The old Indian

Hoax: My Ass

2011-10-03T16:59:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the new normal - extreme weather. How has it affected me? Sunday August 28, 2011 hurricane Irene, downgraded to a tropical storm before it hit southeastern Massachusetts blew down a pine tree with a 3 foot diameter base which crashed into my house, destroying the roof. Last winter, endless snow storms made more vigorous by warmer winter temps carried more moisture which fell as snow. The excessive amount of snow blocked the ability of my attic to shed heat and caused ice dams that in turn caused melting snow water to back up into my house damaging ceilings, walls and floors. Numerous and severe thunderstorms were spawned this spring only a few miles west of my home in Massachusetts - some of which developed into severe tornadoes destroying homes businesses and lives -- all while the path of these killer storms narrowly missed my town. I am talking about Massachusetts not northern Maine, or tornado ally in the mid-west. Massachusetts has had its share of bad storms in the past; however, the frequency was measured in decades not months. The new normal is here … extreme heat, cold, drought, floods. Extreme and frequent violent weather needs energy to grow to that category. Heat is the energy that drives weather patterns. The planet is warmer, there is more heat therefore the storms are going to be more frequent and more severe. It is simple physics, oh wait…the right does not like science, and they don’t believe the world’s science community can read a thermometer.
Corporate America does not want to hear that the cause of global warming is anthropomorphic. The right does not want to hear that the concept of global warming exists. The right wants to govern the country but we know they cannot govern, hell; they can’t even read a thermometer. Look at the mess that Obama inherited and the road blocks he has faced less he solve problems. We are feeling the effects of climate change right now even in a relatively quiet place like Massachusetts and if the Republicans take over again we better start thinking about making caves our house of choice once again.

Note to the NRA:

2010-04-26T10:11:00.000-07:00

The second amendment was not intended to be a suicide clause.
I do not believe that everyone has the right to own a gun they include: the legally insane, convicted murderers, rapists, kidnappers, people who have committed armed robbery or used a gun in any way that is illegal, misanthropes and people with anger management problems. I am sure that there are some categories that you could add to my list.
Don’t you think we need to be sure those people mentioned above do not have guns to use against us? We need to check people out who want to own guns. What if they are people who have murdered before, are criminal illegals and or terrorists? Don’t you have a problem with that?

Stop – Before it’s Too Late!

2010-03-26T03:49:00.000-07:00

Bob Herbert wrote and I agree with him: “A party that promotes ignorance (“Just say no to global warming”) {and no to evolution} and provides a safe house for bigotry cannot serve the best interests of our country.”
Go ahead. Keep throwing red meat in front of angry, armed crowds and the inevitable will happen. The ubiquitous availability of firearms will ultimately lead to the use of one of them and the death of an American citizen. This is not the American way. Is this going to be the new party identification, racism and hatred? We vote our choices at the ballet box. We do not shoot the opposition. This is the United States of America not the United Banana Republic. Where the hell are you people going with this travesty of democracy? The fear mongering and coded appeals to racism have gone too far. You are inches away from inciting a massive riot with horrendous consequences... Have you people thought about unintended consequences? This is uncivilized thuggish behavior. You better bring this reckless behavior under control before the smarter more sensible of your own party desert the Republican ranks along with the more thoughtful and non-violent Independents and Teabaggers.

Why is the Right so quick to give up freedoms?

2010-01-21T07:55:00.000-08:00

This is a debate worth having because it is central to our way of life, rights, and freedoms as guaranteed by the Constitution of The United States.
The Bill Of Rights is not on the Table. The United States is different than Nazi Germany or the old Soviet Union. We are different from England before the Magna Carter. We have a Bill of Rights which has seen us through a Revolution, the war of 1812, the Civil War and two world wars. We have faced espionage during the Cold War and since then a series of bombings by home grown terrorists such as Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph the Atlanta Olympics bomber, and all of the clinic bombings and shootings of doctors by other forms of terrorists.
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson who presided over the Nuremberg Trials in Germany after WWII said:

” The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections”.

What Jackson’s statement means is that the Bill of Rights cannot be voted in or out of power; it cannot be changed to make political points or to be applied on a case by case basis. The Bill of rights is there to protect us. “Us” is all human beings. Once a group in power can deny rights to other groups - the slippery slope is in play. Your group may be next.
We all want to stop terrorism. The debate should be about how we stop it. Make no mistake about it; terrorism never ends; to treat terrorism like a war is to employ incomplete thinking. “The war on terror” is a convenient shorthand phrase to make a point at best. The worst case scenario for classifying terrorism as a war is that our own constitution is in jeopardy of being dismantled out of fear. We have had the fear massages on full since September 11, 2001. Even if the fear is real, we do not have to give up the right of Habeas Corpus; to say that we need to in some cases or else the sky will fall - is a false choice.
Remember Richard Reid, he was the shoe bomber? On December 22, 2001 passengers on Flight 63 smelled smoke, much like the passengers on the aircraft December 25, 2009 when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab failed in the same manner as Reid. Today, the shoe bomber is in a maximum security prison with no hope of parole. McVeigh has been executed. We expect that the courts will take care of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in a similar manner. We have a system that works. Our system is not broken; let’s not be too quick to throw away our rights.
Don’t let political demagogues scare you into giving up our precious “Bill of Rights” How many US service people gave up their lives in the world wars thinking that their ultimate sacrifice would ensure our freedoms? Our freedoms cannot be taken away by terrorists unless we want them to win. Do not let sloppy thinking and populous slogans seduce you into giving up the best safeguard in the world …our Bill Of Rights.

Re: the healthcare debate or debacle.

2010-01-18T14:11:00.000-08:00

Is Obama’s problem with getting credible healthcare reform one of being forced to compromise the original plan into oblivion? Is anyone looking at healthcare reform from a macro level then zooming into / identifying the various elements which are obscured by total right wing attacks from every direction? First we had the inaccurate muddying of the waters of the Acorn nonexistent reason that the economy failed because black people made the govt. give them loans they could not pay back, then we had the Birthers, followed by the Tea Baggers who along with the numbskull Palin made healthcare reform something that was going to be forced down people’s throats with death panels and a new name: Obama-care. All while the preceding is taking place the feeble economy, left in shambles by Bush, and is promptly blamed on Obama, is the background that poisons the air for all the other programs. With so many cannonballs flying at Obama from every direction not to mention the Blue Dogs in his own party blocking healthcare because the conservatives in their district are too stupid to know what is going on, believe the Tea-Baggers from last summer and because of that, the need for a couple of Republican votes to get anything to pass- he has had to negotiate the healthcare bill down to a shadow of its original self. The question is: What should he do? Where is the advice? He will get no help from the Republicans who want him to fail according to their leader … Rush Limbaugh so they can get back into power. So what is the approach from those of you who can write clearly and who have a portal to get information into the hands of those who can use it? The whole attack from the right needs to be analyzed and presented as rational story and explanation that will be heard and calm the fears of those who believe the garbage that the right passes off as fact. The left is out gunned by the grip the right has on the media. Maybe that is the first thing that is exposed. The left needs to push back hard and fast. Write letters or email your congressman, tell how you feel about the issues they need your feedback - they need guidance.

A Locke on Limbaugh

2009-02-13T16:29:00.000-08:00

The very idea of “The United States of America” was based on the radical ideas of the Enlightenment and the philosophy of liberal Philosophers like John Locke. Locke believed that all people are “reasonable” and “moral” and born with fundamental rights that transcended government; these rights were as basic as breathing and eating. Locke’s theories were based on the idea of natural law, natural law being the observation of nature’s cycles such as the seasons and life cycle of people, wild creatures and plants. Locke believed people have a right to life, liberty and property and these rights were part of the natural law to which all people are entitled.
Opposing Locke’s ideas were the Conservatives of the time who were concerned about maintaining the status quo. For Kings, Queens and Emperors to embrace Locke would be to give up some control over the masses, however, worse than that, was the idea that the people were entitled to certain rights over which there would be no discussion. Locke further believed that Government was based on a contract with the people and that the contract was necessary to establish order. The contract between the People and the Government that was drawn up in the United States of America is our Constitution and it is the blueprint that defines our basic governmental structure while safeguarding our rights, the rights to which we are entitled by virtue of our humanity not by virtue of citizenship. Locke believed that if people employed reason, they would arrive at a comparative and workable form of government. Locke further believed that people have the right to break their contract if the government fails to uphold their natural rights. The Framers of our Constitution liked this idea and built in a system to elect a new government from time to time in order to keep those in power aware that the people can and will vote them out if their government fails to uphold their natural rights.
The great good fortune for the American people is that we have had Reasonable people in the past (Jefferson) reading the great Liberal philosophers, like Locke, and putting their ideas into the creation of one of the world’s greatest social experiments, The United States of America. Liberalism was established in America. Individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and religious freedom were written into the Bill of Rights. These rights were disturbing to the European monarchs because they were seen as destabilizing and in any event, the monarchies did not want to give up their total power and control over the people.
More than ever we need voices of reason to speak for conservatives and liberals alike, especially today, when so much is at risk. What we do not need are voices that speak, masquerading as informed opinion, leading well intentioned listeners to vote against their own self interests. Reflecting on what Liberalism has contributed to the formation of the United States, and how it has kept us from embracing the ideas of installing a monarchy or a dictator at different times in our history we are currently faced with the following blather in juxtaposition to John Locke:

