Posthumous Democrazy

A Modest Proposal

2008-09-21T16:30:00.001-04:00

George W. Bush (remember him?) wants 700 bazillion dollars to rescue the country's "economy" (read - the country's millionaires). Unfortunately, those of us poor schmucks who bought into the whole "invest in the stock and bond markets for your retirement" instead of buying and hoarding gold and bullets get to go along for the ride.

Here's the proposal: Let the greedsters who made a killing by bleeding us dry foot the bill for the bailout. You know Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire, thereby allowing taxes to increase (sometime, eventually, maybe) for the wealthy in this country? It doesn't go nearly far enough. It's time for the neo-con river-boat gambling capitalists to make a little "sacrifice" for the good of the country, and I don't mean the few virgins they have locked in their various walk-in closets (or safes).

It's time to enact a universal (well maybe a "countrywide") salary cap on all Americans - I say a million dollars is enough. Hell, most of us won't accrue a million dollars over the course of an entire lifetime - despite the bill of goods I was sold when I set up my little retirement account during an inflationary period that was going to make impoverished millionaires of all of us. Actually, I think a net worth of a million total is enough, but for the sake of argument, let's just propose an income cap of a million dollars per year for every man, woman and trust-fund-baby in the US and tax the rest of their income at a mere 100%. That's right, enough is enough and a million bucks a year should be enough for anybody (we can write in an exemption for Paris Hilton).

Anything less would just allow the economic vampires to pass the burden on to their employees, or their customers, or their fans - whoever it may be that they're ripping off to pad their expense accounts and off-shore investments to a stupefying degree. Isn't a million dollars enough to pay the rent and put food on the table? If these clowns want to reinvest in salaries, factories, infrastructure, health insurance and whatever it takes to put American workers back to work, I think it's safe to assume there will be tax deductions aplenty to accommodate their long overdue "trickling down" so that we will no longer get golden showers while they get golden parachutes.

What Next?

2008-09-04T22:41:00.003-04:00

The Party of Fear and Hate brings you another four years of Greed and Arrogance!

As Abraham Lincoln may have observed:
You can fool some of the people all of the time (2004?), and all of the people some of the time (2000?), but you can not fool all of the people all of the time (2008?). ~Attributed to Abraham Lincoln

We have nothing to fear but fear itself
And terror
And panic
And horror
And dread
And shock
And alarm
And trepidation
And apprehension

And family values

How the hell do you take the high road when the bullshit's rising faster than the flood waters in Louisiana?

All's fair in love and a war that ends well

2008-02-26T18:53:00.004-05:00

Originally posted as a comment to Gore/Obama 2008: Have yer Cake and Eat It Too at MyLeftWing

Thanks, Durrati! Now that's drawing hope and inspiration out of the impending bloodbath in Denver.

"Rules? In a knife fight?" ~ Harvey Logan, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

According to Merriam-Webster online, a "convention" is defined as:

2 a: the summoning or convening of an assembly b: an assembly of persons met for a common purpose; especially : a meeting of the delegates of a political party for the purpose of formulating a platform and selecting candidates for office.

It's a convention, not a coronation, damnit! Haven't we seen enough of Emperors and their new clothes? Is it too much to ask OUR delegates to do their jobs? After all, OUR representatives in Congress have set such a stellar example over the last 14 months, it should be a piece of cake (or death).

I watched Chuck Schumer on Face the Meat, or Eat the Press, or Stop Making Sense, or whatever talking head fluff it was this morning, desperately trying not to say that the Convention is already hopelessly deadlocked and there is no solution that will not irreparably rend the Party asunder. He didn't convince me.

However, I have some proposals of my own for solutions to the following conundrums (conundra? sounds a little like something sexual - like electorile dysfunction?):
1. what about the Super-Delegates?
2. what about the absence of delegates from Michigan and Florida?
3. wherefore art thou Al, and John, and Ralph?
4. where is Vince Lombardi when we need him?

It's a Byrd, it's a Plame, it's Super-Waffle!

Bill Press on his morning talk show this past week, repeatedly framed the super-delegate question in terms of a quote attributed to Obama - calling for the designation of super-delegates to the candidate who wins "the most states, the most delegates, the most votes." Unfortunately, even that definition fails to identify a single individual candidate, since different candidates could obtain strikingly different victories as measured by each of those measures. And WE don't even have a reliable measure of the votes that are really going to count - who's most capable of carrying enough states to win enough electoral votes to actually win the general election? WE could easily see Obama arrive in Denver with "the most states" while Clinton could have "the most delegates" and no one would have the gall to claim that a January vote in New Hampshire is the same as an April vote in Pennsylvania when the mindset of the electorate seems to be as mercurial as the temperature. If there's one thing WE should have learned by now, it's that people can change their minds - from one day to the next, from one issue to another, from sea to shining sea. A huge shadow has been cast over the Convention - should WE have Punxsatawny Phil cast the deciding vote?

A simple proposal - disallow voting by super-delegates on the first ballot. Make them do their jobs. They represent US. They should arrange a convention where delegates actually have a chance to meet with the candidates, rather than waiting for some anti-climactic rigged beauty-pageant coronation orchestrated by the mechanical application of some vote-allocating formula concocted by some DNC algebraically-challenged "steering" committee. Meet, talk, shout, and have a real discussion of all the issues that seem to concern the Party elite as well as the newly-inspired, presumably easily discouraged new-wave-voters. Then talk to US, the poor peons at home who get to actually vote for or against these clowns in sheep's clothing. Then, after full and open discussion (remember Chicago in '68) of the issues that SHOULD shape the platform and the choice of a candidate who could actually WIN the election, maybe WE will feel that OUR voices have been heard, that WE the people have a role to play, and that THEY will be held accountable to US. If a single, unifying, inspirational candidate fails to emerge under those circumstances, maybe WE could see a "Draft Gore" movement arise from the ashes of self-immolation.

From Lansing to Tallahassee -

If the old guard hopes to retain any semblance of a single, united Democratic Party, they had better come up with a plan that is actually democratic. Much as I would like to see the end of the two-party vice-grip on US politics, I don't think this is the right year to look for wholesale liquidations (Christian-Democrats for sale at 3 for a dollar; day-old Greens reduced for quick sale before self-composting, Social-Democrats veering off to the left of the blue-light special, Labor-ites struggling to raise the minimum wage while still finding sub-minimum jobs for illegal immigrants - to say nothing of the Christo-Fascist Republicons wooing Ann Coulter away from their kinder, gentler side, the Spanish Inquisition). I do understand that it's strikingly unfair to disenfranchise the voters (or non-voters) of Florida and Michigan, but the same good ol' boys who knowingly broke the rules are the ones who stand to assume positions as super-delegates if and when their states' delegations are recognized, and they stacked the deck against Obama and others in both states. I'd allow them to attend the convention, to participate in discussions, to help formulate a platform, and maybe even allow them to vote, but ONLY AFTER a deciding vote has been tallied and ONLY IF their votes won't make any difference. After all is said and done, let them join in the revelry of selecting a candidate who may well become the next President, but let them learn that rules are rules, and if you choose to bring your sister to the prom, you don't get a good-night kiss (I was sorely tempted to make this metaphor a lot more graphic - feel free to fill in your own details - but I decided that when you're coining a phrase that may last for all posterity, and may decide the fate of the world as we know it, it should probably be G-rated and avoid any reference to the State of Arkansas).

Would you buy a used car from this man?

Remember the anti-Nixon campaign poster from the 60's? Why should we care who gets which endorsement deal? The truth is that we SHOULDN'T, but we do read the gossip rags, and the blogs, and then we make up our own and we hope someone out there cares what WE say - and then there are the voters who are not quite as well read, or informed, or opinionated, or self-righteous, or deluded, or as intelligent as we are. As I said in an earlier unread diary, the masses are awakening, and they're ready for change, but their attachment to this particular political process may be quite tenuous. Maybe Durrati's right, and this is Al's moment to "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World." Or maybe just help steer it in the right, or rather left, direction. Maybe Al Gore and John Edwards, and Ralph Nader, and Oprah Winfrey, and Caroline Kennedy can work together to bring the Party together under the big tent (or maybe we're all bozos on this bus). On the other hand, if the Dems self-destruct, is it too late to field a Gore/Edwards team on the Green Party line in all 50 states?

Put me in, Coach; I'm ready to play!

We've survived another Super Bowl; we've puzzled over a Super Tuesday; we're baffled by the Super-Delegates - can we somehow manage to de-throne the Republicons before we descend into madness and the Democratic Party becomes a Super-fluous footnote in American History?

"Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." ~ Vince Lombardi

True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country. ~Kurt Vonnegut

A Quiet Revolution?

2008-02-07T11:14:00.000-05:00

Maybe there's hope after all. The Will.i.am video for Obama is pretty cool. Apologies for duplicating the posting thereof, but if you haven't seen it yet, check this out:

I'm afraid the cynic in me is tempted to think this is all another example of style over substance. But, then again, imagery can be visceral and inspiring. And the smallest moments can remind us that there may still be a reason to vote, and to hope.

As I walked into the firehouse in my small, rural, upstate NY home town to cast my vote, I encountered a rare and wondrous sight. Twenty registered Democrats of all ages waiting in line to cast their votes in a primary election in an overwhelmingly Republican, predominantly white, working-class town. As we joked and chatted in line, wondering how the hell anyone was supposed to understand the fact that the delegate names on the ballot had nothing to do with the candidates whose names they appeared next to, a few Republicans sauntered in and sheepishly wandered over to their vacant sign-in table. Then, even though I found myself in a situation where my vote may have helped send a delegate one way or another in a year when that might actually make a difference, I still felt that my right to choose a candidate had been squelched by an unfair and undemocratic process – the names Kucinich and Edwards remained on the ballot, but I was a pragmatist for a day. By the time I had cast my vote, the queue had grown to forty in length and strength, with a line trailing out into the parking lot. I couldn't help feeling that the two-party system is an archaic charade that still forces me to choose the lesser of two evils, but I saw, and felt, a glimmer of hope for my neighbors and, dare I say, for the country.

Perhaps the most perspicacious Quotes of the Day from the local paper the day after:

Illinois Sen. Obama got 6,585 votes in the Democratic primary, while New York Sen. Hillary Clinton earned 4,631 in the county.

Forty-six percent of Democrats turned out for their primary while 28 percent of eligible Republicans voted.

