The Legacy of Gerald Ford. . .
It is common to speak in eloquent terms of the recently departed. And I am hearing such things about Gerald Ford. It has caused me to second think my earlier supposition that Ford did a healing thing for the nation in pardoning Nixon. It was true that the nation had endured a great injury from Watergate. A president of the United States had lied to this country. That president tried to use his power and influence to stop an investigation into his illegal activities and suppress evidence. That president failed!
When Ford pardoned Nixon, to put it simply, I was pissed! I had just spent the last two years pointing out to everyone who would listen (or anyone I could trap into listening) how corrupt he was. I pointed to the evidence and I asked questions about why Nixon had all those lawyers around him and what was the function of all those "presidential aides?
Finally, the evidence was so overwhelming that even Republicans had to agree that Nixon had lied and had tried to corrupt our system of government. That was a glorious day for me and I immediately began looking forward to the trial. We speculated about how it would happen. Would Nixon end up in jail? Would he spend time behind bars before the trial? Get out on bail? Or just after he was found guilty? After all, his resignation was pretty much a confession of guilt!
Then Ford, after receiving the inclination while in church, pardoned Nixon. Ford explained how the nation had suffered enough through the thralls of Watergate and it was now time to move on and heal.
I was angry. I was very angry. The nation would not have the opportunity to see justice. The nation would not have the chance to witness our system in its full capacity of putting on trial its own leader because, no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law! But the nation did not get to witness that! The nation did not get to heal through justice and fairness. The nation was preempted from seeing and viewing all the evidence and the true depth of Nixon’s crimes. Ford pardoned him. And I had no choice. The nation had no choice. We had to go on and accept the way things were because Ford had that power and Ford had used it.
Now, with Ford’s death, all those memories are coming back to me; the same anger, the same unfairness. And it’s causing me to rethink the matter.
What if Nixon had gone to trial? What if the nation had had the opportunity to see the evidence and witness the consequence for someone who had deceived it? How would that have stopped the healing this nation needed? Wouldn’t the nation have healed anyway?
We will never know because Ford pardoned Nixon. Yes, there was a committee that looked into any deal making that may have gone on when Ford was appointed to the Vice Presidency. Ford denied that. There was nothing this nation could do but move on and accept the reality of the situation. I moved on because I had no choice but to move on. And as the years passed, I could even forgive and come to believe that Ford had done the right thing.
Now, I have come up with new questions that are relevant. Let’s say that Nixon had been put on trial, convicted and jailed. What message would that send to later presidents? Like Bush? A message about usurping power, ignoring the Constitution, and outright law breaking? Could that have made him think twice before he attempted the things he has done? At least there would have been a precedent to show the Congress it could and should act in their capacity as a check and balance! Perhaps Ford’s pardon of Nixon wasn’t so good for the nation after all.
Now, we hear that Ford gave an interview in ’04, saying how he was opposed to what Bush had done in going into Iraq. His statement could be released when the book was published OR upon his death. This is what caused me to do my rethinking.
If Ford felt so strongly then, why didn’t he say something, THEN! What was the purpose for waiting? Did he feel it necessary to protect his Republican Party more than protecting the country? Or, perhaps, because he was never elected, he felt his opinion was inadequate in some way? Somehow, less important? That’s what got me to wondering about Watergate and the pardon of Nixon. If I can wonder that now, perhaps I was justified in being so pissed then!
It’s difficult for me to speak in eloquent terms about a man that may have put party before nation. Perhaps Ford was, after all, just a quick fix so someone, perhaps someone like Bush, could try it again later!
That’s as I see it. . . How do you see it?
Friday, December 22, 2006
The Constitution. . .
. . . is a wonderful document. It spells out every conceivable situation our government can experience with respect to the presidency except; . . . . . . . . INSANITY. If a president is incapacitated for physical reasons; the president gets incapacitated; a stroke, an illness; there is a plan for who should be in charge during that disability. There is NOTHING in the Constitution for a president who is insane!
George W. Bush is insane!
Insanity has many forms. We know this from modern science. Georgie ignores modern science. Einstein said the definition of insanity was repeating the same procedure and expecting different results. I can’t imagine a better definition for our president than that!
Georgie is now repeating the method used during Vietnam of giving enemy body counts to show we are winning. Georgie initiated the Iraq Study Group, gave Americans the impression he would respond to their advice, then ignores them and now says we need to commit more troops.
George is delusional. He is probably affected by his childhood, his alcoholism, and his desire to be better than his father. It all adds up to being nuts!
At what point do we, the people, decide this man is nuts and do something? This is no longer a partisan viewpoint. People on both sides of the isle are whispering. This man is incapable of leading this country. What do we wait for? How far do we allow this insanity to go on? Do we allow a war with Iran?
At what point do we declare the president as incompetent and follow the Constitution?
We are there! It just takes someone with courage to say it!
. . . is a wonderful document. It spells out every conceivable situation our government can experience with respect to the presidency except; . . . . . . . . INSANITY. If a president is incapacitated for physical reasons; the president gets incapacitated; a stroke, an illness; there is a plan for who should be in charge during that disability. There is NOTHING in the Constitution for a president who is insane!
George W. Bush is insane!
Insanity has many forms. We know this from modern science. Georgie ignores modern science. Einstein said the definition of insanity was repeating the same procedure and expecting different results. I can’t imagine a better definition for our president than that!
Georgie is now repeating the method used during Vietnam of giving enemy body counts to show we are winning. Georgie initiated the Iraq Study Group, gave Americans the impression he would respond to their advice, then ignores them and now says we need to commit more troops.
George is delusional. He is probably affected by his childhood, his alcoholism, and his desire to be better than his father. It all adds up to being nuts!
At what point do we, the people, decide this man is nuts and do something? This is no longer a partisan viewpoint. People on both sides of the isle are whispering. This man is incapable of leading this country. What do we wait for? How far do we allow this insanity to go on? Do we allow a war with Iran?
At what point do we declare the president as incompetent and follow the Constitution?
We are there! It just takes someone with courage to say it!
I used to enjoy disaster movies. It’s funny how attitudes change. . .
There is a trend now to make war movies. Clint Eastwood made one about Iwo Jima and then a Japanese version of the same thing, a very intriguing idea. The weird thing is; not a single veteran I know has gone to see them or wants to see them. Yet every “macho man” talks about seeing them or wanting to see them. I wonder why that is?
Life experience has a lot to do with it. Those who have been in the military and have seen the carnage do not want to see it again. Those who, for whatever reason; . . . circumstance, timing, or desire, and avoided military service somehow want to experience the adrenalin of that experience.
Which of the above do you figure Gerogie Boy is from?
There is a trend now to make war movies. Clint Eastwood made one about Iwo Jima and then a Japanese version of the same thing, a very intriguing idea. The weird thing is; not a single veteran I know has gone to see them or wants to see them. Yet every “macho man” talks about seeing them or wanting to see them. I wonder why that is?
Life experience has a lot to do with it. Those who have been in the military and have seen the carnage do not want to see it again. Those who, for whatever reason; . . . circumstance, timing, or desire, and avoided military service somehow want to experience the adrenalin of that experience.
Which of the above do you figure Gerogie Boy is from?
Saturday, December 02, 2006
NAFTA? CAFTA? What’s Afta’?
I think most people sleep fairly well at night. I know I do. The only things that wake me up are the occasional loud noise from outside or our barking Lassa Apso, Shanna Bu. I describe the waking type of outside noise because there is always noise from outside. We live in a small town west of Portland, Oregon and there is always the noise of trucks on the highway, distant barking dogs or the newspaper delivery person with squeaky brakes. I can sleep through all of those because I am used to it and the noise itself is meaningless.
I believe that’s how most Americans see politics. It is the usual distant noise that doesn’t require ones attention until it gets so loud or disturbing that you must pay attention and give it notice. That has been what has happened since George W. Bush took office in 2001. The noise of politics seemed distant and not too disturbing until things got so out of hand we had to change the course!
I don’t know how long it will take to undo the damage Georgie Boy and his cohort Republicans have done to this country, if, indeed, all of it can be undone. Time will tell. It will also take a dedicated, thoughtful and persistent congress to accomplish it. But all the damage to this country was not done under the rubber stamp congress.
Unfortunately, Americans weren’t paying attention when Clinton was president and the government passed NAFTA. My only excuse is that I was sleeping and the noise of politics didn’t disturb me enough to pay attention. I thought at the time it was a bad idea and could hurt our labor economy, but I reasoned that Clinton had been doing a good job and was a much smarter man than I, so Clinton probably knew more than I did and I trusted him. Well, I shouldn’t have! I should have spoken up. I should have written my congressmen and senators to express my concern.
NAFTA lowers the American middle class standard of living by exporting jobs to countries that pay pennies to our dollars for labor. This country’s labor force cannot compete at those prices for labor. The result is that jobs are exported, factories close and the labor force that had a middle class standard of living now have to take lesser paying jobs to survive. The middle class is disappearing.
The price conscious consumer may like it. Corporations most definitely love it! Corporations get cheaper labor, maintain good selling prices and increased profits and appeal to the uninformed consumer. That's why trickle down economics does not work. The wealthy do build factories and put people to work. They build them in China or South America!
Then Bush and the government passed CAFTA. It is the same, middles class destroying disaster that NAFTA was. What’s afta’ NAFTA and CAFTA? A disappearing middle class is what’s after any of the AFTA measures. They must be stopped!
Can they be undone? I don’t know. I believe that right now, the government has greater problems to solve, such as Iraq, health care and Social Security funding. The unfortunate big looser in this lack of priority is the middle class victims that have already lost their jobs, adjusted to a lesser life style and can not wait for government to “get-around-to-them.” When you are hungry, you must eat.
The most important lesson I learned about politics in all of this is to pay attention to all the noise. My only hope now is to make politicians listen and influence their vote as much as a constituent can. I encourage you to do the same. Watch the government! Remember, they work for us and we are their Boss!
I still sleep well at night, though I am concerned about the future and my own ability to continue to earn a living. But it’s been a hell of a lesson!
That’s As I see it. . . How do you see it?
I think most people sleep fairly well at night. I know I do. The only things that wake me up are the occasional loud noise from outside or our barking Lassa Apso, Shanna Bu. I describe the waking type of outside noise because there is always noise from outside. We live in a small town west of Portland, Oregon and there is always the noise of trucks on the highway, distant barking dogs or the newspaper delivery person with squeaky brakes. I can sleep through all of those because I am used to it and the noise itself is meaningless.
I believe that’s how most Americans see politics. It is the usual distant noise that doesn’t require ones attention until it gets so loud or disturbing that you must pay attention and give it notice. That has been what has happened since George W. Bush took office in 2001. The noise of politics seemed distant and not too disturbing until things got so out of hand we had to change the course!
I don’t know how long it will take to undo the damage Georgie Boy and his cohort Republicans have done to this country, if, indeed, all of it can be undone. Time will tell. It will also take a dedicated, thoughtful and persistent congress to accomplish it. But all the damage to this country was not done under the rubber stamp congress.
Unfortunately, Americans weren’t paying attention when Clinton was president and the government passed NAFTA. My only excuse is that I was sleeping and the noise of politics didn’t disturb me enough to pay attention. I thought at the time it was a bad idea and could hurt our labor economy, but I reasoned that Clinton had been doing a good job and was a much smarter man than I, so Clinton probably knew more than I did and I trusted him. Well, I shouldn’t have! I should have spoken up. I should have written my congressmen and senators to express my concern.
NAFTA lowers the American middle class standard of living by exporting jobs to countries that pay pennies to our dollars for labor. This country’s labor force cannot compete at those prices for labor. The result is that jobs are exported, factories close and the labor force that had a middle class standard of living now have to take lesser paying jobs to survive. The middle class is disappearing.
The price conscious consumer may like it. Corporations most definitely love it! Corporations get cheaper labor, maintain good selling prices and increased profits and appeal to the uninformed consumer. That's why trickle down economics does not work. The wealthy do build factories and put people to work. They build them in China or South America!
Then Bush and the government passed CAFTA. It is the same, middles class destroying disaster that NAFTA was. What’s afta’ NAFTA and CAFTA? A disappearing middle class is what’s after any of the AFTA measures. They must be stopped!
