assist India's nuclear program, driven largely by the desire for India's support for the war in Iraq and as a hedge against China, has made the U.S. look like a selective promoter of nuclear weapons proliferation. This double standard will complicate the quest for a constructive resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem.
Compounding such political dilemmas is the degradation of America's moral standing in the world. The country that has for decades stood tall in opposition to political repression, torture and other violations of human rights has been exposed as sanctioning practices that hardly qualify as respect for human dignity. Even more reprehensible is the fact that the shameful abuse and/or torture in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib was exposed not by an outraged administration but by the U.S. media. In response, the administration confined itself to punishing a few low-level perpetrators; none of the top civilian and military decision-makers in the Department of Defense and on the National Security Council who sanctioned "stress interrogations" (a.k.a. torture) were publicly disgraced, prosecuted or forced to resign. The administration's opposition to the International Criminal Court now seems quite self-serving.
Finally, complicating this sorry foreign policy record are war-related economic trends. The budgets for the departments of Defense and Homeland Security are now larger than the total budget of any nation, and they are likely to continue escalating as budget and trade deficits transform America into the world's No. 1 debtor nation. At the same time, the direct and indirect costs of the war in Iraq are mounting, even beyond the pessimistic prognoses of its early opponents, making a mockery of the administration's initial predictions. Every dollar so committed is a dollar not spent on investment, on scientific innovation or on education, all fundamentally relevant to America's long-term economic primacy in a highly competitive world.
It should be a source of special concern for thoughtful Americans that even nations known for their traditional affection for America have become openly critical of U.S. policy. As a result, large swathes of the world — including nations in East Asia, Europe and Latin America — have been quietly exploring ways of shaping regional associations tied less to the notions of transpacific, or transatlantic, or hemispheric cooperation with the United States. Geopolitical alienation from America could become a lasting and menacing reality.
That trend would especially benefit America's historic ill-wishers and future rivals. Sitting on the sidelines and sneering at America's ineptitude are Russia and China — Russia, because it is delighted to see Muslim hostility diverted from itself toward America, despite its own crimes in Afghanistan and Chechnya, and is eager to entice America into an anti-Islamic alliance; China, because it patiently follows the advice of its ancient strategic guru, Sun Tzu, who taught that the best way to win is to let your rival defeat himself.
In a very real sense, during the last four years the Bush team has dangerously undercut America's seemingly secure perch on top of the global totem pole by transforming a manageable, though serious, challenge largely of regional origin into an international debacle. Because America is extraordinarily powerful and rich, it can afford, for a while longer, a policy articulated with rhetorical excess and pursued with historical blindness. But in the process, America is likely to become isolated in a hostile world, increasingly vulnerable to terrorist acts and less and less able to exercise constructive global influence. Flailing away with a stick at a hornets' nest while loudly proclaiming "I will stay the course" is an exercise in catastrophic leadership.
But it need not be so. A real course correction is still possible, and it could start soon with a modest and common-sense initiative by the president to engage the Democratic congressional leadership in a serious effort to shape a bipartisan foreign policy for an increasingly divided and troubled nation. In a bipartisan setting, it would be easier not only to scale down the definition of success in Iraq but actually to get out — perhaps even as early as next year. And the sooner the U.S. leaves, the sooner the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis will either reach a political arrangement on their own or some combination of them will forcibly prevail.
With a foreign policy based on bipartisanship and with Iraq behind us, it would also be easier to shape a wider Middle East policy that constructively focuses on Iran and on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while restoring the legitimacy of America's global role.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Get Out of Iraq
Is there anybody here who'd like to change his clothes into a uniform?
Is there anybody here that thinks they're only serving on a raging storm?
Is there anybody here, glory in his eye, loyal to the end, whose duty is to die?
I want to see him
I want to wish him luck
I want to shake his hand
I want to call his name
Pin a medal on a man
Is there anybody here who'd like to wrap a flag around an early grave?
Is there anybody here who thinks they stand taller on a battle wave?
Is there anybody here who'd like to do his part, soldier to the world, and a bullet to the heart?
I want to see him
I want to wish him luck
I want to shake his hand
I want to call his name
Pin a medal on a man
Is there anybody here so proud of the parade,
Who'd like to give a cheer to show they're not afraid?
I'd like to ask him what he's trying to defend;
I'd like to ask him what he think's he's going to win.