A 46% turnout in a primary election? Maybe people care about this stuff, after all. I’m going out on a limb here and concluding that, based on a careful survey of absolutely no one, the sleeping giant that is the silent majority in this country has been awakened.

And the electorate is looking pretty good at the moment. They may still prefer to stay at home and watch reruns of Everybody Loves Seinfeld’s Friends than to actually get out, get involved, or write a letter to the editor, but they are, in fact, ready for change.

Maybe not as much change as I’d like to see – maybe they’re willing to waste another year or two in Iraq in the name of “safe transition” instead of going directly to “give peace a chance” or to continue to subsidize the health care and pharmaceutical conglomerates instead of reining in soaring health costs by nationalizing the insurance industry. But maybe, just maybe, this is part of an evolutionary, rather than revolutionary, change.

Maybe we will come out to vote. Maybe we’ll stay interested in the issues, maybe we’ll exert some influence over whichever of the two evil choices we’re stuck with. Yes, we can, indeed.

Disenfranchised, disillusioned, disconsolate

2008-01-09T00:31:00.000-05:00

I tried to care about the primary results. But they scare me. And they mostly come at night. Mostly.

I live in upstate New York, surrounded by third, fourth, and fifth generation Republicans, and my primary vote, whenever it happens to come around, isn't going to mean squat in the nominating process because by then, the media will have anointed a champion based on some questionable results from some arcane procedures in a few small states far, far away from where I live, both literally and figuratively. What's the point of even having a convention? So now I'm just baffled. WTF?

It seems like the Clinton campaign was universally declared dead yesterday, but now those rumors seem to have been grossly exaggerated, or premature, or results were misinterpreted, or the margin of error is now 100%. At least some of the voters seem to be ignoring the media hype, the millions of dollars in advertising, the polls, the pundits, and the Vegas odds-makers to vote for their favorites in this bizarre beauty pageant! Why isn't anyone reporting on the woeful performance of the media and the polls, to say nothing of the pols? Hell, if we judged the media and the pollsters as harshly as the media judges the campaigns (not the candidates, mind you, just the campaigns), we wouldn't have anything to read tomorrow. Thousands of telephone operators and media hacks would be out of work and we'd be stuck reading about issues like Iraq, Iran, healthcare, and Britney Spears' extended entourage.

Just how broken can the electoral process in this so-called democracy of ours be? I don't want the presidential nominee for my precious default, lesser-of-two-evils party to be chosen by the caucusoids of Iowa or the voters of New Hampshire (including, of course, independents who are not party members at all). I sure as hell don't want the media to choose for me, or the pollsters, or the media who only cover the pollster beat, or the pollsters who cover the media beat. Now, if we could have a gladiator-like contest wherein the candidates get to beat the media rats with poles, that'd be entertainment!

Is it too late to put together a viable third party ticket? Gore and Bloomberg? Nader and Lieberman? Gary Hart and whoever he can get his hands on?

I'd like to propose campaign finance reforms that would include a complete ban on campaign contributions and electronic advertising, and a blackout on any electronic media coverage of the campaigns at all. Let's give intelligence tests to would-be voters - something simple like "Do you support the policies of George W. Bush?" - with an immediate disqualification for the 30% of the public who might say yes, of course. I'll bet that billboards, campaign buttons and bumper stickers can do as good a job of educating the electorate as the crap that fills the airwaves now.

What this country needs is a good five-cent campaign slogan. Here's my free suggestion for the day:

"Vote your conscience - vote Kucinich"

Succinct, pithy, fits on a bumper sticker, and what the hell else rhymes with Kucinich?

The Bully's Pulpit - Divide and Conquer

2007-09-24T12:20:00.000-04:00

First, a caveat: ALL generalizations are flawed.

Having said that, I can unequivocally state that there are two kinds of people: People who divide things into two groups and those who don't. Too many of us are too sure that there are only two sides to every debate, just as there are two sides to a coin. Heads/Tails; Right/Left; Liberal/Conservative; White/Black; Male/Female. Why, if my opinion is Right, must yours be Wrong?>

Spin a coin on its edge.

Quickly, how many sides does the coin have?

Which side is light?

Which side is dark?

Which side is up?

Which side is down?

What if the coin rolls off the table and onto the floor?

What if it rolls under the fridge?

Who wins?

Us Vs. Them

As progressives, and liberals, and conservatives, and libertarians, and neo-cons continue to redefine themselves in terms of hot-button issues having little, if anything, to do with political philosophy, we each find ourselves on opposite sides of incendiary issues without realizing that we have more in common with each other than with those who wield power and influence. How can "we" target "them" when the target keeps moving?

It's natural for people, as for most animals, to seek companionship and community, whether based on genetic or philosophical commonalities. We all belong to families, or tribes, or churches, or homelands, some of which we are born into and some which we choose, consciously or otherwise. At the same time, we all have that inner Garbo that wants to be left alone - we want to feel safe and secure in our own homes. Add to this conundrum an axis of selfishness and its no wonder we all feel conflicted about doing what's best (or safest, or most profitable, or most spiritually rewarding) for ourselves versus doing the right thing for our people (whoever they may be - our family members, or tribesmen, or whatever flock we happen to gather together as defined by whatever feather we happen to have in common).

It's easy to exploit the "us versus them" mentality. It's something we've been taught since birth. For example, we need look no further than Jena, Louisiana to find the institutional racism that envelops us as effectively as the Force. As Obi-Wan said, "It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together." Or, in the case of the dark side revealed in this incident, it threatens to tear us apart. I think that, in this forum anyway, we all recognize that we carry some unfortunate and inadvertent racial stereotypes around in our heads, but I don't believe that this distortion of the "self versus others" paradigm is "human nature." This kind of bias - racism, bigotry, and the fear and hatred cultivated by generations of our forebears - is not genetic, it's learned. (I note here that some terminology I may use borrows from the socio-biologists in the crowd who claim that even the simplest organisms can experience "kinship" and "altruism" in a manner that favors "us" versus "them" when it comes to survival of the species, even on a cellular level - see, for example, what you can Google about kinship and altruism among bees, ants, and even single cell critters. They define "altruism" as behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. In other words, how closely related to another being do you have to be in order to sacrifice your life for his/hers, if your sacrifice furthers the perpetuation of your common family or species. That's a topic for further discussion elsewhere - except in the State of New Hampshire, where kinship is mandated by state motto).

Once we understand that we all carry within us a certain propensity for selfishness relative to a natural inclination to gravitate toward a common community, it's easy to see that well-meaning people can do really stupid things in the name of "what's right" without regard to truth, or justice. It's the American Way! It's all about defining your community. There are some obvious identification tags - family, race, ethnicity, or gender - as well as some more esoteric ones - sexual orientation, political philosophy, favorite band, or blog color. We, the vast majority of whom are followers, are but lemmings when a charismatic or powerful leader asserts authority.

To paraphrase Thom Hartmann, whether you can be characterized as a liberal or a conservative depends on how narrowly or broadly you define your community. The closer you are to the selfish egoist end of the spectrum, the more likely you are to be paranoid - you've defined "us" so narrowly that there's nothing but "them" out there - and they hate you. If, however, you're on the selfless, altruistic end of that axis, you can define your community so broadly, and in terms of love instead of hate, that we are all "us" and there are very few of "them" - it's just a little frustrating that "they" have all the money, and the power, and masses of deaf, dumb and blind followers. It's all a matter of perspective and circumstance - whom do you fear when you wake up in the morning, or go to work, or walk home at night, or go to bed alone - who's your boogeyman?

As other writers have recently pointed out, the strategies of Leo Strauss, Milton Friedman, Paul Wolfowitz, and even The Administration That Couldn't Shoot Straight rely on classic "divide and conquer" ploys that pit people against each other on the basis of race, religion, nationality, or socio-economic status, or with regard to matters of individual choice so convoluted that they defy political solution or definition, like abortion rights, gun control, gay marriage, the death penalty, affirmative action, global warming, and universal health care. The fact that human beings are an irrational bunch subject to manipulation and delusion disguised as faith yields the unfortunate conflation of "family values" and "creation science" into a mythology of neo-conservatism that becomes the brand identifier for the 30% of the population that still support President Bush (and terrify the Senate). These are the flock that the disaster capitalists so aptly described by Naomi Klein have learned to herd as easily as sheep. Liberals, on the other hand, shift allegiances like changes in the wind, and therefore serve as the proverbial herd of cats. We live in a world run by autocrats who have assumed control of virtually every government, every corporation, every media outlet, and every advertising agency. And we like it! Why not? Part of that little lizard brain lurking in our heads wants to have someone in authority tell us what to do, what to think and to reassure us that everything will be all right. What happens when such an authoritarian figure attains a position of real power and throws in the element of fear, or shock? Look around.

Each Government's interest is wrapped in nationalism, religion, jingoism, and ethno-centrism to masquerade as the people's self interest. The various "democracies," monarchies, corporatocracies, oligarchies, and (in the case of Iraq) anarchies compete for survival at the expense of their own constituents. When the petty tyrants get into the act, the warlords, gang leaders, and crime bosses assume the guise of freedom-fighters, terrorists, islamo-fascists or saviors, depending on your perspective. Define your community; it's "us" versus "them": Christians/heathens; Sox/Yankees; white/black (or brown). "They" hate us for our freedom, so we'll declare war on terror. We fought terror with terror and terror won; so much for freedoms. Now everybody hates us; it's us versus THEM!

Just as tyranny by majority rule based on common ethnicity or religious belief has proven to be an unworkable political methodology (see e.g., Northern Ireland, Uganda, Darfur, and South Africa or look up the definition of "balkanization" and "ethnic cleansing"), so has the nation-state itself become an anachronism. Can we point to any government on earth and proclaim that it is the best we could come up with? We desperately need a new vision for the future of the species.

If we don't realize that WE the people of earth are hurtling through space alone together on a big blue starship pretty soon, I fear that we will all succumb to the disaster capitalists. Here's an idea. Think before you speak. Listen. Learn. Treat those who would do you harm as human beings.

Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? - Abraham Lincoln

It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business. - Mohandas Gandhi

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. - Moshe Dayan

They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. - Isaiah 2:4

It's time to spin the coin again - it has no head, it has no tail, it has an edge with an infinite number of sides. It's starting a new revolution. I'm gonna call it secular altruism. I hope it's not too late.

True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country. ~Kurt Vonnegut

A New American Revolution?