Can they be undone? I don’t know. I believe that right now, the government has greater problems to solve, such as Iraq, health care and Social Security funding. The unfortunate big looser in this lack of priority is the middle class victims that have already lost their jobs, adjusted to a lesser life style and can not wait for government to “get-around-to-them.” When you are hungry, you must eat.
The most important lesson I learned about politics in all of this is to pay attention to all the noise. My only hope now is to make politicians listen and influence their vote as much as a constituent can. I encourage you to do the same. Watch the government! Remember, they work for us and we are their Boss!
I still sleep well at night, though I am concerned about the future and my own ability to continue to earn a living. But it’s been a hell of a lesson!
That’s As I see it. . . How do you see it?
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Impeach or not impeach: It’s a fair question.
I am sure there are many who would like to see George and Dick impeached for their crimes against this country, against Democracy and against humanity. There have been times I strongly felt that way. But the real course of action should be to listen to the voters. And the voters have clearly spoken;
"GET OUT OF IRAQ."
Now that Democrats will be heading committees and chairing panels, there will be investigations. Some may say (and probably will say) the committee is on a "witch hunt," out to hang George W. and Dick Cheney. The reality is that the congress is charged with the obligation of oversight and to investigate and ensure the government is doing what the constitution says it should do. The "rubber stamp" congress of this last Republican controlled mess did no such thing. They allowed the executive branch free reign over the country and it has proven to be a disaster.
None the less, there will be those who advocate for impeachment and those who will proclaim "Witch Hunt!"
My personal opinion is this. Let Congress do the job they are constitutionally obligated to do. As the committee begins to gather information, it may be necessary to subpoena certain individuals to get their testimony. Then when the truth begins to come out, the evidence will indicate whether impeachment and of whom is necessary.
The first sign that truths are beginning to be uncovered is when witnesses give vague, "I don’t recall," types of answers. The second sign is when they use the fifth amendment right of not incriminating themselves. When you hear and see those things you will know there are hidden truths that "someone" doesn’t want us to know.
The question comes to mind about how the American people will know these things are beginning to come out. I don’t believe the major news media will cover the events fully at first. Only after the information becomes so obvious that it has to be acknowledged will the media begin to report. It will take someone with courage and audacity to start. Someone like Dan Rather.
Dan Rather has a news program on HDNET. You can only see it if you get high definition programming from a satellite or cable. I have watched it and find it to be the kind of news program I commonly saw in the 70’s. It doesn’t take a side but gives the facts. And Dan Rather is not afraid of telling it like it is about the most sensitive of subjects such as Iraq, K street and lobbyists, to name a few. When I say "sensitive," I mean the subjects George Bush does not want the news media to talk about. The exact types of subjects Americans need to be told. Check it out as soon as you can.
Dab Rather will cover the committee hearings and the investigations. Dan will let the American people know the truth. The truth will become so self evident that the decision to impeach or not impeach will be obvious. Watch for it!
That’s as I see it. . . How do you see it?
I am sure there are many who would like to see George and Dick impeached for their crimes against this country, against Democracy and against humanity. There have been times I strongly felt that way. But the real course of action should be to listen to the voters. And the voters have clearly spoken;
"GET OUT OF IRAQ."
Now that Democrats will be heading committees and chairing panels, there will be investigations. Some may say (and probably will say) the committee is on a "witch hunt," out to hang George W. and Dick Cheney. The reality is that the congress is charged with the obligation of oversight and to investigate and ensure the government is doing what the constitution says it should do. The "rubber stamp" congress of this last Republican controlled mess did no such thing. They allowed the executive branch free reign over the country and it has proven to be a disaster.
None the less, there will be those who advocate for impeachment and those who will proclaim "Witch Hunt!"
My personal opinion is this. Let Congress do the job they are constitutionally obligated to do. As the committee begins to gather information, it may be necessary to subpoena certain individuals to get their testimony. Then when the truth begins to come out, the evidence will indicate whether impeachment and of whom is necessary.
The first sign that truths are beginning to be uncovered is when witnesses give vague, "I don’t recall," types of answers. The second sign is when they use the fifth amendment right of not incriminating themselves. When you hear and see those things you will know there are hidden truths that "someone" doesn’t want us to know.
The question comes to mind about how the American people will know these things are beginning to come out. I don’t believe the major news media will cover the events fully at first. Only after the information becomes so obvious that it has to be acknowledged will the media begin to report. It will take someone with courage and audacity to start. Someone like Dan Rather.
Dan Rather has a news program on HDNET. You can only see it if you get high definition programming from a satellite or cable. I have watched it and find it to be the kind of news program I commonly saw in the 70’s. It doesn’t take a side but gives the facts. And Dan Rather is not afraid of telling it like it is about the most sensitive of subjects such as Iraq, K street and lobbyists, to name a few. When I say "sensitive," I mean the subjects George Bush does not want the news media to talk about. The exact types of subjects Americans need to be told. Check it out as soon as you can.
Dab Rather will cover the committee hearings and the investigations. Dan will let the American people know the truth. The truth will become so self evident that the decision to impeach or not impeach will be obvious. Watch for it!
That’s as I see it. . . How do you see it?
Monday, October 16, 2006
Blame Clinton!!!
Isn’t it amazing? Whenever the Republicans get caught with their pants down they blame Clinton. That is if they are not blaming gays or liberals. Let’s look at just the most recent examples from just the last few weeks.
Gays! Congressman Foley from Florida gets exposed as a pedophile. Not only is he a pedophile, it has been known for some time by the Republican leaders in Congress. The Speaker of the House knew it. The one in charge of the congressional pages knew it. And, apparently a lot of the Republicans knew it. So what did the Republicans do when it became public knowledge? Did the Republicans come clean and admit it? Did they apologize? Did they do one single thing that wasn’t reprehensible? The Republicans conflate Foley being a homosexual with pedophilia! The Republicans say that all homosexuals are child molesters. (By the way, 98% of pedophiles are heterosexual) The unified, single minded, reprehensible action by the Republicans is to BLAME THE GAYS!
Liberals! When it finally comes out, or at least suspected, that the Republicans have been covering up Foley’s pedophilia, what do the Republicans do? Do they apologize? Do they admit there was a cover up? No! The Republicans accuse the Democrats of a master conspiracy. A conspiracy to infiltrate the Republican Party with gays and, just before a midterm election (not a presidential election, mind you, which would have done more good for the Democrats than a midterm), the Democrats reveal their master plan by exposing Foley! What do the Republicans do? BLAME THE LIBERALS!
Clinton! The North Korean Dictator threatens to make nuclear weapons. Clinton prepares to attack North Korea, negotiates with the dictator making it clear that a nuclear North Korea was unacceptable. They negotiate and stop their processing of fissionable material started under Bush the First. Clinton provides them food and fuel oil for their electrical generators. They STOP their nuclear program, let in the IAEA and secure their fuel rods. I call that a success. What did the Republicans call it? Cowardice.
Then Georgie Boy becomes president. Georgie Boy refuses to talk with North Korea. Georgie boy invades Iraq, a nation with no nuclear weapons. North Korea sees that and realizes that Georgie Boy attacks nations without nuclear weapons. So they start their nuclear processing. Did they keep it a secret? No, they announced it to the world. The Republican administration says it is just as ploy to have one on one negotiations with the U S. North Korea agrees to six party talks. What does Georgie do? Georgie freezes their banking assets. And still, Georgie Boy refuses to negotiate. North Korea starts the processing and finally announces they are going to detonate a bomb. They announce it to the world! They detonate a bomb and what do the Republicans do? Do they realize that it is perhaps better to negotiate than to ignore? No. Do the Republicans take responsibility for what has transpired, knowing that not one single ounce of Plutonium was made by North Korea while Clinton was President? No. All the Plutonium made by North Korea was made while Bush One was president or when Georgie Boy was president! What do the Republicans do? BLAME CLINTON!
It makes me laugh. The Republicans always blame someone else for their shortcomings. They rarely, if ever, stand up and act like real men and admit their errors. But they sure do like looking tough. Take Chris Wallace.
When Chris Wallace on Fox (faux) News interviewed Clinton after promising to talk about Clinton’s pet project, thirty seconds into the interview asks, “Why didn’t you do anything about the attack on the Cole?” Keep in mind that the attack was in October of 2000. The CIA would not or could not confirm that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attack until February of 2001. So Clinton could NOT do anything about the attack on the Cole. It would have fallen to the next president inaugurated in January of 2001. Who would that be? Could it be Georgie Boy? What do the Republicans do? BLAME CLINTON!
When I saw Clinton turn the tables, wag his finger in Chris Wallace’s face and emasculate him with logic and reason, it made me feel good. It made me feel that there was a leader who was not afraid to tell the truth. It got me fired up to work hard for our good cause! What do the Democrats do? Do the Democrats use that kind of fire, that kind of willingness to stand up to lies? No. The Democrats are silent. . .
. . . and so is the rest of the Democratic Party. Do the Democrats defend Clinton and applaud him for telling the truth and for his good presidency? No. The Democrats are silent. . . and so is the rest of the Democratic Party. Do the Democrats rally around their falsely accused fallen leader? No. The Democrats are silent. . . and so is the rest of the Democratic Party. Do the Democrats even realize what an opportunity they have if only they could use Clinton to energize the people and get them fired up to fight for our cause? for truth? for justice? for Democracy? No. The Democrats are silent. . . and just let it quietly fade away.
I don’t know about you. But as for me, give me an outspoken, won’t take any crap from some weasel, articulate, educated, knowledgeable man like Clinton and I will follow him to the polls! I think a lot of Democrats would. I think a lot of Americans would! I think we need that kind of fire and leadership!
That’s as I see it. . .
How about you?
Isn’t it amazing? Whenever the Republicans get caught with their pants down they blame Clinton. That is if they are not blaming gays or liberals. Let’s look at just the most recent examples from just the last few weeks.
Gays! Congressman Foley from Florida gets exposed as a pedophile. Not only is he a pedophile, it has been known for some time by the Republican leaders in Congress. The Speaker of the House knew it. The one in charge of the congressional pages knew it. And, apparently a lot of the Republicans knew it. So what did the Republicans do when it became public knowledge? Did the Republicans come clean and admit it? Did they apologize? Did they do one single thing that wasn’t reprehensible? The Republicans conflate Foley being a homosexual with pedophilia! The Republicans say that all homosexuals are child molesters. (By the way, 98% of pedophiles are heterosexual) The unified, single minded, reprehensible action by the Republicans is to BLAME THE GAYS!
Liberals! When it finally comes out, or at least suspected, that the Republicans have been covering up Foley’s pedophilia, what do the Republicans do? Do they apologize? Do they admit there was a cover up? No! The Republicans accuse the Democrats of a master conspiracy. A conspiracy to infiltrate the Republican Party with gays and, just before a midterm election (not a presidential election, mind you, which would have done more good for the Democrats than a midterm), the Democrats reveal their master plan by exposing Foley! What do the Republicans do? BLAME THE LIBERALS!
Clinton! The North Korean Dictator threatens to make nuclear weapons. Clinton prepares to attack North Korea, negotiates with the dictator making it clear that a nuclear North Korea was unacceptable. They negotiate and stop their processing of fissionable material started under Bush the First. Clinton provides them food and fuel oil for their electrical generators. They STOP their nuclear program, let in the IAEA and secure their fuel rods. I call that a success. What did the Republicans call it? Cowardice.
Then Georgie Boy becomes president. Georgie Boy refuses to talk with North Korea. Georgie boy invades Iraq, a nation with no nuclear weapons. North Korea sees that and realizes that Georgie Boy attacks nations without nuclear weapons. So they start their nuclear processing. Did they keep it a secret? No, they announced it to the world. The Republican administration says it is just as ploy to have one on one negotiations with the U S. North Korea agrees to six party talks. What does Georgie do? Georgie freezes their banking assets. And still, Georgie Boy refuses to negotiate. North Korea starts the processing and finally announces they are going to detonate a bomb. They announce it to the world! They detonate a bomb and what do the Republicans do? Do they realize that it is perhaps better to negotiate than to ignore? No. Do the Republicans take responsibility for what has transpired, knowing that not one single ounce of Plutonium was made by North Korea while Clinton was President? No. All the Plutonium made by North Korea was made while Bush One was president or when Georgie Boy was president! What do the Republicans do? BLAME CLINTON!