Steve Benen, Washington Monthly writes:
“Rush Limbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by "a major American print publication" to offer a 400-word statement explaining his "hope for the Obama presidency." He responded: "So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, 'Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.'
(interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here's the point. Everybody thinks it's outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, 'Oh, you can't do that.' Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don't care what the Drive-By story is. I Hope Obama Fails.' Somebody's gotta say it."Limbaugh uses Liberalism three times in three sentences and we still don’t know what he is talking about. There are some who accept Limbaugh’s own private definition of “liberalism” (whatever it is) with all of his political and social biases versus a more studied historical perspective. Don’t let the uninformed grab the microphone and build a following based on misunderstanding, fear, and a distortion of history without ever having to publicly explain or defend their positions in a moderated debate of ideas on a person to person basis; Limbaugh should be called-out and made to explain his definition of liberalism and how he arrived at it.

Steve Benen closed his piece by saying: “No, I don't think Americans have to root against the country. If Obama fails, we fail. If his presidency falls short, there are negative consequences for all of us. This is the opposite of patriotism.”
Limbaugh is the opposite of Locke; Locke is relevant

A Decisive Election - A new National Course

2008-11-17T18:05:00.000-08:00

In case no one has noticed the election was for change. The voters swept out the Neocons and elected a more liberal government. Most voters rejected the politics of “Swiftboaters”. This election was about issues like the war, the economy and healthcare. The election results were 365 electoral votes to 173 electoral votes, 66.7 million votes to 58.2 million votes, or 53% voted for Obama to 46% for McCain. The score says that voters were fed up and voted for change. Why? Consider the following.
The following is what we have to repair just to get back to where we were January 2001:
The elimination of the ABM treaty; it is gone (kept us from nuclear war since Eisenhower) The Kyoto treaty is unworkable because of the aversion to honest science; the resulting effects of global climate change are punishing our nation and the world. The entire Mideast and their moderate populations no longer trust us. We have grated against all of our European allies. Habeas Corpus is gone, rolling back our rights 700 years to the Magna Carta. The budget surplus is gone, even bigger deficits are back and what do we have to show for it? We torture people like the bad guys do; not torturing people made us better than the bad guys. The CIA/ Plame episode deliberately and publically exposed one of our own agents to divert attention from the Niger yellow cake lie! A pre-emptive war at a cost of 12 billion dollars a month has resulted in over 4000 US military dead, 1,000,000 Iraqis dead, 40,000 US military seriously wounded, and 9 million Iraqis seriously wounded. National security (ports, chemical factories) is a myth, our military has been pushed to the breaking point, and they struggle to get medical help. Support the troops means what? The jobs recovery is nonexistent, trickle-down never worked after trillions in tax cuts. The US is in debt and in the midst of a nasty rescission. All of that and 46% of the contry thought that this was the way our government should work?
The majority of the voters want to change the way the country works and the voters want the country repaired.
To begin with, how about thinking of ourselves as Americans? Why is it more important to be identified with one party or the other. We are all Americans, we are all patriots. We have to set a new course with new priorities. Has anyone spent 5 minutes thinking about what they want the government to do? Where do you want your dollars spent? What are your priorities? By talking about priorities we may come to realize how much we have in common rather than how different we are...

Here is my list in order of priority: Where is yours?

Essential Services at Home (USA)
Safety (police and fire)
Public education (tied with safety)
Single payer health insurance (for everyone)
Social Security
Clean air, clean water
Research for alternative energy sources
Protect the (environment) i.e., natural barriers (Like the wetlands off New Orleans)
Fund pure research projects in the Nations Universities
Expand public transportation systems
Bring back the draft for military or national service

Essential Foreign Spending (Contribute our share)
Fund the program to collect every loose nuke in the former Soviet Union
Fund the programs in the UN to provide health, food and education services to the world’s poor
Fund programs in the UN for peace-keeping missions supported by the UN

Non Essential Spending (eliminate)
Corporate subsidies

Now, get busy talking about things that really matter; make your voice heard and insist on your priorities. Let’s get a discussion going on spending priorities.

Meltdown for Dummies or Why is Socialism OK for Wall Street?

2008-10-28T09:59:00.000-07:00

There is a simplistic explanation circulating among the conservative camp about poor people being the cause of the market meltdown because they bought houses they could not afford and defaulted on their mortgages. If you believe this then you are misinformed. The idea that a few thousand poor people who cannot make mortgage payments are capable of bringing down a world economy is simplistic to the absurd and intellectually dishonest. The present meltdown is a result of deregulated banks and securities firms selling bundled mortgages as commodities which morphed into a host of exotic financial derivative products that revalued bundled mortgages many times over. Current estimates value the cumulative total of derivative products flowing from repackaged mortgages at approx 48 to 1. These financial acrobatics increased the perceived market value of the mortgages in question to greater than the GNP of the planet. (Yes, the entire world). The creation of this market was done under the watchful eyes of Robert Rubin, Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, Arthur Levitt, Ben Bernanke and Current Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, not exactly a platoon of liberals.
How does a mortgage become a derivative and why didn’t the Government stop it? “The radical banking deregulation legislation that McCain pushed so aggressively is what legally enabled those he condemned recently as “the Wall Street bankers and brokers who got us into this mess”. Have McCain supporters never heard of Phil Gramm, the man McCain picked to co-chair his presidential campaign, who sponsored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act—both of which made legal, for the first time since the Great Depression, the credit swaps and hybrid instruments at the heart of the Wall Street scams?” (Robert Scheer, Truthdig.com)
The peak year for mortgage generation including sub-prime mortgages was 2004. The Federal Reserve is supposed to regulate corporate reserves to limit the growth of credit, but the Structured Investment Vehicles (SIV’s) created by Wall Street were one method to get around this rule. More leverage also meant more risk for the bank. This is all part of what's called the Shadow Banking System, meaning it gets around existing regulations. It was deregulation that led to the huge growth of the shadow banking system. In 2004 Wall Street successfully lobbied the Securities and Exchange Commission to loosen regulations on how much they could leverage against their capital reserves. This allowed the companies "to invest in the fast-growing but opaque world of mortgage-backed securities, credit derivatives, a form of insurance for bond holders; and other exotic instruments, according to the New York Times. The only real oversight left in place was self-policing by the investment banks themselves to determine if they were putting investors at risk.” (AlterNet.org, Gupta, Arun).
The trail leading to destruction of the international economy begins with the repeal of Glass / Steagall an act passed by Congress in 1933 that prohibited commercial banks from collaborating with full-service brokerage firms or participating in investment banking activities. Arun Gupta says that Wall Street’s goal was to figure out ways to increase profits while avoiding liability. There is a difference between structuring an investment to limit liability and structuring a series of investments to avoid liability. The street was moving everything off book to Structured Investment Vehicles to get around the rules of leveraging.
Gupta describes Wall Street as practicing wizardry in that they turn a debt (a mortgage) into a security (a stock). This is referred to as a Mortgage Base Security (MBS). The commercial bank sells the MBS to an investment bank. The mortgage payment finds its way to the holder of the Mortgage Based Security (MBS). The fee that the commercial bank charges the investment bank is approx. $1000 a mortgage. As you can see, this has to be a volume game or it’s not worth doing. The bank bundles hundreds of mortgages together, calls them securities; they then get rating companies to have the mortgages assured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Bush administration was and is having trouble with the economy and job creation. In 2004 they saw the low interest rates and the rising value of the real estate market as a way to enhance the stock market. It was the Bush administration that pushed for broader acceptance of Sub-prime loans back in 2004.
The Sub Prime chapter begins here in earnest. Sub-Prime means that the loan is a higher risk but the investment returns are higher for lenders. Here is where the whole scheme comes off the tracks. Bundles of AAA rated mortgage backed securities (MBS) are sliced up and blended with BBB and or lower rated Sub Prime Mortgage Backed Securities. This product is called a Tranche. The purchaser of a Tranche may be a Hedge Fund, Pension Fund, Investment Bank, Money bank, or a Central bank. Something emerged called Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) where the banks are again using the same debt (your mortgage) as collateral to back up the purchase of the Tranche. To give the illusion of limited risk Credit Default Swaps (CDS) another product is a kind of insurance against default.
What you see happening here is for example, $40 billion in mortgages after leveraging is a potential liability of $1.6 trillion. The final chapter played out when the oversupply of housing spurred by apparent investment opportunities, and consumers using their house equity as a bank fell down like a house of cards. The real estate market got soft. ARMS (adjustable rate mortgages) reset to home owners, who were now, because of falling prices, upside down on the value of their houses. Financial institutions had nowhere near the cash reserves needed to cover all of the guarantees and insurances against failure because of the leveraged investments that had assumed a perpetual rise in housing prices.
The deregulation myth says that the market is self regulating and that Government has no place in their business. I beg to differ; the current meltdown is exhibit “A” in our case for oversight and regulation. It was the plethora of exotic and unworkable financial products that the market created to get around regulation that ultimately failed and melted down the economy. It was by no means the little guy who bought a house using an ARM because he was sold on the idea that the value of the house would go up and he could always cash out on the plus side of the deal.
Governments can’t run on air and the taxpayers cannot and should not bail out scoundrels. I see a corporate tax increase on financial business, and I see more regulation and oversight for investment companies. There has been enough corporate socialism for financial firms; it’s time we started to take care of the citizens of the USA. McCain is a big business socialist. Obama is working for middle class Americans - he is the choice.
Source http://www.alternet.org/workplace/102672/