2007-07-06T16:12:00.001-04:00

It seems to me that W and his mini Axis (or is that Excess?) of Evil, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, have betrayed the trust of even the most die-hard conservatives, libertarians, and honest republicans and have managed to lead the once nearly-respectable Republican Party to the brink of extinction (remember when Republicans actually stood for something other than "the best politicians money can buy?" Does the name Abraham Lincoln ring a bell? Wendell Wilkie?).

W's approval rating drops to an all time low of 32% and no one asks, "Who are those 32% and why aren't they being committed to mental institutions?" We the people seem to have surrendered our role in self-government to the corporate lobbyists and political machines. Remember those Founding Fathers the neo-cons are so fond of summoning up for endorsements of everything from corporate welfare to undeclared war? Those guys were not exactly conservative in their time. If they had modeled our government based on what the best thinkers of 250 years prior had done, we'd be living in a 1526 era feudal system where moneyed oligarchs treat indentured servants as property - a two class system where rich landowners control everything and working people tithe their hard-earned income to the overlords. Oh, wait a minute, have we come full-circle already? Let's remember Jefferson's response to the madness of an earlier King George:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

Such was the text of my very first blog-post in May 2006. I needed to vent and there was an election coming up - an election that could have changed the course of American history. How far have we come? How far have we fallen? Where do we go from here?

Thanks in no small part to the self-destructive tendencies of Republicans (they are only human, after all), the Democrats won an election (personally, I don't think their limp non-campaign would have resulted in winning even the House if it hadn't been for Mark Foley's timely scandal - was it a mandate to end the war, or just a blip in the EKG of public sentiment toward the heartless, soulless bastards who occupy the left side of the aisle instead of the ruthless, arrogant sons-o'-bitches on the right?). But what did the American people win? Another chorus of "Wait 'til next time!" from an apparently well-meaning (so they keep telling us) but toothless, gutless, political machine more invested in self-perpetuation than the actual welfare of the general public.

Well on the way to election fatigue a full 16 months before the actual election, we the people are bored, disillusioned, apathetic, and betrayed again and again. But who cares? A few of us spill our bile in vitriolic rants full of sound and fury signifying, well, you know the rest - a few of us actually campaign for the less than perfect candidates of our choice, warts and all - a few try to open the window of apathy enough to allow in a draft for the potential candidate of our dreams - most of us, however, flip past the news to get to the latest rerun of Seinfeld or Jeopardy.

We need a new American revolution. We aren't likely to see an impeachment. We won't see the birth of an effective third party. We can't claim a fair and balanced media, much less a liberal-bias therein. Can we place our fates in the hands of the American public, sure as they are to educate themselves, to raise their consciences and consciousness out of the gutter long enough to usher in a new Renaissance in environmentalism, universal health care, a living wage, civil rights here and abroad, tax reform, fair and equitable foreign relations, and just plain honest government? As far as educating the public goes, I'm afraid that, in the immortal words of Alice Cooper, "School's out, for-ever":

Well we got no class

And we got no principles

And we got no innocence

We can't even think of a word that rhymes

At least Keith Olbermann’s mad as hell, and he doesn't plan to take it any more! All we have to do is come up with a way to translate Keith's 700,000 viewers into 70,000,000 voters!

Have we forgotten how to stick it to the man? Now that our collective memories have all been stimulated, simulated, synthesized, anesthetized, homogenized, polarized and synchronized, do you remember when we were all at Woodstock and Grace Slick and Jefferson Airplane sang:

We can be together

Ah you and me

We should be together

We are all outlaws in the eyes of america

In order to survive we steal cheat lie forge fuck hide and deal

We are obscene lawless hideous dangerous dirty violent and young

But we should be together

Come on all you people standing around

Our lifes too fine to let it die and

We can be together

All your private property is

Target for your enemy

And your enemy is

We

We are forces of chaos and anarchy

Everything they say we are we are

And we are very

Proud of ourselves

Up against the wall

Up against the wall (motherfucker)

Tear down the walls (motherfucker)

Tear down the walls (motherfucker)

Come on now together

Get it on together

Everybody together

We should be together

We should be together my friends

We can be together

We will be

We must begin here and now

A new continent of earth and fire

Come on now gettin higher and higher

Tear down the walls

Tear down the walls

Tear down the walls

Wont you try

And do you remember when Dick Cavett tried his best to interview the Airplane the next day. . .

and the censors didn't know what to do about it?

Now that was a revolution worth singing about!

We won't need a failed impeachment proceeding if we can win a pie fight of the magnitude of 1973's shaming and shunning spectacular that led to Nixon's resignation. Let the circus of meaningless Congressional hearings begin! (And let's hope there's another smoking gun in the Republicans' closet - preferably one related to sex).

True terror is to wake up one morning and discover that your high school class is running the country. ~Kurt Vonnegut

The Post Yardwork and Barbecue Thoughtful Memorial Day Edition

2007-05-28T23:21:00.000-04:00

Kurt Vonnegut had much to say about war and soldiers in Slaughterhouse-Five, but I was particularly struck by the following exchange in Happy Birthday, Wanda June between the long-presumed-dead Harold Ryan and his sidekick Colonel Looseleaf Harper (who is described in the play as the man who dropped the atom bomb on Nagasaki):

LOOSELEAF: Anybody who'd drop an atom bomb on a city has to be pretty dumb.

HAROLD: The one direct, decisive, intelligent act of your life!

LOOSELEAF: [Shaking his head] I don't think so.

[Pause}

It could have been.

HAROLD: If what?

LOOSELEAF: If I hadn't done it. If I'd said to myself, "Screw it. I'm going to let all those people down there live."

We ask our soldiers to make life and death decisions every day, and we ask them to sacrifice themselves to safeguard our "freedom" and "democracy." How can we expect them to know when and how to do what's right? How can we ask them to trust their commanders in the field when we can't trust our leaders at home? And how can we expect them to live with the consequences of their actions? How can we live with ourselves?

This one's dedicated to my father and my father-in-law, both veterans of World War II who chose not to talk about their experiences during their lifetimes. I regret that I didn't challenge their decisions. I have a lot of questions.

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy. . .

2007-04-14T13:10:00.000-04:00

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water, you discover that the whole damn country's engaged in a culture war. Okay, bear with me, this isn't another rant about Imus. Trust me. On beyond Imus. . .

From The New York Daily News Editorial , Friday, April 13, 2007

You've heard it everywhere, on the talk shows, on the block, in the corporate boardrooms: Enough, damn it, is enough.

And that goes well beyond Imus. When such firms as Procter & Gamble and General Motors decide they will not stomach what Imus suddenly represented, we may be at a tipping point - a wave of citizen response, finally, to the larger-than-Imus matter of the U.S. cultural swamp.

We do mean, of course, the entertainment industry in general and the recording business in particular. It's no news that your average platinum-selling hip-hopper enjoys airplay with sentiments far more vile and degrading and soul-deadening than anything Imus had to say.

Well, maybe it is about Imus, a little bit. But it's also about things much bigger than Imus, like that root of all evil, "the entertainment industry in general and the recording business in particular." Thank the gods for P&G and GM - where would we be without their moral guidance?

Of course, the battle has been raging quietly in the background for years, thanks to our unsung culture warriors and guardians of virtue:

Crusading against this onslaught for quite a while have been this newspaper's Errol Louis and Stanley Crouch, Essence magazine, the National Association of Black Journalists, Bill O'Reilly and other observers of how the culture has been hijacked. Much the same thinking is behind the movement to ban the N-word.

WTF????? Fucking Bill Fucking O'Fuckingreilly????? There may be some things wrong with this ol' society of ours, but can you think of anything that a good dose of Bill O'Reilly could cure? No, thanks, I'll stick with the disease.

Maybe there's yet a different lesson to be learned here. I remember reading some news the other day, . . . . oh, boy. . .

From the Kansas City Star Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Imus isn't the real bad guy

Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.

By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist

Thank you, Don Imus. You've given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You've given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You've given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it's 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

While we're fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I'm sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent's or Snoop Dogg's or Young Jeezy's latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ain't saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don't have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.

Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

It's embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I'm no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.

But, in my view, he didn't do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should've been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it's only the beginning. It's an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, we're supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers' wonderful season.

Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.

But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism.

This is a distraction.

In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?

I don't listen or watch Imus' show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it's cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they're suckers for pursuing education and that they're selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I'll get upset. Until then, he is what he is - a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you're not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There's no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

Well, at least there's one black journalist out there who's found the cure for 1000 years of racism and sexism. (Author's Note - I actually think that Whitlock makes a point here - I just don't think it is the only point to be made and it unfairly singles out rap and hip-hop as the cause and not a symptom of institutional racism and sexism; that's a distraction in itself - and to lump Dave Chappelle's sometimes brilliant satire in with the stereotypes he's mocking is just, well, stupid). Have these guys all been studying blame shifting under George W? It's the gangstas' fault. . .It's the First Amendment's fault. . . It's the liberals' fault. . .

One of the problems with discussing racism and sexism is that we tend to get bogged down in discussions of "race" and "sex" without addressing the "ism." Don Imus's statement wasn't outrageous because "nappy headed" is a particularly derogatory term or because he really meant the members of the team were literally engaging in prostitution. No, his poorly phrased slur was outrageous because it was hugely, immeasurably disrespectful and even dehumanizing to blacks and women generally, and to black women in particular. Rude, crude, and offensive as he has always been, this one just brought together the right elements to produce dynamite. It's not just about "family values," folks; it's about respecting everyone, including our mothers and sisters and daughters wherever they may be, as well as the welfare mothers of Kansas City and the gangsta rappers of Brooklyn.

I'm tired of this being about "the double standard" instead of anyone pointing out the one obvious lesson we all coulda, shoulda learned. A lesson that can be applied to just about everything that's wrong with the way blacks, and women, and we the people of the United States of America, are treated by bullies with pulpits.

Don Imus, like it or not, is now the perfect poster boy for this year's "Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten" Award in the Best Example of a Virtue Virtually Lost Category:

And the winner is: Don Imus for "Accountability"

Don, do you have a few words or thoughts you'd like to share with Mr. Bush, or Mr. Cheney, or Mr. Rove, or Mr. Libby, or Mr. Gonzales, or Mr. Wolfowitz?

Any suggestions for other employers out there, say the US Congress? The American voters?

"Man, you got to own your own shit." (Not an actual quote)

Thanks for apologizing, Don. And thanks for not throwing a hissy-fit when your ass got canned. You've shown us that bullies don't need to be tolerated. And maybe, just maybe, you learned something in the process. Bravo!

Happy Batman Sticker Day!