It makes me laugh. The Republicans always blame someone else for their shortcomings. They rarely, if ever, stand up and act like real men and admit their errors. But they sure do like looking tough. Take Chris Wallace.
When Chris Wallace on Fox (faux) News interviewed Clinton after promising to talk about Clinton’s pet project, thirty seconds into the interview asks, “Why didn’t you do anything about the attack on the Cole?” Keep in mind that the attack was in October of 2000. The CIA would not or could not confirm that Osama Bin Laden was behind the attack until February of 2001. So Clinton could NOT do anything about the attack on the Cole. It would have fallen to the next president inaugurated in January of 2001. Who would that be? Could it be Georgie Boy? What do the Republicans do? BLAME CLINTON!
When I saw Clinton turn the tables, wag his finger in Chris Wallace’s face and emasculate him with logic and reason, it made me feel good. It made me feel that there was a leader who was not afraid to tell the truth. It got me fired up to work hard for our good cause! What do the Democrats do? Do the Democrats use that kind of fire, that kind of willingness to stand up to lies? No. The Democrats are silent. . .
. . . and so is the rest of the Democratic Party. Do the Democrats defend Clinton and applaud him for telling the truth and for his good presidency? No. The Democrats are silent. . . and so is the rest of the Democratic Party. Do the Democrats rally around their falsely accused fallen leader? No. The Democrats are silent. . . and so is the rest of the Democratic Party. Do the Democrats even realize what an opportunity they have if only they could use Clinton to energize the people and get them fired up to fight for our cause? for truth? for justice? for Democracy? No. The Democrats are silent. . . and just let it quietly fade away.
I don’t know about you. But as for me, give me an outspoken, won’t take any crap from some weasel, articulate, educated, knowledgeable man like Clinton and I will follow him to the polls! I think a lot of Democrats would. I think a lot of Americans would! I think we need that kind of fire and leadership!
That’s as I see it. . .
How about you?
Why Grid lock would be better than new legislation.
If and when there is an honest counting of ballots and Democrats take over the House of Representatives and, perhaps even the Senate, I wonder if the Democrats will be able to get any controversial legislation passed? There would most likely be a sufficient number of Lock Step Republicans that could filibuster any significant laws "The People" want. You know, laws like increasing Veterans benefits, taxing the high profits of the big corporations, providing money for schools and school security, or even breaking up the huge corporations with the Sherman Anti Trust Act. I would call those examples significant legislation.
Also to prevent such legislation would be the Veto power of the president. This president has only used the veto once in six years and that was to stop stem cell research. I’m sure Georgie Boy would pull out the old Veto Power to stop any legislation that would threaten his big Republican contributors, all the time professing a "Christian" belief in his cause. Of course, the Senate would not be able to over ride the veto because of the closely divided numbers of Democrats to Republicans.
But you know what? A Grid-Locked two years would be an improvement over the past six years! That’s because the Lock-Step Republicans couldn’t continue making legislation that benefits big business, places higher taxes on the little guy and subsidizes the oil, pharmaceuticals and the credit card companies. At least that would stop. That is why I say Grid Lock would be preferable to any new Republican sponsored legislation.
Now let’s focus for a moment on what kinds of things could get done in Congress during the next two years. Two words; Subpoena Power! Here’s an example: Which matter do you think is more vital to the reputation and honor of the United States, using a Christmas card list as contacts for political contributions or authorizing torture at an American run prison? The Republican Congress spent 140 hours of sworn testimony investigating whether Clinton used the White House Christmas list to contact people for political contributions and that Republican Congress spent just 12 hours investigating Abu Ghraib. (Thanks to the Mahablog for that info)
With Subpoena power, the Democrats will be able to do honest investigations into the atrocities of the Bush administration, the misuse of taxpayer funds, the writing of legislation by lobbyists or even the Energy Commission under Cheney. Just imagine how things could come to light and have to bare the scrutiny of truth!
Yes, I won’t mind a Grid Locked Congress. Watching the subpoena power work and expose the truth will be a better show than the Water Gate Hearings were.
That’s as I see it. . .
How do you see it?
If and when there is an honest counting of ballots and Democrats take over the House of Representatives and, perhaps even the Senate, I wonder if the Democrats will be able to get any controversial legislation passed? There would most likely be a sufficient number of Lock Step Republicans that could filibuster any significant laws "The People" want. You know, laws like increasing Veterans benefits, taxing the high profits of the big corporations, providing money for schools and school security, or even breaking up the huge corporations with the Sherman Anti Trust Act. I would call those examples significant legislation.
Also to prevent such legislation would be the Veto power of the president. This president has only used the veto once in six years and that was to stop stem cell research. I’m sure Georgie Boy would pull out the old Veto Power to stop any legislation that would threaten his big Republican contributors, all the time professing a "Christian" belief in his cause. Of course, the Senate would not be able to over ride the veto because of the closely divided numbers of Democrats to Republicans.
But you know what? A Grid-Locked two years would be an improvement over the past six years! That’s because the Lock-Step Republicans couldn’t continue making legislation that benefits big business, places higher taxes on the little guy and subsidizes the oil, pharmaceuticals and the credit card companies. At least that would stop. That is why I say Grid Lock would be preferable to any new Republican sponsored legislation.
Now let’s focus for a moment on what kinds of things could get done in Congress during the next two years. Two words; Subpoena Power! Here’s an example: Which matter do you think is more vital to the reputation and honor of the United States, using a Christmas card list as contacts for political contributions or authorizing torture at an American run prison? The Republican Congress spent 140 hours of sworn testimony investigating whether Clinton used the White House Christmas list to contact people for political contributions and that Republican Congress spent just 12 hours investigating Abu Ghraib. (Thanks to the Mahablog for that info)
With Subpoena power, the Democrats will be able to do honest investigations into the atrocities of the Bush administration, the misuse of taxpayer funds, the writing of legislation by lobbyists or even the Energy Commission under Cheney. Just imagine how things could come to light and have to bare the scrutiny of truth!
Yes, I won’t mind a Grid Locked Congress. Watching the subpoena power work and expose the truth will be a better show than the Water Gate Hearings were.
That’s as I see it. . .
How do you see it?
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Things from the last century have way of being carried forward into the next.
Buggy whips were important in 1900. They became out dated as the automobile became popular. We are at another turn of the century and it seems that FREEDOM has become replaced by a more popular right of religion. Let me explain how I feel about religion before I break into my main point. We have Freedom OF religion in our country. That means we can worship any way we want. There is no STATE RELIGION, like there was and is in England. If you did not worship in the state certified religion, you ran the risk of being jailed back then. That is why the founders thought it important to give us that freedom. Religion and church should and does not have any connection with governance. We are free from state sanctified religion.
But doesn't that also mean freedom FROM religion? Shouldn't we be allowed to NOT worship at all? But that freedom seems to be going the way of the buggy whip. It is a "quaint" and "interesting" idea but "no one of any importance believes it." It is important for our politicians to be "RELIGIOUS."
When I hear George W. Bush supporters say, "At least he is a christian." I think to myself, weren't all the previous presidents christian? If you check your history book, you will find they were ALL Christians! What's different about George W. Bush?
Does he have some special anointment by God? Is George some kind of heavenly messenger?
I say "NO!" George is just like every other demagogue in histroy that thought he was a messenger of god. George is a man; and a not too intelligent man at that. George didn't finish his military obligation. George didn't have to compete to get into college, (his daddy was an alumni). George didn't have to suffer the consequence of his many failures. There was always someone with MONEY to bail out poor George. George was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
George is a failure. If you don't belive me, Goggle FAILURE and click on "I feel lucky." But does that account for the religious right to support him with such loyalty? The religious right is looking for that prophesied moment in the future to bring on the "Coming of God." Could George possibly be that person?
Let's look at it logically. EVERY human interpretation of prophecy has ended in failure. EVERY single one who said "LOOK! HERE IS THE COMING!" has been wrong! Since George is already a failure at everything he has ever done, he fits right in. George is not your messiah. George is a failure.
My point about religion is this: You are free to worship any god you wish. You are free to have the most bizarre of religious beliefs. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CONTROL THE WAY I WANT TO DO THINGS! Because I have freedom FROM religion!
When Geroge W. Bush uses his religious philosophy to make decisions for this country, he is wrong and should be removed from office. It's as simple as that.
Freedom of Religion is not a buggy whip. Freedom FROM Religion is a right! DO NOT force a religious philosophy upon me because YOU think God Is Coming!
Allow me to pause and stop yelling. . .
Here is my point:
Freedom FROM religion is as much a right as Freedom OF religion. Do not force religious thought upon me! I am an American and I have that right.
Buggy whips were important in 1900. They became out dated as the automobile became popular. We are at another turn of the century and it seems that FREEDOM has become replaced by a more popular right of religion. Let me explain how I feel about religion before I break into my main point. We have Freedom OF religion in our country. That means we can worship any way we want. There is no STATE RELIGION, like there was and is in England. If you did not worship in the state certified religion, you ran the risk of being jailed back then. That is why the founders thought it important to give us that freedom. Religion and church should and does not have any connection with governance. We are free from state sanctified religion.
But doesn't that also mean freedom FROM religion? Shouldn't we be allowed to NOT worship at all? But that freedom seems to be going the way of the buggy whip. It is a "quaint" and "interesting" idea but "no one of any importance believes it." It is important for our politicians to be "RELIGIOUS."
When I hear George W. Bush supporters say, "At least he is a christian." I think to myself, weren't all the previous presidents christian? If you check your history book, you will find they were ALL Christians! What's different about George W. Bush?
Does he have some special anointment by God? Is George some kind of heavenly messenger?
I say "NO!" George is just like every other demagogue in histroy that thought he was a messenger of god. George is a man; and a not too intelligent man at that. George didn't finish his military obligation. George didn't have to compete to get into college, (his daddy was an alumni). George didn't have to suffer the consequence of his many failures. There was always someone with MONEY to bail out poor George. George was born with a silver foot in his mouth.
George is a failure. If you don't belive me, Goggle FAILURE and click on "I feel lucky." But does that account for the religious right to support him with such loyalty? The religious right is looking for that prophesied moment in the future to bring on the "Coming of God." Could George possibly be that person?
Let's look at it logically. EVERY human interpretation of prophecy has ended in failure. EVERY single one who said "LOOK! HERE IS THE COMING!" has been wrong! Since George is already a failure at everything he has ever done, he fits right in. George is not your messiah. George is a failure.
My point about religion is this: You are free to worship any god you wish. You are free to have the most bizarre of religious beliefs. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CONTROL THE WAY I WANT TO DO THINGS! Because I have freedom FROM religion!
When Geroge W. Bush uses his religious philosophy to make decisions for this country, he is wrong and should be removed from office. It's as simple as that.
Freedom of Religion is not a buggy whip. Freedom FROM Religion is a right! DO NOT force a religious philosophy upon me because YOU think God Is Coming!
Allow me to pause and stop yelling. . .
Here is my point:
Freedom FROM religion is as much a right as Freedom OF religion. Do not force religious thought upon me! I am an American and I have that right.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Substitute "Jew" for Liberal:
When you listen to, or hear the right talk about the political situation in America, substitute "Jew" for Liberal. See if it reminds you of anything. Fascists create an enemy for the country to hate. Hitler created the Jews. George bush has his "Terrorists." But the entire Republican party has the "Liberal." The word Liberal is used as a pejorative, a curse word, a defamation. From the Republican point of view, nothing is worse than a "LIBERAL!"
LIBERALS would have you "advocating terrorists rights" or preventing the terrorists from being "effectively questioned." Those quotes are from the president of these United States, George W. Bush. "Advocating terrorists rights" means standing up for the Constitution and the rights it grants everyone accused of a crime in this, OUR country.
"Effectively questioned" was how George W. Bush described TORTURE. Is that what you want your country doing in the name of freedom? "Effectively questioning" someone who was sold to our military by as a "terrorist" but in reality was just a victim. How would we know unless there is a formal hearing for the accused to explain himself? That's George W. Bush's America. It is not my America!
For the first time in 230 years, we TORTURE and PREVENT people from receiving human dignity. Does that make you proud to be an American? Does that make you feel safe? Do you think we could suffer another attack like 9/11 if we torture our enemies and defame anyone who disagrees with George?