I want to see him
I want to wish him luck
I want to shake his hand
I want to call his name
Pin a medal on the man
Is there anybody here who thinks that following the orders takes away the blame?
Is there anybody here who wouldn't mind a murder by another name?
Is there anybody whose pride is on the line, with the honor of the brave and the courage of the blind?
I want to see him
I want to wish him luck
I want to shake his hand
I want to call his name
Pin a medal on the man
Phil Ochs
Is there anybody here that thinks they're only serving on a raging storm?
Is there anybody here, glory in his eye, loyal to the end, whose duty is to die?
I want to see him
I want to wish him luck
I want to shake his hand
I want to call his name
Pin a medal on a man
Is there anybody here who'd like to wrap a flag around an early grave?
Is there anybody here who thinks they stand taller on a battle wave?
Is there anybody here who'd like to do his part, soldier to the world, and a bullet to the heart?
I want to see him
I want to wish him luck
I want to shake his hand
I want to call his name
Pin a medal on a man
Is there anybody here so proud of the parade,
Who'd like to give a cheer to show they're not afraid?
I'd like to ask him what he's trying to defend;
I'd like to ask him what he think's he's going to win.
I want to see him
I want to wish him luck
I want to shake his hand
I want to call his name
Pin a medal on the man
Is there anybody here who thinks that following the orders takes away the blame?
Is there anybody here who wouldn't mind a murder by another name?
Is there anybody whose pride is on the line, with the honor of the brave and the courage of the blind?
I want to see him
I want to wish him luck
I want to shake his hand
I want to call his name
Pin a medal on the man
Phil Ochs
Monday, September 19, 2005
Calling the Democrats on their courage
Some would cast the Democrats as cowards at the poker table of politics. This is the conventional analysis, but I am afraid it does not accord with the facts. As an example, in the case of the war on Iraq, fully 60% of the American people want the U.S. to pull out some or all of the troops. That is one heck of a base on which to build a movement and a party. And yet the Dems, in the person of John Kerry, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and others, are calling for "staying the course" and even sending more troops.
This cannot be accounted for by "cowardice" but rather by the fact that the Dems are beholden to the same special interests as the Republicans: the oil tycoons, the barons of the military-industrial complex and those that thrive on empire, from the major banks to Bechtel and Halliburton. Take, for example, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is for "staying the course." Antiwar sentiment is solid in California, yet she refuses to embrace it even though it would strengthen, not weaken, her. No, the Democrats are simply the other war party. And in defying their constituencies that are overwhelmingly antiwar, they are in fact quite courageous.
JOHN V. WALSH
This cannot be accounted for by "cowardice" but rather by the fact that the Dems are beholden to the same special interests as the Republicans: the oil tycoons, the barons of the military-industrial complex and those that thrive on empire, from the major banks to Bechtel and Halliburton. Take, for example, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is for "staying the course." Antiwar sentiment is solid in California, yet she refuses to embrace it even though it would strengthen, not weaken, her. No, the Democrats are simply the other war party. And in defying their constituencies that are overwhelmingly antiwar, they are in fact quite courageous.
JOHN V. WALSH
Friday, September 09, 2005
Help for Rehnquist's daughter
Can someone please be on the lookout for a job for Rehnquist's daughter? She was appointed by Bush to a managerial post in government for which she was supremely unqualified following Rehnquist's favorable vote in State of Florida vs. Bush. Word on the street has it that Bush is going to dump her now that her dad can't do anything more for him.
Monday, September 05, 2005
Little Hitlers
Lifeboats left the Titanic half-empty, as little Hitlers in the form of ship's personnel actively prevented passengers from access to lifeboats. The same scene of horror is being repeated today as Federal officials actively bar rescue to New Orleans flood victims. You can listen to reports from the scene (see Horror Show at http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/02.html#a4763) . Here is a statement fromJefferson Parish President, On Timmeh (Jeffersonis ajacent to Orleans Parish):
Sir, they were told like me. Every single day. The cavalry is coming. On the federal level. The cavalry is coming. The cavalry is coming. The cavalry is coming. I have just begun to hear the hooves of the cavalry. The cavalry is still not here yet, but I have begun to hear the hooves and we're almost a week out.