2007-02-14T00:28:00.001-05:00

You were expecting writings or tithings or writhings of love on this so-called Valentine's Day? Well, we've all heard the time-worn, tear-jerking, heart-rending, protestations of love, whether it be romantic, platonic, paternal, maternal, diurnal, or lost. This is my weblogging greeting to my daughter (you know who you are), one of the original Weirdo creators of Batman Sticker Day! Congratulations on your tenth anniversary, guys! Now, as you look forward to the next phase of your "Reality Bites" tour of life, remember, it's always darkest before the bat-signal shines! I love you, kid - now go check out My Left Wing to see what real commitment is. If you guys can sustain a self-help movement like this one for ten years, you might just be able to change the world! Love, Dad

Hello! You're probably wondering what Batman Sticker Day is and what this is all about. Quite simply, Batman Sticker Day is the action-packed alternative to Valentine's Day, where instead of celebrating flowers and hearts and the color pink (oh, okay, and the joy and beauty of love), you celebrate Batman and the fantabulousness that is the Dark Knight. Batman Sticker Day is great to celebrate as an alternative to Valentines Day, or simply in addition to it, if that's your bent. You see, Valentine's Day is great for those in a love situation, but for those who aren't it can range from, well, meaningless to angering and excruciating. Batman Sticker Day works whether you are in a love situation or not. If you are in love, what better way to surprise a significant other or crush than with Batman-y goodness? Batman is sleek, sophisticated, attractively mysterious, and all-in-all just plain cool. The people close to you are sure to realize that if you've sent them a Batman Sticker Day greeting, then you're just as cool as Batman. We guarantee. (I know that Batman is the way to my heart…) But Batman Sticker Day also works quite well if you're not in a love situation as it happens to feature a lot of dark clothing and ass-kicking. So next year, when you're making plans for February 14th, leave some room for Batman Sticker Day.

Batman Sticker Day Trivia:

- Batman Sticker Day was founded at a small, public high school in 1998. The original founders plastered their school halls with Batman stickers. All were apprehended, sent to the office, and forced to remove the stickers, but the holiday lived (and lives) on…

- Batman Sticker Day is actually being celebrated for its tenth consecutive year by a growing minority of people along the east coast.

- Batman Sticker Day has been celebrated at Vassar for seven years now.

- Batman Sticker Day has also been celebrated by students at Brandeis, Cornell, and Ithaca College, and in such far away places as Scotland and New Zealand.

Narrative stolen from Flushy McBucketpants
(but what's he gonna do about it?)

BSD concept liberally shared by the original Weirdos:
(drarwing by Polly-the-bard)

Another Fine Mess

2007-01-10T19:48:00.000-05:00

Crossposted from My Left Wing

I just read Jeff Huber's recent post Neocon Nation: Ignoring Sun Tzu and weeping for brunnhilde's Iraq's Impending Bloodbath -- and there is clearly no military solution to the Iraq Crisis. We cannot win this war. We cannot win this war for innumerable reasons.

Among those innumerable reasons: this isn't a war anymore. We know war when we see it. We've seen wars of conquest and wars of independence; we've seen wars to end all wars; we've played chess -- or checkers, or Risk, or Battleship -- enough to know that a "war" takes place between two (or more) nations.

There's no USA vs. Iraq here. Heck, there's no "us" vs. "them." Our unprovoked invasion of Iraq wiped out that "nation" as the world knew it. We won; let us declare victory and go home.

No war remains for us to win. There is no battleground for which it is worth fighting and dying. There remains only chaos and anarchy. The "insurgents" and "terrorists" have brought thousand-year-old feuds to life in the streets of Baghdad and Basra. Theirs is not a global war for world domination (unlike ours), but a turf war at the most basic level - street by street; neighborhood by neighborhood; the Hatfields and McCoys; the Capulets and Montagues; the Jets and the Sharks. To paraphrase Booker T. Jones and William Bell "If it wasn't for bad blood, these guys wouldn't have no blood at all."

Our presence makes it worse. We are an ineffective, foreign, military occupation force. We are not peacekeepers. We are salt in the wound; we are fuel on the fire. People are dying because we are there; so we must leave. People will die when we leave, and that hurts, so we must find a way to save as many lives as possible. But our staying long enough to regain some semblance of "control" over the situation (to become an effective, foreign, military occupation force), as per Lieutenant General Raymond T. Ordierno, cited by Jeff Huber,can be expected to last at leasttwo or three more years -- and cost, presumably -- predictably, probably, CERTAINLY -- thousands more lives. And, of course, there's the money.

On the other hand, if we get out, maybe, just maybe, the gang warfare might lose some of its impetus, and Iraqis might start talking to Iraqis.

We must leave so the people of Iraq can reclaim their lives. It would be nice if they could reclaim their land, their government, their future, their hopes and their dreams too -- but that's almost certainly a little much to ask, under the circumstances. Put bluntly, the "state of Iraq" will simply not exist in another 2, or 5, or 10 years. We're going to see either:

1) a balkanization of the former Iraq and the creation of three separate nations, a la the former Yugoslavia (remember little Scottie Hamilton at the Sarajevo Olympics before the whole country was blown to bits?):

or
2) the occupation and absorption of the former Iraq into its neighbors - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey (I'm drowning in mixed metaphors here - carving up the turkey's remains of the day, vultures devouring the carcasses of . . . , pick your own gruesome image).

See Frontline's interactive ethnic map for a more detailed breakdown of the distribution of ethnic groups in Iraq.

So, let's pool our diplomatic resources with those of the rest of the world to devise a plan that will skip over the next twenty years of bloodshed and go directly to the New Middle East Order that would be best for us, for the Iraqis, and for BP. I'm voting for the Post World War II Germany model with armed occupation forces from the US, the UK, Russia, and, of course, France. Here, for the first time, the new Iraq of the future:

See how the map almost looks like Iraq, and that little spot where Berlin is kinda matches up with Baghdad? I can think of an appropriation for a 700 mile long fence just waiting to be re-deployed.

If we can sell the Iraqi government on the idea of self-dissolution (let's see, I think I had my copy of the Iraq Constitution here somewhere), and replace the whole concept of the nation-state with a subsidiary of Halliburton, I think we could sell Dubya as the next Nobel Piece Prize wiener.

But seriously, folks, we know a military solution is unacceptable to most Americans and (probably) most of the Iraqis who are both still alive and living in Iraq. We have an abundance of unemployed diplomats who have had a modicum of success in moderating seemingly impossible conflicts, such as short term negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. If we (and by "we" I guess I mean the UN, or Amnesty International, or the European Ryder Cup team - anybody but "we" the US government) can come up with a neutral team of diplomats equivalent to Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Colin Powell and Jesse Jackson, we'll be halfway to Paris before you know it and all those newly minted IED experts can put their new-found skills to work for the oil companies. A 21st Century Marshall Plan for the Middle East just might convince the Shia and Sunni leaders, and Fatah and Hamas, and BP and Sunoco to lay down their arms long enough for the spoils of war to trickle down to the Iraqi on the street.

The Christmas Spirit

2006-12-24T10:26:00.000-05:00

Crossposted from My Left Wing

I was raised a vaguely defined Methodist, but I haven't been a member of a church congregation since I was about thirteen and I finally convinced my mother to let me stop going to Sunday School when the size of my class dropped to two. Forty-some years later, as a self avowed pragmatist, atheist, and secular humanist, I'm pretty much disgusted with organized religion in its many incarnations. I have, however, come to the point of enjoying the Christmas spectacle from the perspective of bemused detachment.

I can't stand the commercialization of the season and I've given up buying gifts for anyone (my wife still indulges her coworkers and our relatives, but is kind enough to tell me when "we" are done with our Christmas shopping). I'm happy to wish my friends, associates and acquaintances "Happy Holidays," "Merry Christmas," or, more likely, "the same to you," if they bestow a greeting on me first.

Mostly, though, I am perplexed by the hypocrisy of Americans in general, and our leaders in government and business in particular, at this time of year. I'm getting used to the neo-cons wrapping themselves in the flag and the mall merchants blasting Christmas Music at me since before Halloween, but the inevitable vision of THEBABYJESUS™ wrapped in an American flag and lying in a manger surrounded by rich white men is a little unsettling. More to the point, during this season of quiet reflection, I have been puzzling, once again, over the role of religion in politics just like the rest of you. And wondering:

Greed and arrogance.

Fear and hatred.

Lies, fraud and pockets full of payoffs.

Is this any way to run a country?

Whether it's the US or Iraq?

What would Jesus really do?*

*You know, the Jesus from Sunday School - the Lord's Prayer, the Golden Rule, Love Thy Neighbor - not the Jesus who apparently tells Dubya to kill innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world and to give tax breaks to the filthy rich - that must be some other Jesus, for Chrissake!

Speaking of the role of religion, or rather sacrilege, in politics, the following article has been making its way around the blogosphere in some apparently legitimate sites and, while its tone is overwhelmingly negative regarding the prospects for any sort of peacable solution to the crisis in Iraq, it does come to the conclusion that US armed forces should just get the hell out of there, so I guess it's not totally without merit. At least it gives us a starting point to discuss some of the underlying assumptions of the myths he purports to rebut.

Six brutal truths about Iraq

COMMENTARY | December 11, 2006

General William Odom, one of the earliest advocates of an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, attacks some of the mythologies that are interfering with an honest debate about how to proceed in the Middle East and says the media have failed to recognize dramatic changes in the region.

By William E. Odom

diane@hudson.org

Mythologies about the war in Iraq are endangering our republic, our rights, and our responsibilities before the world. The longer we fail to dispel them, the higher price we will pay. The following six truths, while perhaps not self-evident to the American public, are nevertheless conspicuously obvious to much the rest of the world.

Truth No. 1:
No "deal" of any kind can be made among the warring parties in Iraq that will bring stability and order, even temporarily.

Ever since the war began to go badly in the summer of 2003, a mythology has arisen that a deal among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds could bring peace and stability to Iraq. First, the parliamentary elections were expected to be such a breakthrough. When peace and stability did not follow, the referendum on a constitution was proclaimed the panacea. When that failed, it was asserted that we just had not yet found the proper prime minister. Even today, the Iraq Study Group is searching for this holy grail. It doesn't exist.