Read your history people! This country is heading the same way Nazi Germany did in 1933! Now that George has been ENABLED, what is next? Does he declare that anyone who speaks out against him is subject to imprisonment? Could people who disagree with George "Disappear?" It happened in Germany. We used to think it could never happen here. Is declaring him the "FUHRER" next? Of course, George will use a more pleasing word. Perhaps something like, "Interim Premier" or "War Time President."
When you hear the right talk about the Liberals, substitue the word "JEW!"
Then you will understand!
That's as I see it. . .
Tell me what you think!
When you listen to, or hear the right talk about the political situation in America, substitute "Jew" for Liberal. See if it reminds you of anything. Fascists create an enemy for the country to hate. Hitler created the Jews. George bush has his "Terrorists." But the entire Republican party has the "Liberal." The word Liberal is used as a pejorative, a curse word, a defamation. From the Republican point of view, nothing is worse than a "LIBERAL!"
LIBERALS would have you "advocating terrorists rights" or preventing the terrorists from being "effectively questioned." Those quotes are from the president of these United States, George W. Bush. "Advocating terrorists rights" means standing up for the Constitution and the rights it grants everyone accused of a crime in this, OUR country.
"Effectively questioned" was how George W. Bush described TORTURE. Is that what you want your country doing in the name of freedom? "Effectively questioning" someone who was sold to our military by as a "terrorist" but in reality was just a victim. How would we know unless there is a formal hearing for the accused to explain himself? That's George W. Bush's America. It is not my America!
For the first time in 230 years, we TORTURE and PREVENT people from receiving human dignity. Does that make you proud to be an American? Does that make you feel safe? Do you think we could suffer another attack like 9/11 if we torture our enemies and defame anyone who disagrees with George?
Read your history people! This country is heading the same way Nazi Germany did in 1933! Now that George has been ENABLED, what is next? Does he declare that anyone who speaks out against him is subject to imprisonment? Could people who disagree with George "Disappear?" It happened in Germany. We used to think it could never happen here. Is declaring him the "FUHRER" next? Of course, George will use a more pleasing word. Perhaps something like, "Interim Premier" or "War Time President."
When you hear the right talk about the Liberals, substitue the word "JEW!"
Then you will understand!
That's as I see it. . .
Tell me what you think!
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Today, September 28, 2006, the Congress of these United States has taken a gigantic step in the dirtection of Fascism. For 230 years, since 1776, we have been a nation that respects individual liberty. How vital is that word, "Liberty?" How important is it to this nation; this nation of laws? Can we so off handedly discard such a concept? Are the situations of today so different from anything we have ever faced that it requires us as a nation to discard Liberty?
Liberty is the right to be respected, heard and treated like a human being. George W. Bush feels that Liberty is in the way of what he wants to do with people he says are bad people. George says that the Geneva Convention is vague when it says that a person can not be treated in a way that is humiliating. George thinks that needs to be quantified. Apparently, George does not understand what humiliating means.
But George did not get just an explanation of what is "humiliating." George got the privilege of deciding what he wants to do with "unlawful combatants." George can now torture them. It's no surprise. George used to torture animals when he was a kid. In fact, he was very proud of how he tortured animals; fire crackers up the anus and such. Now George can do that to people he does not like.
"Oh, but that is only to people who have helped the Taliban or the terrorists," you say. No, unfortunately, it is ANYONE George feels is a terrorist. George can make them disappear and be put into jail without trial or a hearing before a judge. I am sooooo glad George is infallible! Then we, as American citizens, can know that whatever George says is true, is true! If George says you are a terrorist, you are a terrorist! If George says you are helping terrorists by contributing to a charity, you are a terrorist! You become whatever George says you are.
The last time in history that such a law was passed was when a leader said he needed such power to prevent enemies of the state from doing damage to the country. It was called the "Enabling Law" and it was granted to Adolf Hitler by a Democratic government believing it was doing the right thing. The year was 1933.
Remember that date! 1933. September 28, 2006 is the new Enabling Law. And your government just did it!
Liberty is the right to be respected, heard and treated like a human being. George W. Bush feels that Liberty is in the way of what he wants to do with people he says are bad people. George says that the Geneva Convention is vague when it says that a person can not be treated in a way that is humiliating. George thinks that needs to be quantified. Apparently, George does not understand what humiliating means.
But George did not get just an explanation of what is "humiliating." George got the privilege of deciding what he wants to do with "unlawful combatants." George can now torture them. It's no surprise. George used to torture animals when he was a kid. In fact, he was very proud of how he tortured animals; fire crackers up the anus and such. Now George can do that to people he does not like.
"Oh, but that is only to people who have helped the Taliban or the terrorists," you say. No, unfortunately, it is ANYONE George feels is a terrorist. George can make them disappear and be put into jail without trial or a hearing before a judge. I am sooooo glad George is infallible! Then we, as American citizens, can know that whatever George says is true, is true! If George says you are a terrorist, you are a terrorist! If George says you are helping terrorists by contributing to a charity, you are a terrorist! You become whatever George says you are.
The last time in history that such a law was passed was when a leader said he needed such power to prevent enemies of the state from doing damage to the country. It was called the "Enabling Law" and it was granted to Adolf Hitler by a Democratic government believing it was doing the right thing. The year was 1933.
Remember that date! 1933. September 28, 2006 is the new Enabling Law. And your government just did it!
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Two Societies:
There’s such political division these days. People who are politically active are either far left or far right. There doesn’t seem to be any way of reconciling the differences. It proceeds with name calling and labeling. So I started wondering how this country would be if one side won. . .
Conservative America, AKA Neo-Con America:
Business is king. There are no restrictions on opportunities to make money in any way that any entrepreneur wants to try. Of course, that entrepreneur must get support, funding or permission from the leading corporation in their district before trying because government and corporations are closely aligned. This business class has worked so well that people are divided socially into just two classes; Officers and Working Class. Every college graduate, only the wealthy go to college, has the goal of becoming an oficer and all uneducated people, and there are many, must be satisfied with useful employment.
Jobs are difficult to find and the only way to become successful, as defined by how much money one makes, is to stay with a job for life. That way one works their way into ever-higher positions of salary and can afford to provide for their family. Families are encouraged, one man, one woman, one or two children. Single life is not acceptable.
On the social level, people are encouraged to stay at home or go to church. The only government approved activity is professional sports, for which tickets are highly sought and expensive. Non approved activities are monitored and names are taken and added to a list. The Officer class has special seating and are often recognized to the admiring crowd prior to the start of the match. Highly paid athletes compete in various individual and team matches that are violent and can cause serious injury or even death. The crowds cheer loudest at those moments.
People move in assembled groups on streets and in shopping centers. Buying is encouraged and credit is abundantly available. Most are in debt to their corporation, living facility or the government. Their only hope of paying that debt is to continue working and make more money. Hard work is encouraged. In every store, street and park, there are public broadcast screens encouraging people to be part of society, to work hard, to buy things that make them happy, to worship in their local church and to have only two children to replace themselves. They must support the working class and the conflict that is always going on somewhere because of terrorists.
Laws do not allow for individual freedoms because survival and protection of society is more important than the individual. Corporations have been given legal authority to enforce laws, keep the peace and identify any that would defy the state. Anti-corporation movements are quickly squelched. Protest is illegal. Unions are illegal and defined as anti-corporation. Government functions mostly as a figurehead to support the military and the corporations.
War news is generally good but the vigil must be kept. The nation is always winning but is in a continuous battle against the godless terrorists that would destroy the nation. The national leader is a handsome man of middle age that gives rousing nationalistic speeches that stir the patriotic blood and increase the ranks of the military fighting men. Flags are everywhere. Anyone who does not have a flag, disrespects the flag or misses more than two patriotic celebrations is investigated by the secret police. Privacy is non-existent. All communications are monitored and any suspicious activity is quickly investigated. It is part of the War Powers act passed many years before.
Progressive America, AKA Liberal:
Business is good. Corporations, though legal, are no longer considered persons and are regulated for the common good of workers and consumers. New businesses arise, some succeed and some fail. Small businesses are the largest employers. Medical benefits and old age security is guaranteed and people are free to take any job they wish, join a union or start their own business. Taxes are progressive. Those that make more, pay more.
College education is guaranteed and anyone who does not want to attend college can take abbreviated training to learn a trade. Both are supported by taxes. Due to this arrangement, the nation has established itself as a leader in technology and medical research.
People enjoy many activities in and out of the home and are free to choose. Churches are independent and all religions are legal as long as they do not cause harm to others or violate the laws of the land. There is complete separation of church and state. There are nine classes of people, the very rich, the middle class and the poor. Each class has three classes of upper, middle and lower. People can achieve whatever status they want, accumulate all the wealth they desire and can pass on most of it to their heirs but it is taxed when it exceeds a certain amount. The poorest class can get government subsidy to ensure sustenance and housing.
Home ownership is encouraged. Lending institutions are regulated so interest rates are fair and reasonable. Employment is abundant and it is a crime to hire or employ illegal aliens. Imports may have tariffs to control and protect our industries. Manufacturing has increased and exports are on the rise.
The people are free to protest, vote and change the participate in government. Government answers to the people and elections are fair. There is a constant battle of philosophy between the Liberals and the Neo-Conservatives, but people are well educated about history and are careful not to repeat it. Neo-Cons are free to express themselves but no one takes them very seriously. Conservative ideology has been reborn and is on the rise.
It is an ever, persistent vigil to protect our way of life. Many people from other nations want to move and live here so immigration is controlled. Many disputes arise about immigration laws, defining our National Culture, language and borders. It is an ongoing struggle in the legislatures.
Life is generally peaceful. Although there are those who would destroy us, our nation keeps a steady vigil and watch to protect us.
That's as I see it. . . How do you see it?
There’s such political division these days. People who are politically active are either far left or far right. There doesn’t seem to be any way of reconciling the differences. It proceeds with name calling and labeling. So I started wondering how this country would be if one side won. . .
Conservative America, AKA Neo-Con America:
Business is king. There are no restrictions on opportunities to make money in any way that any entrepreneur wants to try. Of course, that entrepreneur must get support, funding or permission from the leading corporation in their district before trying because government and corporations are closely aligned. This business class has worked so well that people are divided socially into just two classes; Officers and Working Class. Every college graduate, only the wealthy go to college, has the goal of becoming an oficer and all uneducated people, and there are many, must be satisfied with useful employment.
Jobs are difficult to find and the only way to become successful, as defined by how much money one makes, is to stay with a job for life. That way one works their way into ever-higher positions of salary and can afford to provide for their family. Families are encouraged, one man, one woman, one or two children. Single life is not acceptable.
On the social level, people are encouraged to stay at home or go to church. The only government approved activity is professional sports, for which tickets are highly sought and expensive. Non approved activities are monitored and names are taken and added to a list. The Officer class has special seating and are often recognized to the admiring crowd prior to the start of the match. Highly paid athletes compete in various individual and team matches that are violent and can cause serious injury or even death. The crowds cheer loudest at those moments.
People move in assembled groups on streets and in shopping centers. Buying is encouraged and credit is abundantly available. Most are in debt to their corporation, living facility or the government. Their only hope of paying that debt is to continue working and make more money. Hard work is encouraged. In every store, street and park, there are public broadcast screens encouraging people to be part of society, to work hard, to buy things that make them happy, to worship in their local church and to have only two children to replace themselves. They must support the working class and the conflict that is always going on somewhere because of terrorists.
Laws do not allow for individual freedoms because survival and protection of society is more important than the individual. Corporations have been given legal authority to enforce laws, keep the peace and identify any that would defy the state. Anti-corporation movements are quickly squelched. Protest is illegal. Unions are illegal and defined as anti-corporation. Government functions mostly as a figurehead to support the military and the corporations.
War news is generally good but the vigil must be kept. The nation is always winning but is in a continuous battle against the godless terrorists that would destroy the nation. The national leader is a handsome man of middle age that gives rousing nationalistic speeches that stir the patriotic blood and increase the ranks of the military fighting men. Flags are everywhere. Anyone who does not have a flag, disrespects the flag or misses more than two patriotic celebrations is investigated by the secret police. Privacy is non-existent. All communications are monitored and any suspicious activity is quickly investigated. It is part of the War Powers act passed many years before.