Three quick examples. We had Wal-mart deliver three trucks of water. Trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back, said we didn't need them. This was a week go. We had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a coast guard vessel docked in my parish. The coast guard said come get the fuel right way. When we got there with our trucks, they got a word, FEMA says don't give you the fuel. Yesterday, yesterday, FEMA comes in and cuts all our emergency communications lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in. he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards said no one is getting near these lines.
...
The guy who runs this building I'm in. Emergency management. He's responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in a St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said, "Are you coming. Son? Is somebody coming? "And he said yeah. Mama. Somebody's coming to get you.. Somebody's coming to get you on Tuesday. Somebody's coming to get you on Wednesday. Somebody's coming to get you on Thursday. Somebody's coming to get you on Friday. And she drowned Friday night. And she drowned Friday night. Nobody's coming to get us. Nobody's coming to get us. The Secretary has promised. Everybody's promised. They've had press conferences. I'm sick of the press conferences. For god's sakes, just shut up and send us somebody.
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Eyewitness in New Orleans
Walking among exhausted, shocked and worried refugees, many of whom have lost everything, I got my first close-up look at the devastating impact of Katrina. In this grim and teeming way station, the nation's incomprehensibly slow-footed rescue effort struck me as all the more staggering.
In a major city in the United States of America, it took days for food and medical supplies to be delivered, for guard troops to be brought in and for sick and elderly people to be rescued from rooftops.
Bodies lay in streets, floated in rivers, piled up at morgues in the Gulf states, and nobody seemed to know who was in charge of rescue efforts.
As lives hung in the balance, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert all but suggested that New Orleans should be bulldozed because of its precarious geography.
The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency said Thursday on national radio that he was unaware of the chaos and suffering at the sweltering convention center, where thousands lived in unspeakable filth.
All of this is somewhat less surprising when you consider that it was the president who set the tone for so casual a response to death, a president more intent on saving face in Iraq than saving lives in the United States.
President Bush, who last year slashed an Army Corps of Engineers request for flood protection in New Orleans, waited four days to visit one of the deadliest disasters in American history.
When Bush finally arrived in the city where levees could have been bolstered with a few weeks' worth of the cost of the war in Iraq, he told the nation he'd had lots of fun in New Orleans in his day. He said he was satisfied with the hurricane response but not the results — decipher if you can — and then he boarded Air Force One and flew home without visiting the sick and suffering at an airport triage center.
Why the quick exit? There is work to be done back in Washington, where the agenda includes another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and gigantic cuts in benefits to the poor, many of whom we saw in the black neighborhoods of New Orleans for several days running, clinging to life and waiting for someone to throw them a line.
Steve Lopez
In a major city in the United States of America, it took days for food and medical supplies to be delivered, for guard troops to be brought in and for sick and elderly people to be rescued from rooftops.
Bodies lay in streets, floated in rivers, piled up at morgues in the Gulf states, and nobody seemed to know who was in charge of rescue efforts.
As lives hung in the balance, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert all but suggested that New Orleans should be bulldozed because of its precarious geography.
The head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency said Thursday on national radio that he was unaware of the chaos and suffering at the sweltering convention center, where thousands lived in unspeakable filth.
All of this is somewhat less surprising when you consider that it was the president who set the tone for so casual a response to death, a president more intent on saving face in Iraq than saving lives in the United States.
President Bush, who last year slashed an Army Corps of Engineers request for flood protection in New Orleans, waited four days to visit one of the deadliest disasters in American history.
When Bush finally arrived in the city where levees could have been bolstered with a few weeks' worth of the cost of the war in Iraq, he told the nation he'd had lots of fun in New Orleans in his day. He said he was satisfied with the hurricane response but not the results — decipher if you can — and then he boarded Air Force One and flew home without visiting the sick and suffering at an airport triage center.
Why the quick exit? There is work to be done back in Washington, where the agenda includes another round of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and gigantic cuts in benefits to the poor, many of whom we saw in the black neighborhoods of New Orleans for several days running, clinging to life and waiting for someone to throw them a line.
Steve Lopez
Saturday, September 03, 2005
Don’t Blame Bush
Don’t blame Bush for the tardy and inadequate response of Federal authorities to Hurricane Katrina. In contrast to the 9/11 terrorist attack for which Bush had several months of advance warning, Katrina came as a total surprise, more so, as in contrast to most Texas ranchers, Bush has little or no interest in the weather.