Truth No. 2:
There was no way to have "done it right" in Iraq so that U.S. war aims could have been achieved.
Virtually every new book published on the war, especially Cobra II, Fiasco, and State of Denial, reinforce the myth - the illusion - that we could have won the war; we just did not plan properly and fight the war the right way. The Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and most other major newspapers have consistently filled their opinion pages with arguments and testimonials to support that myth. (Professor Eliot Cohen of Johns Hopkins University offers the most recent conspicuous reinforcement of this myth in the Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2006.)

The fragmentation of the country, civil war, and the rise of outside influence from Iran, Syria, and other countries - all of these things might have been postponed for a time by different war plans and occupation polices. But failure would have eventually raised its ugly head. Possibly, some of the variables would be a bit different. For example, if the Iraqi military had not been dissolved and if most of the Baathist Party cadres not been disenfranchised, the Sunni factions, instead of the Shiites, probably would have owned the ministry of interior, the police, and several unofficial militias. The Shiites, in that event, would have been the insurgents, abundantly supplied by Iran, indiscriminately killing Sunni civilians, fighting the U.S. military forces, blowing up the power grid, and so on.

A different U.S. occupation plan might have changed the course Iraq has taken to civil war and fragmentation, but it could have not prevented that outcome.

Truth No. 3:
The theory that "we broke it and therefore we own it," with all the moral baggage it implies, is simply untrue because it is not within U.S. power to "fix it."
The president's cheerleaders in the run-up to the war now use this theory to rationalize our continued presence in Iraq, and in that way avoid admitting that they share the guilt for the crime of breaking Iraq in the first place.

Truth No. 4:
The demand that the administration engage Iran and Syria directly, asking them to help stabilize Iraq, is patently naïve or cynically irresponsible until American forces begin withdrawing - and rapidly - so that there is no ambiguity about their complete and total departure.
Effective negotiations will be possible, even with Iran, but only after the U.S. withdraws. And such negotiations must be based on a candid recognition that Iran will come out of this war with a much enhanced position in the Middle East. Until these realities are acknowledged, the planning staffs in the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department will not begin addressing the most important tasks awaiting them in confronting the post-Iraq War world.

First among them is how to help the Arab Gulf states cope with a stronger Iran, one that has territorial claims on the Arab side of the Gulf. Second is dealing with the increased threat to Israel that comes from the U.S. defeat in Iraq, its own recent misguided war against Hezbollah, looming instability in Lebanon, and the large number of experienced al Qaeda cadres produced by the war in Iraq. Moreover, as the Sunni-Shiite split in the Arab world spreads from Iraq into neighboring Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain, not to mention Lebanon, the United States will be facing a dynamic it has little power to limit.
These new challenges will not be manageable by the United States alone. Europe will have to join with the United States in meeting them. American neocons who have sought to split the United States from Europe, as well as Europeans who tilt excessively in favor the Palestinians, will have to change their tunes if Israel is to survive the upheaval that the U.S. and the Israeli governments so eagerly perpetrated.

The media have not begun to recognize and explain the dramatic changes catalyzed in the Middle East by the war in Iraq. Most editors are not even willing to contemplate them, preferring to pretend they do not exist, probably because they bear some responsibility for creating them.

Truth No. 5:
The United States cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
The only sure way to stop Iran's program is to invade with ground troops and occupy the country indefinitely. Both Iran and North Korea learned from Israel's bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facilities and have hardened their own to make bombing only marginally effective at best. Having squandered ground force capabilities in Iraq, the U.S. does not have sufficient forces to invade Iran, even if that made sense. And bombing would produce all the undesirable consequences of that action but not the most desirable one. Yet the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other newspapers editorialize as if this is not so.

Truth No. 6:
It is simply not possible to prevent more tragic Iraqi deaths in Iraq.
Many pundits and politicians - particularly those who howled for the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and 2003 -- posture about human rights abuses that will occur if U.S. troops are withdrawn rapidly. The way to have avoided moral responsibility for these abuses was not to invade in the first place. At present, U. S. military forces in Iraq merely facilitate arrests and executions by Shiite officials in the police and some army units. These, of course, are mainly in reaction to the Baathist-led insurgency. This struggle will continue, with or without U.S. forces present, although the forms and tactics of the struggle will change after U.S. forces withdraw. An earlier withdrawal, one or two years ago, would probably have allowed this struggle to be fought to a conclusion by now. Our well-meaning efforts to prevent blood baths are more likely causing them to be bigger, not smaller.

The Iraq Study Group's recommendations could be used to dispel these myths and prompt a rapid withdrawal, but it remains to be seen if either the president and his aides or the Congress can or will use them for that purpose. The "one last big try" aspect of the recommendations, if pursued vigorously, will just make the final price the catastrophe higher. The media, by dispelling the foregoing list of myths, could make that less likely.

(Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. He was Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer. From 1977 to 1981, he was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski.)

E-mail: diane@hudson.org

niemanwatchdog.org
joshualandis.com

I'm not ready to give up on the prospect of negotiating a reasonable settlement of the Iraq civil war (See Oxymoron 101). I understand Mr. Odom's conclusion that peace and harmony among the Shia, Sunni, and Kurd populations in Iraq is impossible - it certainly seems unlikely, at best. However, we of the Myopia of the Western World need look no further than our own ignorant generalizations to see that those peoples can and do live peacefully in close proximity to each other; we just need to figure out how good the fences have to be to make good neighbors of the various Iraqis, just like their peace-loving cousins, the Iranian Shiites and the Saudi Sunnis (Ain't no mountain high enough? Ain't no river wide enough?). Hell, Dubya didn't even realize that all Arabs weren't the same until someone tried to hold an election in Iraq - before that, there were just the oil-rich Arabs and the rest. Of course, pushing for a military solution that includes any chance of a US "victory" is like pouring fuel on the fire - but then, there's no fuel like an old fuel.

First and foremost, we need to open diplomatic relations with all of the stakeholders in Iraq and the neighboring countries. Talk works. Of course, whatever I can say has been said before. Here's an idea. Think before you speak. Listen. Learn. Treat those who would do you harm as human beings.

Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? - Abraham Lincoln

It is easy enough to be friendly to one's friends. But to befriend the one who regards himself as your enemy is the quintessence of true religion. The other is mere business. - Mohandas Gandhi

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies. - Moshe Dayan

They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. - Isaiah 2:4

The Plan? Okay, first you invite the "insurgents" to sit down and air their grievances against the occupying forces from the world's biggest superpower. Then, you negotiate a cease-fire while you plan the withdrawal of American military forces and their replacement with an international peace-keeping force. Finally, using the examples of Japan and Germany, you convince the Iraqis (Sunni, Shia, and Kurd alike) that losing a war to the USA can be more profitable than getting in bed with Al Qaeda. Have we learned nothing from post World War II Germany? Vietnam? Bosnia? Northern Ireland? South Africa? the Cold War?

Or are we condemned to repeat our violent and bloody history halfway around the world? Are we not the nation built on the backs and blood of slaves and Natives? Why do we still celebrate Columbus Day? What was the Boston Tea Party if not an act of terrorism? Manifest destiny led us to slaughter countless black, brown, red, and yellow strangers in the name of democracy. We hosted the bloodiest Civil War known to man (both sides). We saved the "free" world from Hitler through conventional warfare, yet we became the first and only nation in history to use nuclear weapons to defeat the Japanese (was it acceptable to decimate Hiroshima and Nagasaki because the Japanese were somehow less "American" than the Germans, or less white, or less Christian? racial profiling, anyone? What would Virgil Goode think?).

As cited by Bob Woodward in State of Denial - Dubya's own father, back in [pre-9/11] 1999, said to a room full of Gulf War veterans:

Had we gone into Baghdad - we could have done it. You guys could have done it. You could have been in there in 48 hours. And then what? Which sergeant, which private, whose life would be at stake in perhaps a fruitless hunt in an urban guerilla war to find the most secure dictator in the world? Whose life would be on my hands as the commander-in-chief because I, unilaterally, went beyond the international law, went beyond the stated mission, and said we're going to show our macho? We're going into Baghdad. We're going to be an occupying power - America in an Arab land - with no allies at our side. It would have been disastrous.

And despite Bush Sr's admonition, we were led to believe that we could "liberate" Iraq by force of Shock and Awe (not "terror," mind you, just everyday "shock" and "awe").

What do we have to lose if we try a little more talk, and a lot less shock? Should we do unto others as we would have them do unto us? Or, in other words:

Christianity - All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. ~ Matthew 7:1

Confucianism - Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. ~ Analects 12:2

Buddhism - Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. ~ Udana-Varga 5,1

Hinduism - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. ~ Mahabharata 5,1517

Islam - No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. ~ Sunnah

Judaism - What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. ~ Talmud, Shabbat 3id

Taoism - Regard your neighbor's gain as your gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss. ~ Tai Shang Kan Yin P'ien

Zoroastrianism - That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself. ~ Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
(Thanks to teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html)

Get it? Talk, stop fighting, rebuild. Then maybe we will have nothing to fear but fear itself. If we don't talk, we won't stop fighting.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's all been said before.

Never mind.

Peace on Earth. Good will toward men. And women.

And so, I'm offering this simple phrase
To kids from one to ninety-two
Although its been said
Many times, many ways
Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas to You!
~ Mel Torme

One Nation, Under God? One World, Under Construction. . .

2006-12-13T19:57:00.000-05:00

(Cross-posted from My Left Wing)

Mission Accomplished?

"Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its 5-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before." - James T. Kirk

Now there's a mission statement we could live with.

One Nation, Under God? One World, Under Construction. . .

liberalamerican's recent post Is Our Middle East Policy a Religious Crusade?, inspired me to put together a few thoughts on religion, politics, and the future. It's pretty clear that George W, Bush is not just the most powerful man in the world, he's the most dangerous one. Not since Dr. Strangelove have we seen paranoia wield such influence in the halls of power. It's also obvious from his recent performances at press conferences and photo-ops that he's still the arrogant little pissant he always was. The danger is not that our Middle East policy is a religious crusade, but rather that everyone else's is! The Middle East is the perfect storm of religion and politics mixing like water and (what was that other substance? oh yeah. . .) oil. Whether it's Israel's need to ensure and protect an adequate water supply or the Arab states' near monopoly on oil that leads them to bully, blackmail, and buy the rest of the world's favors, the end result is that each Government's interest is wrapped in nationalism, religion, jingoism, and ethno-centrism to masquerade as the people's self interest. The various "democracies," monarchies, oligarchies, and (in the case of Iraq) anarchies compete for survival at the expense of their own constituents. When the petty tyrants get into the act, the warlords, gang leaders, and crime bosses assume the guise of freedom-fighters, terrorists, islamo-fascists or saviors, depending on your perspective. Just as tyranny by majority rule based on common ethnicity or religious belief has proven to be an unworkable political methodology (see e.g., Northern Ireland, Uganda, Darfur, and South Africa or look up the definition of "balkanization" and "ethnic cleansing"), so has the nation-state itself become an anachronism. Can we point to any government on earth and proclaim that it is the best we could come up with? We desperately need a new vision for the future of the species.