Progressive America, AKA Liberal:
Business is good. Corporations, though legal, are no longer considered persons and are regulated for the common good of workers and consumers. New businesses arise, some succeed and some fail. Small businesses are the largest employers. Medical benefits and old age security is guaranteed and people are free to take any job they wish, join a union or start their own business. Taxes are progressive. Those that make more, pay more.
College education is guaranteed and anyone who does not want to attend college can take abbreviated training to learn a trade. Both are supported by taxes. Due to this arrangement, the nation has established itself as a leader in technology and medical research.
People enjoy many activities in and out of the home and are free to choose. Churches are independent and all religions are legal as long as they do not cause harm to others or violate the laws of the land. There is complete separation of church and state. There are nine classes of people, the very rich, the middle class and the poor. Each class has three classes of upper, middle and lower. People can achieve whatever status they want, accumulate all the wealth they desire and can pass on most of it to their heirs but it is taxed when it exceeds a certain amount. The poorest class can get government subsidy to ensure sustenance and housing.
Home ownership is encouraged. Lending institutions are regulated so interest rates are fair and reasonable. Employment is abundant and it is a crime to hire or employ illegal aliens. Imports may have tariffs to control and protect our industries. Manufacturing has increased and exports are on the rise.
The people are free to protest, vote and change the participate in government. Government answers to the people and elections are fair. There is a constant battle of philosophy between the Liberals and the Neo-Conservatives, but people are well educated about history and are careful not to repeat it. Neo-Cons are free to express themselves but no one takes them very seriously. Conservative ideology has been reborn and is on the rise.
It is an ever, persistent vigil to protect our way of life. Many people from other nations want to move and live here so immigration is controlled. Many disputes arise about immigration laws, defining our National Culture, language and borders. It is an ongoing struggle in the legislatures.
Life is generally peaceful. Although there are those who would destroy us, our nation keeps a steady vigil and watch to protect us.
That's as I see it. . . How do you see it?
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Pardons:
I remember a time when the President of the United States was pardoned and how it made me feel. I was angry! I was angry that Nixon wouldn't get his just deserts. I was angry that I would not have the satisfaction of seeing him go to jail and suffer the indignity of that experience. I was angry at Gerald Ford.
It wasn't until many years later that I saw the true worth of Gerald Ford's wisdom. He said he pardoned Nixon to get the country moving forward. The country had suffered enough from Watergate and it was now time to heal. It was all those years later that I agreed with him. I would have to be satisfied with the humiliation Nixon suffered upon resigning.
Do we now have a similar situation with Bush? Should he be pardoned for the crimes he has committed against the People of this country and the Constitution? I say NO! Bush has suffered no humiliation, no evidence laid before a committee, and his own party has not condemned him. All that his party wants to do now is pass a law to prevent Bush from being charged and facing the evidence.
Is that enough to satisfy the country? to heal the country? to move the People forward to solve the real problems we face? Unequivocally NO.
The reason for this pardon is to avoid punishment and humiliation, not just of Bush but of the Republican Party. To avoid the obvious situation of admitting he was wrong. This is not a healing act by a wise government. This is a deliberate attempt of avoidance. There is no regret, no remorse of deeds done. Instead we have an arrogance that claims Kingly power and continues with illegal activity. That is not worthy of forgiveness!
Right now the Senate of these United States is considering a bill to forgive Bush and his cohorts of past crimes. Is that what you want for this country? Is that going to heal the wrongs? Or is that just going to leave us with a mess and no one to investigate?
That's as I see it. . .
I remember a time when the President of the United States was pardoned and how it made me feel. I was angry! I was angry that Nixon wouldn't get his just deserts. I was angry that I would not have the satisfaction of seeing him go to jail and suffer the indignity of that experience. I was angry at Gerald Ford.
It wasn't until many years later that I saw the true worth of Gerald Ford's wisdom. He said he pardoned Nixon to get the country moving forward. The country had suffered enough from Watergate and it was now time to heal. It was all those years later that I agreed with him. I would have to be satisfied with the humiliation Nixon suffered upon resigning.
Do we now have a similar situation with Bush? Should he be pardoned for the crimes he has committed against the People of this country and the Constitution? I say NO! Bush has suffered no humiliation, no evidence laid before a committee, and his own party has not condemned him. All that his party wants to do now is pass a law to prevent Bush from being charged and facing the evidence.
Is that enough to satisfy the country? to heal the country? to move the People forward to solve the real problems we face? Unequivocally NO.
The reason for this pardon is to avoid punishment and humiliation, not just of Bush but of the Republican Party. To avoid the obvious situation of admitting he was wrong. This is not a healing act by a wise government. This is a deliberate attempt of avoidance. There is no regret, no remorse of deeds done. Instead we have an arrogance that claims Kingly power and continues with illegal activity. That is not worthy of forgiveness!
Right now the Senate of these United States is considering a bill to forgive Bush and his cohorts of past crimes. Is that what you want for this country? Is that going to heal the wrongs? Or is that just going to leave us with a mess and no one to investigate?
That's as I see it. . .
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Roman Gladiators
Most people know about the Roman Era, how they used the coliseum as theatre with gladiators dueling to the death and Christians being slaughtered. Focus for a moment on the crowded seats of spectators though. Could you call them bloodthirsty? Certainly there was no risk to their life or limb, protected as they were by the walls of separation and their paid ticket to view the spectacle.
Imagine how the spectators cheered, actually becoming part of the event, not just viewing the carnage but cheering on the slaughter and offering an up or down vote on whether the vanquished loser should live or die. Imagine their exhilaration as the up or down vote was followed and the losing gladiator was executed; blood gushing from the killing wound.
Very few of the Gladiators actually enjoyed what they did or had much of a choice about it. And many stories have tried to illustrate the gladiator’s perspective, showing rebellions and their quest for freedom. Few stories place the focus on the spectator and how (gory? uncivilized? bloodthirsty?) they seemed. But when I thought about it, it parallels today’s attitudes about the situation in Iraq.
We have the spectators; those who "support the war," want to "stay the course" and feel very protected in their high offices. We also have those that openly oppose the choices being made and want to end this country’s presence there. It is all too easy to draw a parallel with the troops as the gladiators and this administration as the spectators. But the reality is that we are all spectators! The question is "What type of spectator are we?"
As I see it. . . If we really believe that "fighting them over there" is the solution to this undeclared "War on Terror," if we support this occupation in Iraq, we are the bloodthirsty type and enjoy the carnage and gushing blood. If we believe that the military has done its job by removing Sadam Hussein and "major military action has ended," then we are the thumbs up type of spectator that respects life and says it is right and honorable to re deploy the troops as Murtha has suggested. It is not "Cutting and running."
I wonder if the spectators fought amongst themselves? Can you imagine, "Kill him! Kill him!" While another spectator says, "No. He fought nobly. Let him live!"
And then the Emperor has to decide. . . Party of life? or Party of Death?
Is our discourse similar?
How do you see it?
Most people know about the Roman Era, how they used the coliseum as theatre with gladiators dueling to the death and Christians being slaughtered. Focus for a moment on the crowded seats of spectators though. Could you call them bloodthirsty? Certainly there was no risk to their life or limb, protected as they were by the walls of separation and their paid ticket to view the spectacle.
Imagine how the spectators cheered, actually becoming part of the event, not just viewing the carnage but cheering on the slaughter and offering an up or down vote on whether the vanquished loser should live or die. Imagine their exhilaration as the up or down vote was followed and the losing gladiator was executed; blood gushing from the killing wound.
Very few of the Gladiators actually enjoyed what they did or had much of a choice about it. And many stories have tried to illustrate the gladiator’s perspective, showing rebellions and their quest for freedom. Few stories place the focus on the spectator and how (gory? uncivilized? bloodthirsty?) they seemed. But when I thought about it, it parallels today’s attitudes about the situation in Iraq.
We have the spectators; those who "support the war," want to "stay the course" and feel very protected in their high offices. We also have those that openly oppose the choices being made and want to end this country’s presence there. It is all too easy to draw a parallel with the troops as the gladiators and this administration as the spectators. But the reality is that we are all spectators! The question is "What type of spectator are we?"
As I see it. . . If we really believe that "fighting them over there" is the solution to this undeclared "War on Terror," if we support this occupation in Iraq, we are the bloodthirsty type and enjoy the carnage and gushing blood. If we believe that the military has done its job by removing Sadam Hussein and "major military action has ended," then we are the thumbs up type of spectator that respects life and says it is right and honorable to re deploy the troops as Murtha has suggested. It is not "Cutting and running."
I wonder if the spectators fought amongst themselves? Can you imagine, "Kill him! Kill him!" While another spectator says, "No. He fought nobly. Let him live!"
And then the Emperor has to decide. . . Party of life? or Party of Death?
Is our discourse similar?
How do you see it?
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
I was in a department store the other day;. . . you know, the kind that sells groceries, paint, auto supplies and clothing. I was looking specifically for some painting supplies and found the brush I wanted within a group of other brushes. I made my selection and went to the check out to pay. The brush rang up at a very different price than what it was labeled on the shelf so I questioned it immediately.
The checkout clerk paged a coworker for a price check. The eager coworker showed up then quickly ran to the paint brush shelf and did a price check, returning with the news that my selection had been put on the wrong shelf and the price it rang up as was correct. I chose to make a different selection and returned to the paint supply area.
As I perused the shelves studying the selections and deciding which one would fill my need at the most economical price, I couldn’t help thinking how miss labeling also has an impact in our political environment and spending. Do you recall the "Clear Skies Initiative"? It sounds like we are going to clean up our atmosphere, but in actuality, allowed factories to put more pollutants into the air.
Do you recall the "Healthy Forest" package put out by this administration? It sounds like we are going to clean up our forests and make it healthier for us and the forest. In actuality, it lets large corporations harvest trees on government land and in protected areas.
Here’s another one; the "Prescription Drug Bill." Do you remember it? Labeled as a Drug Benefit for Americans, in actuality, is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle for the pharmaceutical companies.
I don’t believe that department store intentionally miss labeled that paintbrush. It wouldn’t be in their best interest to do that. But can I trust an administration that says one thing and does another? What is their best interest?
When "they," the administration, explains the above miss labeling, they explain as brilliant political maneuvering by Carl Rove. Is it really? Is it "Political Maneuvering" or outright lying? The department store did not intentionally miss label that paintbrush. This Republican Administration purposely miss labels almost everything it does. That’s lying!
That’s As I see it . . .
What do you think?
The checkout clerk paged a coworker for a price check. The eager coworker showed up then quickly ran to the paint brush shelf and did a price check, returning with the news that my selection had been put on the wrong shelf and the price it rang up as was correct. I chose to make a different selection and returned to the paint supply area.
As I perused the shelves studying the selections and deciding which one would fill my need at the most economical price, I couldn’t help thinking how miss labeling also has an impact in our political environment and spending. Do you recall the "Clear Skies Initiative"? It sounds like we are going to clean up our atmosphere, but in actuality, allowed factories to put more pollutants into the air.
Do you recall the "Healthy Forest" package put out by this administration? It sounds like we are going to clean up our forests and make it healthier for us and the forest. In actuality, it lets large corporations harvest trees on government land and in protected areas.
Here’s another one; the "Prescription Drug Bill." Do you remember it? Labeled as a Drug Benefit for Americans, in actuality, is a multi-billion dollar boondoggle for the pharmaceutical companies.
I don’t believe that department store intentionally miss labeled that paintbrush. It wouldn’t be in their best interest to do that. But can I trust an administration that says one thing and does another? What is their best interest?
When "they," the administration, explains the above miss labeling, they explain as brilliant political maneuvering by Carl Rove. Is it really? Is it "Political Maneuvering" or outright lying? The department store did not intentionally miss label that paintbrush. This Republican Administration purposely miss labels almost everything it does. That’s lying!
That’s As I see it . . .
What do you think?
Monday, August 28, 2006
"The Undefeated"
I watched an old John Wayne movie the other night. It was nostalgic. The movie was "The Undefeated" made in 1969. John Wayne played a Union Colonel in command of a brigade.
In the opening scene, the Union Colonel is attacking a Confederate stronghold, routing them and killing many of the soldiers. Several "Rebels" grab their Confederate flag and keep it from falling to the ground as rebels are killed in the battle. Finally one rebel soldier gets hit and falls, wrapping himself in his flag as he dies.