While Bush's response is often unfavorably compared with his actions following 9/11, he was as inadequate then as now. A promise to confiscate the funds of those who’d financed the terrorists was abandoned once Bush learned the monies came from his campaign backers in Saudi Arabia. Similarly, though the lack of a central computer kept authorities from tracking the activities of the terrorists as they moved freely about the country, the INS (now a minor branch of Homeland Security) still lacks that computer today.Friday, September 02, 2005
Let’s Tax (wisely) and Spend (wisely)
Our nation, already on the brink of bankruptcy as a result of our engagement in unnecesary foreign wars has been pushed over the edge by foreseeable, but unplanned for natural disasters. New Orleans was built below water level, over-built California is perched atop large-scale faults in the earth, and much of the Midwest lies along tornado alleys created by the Interstate Highway System.
We need to tax wisely and spend wisely. The first source of tax revenue for the States should be gasoline taxes. Every freshman economics student knows the theory of supply and demand. Raise the price and demand drops. Alas, the supply and demand curve for gasoline is relatively inelastic. The price of gasoline can be raised again and again without demand being affected. But there is a limiting price at which consumers will, finally, begin to balk. Oil companies have raised their prices again and again searching for that limit. To date, all the profits have gone to the oil companies. By adding a dollar or more in tax to each gallon of gasoline, we will arrive at that limit sooner than expected, with the happy result that all the profits along the way will go back to us the taxpayers.
The second major source of revenue will be estate taxes. This country was founded two hundred plus years ago on the theory that inherited wealth didn’t mean diddlysquat, that the right to the pursuit of happiness would be open to all regardless of birth. Acting within our democratic principles, the States should impose a tax of 50% on all estates in excess of $2 million and of 90% on all estates in excess of $5 million. Bill Gates is entitled to all the results of his hard work and good judgment; his kid isn’t.
The Soviet Union fell apart when it became evident that the sons and daughters of its dedicated if ruthless leaders had no taste for work (though plenty for cocaine and fast cars). Don’t let this happen here.
The third source of revenue is based on a proposal by Abraham Lincoln when he found himself engaged in a war he did not want. Let those who profit most from a country be the ones to pay to preserve it. And the President asked Congress to impose a graduated income tax. Let him do so once again.
The rich will flee the country will they? Right. Just as earth quakes and mudslides have forced so many executives to move from California.
Which reminds me. Let a dollar-for-dollar assessment be levied against any and all attempts by American residents to make deposits in offshore accounts. Let a two-dollar per dollar assessment be made against any American business that raises prices during a natural catastrophe. Let a 90% tax be levied on all profits from sales to the Department of Defense or its contractors.
Now, how do we spend this revenue?
1. Rescue efforts.
2. Housing for the homeless and those without funds.
3. Rebuilding water supplies and sewage lines nationwide. The allocation of monies thereof to be determined on the basis of population, made locally by individual Congressmen, and audited by the General Accounting Office.
4. To local police departments for training and additional personnel.
5. For education to replace the monies slashed by “The No-Child Left Behind” Act.
6. To hire meat and agricultural product inspectors.
7. On computer equipment for the immigration and naturalization service so they may track visitors, temporary residents, and potential terrorists.
8. On increased personnel for the border patrol so they may prevent illegal immigration.
9. On increased personnel for the immigration and naturalization service so they may track down and deport illegal immigrants who’ve made it past the border patrol. (This could include the payment of bounties to local police departments for turning over illegals to the INS.)
Bring home troops to repair flood damage
Let's bring our troops home from Iraq and put them to work on Domestic Oil production. To get Republicans behind this, all cost to be borne as before by American tax payers, and all profits to go to Oil Companies.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Congratulations George W
Under former Governor Bush, the proportion of Americans living in poverty has risen almost to the level reached under the previous Bush administration, while the proportion without medical insurance has acheived an all-time high of 45.8% By cutting the funds available for education, George has made certain that any reduction in these levels will be extremely unlikely. Also, on the plus side, record profits have been made from Bush's war as witnessed by dramatic increases in bank deposits in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.
What would you say if you met face to face with President Bush?
4 out of 10 would ask the President to get out of Iraq, 3 out of 10 would ask him to bring the war to an end by sending more troups, and 30% would ask for a federal ban on pre-empting soaps during prime time.