If we do not learn from the pictures painted by our popular futurists, are we not destined to repeat our prospective mistakes, for the first time, again. Have we not learned anything from the post-apocalyptic visions of 1984, Brave New World, Mad Max, Blade Runner, Terminator, Sleeper, Tank Girl, or Max Headroom? Aren't we living with elements of all of those sci-fi prophesies now? Whether Big Brother assumes the form of a government, a corporation, or a dictator, are we, the people, not all left to serve a false idol of one sort or another? If we don't realize that we the people of earth are hurtling through space alone together on a big blue starship pretty soon, I fear that we will all succumb to W's 20:400 foresight and end up living in a desolate, oil and water deprived, android-populated, corporatocracy with nothing but a nose running our lives like a soiled tissue. Such is the danger of a Bush legacy - he may not want to bring on the Apocalypse in a religious sense, but he sure as Hell thinks he knows what's best for all of us and he'll do anything within his power to force it down our throats.

Whither religion in this administration's future? Or is that wither? Perhaps the GOP's culture of scandal and corruption will finally lead some of our good-hearted, middle America dwelling, flag waving, chest beating patriotic red staters to question whether God really speaks to W or the Republican National Cadre. Is W the Devil, instead of our savior? Maybe even Jack Van Impe will put the rapture on hold while we sort this out. With Hugo Chavez's diabolical diatribe fading out of our collective short-term memories, let's examine the iniquitous hyperbole.

Is W the Devil? Of course not. Satan, by all accounts, is much smarter than that. "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist." - Keyser Soze (or was it?)

Bush and his minions, however, just SCREAM the Seven Deadly Sins. First: Greed, that one's pretty obvious - selling influence, votes, government contracts, and the rest of us down the river is standard operating procedure. Next: Pride, or Arrogance, virtually defines the great "uniter not a divider," a man who so desperately wants a flattering, Reagan-esque sobriquet that he invents them himself. The dean of the Frank Sinatra School of Diplomacy and the architect of the least productive and most destructive Administration in American history hasn't even been able to wrest a cutesy nickname out of the Fox network. Third, if you're still counting: Wrath, the aimless man's raison detre, the unspoken motive for the invasion of Iraq, and the knee-jerk reaction to every criticism ever leveled against the Administration that failed to respond to Katrina or to rebuild New Orleans (Heckuva job, there, Bush-league!). And why? Number four would be Sloth, the prime motivating force among Bushie's Junior Under-Achievers. And what about the rest of the Seven Deadlies? Well, um, you know, Greed, Pride, Wrath, Sloth, and, uh . . . Grumpy? . . . Sleepy? . . . Dopey? Is he the Devil? I don't think so; he lacks the style, the panache, the efficiency. Satan's tool? You decide.

If not one devil, maybe another?

Everything about the Republicans' culture of corruption reeks of that ol' debbil, spin. The foibles of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Minions are routinely shrugged off (not nearly as effectively as The Teflon One, however). Each criticism is met by a not-so-equal and opposite smear campaign and fingerpointing ("banana-fana-fo-fana"). The Bush Litany (Bush-Lit) of blaming Bill Clinton, "the liberal main stream media," the "cut and run" Democrats, the "tax and spend" liberals, and maybe your grandmother is starting to ring hollow even among the GOP's core supporters. This sure as hell ain't yore granddaddy's Republican Party!

After six years of unbridled Greed, Arrogance, Fear and Hate, finally, moral outrage over the amoral modus operandi of far too many republicans may pull back the curtain to reveal that there's no Wiz in the Wizard of Aw-shucks. Just follow the yellow brick road - there's no place like the place where the pigeons come to roost.

Remember those Founding Fathers the neo-cons are so fond of summoning up for endorsements of everything from corporate welfare to undeclared war? Those guys were not exactly conservative in their time (why do you think we called it a Revolutionary War?). If they had modeled our government based on what the best thinkers of 250 years prior had done, we'd be living in a 1526 era feudal system where moneyed oligarchs treat indentured servants as property - a two class system where rich landowners control everything and working people tithe their hard-earned income to the overlords. Oh, wait a minute, have we come full-circle already?

We need to rein in W's ambitious agenda for world domination while we develop a strategic plan for the fate of humanity some 20, or 50, or 100 years from now.

Heeeeeeerre's Johnny!

2006-11-02T00:31:00.001-05:00

As Senator Kerry embarks on a new career in stand-up comedy, perhaps he could use some helpful tips. These are mine. Feel free to add your own.

1. Never apologize for a joke that bombs. Suck it up and move on to the next one.

2. If you have to explain a joke, it's not funny.

3. Don't overestimate your audience. Sarcasm, irony, and subtlety are lost on the masses.

4. Remember to always and forever be politically correct in all that you say, do, or think, or suffer the consequences of having the holier than thou sycophants do your thinking and speaking for you.

5. Don't try to analyze a joke that misfires - it's too late, and the analysis of an unfunny joke won't be funny, either. Aren't we trying to be funny, after all?

Now here's my analysis of what went wrong, what should have gone right, and the tragedy that resulted from this earth-shattering election year disaster.

The History of Humor (well, almost)

As soon as my daughter learned something about surrealism, this became her favorite riddle:
"How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb?"
"A fish."

Those who find this funny know something about surrealism (or think they do), something about fish and something about a generic joke form that in years gone by could just as easily have referenced morons, Polacks, psychotherapists, or Democrats. How many surrealists are going to sue me? Hello, Dali?

John Kerry's faux pas

What he said:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

What aides said was in a prepared text:

"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

- J. Kerry, America's most misquoted humorist

According to intellectually lazy AP reporter Jennifer Loven, October 31, 2006:

The White House accused Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of troop-bashing, seizing on a comment the Democrat made to California students that those unable to navigate the country's education system "get stuck in Iraq."

"Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who've given their lives in this," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "This is an absolute insult."

Huh? I Thought the Main Stream Media Were Always Bashing Bush?

Some background information may have changed how people perceived what they thought they may have heard, or what someone may have told them they should have heard later, even if they've never heard the original quote or read Kerry's original prepared version of a poorly drafted joke (Are you listening, Jennifer? Can you hear me now?):

1. Since John neglected to mention either fish or surrealists by name in his joke, we need to draw on other external references to determine the context of the joke.

2. John was speaking to an audience of college students, hence his reference to hard work and study in school.

3. John was a college student once. Back in the 1960's, before he served his country in the Vietnam War, he went to Yale, a stuffy, snooty, Ivy League, East Coast bastion of intellectual snobbery. Presumably, he studied hard, learned a lot and went on to use his education to help his fellow man and to achieve a certain amount of success as a United States Senator and a one-time candidate for the Presidency of the United States. He lost.

4. John structured his joke using the impersonal (and ineffectual) pronoun "you," failing to make it clear whether he was referring to himself, to a specific college student in the audience, to each and every student in the audience, to the generic "one," or to the current President of the United States, George W. Bush.

5. As anyone who has ever gone to college, or anyone who has ever stumbled into a campaign rally, or anyone living and breathing in the United States, knows, people who make speeches, be they politicians, professors, or clergymen, tend to lecture their audiences on the virtues of working or studying hard in order to become successful or to achieve their life's dreams and ambitions, and then they make clumsy jokes about it ("it" in this context refers to the compound gerund "working or studying" in case you lost track. Of course the concept of working and studying in college these days has become an oxymoron unto itself, but that's another subject.).

6. Therefore, Mr. Kerry could have been expected to exhort his audience members to strive for success through hard work. Since this was also an election year speech, Mr. Kerry could also have been expected to criticize his former adversary (and the subject of much invective of late), President George W. Bush, whose policies, accomplishments, and malapropisms are considered fair game in election contests throughout the country.

7. Now refer back to Point 3 above. Just as John was a college student once, so was President Bush. In fact, back in the 1960's, before he did everything possible to avoid serving his country in the Vietnam War, he went to Yale, a distinguished university located in the heartland of this great country of ours, presumably somewhere near Crawford, Texas. Presumptuously, he neither studied hard, nor learned a lot, although he did manage to buy himself a Governorship on the way to becoming a two-time candidate for the Presidency of the United States. He lost, too. Probably twice. Nevertheless, George W. Bush went on to prove that an under-achieving "C" student can, with the right amount of family backing (and back-stabbing), money, prestige, money, greed, arrogance, money, and the best politicians, lawyers, and judges that money can buy, achieve the appearance of greatness by becoming President of the United States.

8. And so, because he inadvertently used the impartial pronoun "you," because he forgot to mention the surrealists or to thank them for all the fish, and because his timing was less than impeccable, John Kerry failed to deliver the joke that could have broken this race wide open for Democrats in general and Phil Angelides in particular.

The Joke That Could Have Been President

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears. Education is a sacred and rewarding endeavor. If one makes the most of it, if one studies hard, if one does one's homework and one makes an effort to be smart, one can do well. I stand before you as a living, breathing example. I worked and studied hard. I became a successful public servant. I proudly served in the United States Navy. I became a United States Senator. I even had the honor and opportunity to be nominated by my party and to run for the highest office in this great land of ours. On the other hand, if one doesn't make the most of one's educational opportunities, if one fails to study hard, if one's homework is undone, and one makes no effort to be smart, one can find oneself occupying the Oval Office, apparently realizing one's grandest dreams, only to find oneself stuck in Iraq."

Note the subtle self-deprecating tone and the implied references to the surprisingly parallel lives of Kerry and Bush. Bask in the demure irony of innuendo. Wallow in the drip of sarcasm. Unfortunately, all of these concepts are wasted on the Republican spin-meisters and dull-witted media whores looking for the easiest of the cheap shots, the dirtiest mud to sling, anything for a headline that diverts attention away from the corrupt and incompetent.

The Aristocrats

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld walk in to a talent agency (voting booth). The agent (voter) says, "What have you got?" They respond with a graphic and gory plan to invade a sovereign nation without provocation; to lose the lives of three thousand American servicemen, to kill tens of thousands of men, women, and children; to increase the national debt exponentially; to grant obscene tax breaks to the wealthiest 1 % of the population; and to revoke habeas corpus; all while spreading fear and hate among the general populace so they can exploit them for their own personal gain.