The scene changes to show John Wayne, the victorious Union Colonel astride his horse, surveying the vanquished, rebel camp. A messenger rides up shouting that the war is over. The Union Colonel reprimands the messenger and orders him to report his message. The Union Colonel finds out that the war had ended three days earlier with Lee’s surrender to Grant at Appomatix. The Union Colonel looks around at all the dead soldiers and realizes the futility of the battle. He orders a flag of truce and he rides into the rebel camp to share the news that the war is over.
The rebel camp honors the flag of truce and a gaunt Confederate Colonel with an empty sleeve where his right arm used to be comes out to talk with the Union Colonel. The Union Colonel shares the news about the war being over. To his surprise, the Confederate Colonel says he learned of it the day before.
Then the Union Colonel asks a logical question. "If you already knew the war was over, why did you fight this battle?"
The Confederate Colonel says, "Because this is our land and you’re on it."
Our occupation of Iraq is not eliminating terrorists. It is creating fighters against us simply because we are there. It is time to re-deploy the troops!
I watched an old John Wayne movie the other night. It was nostalgic. The movie was "The Undefeated" made in 1969. John Wayne played a Union Colonel in command of a brigade.
In the opening scene, the Union Colonel is attacking a Confederate stronghold, routing them and killing many of the soldiers. Several "Rebels" grab their Confederate flag and keep it from falling to the ground as rebels are killed in the battle. Finally one rebel soldier gets hit and falls, wrapping himself in his flag as he dies.
The scene changes to show John Wayne, the victorious Union Colonel astride his horse, surveying the vanquished, rebel camp. A messenger rides up shouting that the war is over. The Union Colonel reprimands the messenger and orders him to report his message. The Union Colonel finds out that the war had ended three days earlier with Lee’s surrender to Grant at Appomatix. The Union Colonel looks around at all the dead soldiers and realizes the futility of the battle. He orders a flag of truce and he rides into the rebel camp to share the news that the war is over.
The rebel camp honors the flag of truce and a gaunt Confederate Colonel with an empty sleeve where his right arm used to be comes out to talk with the Union Colonel. The Union Colonel shares the news about the war being over. To his surprise, the Confederate Colonel says he learned of it the day before.
Then the Union Colonel asks a logical question. "If you already knew the war was over, why did you fight this battle?"
The Confederate Colonel says, "Because this is our land and you’re on it."
Our occupation of Iraq is not eliminating terrorists. It is creating fighters against us simply because we are there. It is time to re-deploy the troops!
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
This country we live in, this America, has two levels of government. I am talking not about parties, but about the philosophical and political differences in the parties.
Democrats believe in the strength and survival of the community. Republicans believe in the strength and survival of the fittest and the corporations. [To Republicans, corporations are people in the legal sense and have created laws that have given them that right. Therefore they can take you to civil court and win through attrition with deeper pockets. It is very difficult for the little guy to get justice in this America!]
Democrats believe that survival of a group of people, a community, a village, a city, a state and a nation depends on concern for each other, helping each other and allowing the government to be there to help when only the government can help. Republicans call this socialism. Republicans go further. They call their survival of the fittest philosophy "Individual Responsibility." It is your individual responsibility to provide for yourself in hurricanes, old age, health care and tragedy. If bad things happen, it is through your own lack of planning or responsibility. Republicans believe social programs that protect citizens, prevents "Free Enterprise" and opportunities to make money.
Democrats believe that the proper way for corporations to operate is with regulations. Regulations ensure companies are safe working places, have safe products, don’t pollute our environment and do pay their fair amount of taxes to support the things common to communities. That requires regulation. Republicans want to eliminate regulations; saying that through "Free Enterprise" companies can be more profitable, employ more people and when these things happen, society benefits. That type of thinking is the politicizing of their philosophy. Through these types of arguments, Republicans have removed regulations to the detriment of society. Another way they express it is to call it "trickle down" economics. Every time trickle down economics is tried, it has not worked to the greater benefit of society. Republicans will argue and say it does work. Perhaps they actually believe it, but it only works for corporations and the wealthy. It is in reality, Republican double talk. The greater benefit to society is to regulate corporations.
Society to Republicans is a labor source. Many in society are perfectly fine with being the labor force. But they also want to be treated fairly, know that they will not be taken advantage of and to be told the truth. An informed labor force knows that the company they work for must make a profit. They know that without a profit they will not have a job. When the lowest paid employee is making $5.15 per hour and the CEO is making $5000 per hour, there is a problem with America!
To Republicans, society is the labor force that must be kept busy, poorly informed and unaware of their rights as citizens. In this way a labor is kept strong through ignorance, provides an army for wars of Peace, and maintains freedom through slavery to corporations. If that sounds Orwellian, it is!
Perhaps I over simplify. Here is what we must do to take back our country from the Republicans and the Corporations. Declare corporations as businesses, not persons. Regulate them for the common good. Counter every Republican political phrase with the truth of their philosophy.
If we want to improve our government as a whole we must do three things. 1) Get rid of the lobbyist’s influence in government, 2) Make elections state funded and 3) Amend the constitution so that any bill passed by Congress can only deal with a single issue. Let me address each one in detail.
Get rid of the lobbyist. There have been numerous scandals of government officials being paid off for their votes. Congressmen and Senators have discussed laws and official rules of conduct such as review boards, limiting paid travel and limiting paid lunches, dinners and parties. Some of them actually get passed and then are later modified. Eliminate the money and you eliminate the influence. Congress can not have anything paid for by someone else, period! Then there is no greed, no vote buying and no influence.
Make elections state funded. Congressmen and Senators have to make anywhere from $1000 to $5000 per day while in office to run for reelection. That makes it possible to gain influence by contributing money. Laws limiting certain kinds of contributions from certain kinds of entities do not work. Eliminate the requirement for the money by having the Federal and state governments fund elections. Also make the campaign a fixed length of time. We could also address the ethics of campaign issues.
Amend the constitution. One of the biggest wastes of money and a source of corruption is the deal making that goes on in Congress to get a bill passed. If we eliminate the deal making by making each bill a single issue bill, then the Congress will have to vote on the merits of the bill. How they vote will become apparent to the voters and the voters can select the people they want to represent them based on how they vote or promise to vote in Congress.
This may seem like an over simplification. But I believe that solving the greater issues of this country starts with these three principals.
That’s as I see it. . .
How do you see it?
Democrats believe in the strength and survival of the community. Republicans believe in the strength and survival of the fittest and the corporations. [To Republicans, corporations are people in the legal sense and have created laws that have given them that right. Therefore they can take you to civil court and win through attrition with deeper pockets. It is very difficult for the little guy to get justice in this America!]
Democrats believe that survival of a group of people, a community, a village, a city, a state and a nation depends on concern for each other, helping each other and allowing the government to be there to help when only the government can help. Republicans call this socialism. Republicans go further. They call their survival of the fittest philosophy "Individual Responsibility." It is your individual responsibility to provide for yourself in hurricanes, old age, health care and tragedy. If bad things happen, it is through your own lack of planning or responsibility. Republicans believe social programs that protect citizens, prevents "Free Enterprise" and opportunities to make money.
Democrats believe that the proper way for corporations to operate is with regulations. Regulations ensure companies are safe working places, have safe products, don’t pollute our environment and do pay their fair amount of taxes to support the things common to communities. That requires regulation. Republicans want to eliminate regulations; saying that through "Free Enterprise" companies can be more profitable, employ more people and when these things happen, society benefits. That type of thinking is the politicizing of their philosophy. Through these types of arguments, Republicans have removed regulations to the detriment of society. Another way they express it is to call it "trickle down" economics. Every time trickle down economics is tried, it has not worked to the greater benefit of society. Republicans will argue and say it does work. Perhaps they actually believe it, but it only works for corporations and the wealthy. It is in reality, Republican double talk. The greater benefit to society is to regulate corporations.
Society to Republicans is a labor source. Many in society are perfectly fine with being the labor force. But they also want to be treated fairly, know that they will not be taken advantage of and to be told the truth. An informed labor force knows that the company they work for must make a profit. They know that without a profit they will not have a job. When the lowest paid employee is making $5.15 per hour and the CEO is making $5000 per hour, there is a problem with America!
To Republicans, society is the labor force that must be kept busy, poorly informed and unaware of their rights as citizens. In this way a labor is kept strong through ignorance, provides an army for wars of Peace, and maintains freedom through slavery to corporations. If that sounds Orwellian, it is!
Perhaps I over simplify. Here is what we must do to take back our country from the Republicans and the Corporations. Declare corporations as businesses, not persons. Regulate them for the common good. Counter every Republican political phrase with the truth of their philosophy.
If we want to improve our government as a whole we must do three things. 1) Get rid of the lobbyist’s influence in government, 2) Make elections state funded and 3) Amend the constitution so that any bill passed by Congress can only deal with a single issue. Let me address each one in detail.
Get rid of the lobbyist. There have been numerous scandals of government officials being paid off for their votes. Congressmen and Senators have discussed laws and official rules of conduct such as review boards, limiting paid travel and limiting paid lunches, dinners and parties. Some of them actually get passed and then are later modified. Eliminate the money and you eliminate the influence. Congress can not have anything paid for by someone else, period! Then there is no greed, no vote buying and no influence.
Make elections state funded. Congressmen and Senators have to make anywhere from $1000 to $5000 per day while in office to run for reelection. That makes it possible to gain influence by contributing money. Laws limiting certain kinds of contributions from certain kinds of entities do not work. Eliminate the requirement for the money by having the Federal and state governments fund elections. Also make the campaign a fixed length of time. We could also address the ethics of campaign issues.
Amend the constitution. One of the biggest wastes of money and a source of corruption is the deal making that goes on in Congress to get a bill passed. If we eliminate the deal making by making each bill a single issue bill, then the Congress will have to vote on the merits of the bill. How they vote will become apparent to the voters and the voters can select the people they want to represent them based on how they vote or promise to vote in Congress.
This may seem like an over simplification. But I believe that solving the greater issues of this country starts with these three principals.
That’s as I see it. . .
How do you see it?
Friday, August 04, 2006
"Senate halts minimum-wage bill
Friday, August 4, 2006; Posted: 7:56 a.m. EDT (11:56 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican election-year effort to fuse a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates with the first minimum wage increase in nearly a decade was rejected by the Senate late Thursday.
The GOP strategy put Democrats in an uncomfortable position. Either they could vote against the bill -- thus rejecting a minimum wage increase -- or they could vote for it -- thus agreeing to cut taxes on multimillion-dollar estates. Most rejected the bill, blocking a GOP victory months before the election."
This is perfect example of what I have been talking about! This was a Minimum Wage Bill with a tax cut amendment. The minimum wage portion would have given a $2.10 increase to the Federal $5.15 minimum wage over three years. The tax cut was for the wealthiest among us to get an inheritance tax cut. Republicans call it the "Death Tax" and Democrats call the attempt to cut inheritance taxes the "Paris Hilton Tax cut."
It is obvious that the two parties can not agree on the issue of who should pay the highest or lowest taxes, but that is not the point of this blog! My point is how Business-as-usual affects We-the-People and getting the work done in Congress that we want done.
Republicans have a majority in Congress but could not get the bill passed because it required 60 votes. Democrats are forced to choose between voting against the Inheritance tax cut or against the Minimum Wage increase. Tough choice!
The other factor in the vote is the upcoming election. Republicans want to appeal to voters saying that they tried to raise the minimum wage. Democrats will have to explain why they voted against a minimum wage increase. Then the election becomes an accusation-fest and turns people off to paying attention. Very cleaver! And both sides do it!
But that is not the way our government should run. If each issue is presented as a separate bill and Congress votes on each single issue, then voters can see and decide how their representative votes and if they want to have that person continue to represent them. That’s a REAL choice and how America should be run!
That’s as I see it!
Friday, August 4, 2006; Posted: 7:56 a.m. EDT (11:56 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Republican election-year effort to fuse a cut in inheritance taxes on multimillion-dollar estates with the first minimum wage increase in nearly a decade was rejected by the Senate late Thursday.
The GOP strategy put Democrats in an uncomfortable position. Either they could vote against the bill -- thus rejecting a minimum wage increase -- or they could vote for it -- thus agreeing to cut taxes on multimillion-dollar estates. Most rejected the bill, blocking a GOP victory months before the election."