Friday, August 19, 2005
Theory of Intelligent Design
Actually, like Telliard de Chardin, I've always found evolution to be one of the proofs of the existence of God. Imagine, across the galaxies, billions of life forms are evolving as their environments come into being.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Electronic Voting Machines Manipulate Election
Truth or urban myth? Your comments are invited. See
| http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0813-29.htm and http://www.ilcaonline.org/freeman.pdf |
Monday, August 15, 2005
A grieving mother waits for an answer
Margaret Carlson writes:
I didn't think Cindy Sheehan, the mother waiting on that dusty Texas road for a chance to ask President Bush why her son died in Iraq, was having much effect.
Then I saw her being "Swift-boated" like John Kerry, whose medals and Purple Hearts were all a mistake.
Sheehan, word went out, is a flip-flopper. She'd once accepted the condolences of the president and there was an article in her local paper, which quickly found its way to reporters, to prove it. In it, Sheehan was quoted as saying that Bush wanted "freedom for the Iraqis," felt "some pain for our loss" and that he was "a man of faith." All true, and not at all at odds with what she's saying now, which is that the war is not a "noble" cause, as Bush would have it, and that no one else's child should die in it.
What that excerpt from her Vacaville paper, provided to the Drudge Report, conveniently left out was the part about the family's decision to behave in a decorous way on a solemn occasion, despite their feelings about the war.
As she waited for Bush near his ranch in Crawford this week, Sheehan recalled that first encounter with her president, two months after strangers knocked at the door to say her son, Casey, a 24-year-old Army specialist, had been killed in an ambush in Sadr City. She was still in shock at the time of the meeting and didn't know how to act, she said. Afterward, she didn't want to tell the local reporter how let down she felt by a president who behaved like he was at a social event, who called her "Mom" and didn't seem to know the name or gender of her child, referring to him only as her "loved one."
Even hardened reporters can be flummoxed by Bush. It's not hard to picture Sheehan dazed by him as he mixed up his styles — guy next door, president, the "mission accomplished" commander in chief — with that of a somber undertaker invoking the "loved one" a few too many times. You can picture Sheehan, a small-town mom with good manners, not wanting to disappoint the folks back home with too much candor.
That time is gone, as Sheehan taps into a growing majority of Americans who wonder if the president gets it. That majority now has its own song (the Rolling Stones' "Sweet Neo Con"), its own candidate (Iraq war veteran and Democrat Paul Hackett, who nearly upset the favorite in a Republican stronghold in a special House election in Ohio) and a concession by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (the "war on terror" has become "the global struggle against violent extremism").
Sheehan and others trying to get to Bush's ranch were forced by county police to walk in a three-foot-deep ditch along the side of road and stop five miles short. She ended up pitching a small tent in a tiny patch of shade.
Sheehan has two great advantages: It's the August dog days of news, and she didn't set up in front of the White House. There she would be competing with anti-nuclear, anti-fluoride and anti-globalism protesters. All around her sit satellite uplinks and reporters, finally with something worthier of their attention than Rafael Palmeiro's steroids and Katherine Harris' makeup.
Sheehan is part of a small group of parents who have lost children in Iraq and hate the war. There is a much larger group of parents who believe that Bush is doing everything he can and that he couldn't have anticipated an insurgency whose bombs and members would grow more sophisticated and deadly by the day. For them, their children's deaths were not in vain and most have disdain for all who hold the other view.
Members of Sheehan's tiny Gold Star Families for Peace believe that the president was wrong and is now clueless about what to do. They have stepped into the abyss of regret and senselessness that comes with knowing a child died for a mistake.
Sheehan reminds me of Lila Lipscomb, the Flint, Mich., mother who lost a son and got lost amid less compelling material in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." Lipscomb was an ardent supporter of the military who was devastated because she had encouraged her son to join up to get the education she couldn't afford to give him.
After a "9/11" screening for press and politicians in Washington, Lipscomb said a few words. When the lights came up, the audience spent a long time picking up its things. No one wanted to be seen crying, especially when our privileged positions protect us from ever having to endure what Lipscomb had.
On Friday, Bush will have to pass by Sheehan in his climate-controlled car with its tinted windows, or forgo a fundraiser nearby. He lives in a bubble — his prescreened audiences applaud him for platitudes and for his resolve. He goes nowhere alone. He took Dick Cheney to his interview with the 9/11 commission.