The talent agent (voter), in stunned silence and disbelief, screams "That's the most disturbing debacle of debauchery I've ever heard. What do you call your act?"

To which they respond, in unison, "The Republicans!"

That's not funny, either.

WWJBD?

2006-09-30T12:58:00.000-04:00

I found it gruesomely intriguing that the Republican talking points (including the WSJ's Jack Bauer Insurance opinionjournal piece) the past couple of weeks have included references to Kiefer Sutherland's "24" character Jack Bauer and his well-intentioned, "for the good of the country" criminal interrogation techniques as the barometer of the American public's support for expanding the President's rights to torture, or should we say "interrogate," detainees (similarly, this week's box-office leader was "Jackass 2," so I think we've pretty much eliminated any need for scientific opinion polls to measure the intellect or morality of the typical American). Now, I'm as big of an adrenaline-junkie Jack fan as the next guy, but isn't "24" a work of fiction? And didn't Jack's last act of vigilante justice serve to bring down a corrupt and incompetent President of these good ol' US of A? By the way, I think Gregory Itzin's portrayal of the President as a self-important, deluded weasel was the most accurate representation of the current administration to be found anywhere on the Fox network. Is the irony lost on these astute observers of the American psyche? Oh, if only we had some real-life Jack Bauers lurking in the halls of Langley!

To follow up on the whole insurance for spies angle, we acknowledge that it is not just an American sense of fair play, but a widely accepted doctrine of international justice to hold individuals accountable for their actions in time of war (and what could be more American than selling insurance against prosecution for criminals?). The Nuremburg trials established clear precedents that not only will "I was only following orders" not excuse illegal behavior, but that the superior officers who issued those orders should be tried for their war crimes. We've locked up the Jack Bauers of Abu Ghraib; when will we shine the light of justice on the despicable acts of Rumsfeld and his henchmen? Are the members of Congress now complicit in war crimes by explicitly condoning illegal acts in an unconstitutional law? Can we add another budget line to cover insurance for them, too? Or is this just another anti-climactic election year ploy so they can puff and preen for the fearful voting public before the Supreme Court inevitably declares this new law to be unconstitutional. Who's exploiting terror now?

"We have nothing to fear but fear itself." - FDR

"We have met the enemy, and he is us." - Pogo

More Money Than Brains, Part 2

2006-06-16T23:20:00.000-04:00

Did you think the law of supply and demand had anything at all to do with modern economics?

Well, this is the first in an unplanned series on economics for dummies and other everyday people. Myths, legends, and lies about people with more money than brains (you know, Americans).

First, note that there are at least five different "economies" at work at any given time.

1. The working man's (or woman's) economy. You work for a living, or rather you work for money, or, really, you work for the promise of money. Well, maybe not real money, but credit, or access to credit, or the hope that you'll be able to access those 401(k) contributions sometime in the nearly unforeseeable future. Okay, let's skip that concept for now, and pretend that you work in exchange for cold, hard cash at an agreed hourly rate. You work; you get paid; you have money to spend; you buy things. Got it? Sometimes it doesn't work out exactly as planned. . .

2. The consumer economy, or the myth of free enterprise. You spend your hard-earned cash on things you need. The providers of those things, in turn, buy stuff, pay employees, and otherwise stimulate the economy because everyone has to buy the things they need, right? The thing about this exchange of money for things is that the laws of supply and demand have been usurped by the power and love of money itself. Remember bartering? Back in the days of the Neanderthal - Og hits a woodchuck over the head with a rock and wants to trade some chuck for some fish, so he finds his buddy Glort, who has just managed to snag a nice trout, and offers to trade. All well and good until Og discovers that the rock works just as well on Glort's head as on the chuck and he still ends up with the fish. Instead of rocks, we have a billions-of-dollars-a-year industry devoted to convincing us that we absolutely, positively have to buy things we don't need, with money we don't have, and we have to do it right now.

3. The "investors" economy. Do the people who play the stock market, or the commodities market, or the real estate market actually believe that they "earned" their profits? This is just legalized gambling for very high rollers who spend millions of dollars getting Congress to give them tax breaks on their billion dollar "capital gains."

4. The "real capitalists" economy. This is legalized stealing for the robber barons who have managed to acquire the casino - the house never loses. They don't make anything, they don't build anything, they don't provide any services to working people. They own the banks, and the insurance companies, and the holding companies, and the brokerage firms. Just like Randolph and Mortimer Duke in Trading Places - they buy and sell the rights to buy and sell the rights to buy and sell things that they never see. Their clients make money and they get paid handsomely. Their clients lose money - and still they get paid handsomely. They play real Monopoly with virtual money.

5. The Republican fund raiser. This is where the 100 most powerful old white men in the world get rank and file republicans to hand over obscene amounts of money to the 10 most powerful old white men in the world so they can buy the advertising that will convince us that we have something in common with them and we absolutely positively have to buy their politicians instead of the other hacks.

More to come on selected subjects. Buy! Spend! Charge it! Stimulate the economy!

More Money Than Brains, Part 1

2006-06-13T23:17:00.000-04:00

We're spending how many billions of dollars for a pointless, hopeless, counter-productive war on -isms and yet we're cutting funding for education, child care, and other anti-poverty, subsistence level programs at every level of government? And after nearly five years and hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of casualties, we finally killed an alleged Al Qaeda bigwig. And we killed him good. We killed him on the morning news, we killed him again on the evening news, we made sure he suffered for fifty-two minutes before he died. If the war on terrorists can be compared to fighting cancer, let's go with this analogy. After thirty years of forcing the Middle East to chain-smoke, we were surprised to learn that she has developed lung cancer, but we were not unprepared to combat such an unexpected and treacherous foe. No, we took cancer to task by forcing the patient to smoke even more. But, lo, we are greatly surprised when the little cancer has grown into a multitude of cancers throughout the body politic. Yet now we rejoice, for we have ferreted out and destroyed a single cancer cell (and a female cancer cell and a child cancer cell along with it), and we are very proud of ourselves. And back at home, no one knows or cares that the war against the cancer-like terrorists rages on so long as the pharmaceutical companies are getting richer by the day. And we want to give huge tax breaks to the 100 wealthiest families in America because, after all, who doesn't want to inherit a billion dollars?

It has become increasingly apparent that our leaders in Washington and
Albany are unwilling or unable to make hard budget and taxation decisions.
They are mired in gridlock and back room dealing that seem choreographed
to play to the media and the campaign calendar. Our local municipalities are left holding the bag. Over the last twenty-five years, I have come to respect the work done by countless numbers of local legislators, supervisors, school board members, and the like. I have seen liberals become fiscally conservative and I have seen conservatives demonstrate (dare I say it?) compassion through the funding of human services programs, alternatives to incarceration programs, treatment and education programs, all designed to meet the changing needs of our most fragile and needy friends and neighbors. It is not, and cannot be, solely about the bottom line. A government's budget is not a business, and it is not a family budget. It is a reflection of a community's needs and priorities, and the means by which we share our collective good fortune. It is unfortunate that my County's primary income generators are as unfair and regressive as property taxes and sales taxes. It is incumbent on all of us to convince our state and federal legislators to reform the income tax programs that allow us to redistribute wealth more equitably (eventually? How about now?).

In the meantime, we must acknowledge that we are a nation, a state, and a county of great wealth (just look at the SUV's in the parking lots of the mega-stores and shopping centers that are destined to save us all by tapping into those endless consumer dollars we can't wait to spend). Most of us can afford a modest increase in federal, state, and local taxes in order to maintain the standards of our community. We should also be able to come up with ways to help those for whom such an increase would be a hardship. We should examine monthly payment plans, enhanced tax-relief programs for seniors and the disabled, and assessment breaks for the family farmers who bear a disproportionately greater share of the property tax burden.

Thorstein Veblen was right; we have become a nation of conspicuous consumption (and not in the phlegmatic Camille sense of the word - Moulin Rouge for you youngsters). He who dies with the most toys wins. Otherwise, why would we have to have so many possessions. How could we be happy with family, friends, a sense of community, a warm meal, and a roof over our collective head? We need more things. Nice little shiny things; big, fast things; things that play music, or games, or that just shut us out from any interaction with human beings. And of course, my things have to be bigger, and better, and shinier than your things. And not because I'm trying to compensate for anything, y'know, but just because my old man's a refrigerator repairman and your old man's a cotton-pickin', finger-lickin' chicken plucker.

Here's a project for the day, the week, or the month - find something you don't need. Sell it or donate it and contribute to any one of a thousand charitable causes. You'll feel better. See? There is something in it for you.

Don't Fence Me In

2006-05-18T22:30:00.000-04:00

Oh, give me land, lots of land
under starry skies above,
Don't fence me in.
Let me ride through the wide
open country that I love,
Don't fence me in.
Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze,
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees,
Send me off forever but I ask you please,
Don't fence me in.

Words and music by Cole Porter© & Robert Fletcher,
©1942, from the film Hollywood Canteen (check IMDB for the credits,
including Roy Rogers' appearance as "Roy Rogers and Trigger")

En Garde!
Picture if you can a new era of better living through FENCING!
He couldn't have meant a new counter-insurgency plan
to build a wall between North and South, or East and West
(it worked so well in Berlin -
until Mr. Reagan made Mr Gorbachev tear down his wall).
But rather a new draft as the National Guard opens the door
and fear comes innuendo.
Picture 6,000 Guardsmen (and -women),
poised at the ready
epee and foil in hand -
a synchronicity of swordsmen (and -women)
swimming through a sea of lost souls
scavenging for scraps of old screen doors
from which to fashion gloves and masks -
because Uncle Sam forgot to budget for equipment.
Do they stand a chance against the sons and daughters of Zorro?
Could there be a better image to resist the terror of a foreign threat
than a masked man with a sword?
Tio Diego wants you!
A throwback to the day when our hero was a Hispanic nobleman
inspiring the patriotic citizens of the Mexican State of California -
fighting the oppression of a distant tyranny.
If this fencing thing works out, maybe we can try archers and boiling oil
or ninjas, or samurai. . . ,
Wait a minute - I just got an idea for a movie wherein a prime number of
magnificent gunmen for hire travel to Mexico to save the working poor
from their oppressors and single-handedly revive the Mexican economy -
thereby restoring balance and harmony to the Rio Grande
(cue the singing Tres Amigos).