This is perfect example of what I have been talking about! This was a Minimum Wage Bill with a tax cut amendment. The minimum wage portion would have given a $2.10 increase to the Federal $5.15 minimum wage over three years. The tax cut was for the wealthiest among us to get an inheritance tax cut. Republicans call it the "Death Tax" and Democrats call the attempt to cut inheritance taxes the "Paris Hilton Tax cut."
It is obvious that the two parties can not agree on the issue of who should pay the highest or lowest taxes, but that is not the point of this blog! My point is how Business-as-usual affects We-the-People and getting the work done in Congress that we want done.
Republicans have a majority in Congress but could not get the bill passed because it required 60 votes. Democrats are forced to choose between voting against the Inheritance tax cut or against the Minimum Wage increase. Tough choice!
The other factor in the vote is the upcoming election. Republicans want to appeal to voters saying that they tried to raise the minimum wage. Democrats will have to explain why they voted against a minimum wage increase. Then the election becomes an accusation-fest and turns people off to paying attention. Very cleaver! And both sides do it!
But that is not the way our government should run. If each issue is presented as a separate bill and Congress votes on each single issue, then voters can see and decide how their representative votes and if they want to have that person continue to represent them. That’s a REAL choice and how America should be run!
That’s as I see it!
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Earmarks; Good for Americans or Good for Congress?
The following is a direct quote from a close personal friend and conservative. "I think I'll pass on the political comment for now, except to say that instead of fighting for single-issue bills through congress, which will never happen, that I think energy should go to stopping/curtailing/public awareness of earmarks. I'm not sure I understand everything I should about earmarks, but I know I don't like what I've heard."
Ummm; How to respond to that? Did she really mean "...stopping/curtailing public awareness?" In other words, the public should remain in the dark and unaware of what Congress is doing? I don't think so. I know this person and she is more level headed than that. I think she meant that the public has become aware of "Earmarks" and that they (Earmarks) need to be stopped! I agree with that. The interpretation is in the last phrase, "I know I don't like what I've heard."
The problem with earmarks is that they are "business as usual" for Congress. It is a deal made with other congress men and women to give a vote and get a vote. "You ensure that I will get this funding and I will make sure you will get your funding." Let's rephrase: I vote for your pet cause if you will vote for mine. Vote swapping!
Where's the integrity? Where's the keeping of their oath. Wikipedia; Oath of Office; "It is often considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office."
This is the oath of office taken by all congress members. " I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Where does it allow for Earmarks? Where does it allow for deal making and vote swapping? "..true faith and allegiance to the same;" Doesn't that mean supporting and defending the Constitution? "...without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" Doesn't this mean to be true to the oath? "...I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office..." Doesn't this mean that they will do what they promise and keep their word?
How can deal making and vote swapping be an action of faithfully discharging the duties? Don't you get it? "Earmark" is just another word for deal making or vote swapping. The solution to the problem is to FORCE congress to deal with just one issue; one bill! Then the issue being voted on is the issue! Not a swap! Either you vote for it or you vote against it. You, the Congress, are the People's voice. We did not send you there to make deals! We sent you there to look after the People's Business! We sent you there to be loyal to the cause of governing! So Govern!
If "We the People" want to "focus our energy" on something worthwhile, focus it on single issue bills in Congress. Write your representative. Tell them how you feel about their conduct in Congress. Tell them you don't care for the deal making and vote swapping. Tell them you want a response from them explaining how they feel about the issue. Tell them you are watching their performance.
Do you want business as usual or do you want to help take back this country? If you don't get involved, aren't you just conducting "business as usual"?
That's as I see it!
Please read my previous discourse on "Single Issue Bills."
The following is a direct quote from a close personal friend and conservative. "I think I'll pass on the political comment for now, except to say that instead of fighting for single-issue bills through congress, which will never happen, that I think energy should go to stopping/curtailing/public awareness of earmarks. I'm not sure I understand everything I should about earmarks, but I know I don't like what I've heard."
Ummm; How to respond to that? Did she really mean "...stopping/curtailing public awareness?" In other words, the public should remain in the dark and unaware of what Congress is doing? I don't think so. I know this person and she is more level headed than that. I think she meant that the public has become aware of "Earmarks" and that they (Earmarks) need to be stopped! I agree with that. The interpretation is in the last phrase, "I know I don't like what I've heard."
The problem with earmarks is that they are "business as usual" for Congress. It is a deal made with other congress men and women to give a vote and get a vote. "You ensure that I will get this funding and I will make sure you will get your funding." Let's rephrase: I vote for your pet cause if you will vote for mine. Vote swapping!
Where's the integrity? Where's the keeping of their oath. Wikipedia; Oath of Office; "It is often considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office."
This is the oath of office taken by all congress members. " I, Loyal Citizen of the Republic, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Where does it allow for Earmarks? Where does it allow for deal making and vote swapping? "..true faith and allegiance to the same;" Doesn't that mean supporting and defending the Constitution? "...without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;" Doesn't this mean to be true to the oath? "...I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office..." Doesn't this mean that they will do what they promise and keep their word?
How can deal making and vote swapping be an action of faithfully discharging the duties? Don't you get it? "Earmark" is just another word for deal making or vote swapping. The solution to the problem is to FORCE congress to deal with just one issue; one bill! Then the issue being voted on is the issue! Not a swap! Either you vote for it or you vote against it. You, the Congress, are the People's voice. We did not send you there to make deals! We sent you there to look after the People's Business! We sent you there to be loyal to the cause of governing! So Govern!
If "We the People" want to "focus our energy" on something worthwhile, focus it on single issue bills in Congress. Write your representative. Tell them how you feel about their conduct in Congress. Tell them you don't care for the deal making and vote swapping. Tell them you want a response from them explaining how they feel about the issue. Tell them you are watching their performance.
Do you want business as usual or do you want to help take back this country? If you don't get involved, aren't you just conducting "business as usual"?
That's as I see it!
Please read my previous discourse on "Single Issue Bills."
Friday, July 28, 2006
"It doesn’t matter who votes. It only matters who counts the votes.” -- Josef Stalin
A bit of wisdom from an historical figure. Wouldn't you agree? I have been getting emails about the 100 days remaining until the election. In fact, I'll be attending such a meeting tonight to discuss what We the People can do about taking our country back. I can only hope that we are successful.
But it occurs to me that no matter how many of us vote, not matter how great a turn out, it only matters how the votes are counted. I recently learned from listening to an Air Amercia interview that in Alaska in the last election, the vote count for George Bush exceeded the registered voter count by something like 50%. I had heard many accusations from the left about voting fraud in Florida and Ohio during the last two presidential elections, but Alaska was something new.
It finally starts to make sense why the right is not too concerned about the fall elections. We hear about some legislators separating themselves from Bush. (The right leaning media seems to point that out) But when I listen to politicians on the News Hour on PBS, the right is just as fixated as they have always been with their hot issues of God, Gays and Gagging free speech in the name of patriotism.
As voters, presented with a choice of selecting a party that stands for War, Spying on its citizens, giving Coprorate Welfare to oil companies, and using Federal Lands to benefit Corporations versus a party that wants to protect individual rights, establish a fair tax structure, and present America's power as a Peacekeeper rather than a War Monger, I think most people would choose the latter. So why does the Republican Right seem to keep winning?
Perhaps they aren't! Perhaps it only matters who counts the votes!
Yes, I understand the Christian Right has their influence but that is, in actuality, a minority. Could it really be enough to swing an election? Could all the right leaning, Personal Responsibility preachers, Neo-con thinking, Anti-Abortion, Make our Constitution like the Bible, single issue voters total up enough votes to set the course of our country?
Truth rings loud and clear! When the philosophy of a political party is that the end justifies the means, then it doesn't matter how they get elected. It only matters that they ARE elected. Voting machines are, for the most part, Corporate owned and operated with proprietary software. The data can be manipulated.
Do you trust the counting to be accurate and honest when the counting is done by a corporation with a philosophy of "The end justifies the means" and are Republican supporters?
Addressing this concern has to start at the grass roots level. We the People must get involved, speak out, and show force to take back the election process and verify that we get accurate vote counts. When enough people stand up for an issue, action gets taken.
That's as I see it . . .
A bit of wisdom from an historical figure. Wouldn't you agree? I have been getting emails about the 100 days remaining until the election. In fact, I'll be attending such a meeting tonight to discuss what We the People can do about taking our country back. I can only hope that we are successful.
But it occurs to me that no matter how many of us vote, not matter how great a turn out, it only matters how the votes are counted. I recently learned from listening to an Air Amercia interview that in Alaska in the last election, the vote count for George Bush exceeded the registered voter count by something like 50%. I had heard many accusations from the left about voting fraud in Florida and Ohio during the last two presidential elections, but Alaska was something new.
It finally starts to make sense why the right is not too concerned about the fall elections. We hear about some legislators separating themselves from Bush. (The right leaning media seems to point that out) But when I listen to politicians on the News Hour on PBS, the right is just as fixated as they have always been with their hot issues of God, Gays and Gagging free speech in the name of patriotism.
As voters, presented with a choice of selecting a party that stands for War, Spying on its citizens, giving Coprorate Welfare to oil companies, and using Federal Lands to benefit Corporations versus a party that wants to protect individual rights, establish a fair tax structure, and present America's power as a Peacekeeper rather than a War Monger, I think most people would choose the latter. So why does the Republican Right seem to keep winning?
Perhaps they aren't! Perhaps it only matters who counts the votes!
Yes, I understand the Christian Right has their influence but that is, in actuality, a minority. Could it really be enough to swing an election? Could all the right leaning, Personal Responsibility preachers, Neo-con thinking, Anti-Abortion, Make our Constitution like the Bible, single issue voters total up enough votes to set the course of our country?
Truth rings loud and clear! When the philosophy of a political party is that the end justifies the means, then it doesn't matter how they get elected. It only matters that they ARE elected. Voting machines are, for the most part, Corporate owned and operated with proprietary software. The data can be manipulated.
Do you trust the counting to be accurate and honest when the counting is done by a corporation with a philosophy of "The end justifies the means" and are Republican supporters?
Addressing this concern has to start at the grass roots level. We the People must get involved, speak out, and show force to take back the election process and verify that we get accurate vote counts. When enough people stand up for an issue, action gets taken.
That's as I see it . . .
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
"Of the People . . .
By the people and For the people." How does that thought mesh with President Bush using signing statements to get around laws passed by Congress? Since we have a representative government, the representatives have the obligation to make laws and the president can either veto a law or sign it, (See Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution) where does this other option come from? How does it comply with the constitution?
The simple answer is that it doesn’t. Signing statements are the prerogative of a monarch. Prerogative is the "exclusive right, privilege, etc, exercised by virtue of rank, office, or the like." George W. Bush does not have that right, that prerogative! Therefore, George W. Bush is not enforcing the Constitution; therefore George W. Bush has violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution; therefore, since his oath of office included the phrase "so help me God,"he has violated a sacred oath to his God.
Perhaps a closer look at an example of his signing statements will shed some light on this principal of Constitutional authority. The signing statements used by Bush have been statements that he will construe the law from his perspective as Commander in Chief (My description, not his). A good example is the McCain Amendment to the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill about torture. From the Boston Globe, January 4, 2006.,''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President. . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote. He added that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President. . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Interpretation of the Bush statement is dependent on a person’s political view. A Bush supporter might say he is looking after the welfare of the country. A Bush opposer might say he is redefining the role of Congress and inserting his own unjust authority. However you interpret it, he is, in actuality, not following the choices mandated by the Constitution to which he has sworn an oath to uphold. He has, in effect, given the office of the president the line item veto on laws.
Regardless of your support for or against signing statements, if you uphold and agree with the constitution, you also must agree that this is an invalid method of governing. If We the People want the president to have the same authority as a monarch, then we must pressure our representatives to initiate a constitutional amendment to allow such authority. Until that happens, George W. Bush is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office.
But then, that wouldn't be government ". . . of the people, for the people and by the people." Would it?
That's as I see it . . .
By the people and For the people." How does that thought mesh with President Bush using signing statements to get around laws passed by Congress? Since we have a representative government, the representatives have the obligation to make laws and the president can either veto a law or sign it, (See Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution) where does this other option come from? How does it comply with the constitution?