Republican Mess Requires House Cleaning

2008-10-18T17:28:00.000-07:00

It's time for Democratic values to lead the way

Looking back over the last eight years the landscape is littered with financial, military and social rubble. Americans deserve better than the false choices that are presented by Republican ideologues. We don't have to choose between freedoms in the Bill of Rights and the War on Terror. We don't have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. These foolish "retail patriotisms" divide the country. While we are fighting about all of these divisive ideas, the Bush administration chips away at our hard won freedoms, like taking away habeas corpus. McCain will continue that tactic of wiping out our rights.Out of one side of his mouth McCain tells us our troops are fighting for our liberties on the battlefields of Iraq, and from the other side of his mouth he votes yes to take away our liberties on the floor of the Senate. We lose our troops over there, and our liberties over here; something is really screwed up with this picture.

Obama has the better tax plan. His plan will provide help where it is needed the most; it will help those at the lower end of the earnings scale. We are already upside down on property values due to the slumping real estate market. Reject the Bush tax cut. While you are voting, elect leaders focused on helping Main Street not placating Wall Street. Sweep out of office those who speak against financial regulation - vote for Obama.

Speaking of Wall Street, stocks are melting down and will be years in recovering. Business will take a hit because of the current credit restrictions, and shoppers are pulling back and being more cautious and frugal. All because of the conservative’s deregulation myth, that markets are self correcting. The republicans forgot to tell you that some market corrections are train-wrecks.

We continue to send ten billion dollars a month to Iraq which is already sporting a price tag in the trillions. (What is today’s reason for being in Iraq?) How do we support the world’s biggest most expensive military if McCain wants to excuse the top 5% wealthiest from paying taxes? His answer will be the same as Bush, cut Medicare and Social Security so he can keep sending $10 billion a month to Iraq. McCain’s plan is not acceptable. The Iraqis want us to leave, let’s get out and put that 10 billion to work over here.

Why should we excuse the top 5% wealthiest in our country from paying more taxes?
Bush said that a tax cut would stimulate business - that was 7 years ago …. Where is the new business? Where are the new jobs? Where is the prosperity? The Reagan years are over; there is no valid trickle down model. Promise the masses tax cuts but don’t mention that the tax cuts do not include payroll taxes which are what the vast majority of Americans pay. The Tax cuts it turns out are for corporations,on capital gains paid by successful investors and inheritance taxes paid only by multi-millionaires.

A vote for republicans will guarantee the social rubble is going to include no single payer national health care, reduced Social Security, and Medicare benefits. Add to that reduced funding for education at the local level and for college tuition; that will be part of the price of staying the course, and that will be the price of four more years of Republicans in the White House.
It’s time for a change: Vote for Obama.

A Maverick by Any Other Name is a Republican

2008-09-28T08:35:00.000-07:00

John McCain is a Republican cut from the same cloth that brought you the last eight years. Just to review the facts: Eight years ago there was a three Trillion dollar surplus that the Republicans inherited. What has been their stewardship with that inheritance? Not only is it gone, but the next administration inherits one of the biggest deficits in our history. The current deficit is expected to be 400 billion, add to that an additional 700 billion proposed by the current Bush administration to buy their way out of bad fiscal policy and the deficit is over a trillion bucks. We were told 7 years ago the three trillion dollars surplus would be returned to Wall Street and would create jobs. I believe this is referred to as the trickle-down theory. The tax cuts went to the top one percent of the nation’s wealthiest. In spite of the unprecedented tax-cut this Republican administration has presided over the worst job-creation performance since Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression. Wouldn’t it be great to have that 3 trillion back? Now, McCain wants to give the oil companies 3 billion in tax breaks.
Security is supposed to be a natural strength of the Republican Party; the facts say otherwise. This administration was asleep at the switch prior to 9/11. Rice was inept as was the entire Bush team and the result was 19 nut cases walked, unchallenged, through a joke airport security system, high-jacked 4 planes simultaneously and succeeded in killing 3000 people. This happened after repeated warnings to the Bush administration from people like Richard Clarke who had served in several Republican administrations.
We went to war in Iraq, illegally, which had nothing to do with 9/11 after leaving the capture of Bin Laden to another day. As of this writing, “another day” is not here yet. McCain is still fixed on Iraq; he wants to “win”. Win what? Saddam is dead, the country is destroyed. Bush said: “. When the Iraqis stand up we will stand down” The Iraqis have had an election and the president of Iraq has asked the Americans to leave and let the Iraqis sort out their problems, Neither Bush nor McCain wants to leave Iraq. Both want to continue to spend 10 billion dollars a month occupying a country we have been unable to control for 5 years. Make no mistake about it, the surge did not work, what worked was the Anbar Sunni Arabs got fed up with the vicious Al Qaeda elements and took them out. That has been the fate of Al Qaeda in every country they have been in; they have been ousted by the local people because they are vicious killers.
Remember this: John McCain was one of the Keating 5. These were the people who precipitated the saving and loan debacle in the early 90’s and cost the American taxpayers 125 billion dollars to bail out failing US banks. More recently McCain chose as his campaign finance advisor Phil Gramm, who slipped in a 250 page time bomb into legislation back into the 90’s which culminated in the current financial disaster we find ourselves in. McCain does not show good judgment in finance and in national security.
Finally, John McCain’s choice of a VP is an insult to the American people. To have such a narrow minded and inept person a heart-beat away from the presidency should be a disqualifier in and of itself. Certainly, the rest of the world thinks Americans are stupid for electing George Bush twice.
We cannot afford another 4 years of the same bad government. John McCain is a republican and he believes in no government regulation, if you like the current financial mess we are in then he is your guy and he will provide more of the same. Maverick my foot, nice try McCain, but we know you are a republican just like George W. Bush we don’t need a maverick we need a leader. Vote for Obama.

Eliminate The Middleman

2008-04-10T10:19:00.000-07:00

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2008

Eliminate The Middleman

One thing became painfully obvious watching this week's House / Senate hearings on the Iraq occupation, the wrong people were being questioned. Instead of General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker it should have been President George W. Bush, V.P. Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in front of the legislative committees. Make no mistake about it, any military personal that have opposed either going in or staying in Iraq are gone. Whatever his feelings about Iraq, Petraeus is the wrong guy to ask about the larger questions surrounding the Iraq mess namely, what are we going to do now? In the USA, the military reports to the civilian government they are given a job and they follow orders. Petraeus makes the tactical decisions concerning the occupation; the overall strategy is put together at the Pentagon and the White House.

While we agonize over the tactics and mistakes made in Iraq, our attention is diverted from the larger question: Why are we there? What were the reasons to trade 4000 American lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and the American reputation of rule of law for the preemptive invasion of Iraq? These are the central questions that have never been answered. Iraq played no role in 9/11, Iraq was an enemy of Al Qaeda, Iraq was not a military threat to the United States or it's neighbors and Bush and Cheney knew it before the invasion.