He isn't refusing to see Sheehan because he's callous but because he's like those of us listening to Lipscomb. Alone with Sheehan, he might find himself crying over something his privileged position means he will never have to endure.
I didn't think Cindy Sheehan, the mother waiting on that dusty Texas road for a chance to ask President Bush why her son died in Iraq, was having much effect.
Then I saw her being "Swift-boated" like John Kerry, whose medals and Purple Hearts were all a mistake.
Sheehan, word went out, is a flip-flopper. She'd once accepted the condolences of the president and there was an article in her local paper, which quickly found its way to reporters, to prove it. In it, Sheehan was quoted as saying that Bush wanted "freedom for the Iraqis," felt "some pain for our loss" and that he was "a man of faith." All true, and not at all at odds with what she's saying now, which is that the war is not a "noble" cause, as Bush would have it, and that no one else's child should die in it.
What that excerpt from her Vacaville paper, provided to the Drudge Report, conveniently left out was the part about the family's decision to behave in a decorous way on a solemn occasion, despite their feelings about the war.
As she waited for Bush near his ranch in Crawford this week, Sheehan recalled that first encounter with her president, two months after strangers knocked at the door to say her son, Casey, a 24-year-old Army specialist, had been killed in an ambush in Sadr City. She was still in shock at the time of the meeting and didn't know how to act, she said. Afterward, she didn't want to tell the local reporter how let down she felt by a president who behaved like he was at a social event, who called her "Mom" and didn't seem to know the name or gender of her child, referring to him only as her "loved one."
Even hardened reporters can be flummoxed by Bush. It's not hard to picture Sheehan dazed by him as he mixed up his styles — guy next door, president, the "mission accomplished" commander in chief — with that of a somber undertaker invoking the "loved one" a few too many times. You can picture Sheehan, a small-town mom with good manners, not wanting to disappoint the folks back home with too much candor.
That time is gone, as Sheehan taps into a growing majority of Americans who wonder if the president gets it. That majority now has its own song (the Rolling Stones' "Sweet Neo Con"), its own candidate (Iraq war veteran and Democrat Paul Hackett, who nearly upset the favorite in a Republican stronghold in a special House election in Ohio) and a concession by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld (the "war on terror" has become "the global struggle against violent extremism").
Sheehan and others trying to get to Bush's ranch were forced by county police to walk in a three-foot-deep ditch along the side of road and stop five miles short. She ended up pitching a small tent in a tiny patch of shade.
Sheehan has two great advantages: It's the August dog days of news, and she didn't set up in front of the White House. There she would be competing with anti-nuclear, anti-fluoride and anti-globalism protesters. All around her sit satellite uplinks and reporters, finally with something worthier of their attention than Rafael Palmeiro's steroids and Katherine Harris' makeup.
Sheehan is part of a small group of parents who have lost children in Iraq and hate the war. There is a much larger group of parents who believe that Bush is doing everything he can and that he couldn't have anticipated an insurgency whose bombs and members would grow more sophisticated and deadly by the day. For them, their children's deaths were not in vain and most have disdain for all who hold the other view.
Members of Sheehan's tiny Gold Star Families for Peace believe that the president was wrong and is now clueless about what to do. They have stepped into the abyss of regret and senselessness that comes with knowing a child died for a mistake.
Sheehan reminds me of Lila Lipscomb, the Flint, Mich., mother who lost a son and got lost amid less compelling material in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." Lipscomb was an ardent supporter of the military who was devastated because she had encouraged her son to join up to get the education she couldn't afford to give him.
After a "9/11" screening for press and politicians in Washington, Lipscomb said a few words. When the lights came up, the audience spent a long time picking up its things. No one wanted to be seen crying, especially when our privileged positions protect us from ever having to endure what Lipscomb had.
On Friday, Bush will have to pass by Sheehan in his climate-controlled car with its tinted windows, or forgo a fundraiser nearby. He lives in a bubble — his prescreened audiences applaud him for platitudes and for his resolve. He goes nowhere alone. He took Dick Cheney to his interview with the 9/11 commission.