The simple answer is that it doesn’t. Signing statements are the prerogative of a monarch. Prerogative is the "exclusive right, privilege, etc, exercised by virtue of rank, office, or the like." George W. Bush does not have that right, that prerogative! Therefore, George W. Bush is not enforcing the Constitution; therefore George W. Bush has violated his oath of office to uphold the Constitution; therefore, since his oath of office included the phrase "so help me God,"he has violated a sacred oath to his God.
Perhaps a closer look at an example of his signing statements will shed some light on this principal of Constitutional authority. The signing statements used by Bush have been statements that he will construe the law from his perspective as Commander in Chief (My description, not his). A good example is the McCain Amendment to the 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill about torture. From the Boston Globe, January 4, 2006.,''The executive branch shall construe [the law] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President. . . as Commander in Chief," Bush wrote. He added that this approach ''will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President. . . of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."
Interpretation of the Bush statement is dependent on a person’s political view. A Bush supporter might say he is looking after the welfare of the country. A Bush opposer might say he is redefining the role of Congress and inserting his own unjust authority. However you interpret it, he is, in actuality, not following the choices mandated by the Constitution to which he has sworn an oath to uphold. He has, in effect, given the office of the president the line item veto on laws.
Regardless of your support for or against signing statements, if you uphold and agree with the constitution, you also must agree that this is an invalid method of governing. If We the People want the president to have the same authority as a monarch, then we must pressure our representatives to initiate a constitutional amendment to allow such authority. Until that happens, George W. Bush is in violation of the Constitution and his oath of office.
But then, that wouldn't be government ". . . of the people, for the people and by the people." Would it?
That's as I see it . . .
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Chickenhawks
I am enjoying the blog buzz on chickenhawks, at Glenn Greenwald and Mahablog.
I have one experience I would like to share in that regard. I was in the Army during the Vietnam War. I did not serve in Vietnam. Since I was trained to operate missiles, I ended up in Okinawa. We had a "lifer" as we called them, a career soldier who had been in about eight or so years, had never seen combat and had attained the rank of staff sergeant, that's three stripes with one rocker. He was a fat little sergeant, always talking tough and threatening Army regulations. One day he was assigned to lead us in exercise.
Needless to say, he began the exercise and then as the rest of the platoon performed, he would strut around barking out the numbers, "Two, three four.." His breathing would become quite labored as the exercise proceeded so he would take breaks and then join back in, barking the numbers, often to a different count. That is, until it came time to run. He gave the command for the run, barked the count and didn't get past the first "two, three, four." He was so exhausted, a senior sergeant E7, that's three stripes and two rockers, had to take over and finish. The E7 wasn't just senior in rank. He was senior in age by about ten years.
I can still see that fat little sergeant near to collapse, bending over trying to catch his breath as we double timed on by. That's the image I have every time I hear the term "Chickenhawk," A person who expects others to perform that which they can't or won't do themselves.
I know it may not be accurate by the definition being discussed today. But just imagine Cheney, Rumsfeld or any of those Chickenhawks in that position and it will give you a bit of joy!
I am enjoying the blog buzz on chickenhawks, at Glenn Greenwald and Mahablog.
I have one experience I would like to share in that regard. I was in the Army during the Vietnam War. I did not serve in Vietnam. Since I was trained to operate missiles, I ended up in Okinawa. We had a "lifer" as we called them, a career soldier who had been in about eight or so years, had never seen combat and had attained the rank of staff sergeant, that's three stripes with one rocker. He was a fat little sergeant, always talking tough and threatening Army regulations. One day he was assigned to lead us in exercise.
Needless to say, he began the exercise and then as the rest of the platoon performed, he would strut around barking out the numbers, "Two, three four.." His breathing would become quite labored as the exercise proceeded so he would take breaks and then join back in, barking the numbers, often to a different count. That is, until it came time to run. He gave the command for the run, barked the count and didn't get past the first "two, three, four." He was so exhausted, a senior sergeant E7, that's three stripes and two rockers, had to take over and finish. The E7 wasn't just senior in rank. He was senior in age by about ten years.
I can still see that fat little sergeant near to collapse, bending over trying to catch his breath as we double timed on by. That's the image I have every time I hear the term "Chickenhawk," A person who expects others to perform that which they can't or won't do themselves.
I know it may not be accurate by the definition being discussed today. But just imagine Cheney, Rumsfeld or any of those Chickenhawks in that position and it will give you a bit of joy!
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Campaign Financing
We, the People who follow politics and the news from Washington, know about lobbyists. Jack Abramhoff and political finger pointing like "The culture of corruption" comes to mind. Unfortunately, this type of thing has been going on in congress for a long time and with both parties. It's more a culture of normal than any other culture. So what do We the People do about it?
First we have to realize how Congress works and then we have to look for a longer lasting solution to solve corruption. I didn't say permanent solution because we must continually watch and stay active so Congress does what we want them to do.
Congress seems to operate on the cycle of election and re-election. To do that they need money. I heard a congressman on the radio say they need at least a Million Dollars. There are 435 congress people. So that would be 435 Million Dollars every two years. Assuming the same for the Senate (which is a 6 year term but one third of them run for election every two years), that's another 33 Million every two years for a total of 468 Million. Let's be generous and say the National Election process requires 500 Million Dollars every two years at a minimum.
Then there are state political offices. States have the right to make laws of how that is done. But, just for the sake of argument, let's say it equals five times the cost of National Elections for all 50 states and We the People are going to pay for it. That's another 2500 Million Dollars. If you add them together, that is 3 Billion Dollars. Seems like a lot of money, doesn't it?
Now let's look at what the Congress recently did for the oil industry. Congress gave the oil industry 17 Billion Dollars as a subsidy. We the People are paying $3 a gallon for gas and the oil industry is showing record profits. Yet, Congress felt they needed to give the oil companies 17 Billion Dollars. That would be enough to publicly finance campaigns for the next five election cycles, or ten years.
My point is that if we have publicly financed elections, Congress would not be obligated to contributors and lobbyists for campaign costs. Where does their new obligation belong? To us, the People.
If you think that is just another burden on the tax payer, think about the promises and corruption in Congress we DON'T know about. What promises, what obligations are payed off by legislation to repay campaign contributions that only benefit some business or industry?
If we do the math on the 17 Billion Dollars, it comes to approximately $56 for every man, woman and child in the country. And that's just for one year! Our tax burden will decrease when We the People are the primary obligation of Congress.
How do we make this happen? Be active. Get involved in a political party of your choice. Make your voice heard by your representative and make it clear what issues are important to you. We the People (and I will never tire of saying that) need to take charge of our country. We ARE the government. It will not happen over night, but it will happen when we stay involved.
And that's as I see it. . .
We, the People who follow politics and the news from Washington, know about lobbyists. Jack Abramhoff and political finger pointing like "The culture of corruption" comes to mind. Unfortunately, this type of thing has been going on in congress for a long time and with both parties. It's more a culture of normal than any other culture. So what do We the People do about it?
First we have to realize how Congress works and then we have to look for a longer lasting solution to solve corruption. I didn't say permanent solution because we must continually watch and stay active so Congress does what we want them to do.
Congress seems to operate on the cycle of election and re-election. To do that they need money. I heard a congressman on the radio say they need at least a Million Dollars. There are 435 congress people. So that would be 435 Million Dollars every two years. Assuming the same for the Senate (which is a 6 year term but one third of them run for election every two years), that's another 33 Million every two years for a total of 468 Million. Let's be generous and say the National Election process requires 500 Million Dollars every two years at a minimum.
Then there are state political offices. States have the right to make laws of how that is done. But, just for the sake of argument, let's say it equals five times the cost of National Elections for all 50 states and We the People are going to pay for it. That's another 2500 Million Dollars. If you add them together, that is 3 Billion Dollars. Seems like a lot of money, doesn't it?
Now let's look at what the Congress recently did for the oil industry. Congress gave the oil industry 17 Billion Dollars as a subsidy. We the People are paying $3 a gallon for gas and the oil industry is showing record profits. Yet, Congress felt they needed to give the oil companies 17 Billion Dollars. That would be enough to publicly finance campaigns for the next five election cycles, or ten years.
My point is that if we have publicly financed elections, Congress would not be obligated to contributors and lobbyists for campaign costs. Where does their new obligation belong? To us, the People.
If you think that is just another burden on the tax payer, think about the promises and corruption in Congress we DON'T know about. What promises, what obligations are payed off by legislation to repay campaign contributions that only benefit some business or industry?
If we do the math on the 17 Billion Dollars, it comes to approximately $56 for every man, woman and child in the country. And that's just for one year! Our tax burden will decrease when We the People are the primary obligation of Congress.
How do we make this happen? Be active. Get involved in a political party of your choice. Make your voice heard by your representative and make it clear what issues are important to you. We the People (and I will never tire of saying that) need to take charge of our country. We ARE the government. It will not happen over night, but it will happen when we stay involved.
And that's as I see it. . .
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Single Issue Legislation
I hear so much rhetoric ". . That if our Congress was ethical, responsible and selfless, then . ."
It's time we wake up. Congress members will NEVER be completely Ethical, Responsible, or Selfless as long as they have to bargain with other Congress members and Senators to get their cause completed! Spending will NEVER be controlled unless "We the people" do something about it.
The solution is a Constitutional Amendment that disallows a bill to deal with more than one issue. I truly believe it's that simple. Members of Congress that want to give presidents line item veto power just don't get the simple Common Sense of "Balance of Power." Congress has the responsibility for spending, not the executive branch. Congress has to stop the pork barrel politics! The only way to stop it is to prevent them from doing it.
Here's a made up example (and I'm not picking on any state or any similar recent situation): Let's say a Defense Bill is being considered. Then building a bridge in Alaska has nothing to do with defense. Building bridges belongs in a Transportation Bill. So putting bridge financing in a defense bill would be a violation of the Constitutional Amendment. By keeping spending bills to one issue (and I concede that Congress will probably be very creative in connecting their pet issues to a bill under discussion) "we the people" will not be taxed as much and spending will be controlled. Line item veto power in the hands of the president allows too much power to the executive branch of our government. Although the idea seems like a way to control spending, it would be unconstitutional.
Agreed! The Amendment would have to be crafted very well to prevent creative connections. Using my earlier example, a congress member from Alaska could say that a certain bridge would improve traffic to a military base and is, therefore, a defense issue. The Amendment must not allow such connections.
We are, at present, a long way from getting this kind of thinking into Congress. It starts with "We the people" and ends by electing Representatives and Senators that will do what we want them to do!
And that's how I see it. . .
I hear so much rhetoric ". . That if our Congress was ethical, responsible and selfless, then . ."
It's time we wake up. Congress members will NEVER be completely Ethical, Responsible, or Selfless as long as they have to bargain with other Congress members and Senators to get their cause completed! Spending will NEVER be controlled unless "We the people" do something about it.
The solution is a Constitutional Amendment that disallows a bill to deal with more than one issue. I truly believe it's that simple. Members of Congress that want to give presidents line item veto power just don't get the simple Common Sense of "Balance of Power." Congress has the responsibility for spending, not the executive branch. Congress has to stop the pork barrel politics! The only way to stop it is to prevent them from doing it.
Here's a made up example (and I'm not picking on any state or any similar recent situation): Let's say a Defense Bill is being considered. Then building a bridge in Alaska has nothing to do with defense. Building bridges belongs in a Transportation Bill. So putting bridge financing in a defense bill would be a violation of the Constitutional Amendment. By keeping spending bills to one issue (and I concede that Congress will probably be very creative in connecting their pet issues to a bill under discussion) "we the people" will not be taxed as much and spending will be controlled. Line item veto power in the hands of the president allows too much power to the executive branch of our government. Although the idea seems like a way to control spending, it would be unconstitutional.
Agreed! The Amendment would have to be crafted very well to prevent creative connections. Using my earlier example, a congress member from Alaska could say that a certain bridge would improve traffic to a military base and is, therefore, a defense issue. The Amendment must not allow such connections.
We are, at present, a long way from getting this kind of thinking into Congress. It starts with "We the people" and ends by electing Representatives and Senators that will do what we want them to do!
And that's how I see it. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)