Why are we in Iraq? Is staying in Iraq all about defending Republican ideology, decisions and policy no matter that the reasons given for a preemptive strike all turned out to be non-existent? "Are the Republicans so invested in the original decision to invade Iraq that they won't even consider whether the United States would be better off winding down this commitment, relieving our military of the war's enormous burdens and redirecting our foreign policy. (E.J. Dionne The Road to Nowhere)"

Let's start asking the tough questions, but more importantly, lets make sure we are asking the right questions to the right people.

Time to Recalibrate Our Compass: We Are Drifting in Dangerous Waters

2007-11-05T06:34:00.000-08:00

Why did we attack Iraq in March of 2003? Here is what we were told: Iraq has or will have nuclear weapons very shortly and use them against its neighbors and possibly the U.S. Iraq has or will make chemical weapons and use them against its neighbors. Iraq has or will make biological weapons and use them against its neighbors. Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and his neighbors. Saddam has killed thousands of people who opposed him. He is a ruthless dictator who is a threat to the region. Iraq is the central war on terror. If we don’t fight the terrorists over there then we will have to fight him over here in the streets of the United States. The build up to the Iraq attack was always and still is presented in the context of September 11, 2001. Iraq was presented as an imminent threat. For an entire year before the war every time 9/11 was mentioned by the president Iraq followed in the next sentence and the American people heard 9/11 and Iraq and assumed that Iraq was either responsible for or was involved in the 9/11 catastrophe. It simply was not true. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11. Iraq an imminent threat? – Iraq, that had no navy –Iraq, that had no air force- Iraq, whose army was decimated by the 1993 Gulf war – Iraq, whose military equipment was still in shambles from the 1993 Gulf war an imminent threat? Ridiculous and the congress the news media and the people bought it …

That was the compass course from Jan 2002 to March 2003; Iraq is a threat to its neighbors and is or may be a threat to the United States the most powerful nation on the planet. Several months before the invasion of Iraq Hans Blix and his UN team of inspectors were in Iraq looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Saddam Hussein granted them full unconditional access to every location in Iraq. The inspectors went to the locations that Donald Rumsfeld said WMD were known to be. Not only were physical weapons not discovered, there was no radioactive trace of nuclear material found after using the most sensitive detection equipment available. In short there were no Nuclear WMD. Fast-forward four and half years and the full force of US expertise and free access to every inch of Iraq and still no trace of hidden WMD. I am sure that if the United States had found any evidence of nuclear weapons no matter how insignificant, it would have been a page one story. If Hans Blix could not find WMD then why did we order him out, stop the search and attack Iraq? Good question, you will have to ask George Bush or Dick Cheney but don’t expect to get an answer.

It turns out that the Iranians were never sure if Iraq had WMD. Because of the threat that it might be true Saddam’s Iraq was able to keep the much larger and more powerful Iranians in check. That was a plus for the U.S. and Israel. Just before the war started former Ambassador Joseph Wilson published his open letter to America exposing a lie told in the previous State of the Union Address that Iraq had sought to buy Yellow Cake from Niger. Yellow cake is processed, powered, uranium and it was alleged that it could be refined into weapons grade material for a bomb. Fearing an investigation and the possible exposure that the yellow cake statement in the State of The Union Address was false Dick Cheney’s office exposed Wilson’s wife Valerie Plame, a covert CIA agent. She had been working with a special CIA unit to stem the flow of WMD. The Wilsons became the story (that’s what you do when you want to divert attention from the facts of a case); Joe Wilson was accused of lying about his findings and of misrepresenting the facts that had been presented in his op-ed piece. The Republican-run Senate Intelligence Committee made derogatory claims about Wilson’s honesty in a report issued about the WMD controversy on July 7, 2004. (Parry Neck Deep 263). However, the official CIA report said that the (CIA) research analysts believed that the Wilson report supported their (official) assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq. . (Parry Neck Deep 263).

No WMD but we had attacked Iraq with a vengeance. First there was Shock and Awe a brutal display of force that blasted buildings in the middle of Baghdad, inadvertently, but non-the-less, killing thousands of civilians. In-fact, to date over one million innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed and 10 million wounded. These casualty numbers are made up mostly of women children and old men. But why are we there? There were no WMD and given the ferocious reaction by the administration to Wilson, Plame I will speculate that they did not believe Saddam to be the military threat he was presented to be much less a nuclear power. It is all about oil. It is the belief of this administration that to conquer the Mid East by military force is justified by our need for oil. If it was wrong for Iraq to invade Kuwait for oil, then why is ok for us to invade Iraq for oil? (So much for Christian values and morality).

So what is all this about supporting the troops? We all support the troops. I want every one of them home right now and home in one piece. There have been 3,848 US Military deaths and 10 times that many American wounded in an occupation that will never end. This administration has gotten every dime it ever asked for, it got every troop it wanted, I have not heard one disparaging remark about one troop ever (except from Rush Limbaugh). So when the reason for the war gets more than a little cloudy because it went from imminent threat to WMD, to regime change, to creating a democracy to fighting the war on terror, to the central war on terror, to Iran and if any of you dare to question the motives for the war then you are unpatriotic and not supporting the troops. The amazing thing is we are so divided by partisan ideology we buy all of this stuff. Who are we fighting, each other?
Its time to look at the direction this country is headed; it is time to check our moral compass Do you really feel its necessary to have over 3,848 military dead and 40,000 wounded for Exxon Mobile or any other multinational corporation? If you have gotten this far though the article then you know that a war in Iraq was unnecessary it did not have to happen; we had more power before we used our power, now we have less power and fewer options. I say that the Iraq war is a loser, and we are lost at sea with this commander-in-chief because he does not have a compass, and he may yet start another war in Iran and why will that be necessary?

Restore Habeas Corpus

2007-09-26T12:15:00.000-07:00

A memo to Congress:
Restore Habeas Corpus immediately. We the people are not afraid of the phantasmagoria fabricated by the Bush administration. We see through the ruse to create fear and stampede the people into foolish security based decisions at the expense of hard won freedoms. The people know the difference between 19 religious nuts who were able to walk through the worlds worst airport security, hi-jack planes and crash them into buildings and a real military with advanced technological capabilities. Put Habeas Corpus back in the Bill Of Rights, put the US army back in the USA, put the State Department back on the table and put the police department and security apparatus back on the street to go after the bad guys. Daniel Ellsberg says in Consortium News: "I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we … get back habeas corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution."
In this piece Daniel Ellsberg describes a unitary executive branch that exists today. He says we are already a police state. The US has demonstrated for more than two hundred years that we can live life in reasonable security and survive some pretty bad actors under the rule of law and with Habeas Corpus..
Those of you who support restoration of Habeas Corpus Pick up a copy of “Profiles in Courage”, pass it around to the other members of congress, some of them seem to be running short of the essential ingredient; the rest of your colleagues are invincibly ignorant elected by citizens with no other qualification other than being old enough to vote which is all the more reason to have courage, speak the truth, and lead. This is not the country the “Greatest Generation” fought to save.

Bush Not Terrorists Created The real Dangers At Home

2007-08-27T20:59:00.000-07:00

Alberto Gonzales resigned his position as US Attorney General August 27, 2007 effective September 17, 2007. The news shows / pundits are full of the typical analysis. Almost to a person the administration spokespersons defended Gonzales as person faced with a new set of circumstances brought-on by 9/11, because of that Bush supporters believe Gonzales was correct in erring on the extreme side to protect the country.
There is nothing new about terrorism in the United States. There are no new circumstances. We only have to go back to 1991 and 1995 to find terrorist events that shook the confidence of the American public.
There were similarities between September 11, and Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building destruction by American terrorist Timothy McVeigh in 1995. There were similarities between the original World Trade Center explosion in 1991 by Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman and 9/11. The similarities were that in each case each person involved was a terrorist. All of the terrorist planned to blow up large buildings to maximize death and destruction to make a sick statement. The WTC was targeted twice.
McVeigh was arrested and executed while others like Rahman are serving a life sentence in Colorado. We did not have to resort to extraordinary measures in 91, and 95 like legalizing torture, eliminating Habeas Corpus, spying on all Americans, invading other countries enduring unprecedented secrecy and going to the brink of a constitutional crisis.
The Bush administration that failed to protect the American people on Sept.11, 2001 continues to use the 9/11 tragedy as an excuse to change the nature of the government to one of a unitary presidency, advocating premptive military strikes, eliminating congressional checks and balances and declairing everything a secret. GWB, with the help of Gonzales, has convinced Americans that because we are at war, just about anything GWB does is in the name of National Security. Bush started the war by going to Afghanistan to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden / Al Qeada. Through a series of lies, exagerations, missrepresentations and the lack of a press corp with gumption, GWB was able to invade Iraq, the eternal qugmire. Everything is framed in the "war on terror" paradigm.
Truthout's William Fisher writes in: "Bushes War On Terror Makes America Less Safe and Less Free". if we are to be safe in the twenty-first century, we need to be smart about counterterrorism, not just act tough. The Bush administration's 'war on terror,' by adopting coercive preventive measures, has not only sacrificed some of the deepest commitments of our democracy, but has garnered few terrorists and actually made us less safe. We need to treat the rule of law as an asset, not an obstacle, if we are to avoid creating a problem even bigger than the one we faced on 9/11."
There will always be McVeighs, Rahmans, and Bin Ladens; there have always been violent nutcases throughout history. They do not have the power to invade and defeat states. In-fact, Bin Laden has failed to foment a single rebellion in an Islamic country to overthrow any government. The only people who can bring down the USA are its citizens who allow people like Gonzales under the direction of Cheney, Bush to systematically eliminate our freedoms in the name of National security. Bush, Cheney and Gonzales not terrorists created the real dangers at home. The real danger is that they misuse the law to take away our hard fought freedoms.