But how do you choreograph 6,000 fencing Guardsmen?

Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena
Que tu cuerpo es pa' darle alegria y cosa buena
Dale a tu cuerpo alegria Macarena
Ehhhh, Macarena
Macarena tiene un novio que se llama
Que se llama de apellido Vitorino
Y en la jura de bandera del muchacho
Se la dio con dos amigos
Macarena, Macarena, Macarena
Que le gusta los veranos de Marbella
Macarena, Macarena, Macarena
Que le gusta la movida guerrilera
Macarena suena con el Corte Ingles
Y se compra los mnodelos mas modernos
Le gustaria vivir en Nueva York
Y ligar un novio nuevo

We may not win this war, either
(Remember the Alamo?)
But we've got the makings for a Tony-winning,
singing, dancing, fencing miracle
Springtime for Hitler? Bah, humbug
Cinco de Mayo Por Vicente!

Chronosynclastic Infundibulum

2006-05-10T22:41:00.000-04:00

If we do not learn from our future, are we not destined to repeat our prospective mistakes, for the first time, again. Have we not learned anything from the post-apocalyptic visions of 1984, Brave New World, Mad Max, Blade Runner, Terminator, Sleeper, Tank Girl, or Max Headroom? If we don't realize that we the people of earth are hurtling through space alone together on a big blue starship pretty soon, I fear that we will all succumb to W's 20:400 foresight and end up living in a desolate, oil and water deprived, android-populated, corporatocracy with nothing but a nose running our lives like a soiled tissue. I'm thinking it's time to start a new world-wide political party. Say, let's call it the Enterprise Party, you know, as in focusing on the hard working individual (or family), rather than the out-of-control tax-free, corporate welfare subsidized, off-shore based capitalism of the so-called "free enterprise" system that has become the American providence. And let's base the party platform on a simple statement of principle that recognizes certain inalienable rights. One that declares, for example, that as the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no government or political personnel may interfere with the healthy development of human life and culture. Such interference could include the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a people whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Government and political personnel may not violate this Fundamental Mandate, even to save their lives and/or their cohort unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This principle would take precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation. And then we could boldly go where no one has gone before. Whaddaya think?

Why Immigration is This Year's Red Herring of Choice

2006-05-07T23:53:00.000-04:00

The politicos are grand-standing about immigration this year, but why? The obvious answer is that it distracts the media from the chaos in Iraq and the lack of progress on the Gulf Coast. It's not as sexy an issue as abortion or gay marriage, but you can bet Karl Rove already has an end game strategy planned to tie the three of them together just in time to hit the fan in the Fall. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer that will maintain an adequate supply of undocumented gardeners and nannies for the over-privileged while still assuaging Republican fear-mongers and xenophobes (speaking of Xena-phobia, the Dems could certainly use some Lucy Lawless ass-kicking on their side, but just think of the hay O-Really and Rush could make out of poor Lucy's unfortunate choice of name and, by god, doesn't she embody everything evil about the immigration of fictional, ambiguously gay, New Zealanders to our exclusive utopia?). Perhaps most disturbing is the hypocrisy of the Administration's "guest worker" proposal - is this anything but indentured servitude wrapped in a red, white and blue bow-tie that binds?

What, after all, do strict immigration policies, gay marriage bans, outlawing abortion, and, what the heck, let's throw in the war on drugs, just because we can, have in common? They are all attempts to revive the concept of Prohibition. I guess the theory is that if you make it illegal for other people to do the things you find offensive, then they won't do those things anymore. The New Prohibitions can't really work any better than the US's unsuccessful attempt to ban alcohol in the 20's, but the politicians campaigning on those grounds don't really care if they do or not.

NOTHING Congress does is going to stop illegal immigrants from entering the country seeking an honest day's pay for an honest day's work;

NOTHING Congress does is going to stop gay or lesbian couples from entering into long term monogamous relationships seeking an honest day's life for an honest day's love;

NOTHING Congress does is going to stop women suffering unwanted pregnancies from entering the personal hell of seeking an honest god's forgiveness for an honest night's series of unfortunate events;

NOTHING Congress does is going to stop drug users from entering the criminal underworld seeking a not-so-honest day's high for no good reason, but then, an honest man's choice to use an illegal recreational drug may well prove to be harmless when compared to the untold damage caused by the government subsidized pushers in the tobacco, alcohol, and pharmaceutical industries; and

NOTHING will stop politicians from preaching fear and hatred to feed their greed and arrogance. As long as they can chant the slogans, they can drum up the fear and hate that work so well to motivate voters of a certain ilk, background or naivete. Will the voters still respond to empty rhetoric after six years of broken promises? Please, instead of beating the voters over the head with a tired litany of pro-good, anti-evil gibberish, let's ask Congress to do what they do best in these matters: NOTHING!

There are issues to be dealt with for which Congress is suitably equipped. Health care, tax reform, the war in Iraq, the budget deficit, adequate funding for human service programs at home and abroad. If we steer clear of the polarizing hot topics of political rhetoric, is there any chance we could still have an interesting dialogue about relevant issues? Would the media bother to cover the Lincoln - Douglas debates?

The immigration "problem" can't be solved with walls, or guns, or unenforceable laws. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants. If we want to throw out some undesireables, can't we design worthiness tests for those who claim citizenship just because they were born here? The problem is not that the immigrants are "here" and not "there" - the problem is that our respective governments have failed to serve their respective people. If the US had spent the last hundred years spreading worker's rights and fair labor standards throughout the world, or at least throughout the hemisphere, or at least into Mexico, instead of encouraging Corporate America to export jobs to take advantage of exploitative working conditions, maybe we the people of all the Americas would have manufacturing jobs north of the border and a living wage south of the border. We won't need more border patrols if we work to eliminate the barriers that separate us. Could we solve the problems and stop whining about the symptoms?

How to Avoid $4.00 per Gallon

2006-05-07T00:51:00.000-04:00

You heard it here first! The amazing solution to rising gas prices. And there's no need to bother the oil companies with price or profit controls.

All we need to do is switch to the metric system.

SWITCH TO THE METRIC SYSTEM!

That's right, folks. A simple switch to the metric system would result in a frenzy of misplaced anger and ineffectual protest. And, after all, $1.00 a liter doesn't sound so bad, does it?*

*Blame Canada, eh?

Short Attention Span Campaign 2006

2006-05-06T01:36:00.000-04:00

Greed and arrogance.

Fear and hatred.

Lies, fraud and pockets full of payoffs.

Is this any way to run a country?

Into the ground?

What would Jesus really do?*

It's time to throw the bums out.

*You know, the Jesus from Sunday School - the Lord's Prayer, the Golden Rule, Love Thy Neighbor - not the Jesus who apparently tells Dubya to kill innocent men, women, and children halfway around the world and to give tax breaks to the filthy rich - that must be some other Jesus, for Chrissake!

The Ostrich as Endangered Species?

2006-05-04T22:56:00.000-04:00

In the absence of a viable third party, I guess it's up to the gods-forsaken Democrats to realize that this is a time of opportunity; they can't just stick their heads in the sand. They can easily raise significant moral values issues other than abortion and gay marriage (i.e. when did Jesus teach us to "do unto others before they do unto you?" Or, what part of "Thou shalt not kill" did you not understand?). Haven't we exacted sufficient vengeance against the nameless, faceless terrorists of 9/11 (considering how difficult it is to prosecute a suicide bomber/hijacker and without actually finding, or trying, Osama, of course)? Where are the casualty comparisons between Americans and Iraqis and Afghans, both military and civilian? At what cost in lives and dollars? Do we really want to re-enact The Battle Hymn of the Republic? It's pretty clear that Dubya is now not just the most powerful man in the world, he's the most dangerous one. Not since Dr. Strangelove have we seen paranoia wield such influence in the halls of power. It's also obvious from his recent performances at press conferences and photo-ops that he's still the arrogant little pissant he always was.

What have you done for me, lately?

Now, if he doesn't completely go off the deep end, how can he possibly do anything that he promised (other than to deliver obscene tax breaks to the obscenely wealthy)? What, for that matter, have the Republicans done for us, . . . ever? With the Presidency, the Senate and the House all under Republican control for the past six years, the GOP is in a "no excuses" bind. If the Dems can get the media (and the public) to pay attention to real alternative proposals for controlling energy costs, universal health care, Social Security reform, tax reform (tax the rich, you idiots, not us poor working stiffs), Iraq, Iran(!?) and the war on terror, they can actually keep pressure on the Republicans to put up or shut up - no excuses accepted. Remember, the GOP got where they are by embracing fear and dissembling at will (without any real challenges from the Fourth Estate) - they blamed the Dems, they blamed Osama, they blamed Saddam, they instilled fear about gays, they questioned the values of anyone who would dare oppose them, and they lavished rewards on the rich. They have exactly six months now to end the war in Iraq, to "end" terrorism, to reform Social Security and taxes (they're going to have to tax the rich to do it), and to cure the deficit in the meantime. Who are they going to blame when gas hits $4.00 a gallon, the war drags on, terrorist attacks continue, and the economy continues to slide. I think people may start to fear the status quo more than they fear changing that proverbial horse in mid-stream.

I see the potential here for the equivalent of a Gingrich type counter-revolution in 2006 without the Contract on America. By the way, didn't more people vote against this incumbent President than ever before? What mandate?

Can the Dems pull their heads out of the sand?

A New American Revolution?

2006-05-03T22:42:00.000-04:00

It seems to me that W and his mini Axis (or is that Excess?) of Evil, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, have betrayed the trust of even the most die-hard conservatives, libertarians, and honest republicans and have managed to lead the once nearly-respectable Republican Party to the brink of extinction (remember when Republicans actually stood for something other than "the best politicians money can buy?" Does the name Abraham Lincoln ring a bell? Wendell Wilkie?). W's approval rating drops to an all time low of 32% and no one asks, "Who are those 32% and why aren't they being committed to mental institutions?" We the people seem to have surrendered our role in self-government to the corporate lobbyists and political machines. Remember those Founding Fathers the neo-cons are so fond of summoning up for endorsements of everything from corporate welfare to undeclared war? Those guys were not exactly conservative in their time. If they had modeled our government based on what the best thinkers of 250 years prior had done, we'd be living in a 1526 era feudal system where moneyed oligarchs treat indentured servants as property - a two class system where rich landowners control everything and working people tithe their hard-earned income to the overlords. Oh, wait a minute, have we come full-circle already? Let's remember Jefferson's response to the madness of an earlier King George:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.