He isn't refusing to see Sheehan because he's callous but because he's like those of us listening to Lipscomb. Alone with Sheehan, he might find himself crying over something his privileged position means he will never have to endure.
through the looking glass
When President Clinton was committing U.S. troops to Bosnia, Rep Tom Delay (R-TX) wrote
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." -- Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?" -- Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home." -- Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." -- Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
The Bush's Regret
The Bush's regret the passing of their chief financial backer King Fahad who asked in return only that the armies of the United States be placed at his disposal when and where he wanted to use them.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Gay Marriage
1. Marriage is a religious sacrement. Under our constitution, the States can not legally marry anybody.
2. Whether Gays can marry is entirely up to their religion.
3. States can authorize civil unions and can grant civil union status to any marriage.
4. States can restrict the granting of civil union status on the basis of public policy. For example,
they may demand that both members of a prospective couple be tested for AIDS, syphillus, or any other STD and that the results be made known to both prospective partners. They may establish a minimum age at which an individual may enter into a civil union. They may deny civil unions to incestuous relationships.
5. At issue is whether a state can deny civil union status on the basis of sexual orientation. Were they to do so, would not the next steps be to deny the protection of the courts, employment, housing, and even food on the same basis?
2. Whether Gays can marry is entirely up to their religion.
3. States can authorize civil unions and can grant civil union status to any marriage.
4. States can restrict the granting of civil union status on the basis of public policy. For example,
they may demand that both members of a prospective couple be tested for AIDS, syphillus, or any other STD and that the results be made known to both prospective partners. They may establish a minimum age at which an individual may enter into a civil union. They may deny civil unions to incestuous relationships.
5. At issue is whether a state can deny civil union status on the basis of sexual orientation. Were they to do so, would not the next steps be to deny the protection of the courts, employment, housing, and even food on the same basis?
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Why?
Why do banks charge a fee on "insufficient funds" when they know there is not enough?
Why do we press harder on a remote control when we know the batteries are getting weak?
Why does someone believe you when you say there are four billion stars, but check when you say the paint is wet?
Why doesn't glue stick to the bottle?
Why do they use sterilized needles for death by lethal injection?
Why doesn't Tarzan have a beard?
Why does Superman stop bullets with his chest, but ducks when you throw a revolver at him?
Why do kamikaze pilots wear helmets?
Whose idea was it to put an "s" in the word "lisp"?
If people evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Why is it that no matter what color bubble bath you use the bubbles are always white?
Is there ever a day that mattresses are not on
Why do people constantly return to the refrigerator with hopes that something new to eat will have materialized?
Why do people keep running over a string a dozen times with their vacuum cleaner, then reach down, pick it up, examine it, then put it down to give the vacuum one more chance?
Why is it that no plastic bag will open from the end you first try?
How do those dead bugs get into those enclosed light fixtures?
When we are in the supermarket and someone rams our ankle with a shopping cart then apologizes for doing so, why do we say, "it's all right?" well, it isn't all right so why don't we say, "that hurt, you stupid idiot?"
why is it that whenever you attempt to catch something that's falling off the table you always manage to knock something else over?
In winter why do we try to keep the house as warm as it was in summer when we complained about the heat?
How come you never hear father-in-law jokes?
If at first you don't succeed, shouldn't you try doing it like your wife told you to do it?
And obviously if at first you don't succeed, then don't take up sky diving!
And ......
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends, if they're okay, then it's you.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
To the War Crimes Tribunal
If the court please:
The indiscriminate bombing of civilians in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan by the United States during the period from 28 June to ?? July 2005 should be not confused with the massive “rastrellamento” the German SS conducted of the mountainous region around Marzabotta, Italy from 29 Sept to 1 Oct 1944 which killed thousands of civilians. They were Nazi's. We aren't.
Besides, I have not now, nor ever been a member of the Neoconservative Party. I was opposed to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia. Alas, any sign of protest on my part would have been greeted with indignation by my neighbors. In any event, I was just following orders.
The indiscriminate bombing of civilians in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan by the United States during the period from 28 June to ?? July 2005 should be not confused with the massive “rastrellamento” the German SS conducted of the mountainous region around Marzabotta, Italy from 29 Sept to 1 Oct 1944 which killed thousands of civilians. They were Nazi's. We aren't.
Besides, I have not now, nor ever been a member of the Neoconservative Party. I was opposed to the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Colombia. Alas, any sign of protest on my part would have been greeted with indignation by my neighbors. In any event, I was just following orders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)