The Iraqis can't fix the mess we made so they are ungrateful

2007-08-24T06:17:00.000-07:00

Can anyone in the "main stream media" remember any facts about Iraq for more than one news cycle? I think not. Before the US attacked Iraq was it ungovernable? Was there any Al Qaeda in Iraq? Were there endless car bombings? Were there IED attacks on Saddam's army everyday? The answer to all of the questions above is, no. Did Saddam let in the inspectors before the 2003 attack? Yes he did. Were the inspectors granted access to any and all locations? Yes they were. Was documentation turned over to the inspectors? Yes it was. Did the inspectors find any WMD? The answer to the last question is no. Who kicked out he inspectors after they asked for more time because they were not finding any weapons or traces of weapons in the most highly suspect areas? The answer is, George W Bush, the guy who wanted a war with Iraq. Has any reporter ever asked George W Bush why he insists that we invaded Iraq because Saddam would not let in the WMD inspectors? No, not one of you sniveling cowards ever dared to challenge the president on this obvious lie.

Who broke Iraq by bombing it to dust? Who leveled Faluja? Who killed over 1,000,000 Iraqis during the four-year occupation? The answer is the invading armies. We broke Iraq beyond all recognition. We unleashed the Tribal hatreds between Sunny, Kurd and Shia. Who set up the "democratic" election? The answer is the invading armies. What side wins most elections? The one with the most votes wins. Who would that be in Iraq? The answer is the Shia. What did we think the Kurds and the Sunni were going to think about a Shia majority running the country? They were not, are not going to cooperate.

Let's review: We invaded, bombed, killed civilians and kicked out the ruling structure that maintained order. We set up a series of governments who, like us, are incapable of maintaining security, much less law and order. We cannot control the country and we have all the guns and money at our disposal to do the job. If we cannot control Iraq then why do we think the Iraqis Shia should be able to control Iraq?
The Bush administration has lit a fire in the Mid East that is burning out of control and will continue unless the administration are removed from power. Normally, the fire alarm is sounded by the fourth estate, but since the news organizations are nothing more than a flock of corporate sheep we cannot expect them to sound the alarm much less ask any pertinent questions. We have to pick up the phone, and call or send an email or letter to our Senators and Congressmen and tell them that Bush is dangerous and they need to act accordingly. Stop Bush / Cheny before they destroy our country any more than they have.

What Happened to The United States of America?

2007-06-23T13:52:00.000-07:00

While we were going about our business of raising our children, going to work, paying taxes, helping our neighbors, and voting in the elections something changed. Suddenly we have a Government that needs to keep secrets. We have a government that has dismantled the checks and balances carefully set in place by our forefathers. We have a government that has rescinded the right of habeas Corpus and no one seems to understand what is going on and if they do they don’t seem to care. Pick up a copy of George Orwell's 1984, read it and see if you can find the parallels in our own country.
Wake up! Get on the phone and call your congressional representatives and your Senators. Tell them that Dick Cheney and George Bush can do more damage to our country than 10,000 Bin Ladens. Why does the president and Vice President have to operate under such secrecy? We used to thank God that our government was not one of those spooky, secret regimes we read about in foreign lands. Understand what has happened: Starting with Cheney’s secret meetings with oil executives before we attacked Iraq, the secret prisons that the administration denied existed and now that no oversight will be allowed into the goings on in the White House during the criminal investigations of the Justice dept. Add to that the fact that the Vice President's office was responsible for the publication of the identity of one of our own CIA agents jeopardizing other agents, national security while committing a felony. Certainly, a case can be made for high crimes and misdemeanors. My fellow citizens this is not about being a Republican or a Democrat this is about the United States of America. We need this president and every president that follows him to understand that they will be accountable to the voters or we will throw them out. The time to act is now.

Beyond the Surge: Bush to Expand Iraq War

2007-06-18T05:53:00.000-07:00

It’s happening again and no one in the mainstream media is sounding the alarm. I am talking about this administration’s 6 year-old plan to launch a preemptive strike against Iran. There are now three carrier strike groups in the Gulf and a 20,000 troop “surge” either in or on their way to Iraq. The troops are being positioned to defend Baghdad against an Iraqi Shia outrage after we attack Iran. I thought we went to Iraq to (pick one) find WMD, Al Qaeda (showed up after we invaded), free Iraqis, bring Democracy, or get rid of Saddam but now it is becoming clear that we went to Iraq to create a base(s) to invade Iran. This administration may well be the most duplicitous regime in American history they cannot be trusted. We need to do the following: Scott Ritter proposes:
”an amendment to prohibit offensive military operations, covert or overt, being commenced by the United States of America against the Islamic Republic of Iran, without the expressed consent of the Congress of the United States. This amendment reserves the right of the President, commensurate with the War Powers Act, to carry out actions appropriate for the defense of the United States if attacked by Iran. However, any funds currently appropriated by Congress for use in support of ongoing operations by the United States Armed Forces are hereby prohibited from being allocated for any pre-emptive military action, whether overt or covert in nature, without the expressed prior consent by the Congress of the United States of America.”

Now, Let's Really Support the Troops

2007-03-21T18:26:00.000-07:00

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Their's not to make reply,
Their's not to reason why,
Their's but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
The above is from Alfred, Lord Tennyson’s poem “The Charge of the Light Brigade”. I remember reading it as a young man and feeling so proud of the men who faced the cannons without hesitation. I remember thinking how could such inept leaders command such brave men. My admiration quickly turned into dismay as they were cut down one after another. Here we are today sending our own brave men into the valley of Iraq when it is clear that it is now time to talk to all parties as suggested by the Baker / Hamilton Iraq study group and to stop sending men into cannons and IED’s. Why does “support the troops,” mean that the troops have to be like the Light Brigade? It is time to be smart about Iraq. The war was over a long time ago; we won. It is now a failed occupation. Demand that we talk to all parties and move the troops out of the fire of the cannons. Just because our leaders blunder’d is no excuse for us to be complacent

Novak to Plame to Cheney

2007-03-07T16:41:00.000-08:00

One of the last appearances I remember of Robert Novak was him coming under fire on “The McLaughlin Group” right after his column on Wilson and Plame appeared in print. McLaughlin took Novak to task for writing the piece. McLaughlin argued that because Novak was a senior newsman he should know better than to print sensitive information about intelligence people, facts like their names and names of their family. Novak was unrepentant and argued that he had the information from some very high white house contacts. For years the press was quiet on this story. I remember bringing it up at every chance I got because I knew there were chapters of this that would have to go all the way to the top of the administration. This is the secret presidency, the closed mouth, disciplined administration the White House that is in total control in short, no free agents who take matters into their own hands. So it had to be Bush or Cheney who initiated this scam. What is ironic is GWB’s father, former President George HW Bush when he was director of the CIA had gone ballistic over the outing of CIA agents by some double agents who were discovered after the fact. The incident lead to Congress writing a tough new law making it a felony to reveal the identity of a CIA agent. One could certainly make the case that outing Valerie Plame rises to high crimes and misdemeanors and should in and of itself be enough to impeach a vice president and a president. Perhaps Robert Novak can do some investigative reporting uncover the details of how the President and Vice President authored this disgraceful chapter and serve the public once again rather than his friends in high places.

How To Unscramble The Omelet Of Death?

2007-02-22T18:55:00.000-08:00

When destructive behavior prevails over common sense it is time to STOP and take stock. It is time to oust the Bush administration before the American example of rule of law is destroyed beyond repair. We have seen the congress cut and run from the responsibility to LEAD the country back to where it was on 9/10/2001. Heresy you say? No. What happened on 9/11 should not be the end of the Republic. It should have been the end of the Bush administration, which FAILED to protect the American citizens. Bush was out to lunch; Rice was and is an inept bureaucrat. Cheney is a morally bankrupt war hawk who single-handedly stopped any rapprochement with Iran in 2003 causing the Iranian moderates to be expelled from power and setting up the current dangerous war of words and dispatching three battle groups into the Gulf. New documents released show that by refusing to talk to the Iranians in 2003 Cheney spit on an opportunity to normalize relations and turn the heat down in the Mid East. In addition Cheney outted one of our own CIA agents in an attempt to cover up a lie being used to start a war. I call that High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Where is your sense of OUTRAGE? Are the houses of Congress filled with cowards? Stand up for your country and remove these dissemblers from office and give us back our country.
I appreciate the outspoken opposition of Senate and House leaders to President Bush's dangerous escalation of the war in Iraq.

It is time for Congress to take action to stop the war in Iraq and begin to redeploy our troops, while holding the Bush administration fully accountable for its actions.

As the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense considers the President's call for an additional $93 billion to escalate the war, the time to act is now! Tell the president no $93 billion unless he rolls back the tax cuts. Then, have the debate - no holds barred in the House and Senate on how to unscramble the omelet of death Bush has cooked up in Iraq. Remember, this is Bush’s war. He lied and created the problem for which there is no good solution. Why do we want a person like that as president?

I urge you, therefore, to use your powers to stop the President's escalation of the Iraq war and to begin the redeployment of U.S. troops! Then, begin the impeachment hearings, Cheney first, and then Bush. The people have spoken; now get on with their work.

One Bullet Away From Our Worst Nightmare

2007-02-19T20:14:00.000-08:00

While George Bush carries on with exactly what Al-Qaeda wants him to do, namely continue the war in Iraq unabated, he is the useful crusader that Bin Laden needs to move from radical Arab outcast to a prophet. It is apparent from many sources that Afghanistan is becoming increasingly more dangerous for American and NATO military. This is due to the fact that Al-Qaeda has reconstituted its command structure, in Pakistan, and has had the good fortune of our president being re-elected (with Bin Laden’s help) to become the driving force of their terrorist enlistment campaign. Well-done George! The Taliban training camps in Waziristan, Pakistan are churning out fighters for Afghanistan. This is happening because George did not finish the job back in 2001 in Tora Bora. Instead he attacked Iraq, which posed no threat to us and left Bin Laden who did pose a threat to live to fight another day. Well, he is back thanks to Bush.
"In the face of the al-Qaeda comeback, the Bush administration is reportedly debating whether to launch military strikes inside Pakistan. But that would risk destabilizing the dictatorship of Gen. Pervez Musharraf and conceivably provoking the nightmare scenario of Islamic fundamentalists gaining control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal" according to Robert Parry, (Consortium News.com). Even without George’s help President Musharraf is a target of terrorist groups in Pakistan. There have been multiple unsuccessful attempts on his life in the past few years He is hated for his part in the original Afghanistan invasion and the routing of the Afghan Taliban. Pakistan is a nuclear power. In addition, to nuclear weapons they have missiles. India has similar armaments and is, for the moment an enemy of Pakistan. If Musharraf goes, or should I say when he goes, it is a safe bet that Pakistan will be a far greater threat than Iran. Pakistan is much closer to becoming a nuclear armed radical Islamic state than Iran. The Bush administration could have enjoyed a much better relationship with Iran stating in 2001 when they reached out to us. Instead, Bush has done everything in his power to pick a fight with Iran for the last six years one of George's few successes.We needed Iran to help us get Bin Laden. Iran closed the border from Afghanistan in 2001 resulting in the capture of several Al-Qaeda/Taliban. Presently we are bogged down in Iraq. At the same time Bush is picking a fight with Iran who could be helping us in Iraq and Afghanistan. If it were not for Bush and Cheny we would not be in Iraq. Relations with Iran would be on much better terms. Write to your Senator and Congressmen and demand in not very polite terms to oust the Bush regime. He is a danger equal to global warming. Impeach Cheny, then Bush.

Beware Theocracy

2007-02-17T21:09:00.000-08:00

The United States is a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world to emulate. It is a republic not a theocracy. Why? The founding fathers looked to Europe and saw the alliance of State Governments with Religion. The alliance allowed the Government to exercise religious authority and political authority over its citizens. Absolute power is far too much power for mere mortals to have. The founders saw this and rejected the idea of an official State Religion. We need governments of men and women, people with whom we can argue and throw out if we cannot reach an agreement. We need laws that flow from the people and are enforced by elected governments. We need governments of men and women who understand that all people have a right to worship or not worship their chosen deity. When governments get into the religion business one thing is clear. One form of one religion is chosen to the exclusion of all others. This is never the end of troubles, it is the beginning of trouble. Insist on your right to worship as you please. Insist on your brothers and sisters right to worship as they please. Render to the government that which is the governments and to your chosen God that which is Gods. Do not render to the Government the right to establish close ties with religion or to form an official state religion. If the alliance between Church and State rises again then it will cloak itself in the divine right to rule and will extinguish America’s beacon of freedom.

The Man With The Answers

2007-02-16T08:52:00.000-08:00

James Inhofe, "R" Senator, Oklahoma former chairman of the Senate Environental/Public Works committee never lets scientific facts stand in his way. He has his Bible and therefore the answer to all questions. His constituents believe that he is a “good Christian” and has their best interests at heart and therefore he will be elected on that alone. One can be a good Christian, carry a bible, have another person’s best interests at heart and still be as dumb as a post on many issues of public concern. When it comes to global warming and the emerging data from a world wide consortium of scientists that has formed a wall of consensus data pointing to human contributions to green house gasses Inhofe is deaf to the scientific community. It seems the oil industry has funded his campaign to the tune of $900,000; now we are talking scientific facts that add up. Global warming is global news. Even the energy producers and George Bush are smart enough to pay lip service to the recent avalanche public opinion.
But the nearer the issue of global warming has gotten to center stage the more vitriol Inhofe has poured on environmentalists, scientists and the media. Environmentalists became “Nazis,” the regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency were the “Gestapo,” the media’s references to global warming were a “hoax.” Says Richard L Fricker, Consortium News.
Now it’s Senator Inhof’s turn to produce his scientific peer reviewed papers reflecting his views on global warming/climate change. The Senator, as Chris Mooney would say, has misused science to obfuscate / deny the mainstream consensus of scientific study that has produced 900 peer reviewed papers that equate the rise of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to human activity. The IPCC report presented in Paris France on February 2, 2007 is the definitive document on the subject. The number of peer reviewed papers and articles that support Senator Inhofe’s position are zero. In this regard Senator Inhofe’s position is a non-position that does not amount to a serious alternative scientifically supported point of view. He presents no credible evidence other than a deposit slip for $900,000.00 to substantiate his position. Of course, it is not in the oil companies best interest to have CO2 regulations on greenhouse gasses or other pollutants. Hence the digging in of heals by Inhofe. He is from the old school that says if you repeat something often enough, loudly enough, with a bit of impatience in your voice then it becomes the truth. Rather Orwellian I should think. Don’t worry Inhofe’s seat is safe, after all he is a good Christian, goes to church and has his bible ready to answer all of your questions. He is the man with the oil company's answers.

No Iran Preemptive War

2007-02-12T09:35:00.001-08:00

It’s happening again and no one in the mainstream media is sounding the alarm. I am talking about this administration’s 6 year-old plan to launch a preemptive strike against Iran. There are now three carrier strike groups in the Gulf and a 20,000 troop “surge” either in or on their way to Iraq. The troops are being positioned to defend Baghdad against an Iraqi Shia outrage after we attack Iran. I thought we went to Iraq to (pick one) find WMD, Al Qaeda (showed up after we invaded), free Iraqis, bring Democracy, or get rid of Saddam but now it is becoming clear that we went to Iraq to create a base to invade Iran. This administration may well be the most duplicitous regime in American history they cannot be trusted. We need to do the following: Scott Ritter proposes ”an amendment to prohibit offensive military operations, covert or overt, being commenced by the United States of America against the Islamic Republic of Iran, without the expressed consent of the Congress of the United States. This amendment reserves the right of the President, commensurate with the War Powers Act, to carry out actions appropriate for the defense of the United States if attacked by Iran. However, any funds currently appropriated by Congress for use in support of ongoing operations by the United States Armed Forces are hereby prohibited from being allocated for any pre-emptive military action, whether overt or covert in nature, without the expressed prior consent by the Congress of the United States of America.”

The total Cost of the Iraq Blunder.

2007-01-20T18:02:00.000-08:00

The Iraq war is costly in terms of the human life lost. Over 3 thousand US killed and 9 times that many wounded. Then consider 650 thousand Iraqis killed with at least 9 times that many wounded. That is a whole lot of personal grief. Presently the Bush administration is cutting veterans benefits not expanding them. I think we owe our military the best care at no cost that modern medicine can provide; they have already paid a tremendous price. Welcome to George’s world where there is always a way to start wars and always a way to pay for wars. There is however not enough money to pay for our own military who need medical care, those who bravely sacrifice there lives and limbs for the president’s mistakes.
There is another cost that being the dollar cost of the war. It is now over 8 billion a month that is 100 billion a year. What would life be like for those families if they didn’t have to lose sons, daughters, mothers, and fathers? What would life be like in the US if each state got 2 billion dollars a year to use instead of paying for death and destruction in Iraq? President Bush would never consider to send back 2 billion dollars back to each state to use for schools, public transportation, or to secure the nation’s ports and transportation systems against internal or external threats (remember Timothy McVeigh?) Tell Bush to stop shooting and start talking.

Fool Me Once .... Again

2007-01-12T17:36:00.000-08:00

President Bush has announced he will escalate the hostilities in Iraq by sending more troops into the civil war. The President's plan is more of the same, nothing new and it ignores the American people who voted for change in November. The military who disagreed with Bush are gone and a new command is in place. This current escalation is all about putting extra troops in place to defend Baghdad against Iraqi Shia outrage after we or the Israelis attack Iran and Syria. When the neocons talk about "finishing the job" they mean to finish what has been their intention all along; to do in Iran and Syria what they did in Iraq. The president has never explained his strategy. If he did no one would support it.
Bush forgets to mention that the Saudi’s are the biggest contributors to the Sunni backed civil war in Iraq, as he pins any and all outside interference on the Syrians and Iranians. President Bush was not straight with us before the 2003 invasion and he is not being straight with us now before the forthcoming 2007 escalation. Let the Congress ask this administration the tough questions, lets find out what this escalation is all about. Let’s fight the Bush Administration in the American Congress so we don't have to fight an angrier world in the Mid-East.

While Baghdad Burns

2006-12-21T17:25:00.000-08:00

The Iraq invasion, the elective war, the war that has had so many reasons for being and so little purpose to exist will be a festering sore that this country will be a long time healing. The Iraq conversation has descended into an endless discussion of strategic errors and mismanagement rather than an analysis of what it really is; a morally bankrupt decision to attack a country that posed no threat to America, resulting in the ultimate devastation of a land, its people and infrastructure on a scale that Saddam could never have achieved. What have we done? What have we become?

The Bush administration circling the wagons

2006-11-10T07:06:00.000-08:00

In what will be multi-news-cycle coverage of the Republican defeat (following the November 2006 election) a wide range of thoughtful analysis, opinion and of course, misinformation, will result in the Bush administration coming under an ever-critical eye of the news media and the public in general. It starts with the following from the UK:
“Whether Bush will cooperate with such reform in the hope of rescuing his floundering presidency is up to him. The first sign of compromise is the departure of his defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld - announced by a chastened Bush at his press conference yesterday - who has been facing a near-mutinous revolt of his generals against the Iraq war. However, the only Republican of any stature, Senator John McCain, is disinclined to come to Bush's aid.” (The Guardian Nov. 9, 2006)
With all due respect to the Guardian I disagree. The departure of Donald Rumsfeld is a White House/Rumsfeld defensive measure. If Rumsfeld stayed on as Defense Secretary then he would have most certainly been grilled by congress. This would have meant that many uncomfortable questions would have been asked requiring equally uncomfortable answers. So Rumsfeld had to go.

The new Defense Secretary in waiting, Robert Gates, brings with him many questions that have never been answered about Iran–Contra, Soviet (cooked) Intel from the 80’s, and a man not known for “speaking truth to power”. Gates is a Bush Family insider, one who is part of the Baker commission to look into the Iraq war strategy with an eye to suggesting a new direction. I wonder aloud if the apparent ineptitude permeating the inception and conduct of the war is not deliberate. Could it be that the Bush administration wanted to be sure that we could never leave Iraq If we leave now then worse things will happen, Bush says; what could be worse that what is happening now?(and you were told that the current strategy was victory)
I suspect these new appointees to manage Bush's war are charged with protecting the Bush reputation more than trying to explain to the American people how to unscramble the Iraq omelet.
It will be interesting to see how many of the “LIBERAL” news media bring to light the Gates past (my guess is none). Gates is a man who cannot be trusted; he is the father of the Intelligence problem that got us into Iraq in the first place. By the way: The new strategy we hear is to send more troops to Iraq. If congress blocks the move Bush can always claim that congress lost the battle because they would not send more troops. If we do send more troops and they are there for another two years past the next election and we loose then its the next administration's fault. The decider is never wrong, ever. By the way:How do you define victory?

I’m Going To Pump You Up

2006-04-25T17:34:00.000-07:00

President Bush says he is trying to ease gas prices. He says the US will probe price gouging and halt deposits to the reserve. Neither one will work.
There is one common denominator in all of this. Watch the “Oil Futures”; are they up or down? A savvy investor wants to know what happened to drive the future prices in any particular direction. If the future supply of a commodity like oil is seen to come up short then the price goes up.
The market is nervous and has been for three years. One reason is the rising worldwide demand for oil. The other reason is fear that short supplies will create higher prices and higher prices will trigger inflation. Fear is a major component of the rising oil prices; what causes the fear? Nigeria’s civil unrest is targeted at the Oil Companies resulting in a shortage of oil. Iraq is pumping less oil today by 50% than before the US invaded. Our foreign policy towards the democratically elected government of Venezuela causes the market to worry about future supplies to the US. The US Government’s attitude is remarkably similar to Iran as it was prior to the invasion of Iraq. Oil Traders and Investors are worried. Sounds a lot like a failed foreign policy has sent a shiver through the markets, which are clearly worried that future oil supplies are in jeopardy. The net result is you pay more at the pump today.

Fool Me Once.......

2006-04-11T11:51:00.000-07:00

Seymour Hersh told CNN that the White House has spurned Tehran's overtures for dialogue.
"This president is not talking to the Iranians. The Iranians are trying very hard to make contact, I can assure you of that, in many different forms," Hersh said.
"He's not talking. And there's no public pressure on the White House to start bilateral talks with Iran. And that's what amazes everybody," Hersh said.
We heard this before, that the President was “exhausting “ all avenues of diplomacy to assure a peaceful resolution. I didn’t believe it then and I don’t believe it now. I don’t trust Bush and here is why: The president has stated recently in answer to questions about the shifting rational to invade Iraq that Saddam would not let the inspectors in and, or would not cooperate with the inspectors. That is completely false. The inspectors were in Iraq; there was full cooperation from the Iraqis before the war. In fact the UN wanted to give the inspectors more time because of the unprecedented access and cooperation. However, the plan was to invade and depose not to find a peaceful solution to disarm Iraq, which is another story.
Demand bilateral talks with Iran, do not let Bush fool us again we cannot afford to start another war. If you care about our sons and daughters who will have to fight another strategic blunder then make a very loud noise for bilateral talks. Make sure that the Senate and the House know exactly how you feel. We have had enough dissembling

The Land of The Free

2006-02-01T10:46:00.000-08:00

The President has said that we are fighting in Iraq so that we don't have to fight in the streets of New York, Chicago and LA. Assuming that this mysterious army that is ready to invade our country could actually get to the US, breach Homeland Security and then expect to get past the street gangs much less the US Army is absurd on its face. The president says that the troops are in Iraq defending our liberties. This is the same guy who was sound asleep in August 2001 and didn’t get the meaning of the presidential brief “Bin Laden Determined to strike inside US”. Does anybody reading this editorial think Bin Laden is in Iraq? Does anybody still think that there are any WMD in Iraq? If you answered no then you have been paying attention. In fact neither Bin Laden nor WMD were in Iraq when we attacked the country. I was always under the impression that freedom of speech was one of those liberties that the president is so eager to defend. Last night at the State of the Union Address the freedom of speech liberty was about as scarce as WMD and Bin Laden in Iraq. Two women, one of whom, Cindy Sheehan, lost her son defending our liberties in Iraq was cuffed and walked out of the chamber because she was wearing a tee shirt with the number of dead American men and women printed on it. The number is 2245 dead. It also asks how many more? The second woman was Beverly Young who’s Tee Shirt read, “Support our troops defending our freedom” she was also ejected from the chamber for “protesting”. I have to tell you if the arresting officers had to take the MCAS test today and they had answered the question is “Support our troops defending our freedom” a protest, then I’m afraid they would not pass the high stakes test. Protest aside, in the land of the free, freedom of speech trumps angst for opposing views.

An Open Letter to George Bush

2005-11-03T08:19:00.000-08:00

Dear President Bush:

Lets review some of your handiwork over the last 5 years. The ABM treaty is gone (kept us from nuclear war since Eisenhower) The Kyoto treaty is unworkable because of your aversion to honest science, and the resulting effects of global warming are punishing our nation. The nations of Islam and their moderate populations no longer trust us. You have grated against all of our European allies. 9/11 happened on your watch, you were asleep, and Rice was inept. The budget surplus is gone, even bigger deficits are back and what do we have to show for it? The CIA/ Plame cover-up worked. It did what it was supposed to do, it provided cover for the mean spirited cabal a year ago before/during the election, you got re-elected and it only cost you Libby (however, we will all enjoy the trial). The Supreme court is forever (my lifetime) packed with legislating reactionaries. The country is at war. Over 100,00 thousand Iraqis are dead, over 2000 US military are dead, 20,000 US military are seriously wounded, and a million Iraqis are seriously wounded. FEMA is broken, national security is a myth, our army is not invincible. The jobs recovery is a mess, the US is indebt, China has a brighter economic future than the USA. The press cannot differentiate between the demands of religious sects and solid moral values, and neither can you. We are in the middle of another Scopes trial. CPB is taken over by people trying to put public broadcasting out of business, or turn it into another right wing outlet.
Do us all a favor, fire Cheney, Bolton and Rumsfeld, go to Crawford and don’t do anything, don’t say anything or sign anything just take care of the dogs, go to church cut brush, and ride your bike.

I would thank you for your attention but you don’t read anything.

Sincerely,

The Swing Voters.

Say That Again

2005-10-24T12:17:00.000-07:00

Say that again!

With charges looming over the administration with regards to the CIA leak which resulted in one of our own agents being outed by the senior office staff of the President and the Vice president Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas brushed aside an indictment for perjury as a “technicality”. Say what? Hold your horses there pardner. This is the squeaky clean, virtuous, values administration; the new way to do bidness, no shenanigans no excuses no evil doing. So what’s a little perjury between friends? Ask Bill Clinton? Other conservatives, like Senator Hutchison, certainly thought it used to be a serious moral issue; one that warranted impeachment charges brought against the last President of the United States. I don’t know about you, but perjury to deflect a look at some personal failing versus perjury to cover up a Federal crime of outing a CIA agent seem to be on two different levels. The former jeopardizes ones soul; the latter jeopardizes ones soul and our National security. Now, I am the first to say that lying is wrong (that’s what perjury is) but not all crimes are equal. Senator Hutchison (R. Texas) would now have us lower the standard of behavior to an actual indictment of a class 1 felony and not to include "technicalities" such as perjury (lying). Kay, where were you for Bill? You could have saved the country $50 million dollars and Bill a lot of nights on the couch.
While we are on the topic of: “Say that again” I heard a speech the other day by W where he was going over the reasons why we invaded Iraq. Included in his airtight case was the reason that "Saddam would not let the inspectors into Iraq to look for weapons of mass destruction before the war." What the hell was Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, doing there before the war? The answer is not finding WMD. Not a single reporter picked him up on this false statement. Maybe there is something in the water in Texas. Everyone should send Senator Hutchison and W and while your at it, Tom DeLay, a bottle of Poland Spring water so we can bring them up to the Standard where perjury is never acceptable be it red or blue.

Lets Budget Some Sanity

2005-10-21T14:40:00.000-07:00

I know the country is short on cash, or at least us poor folk are. We used to have a surplus expressed in trillions of dollars. Of course most of that money is gone back to the top 1% wealthy elite in the form of tax cuts. They were going to re-invest it so we all could have jobs. Five years later and the number of new jobs created are not keeping pace with the new entrants to the job market. Then there are those weapons of mass destruction we had to find, boy that cost a fortune, so now George has gotten his wish: Starve the beast. There is one small hitch he has made the beast bigger even more voracious. We are all starving right along with the government; well not all, but 99% are starving, that 1% at the top is just fine, thank you very much.
Now, there is a congressional budget fight on how to free up some money to help pay to turn the lights on in Washington DC. So what is the boy wonder and his pals going to do? They are going to cut health care benefits for the elderly, such as Medicaid, along with food stamps, pension guarantees and unemployment insurance programs; hardly a vision of a compassionate conservative. Did it ever occur to these geniuses that they could roll back their tax cut to the top 1% who have more money that the rest of us put together and put the country back on its feet?
I would like to propose a line item in the budget: Sanity as expressed in common sense.
Therefore, I propose we roll back the tax cut or we wont fund the war. I figure that’s a fight worth fighting. Take away all the smoke and mirrors, like evolution, abortion, death penalty, gay marriage all of the wedge issues, lets put them down long enough to get the country back in the black. Lets not ask the most needy and the elderly to support the top 1% wealthiest elite.

TIME OUT

2005-10-20T06:07:00.000-07:00

The federal budget shouldn’t be confusing. To de-mystify it we need to ask two questions. What do we want the Government to do for the citizens? What are our priorities? I would rather fight about the very short list of priorities below than Gay marriage, religion in school, abortion and the death penalty. Take back the debate, talk about your national priorities for spending and get the wedge issues off the table, we can always go back to them.

Lets create 3 categories: Essential services at home, Essential foreign spending, and Non-essential services at home.

Here is my list in order of priority: What is yours?

Essential Services at Home
Safety (police and fire)
Public education (tied with safety)
Single payer health insurance (for everyone)
Clean air, clean water
Research for alternative energy sources
Protect the (environment) i.e., natural barriers (Like the wetlands off New Orleans)
Fund pure research projects in the Nations Universities
Public transportation systems
Maintain an all volunteer military

Essential Foreign Spending
Fund the program to collect every loose nuke in the former Soviet Union
Fund the programs in the UN to provide health and education services to the world’s poor
Fund programs in the UN for peace-keeping missions supported by the UN

Non Essential Spending
Highway spending
NASA space missions
Corporate subsidies

Now, get busy talking about things that really matter; make your voice heard and insist on your priorities.

Oil and Information: A scarce Commodity

2005-10-17T08:45:00.000-07:00

We pay a price for scarcity. If oil/gas are in short supply then the price goes up. If oil and gas are plentiful then the price goes down. So it is with information, when information is kept secret and in short supply our freedoms shrink. When information flows freely our freedoms expand. Secretive governments tend to be authoritarian governments; authoritarian governments do not like dissent. What's the connection between oil and secrets? Lets roll back the clock to Dick Cheney's secret meetings with the major oil companies prior to the invasion of Iraq. Rather than forgetting about it I would, more than ever, like to know the sum and substance of those meetings. What course was set or discussed that helped the impoverished oil companies to achieve even greater riches on top of the tax cut that lined their pockets. Have you ever received a thank-you note for picking up the tab at tax time or at the pump? Me neither. Cheney argued that the government had the right to secrecy. I thought they worked for us. We have a right to know what is going on especially when we are paying for it in blood and treasure. Did the oil companies get a heads up on the war in Iraq a year in advance so they could arrange to get extra oil tankers to the gulf (it takes 6-12 months to schedule a tanker into a port. Its not like calling a cab). I don't like secrets and I don't like authoritarian governments. I prefer open /transparent government and a democratic discussion on topics of national importance. Energy policy should not be a secret; it is a matter of economic survival and of national importance. How can we have energy independence by 2020 if we allow our government to have secret meetings with corporations and therefore no accountability for the possible consequences of the meetings? Is the line between government and corporations so blurred that it is difficult to know where the policies are made? Consider this: The price of oil is up and the secrecy regarding the energy policy continues, and we are stuck with a bogus energy policy and we are not privy to the plans the administration hatched with the oil companies.

"I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

2005-09-13T09:00:00.000-07:00

What planet is this guy from? Talk about not getting the memo. You guessed it; it was "W" and the crack response team from the newly designed FEMA. This is O for two for the administration. First it was 9/11 and Condoleza Rice saying (I don't think anybody could have predicted that planes would be used as weapons to destroy property) Au contraire my fair lady it was oft reported/speculated that such a method was planned and known by intelligence for some time. Just like the Levees would be vulnerable in a category 4 or 5 hurricane. Of course this is the president who has his staff read the papers for him and report the events as they see them. I am not making this up those are George's words. We need the press to push for an independent commission to investigate Katrina. I do not believe the Bush administration is up to the task of self-analysis or self-criticism. After all George ll does not believe he ever made a mistake. Yes, Virginia this is the person who said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." Think about it and don't let up on the call for an independent investigation. The investigation must be independent from the politicians and have its own investigators, budget and subpoena authority.You have the power to make changes: Raise your voice and be heard.