curious38

Where have the leaders gone?

2008-02-14T16:21:00.005-05:00

This is an excerpt from Lee Iacocca's book "Where Have All The Leaders Gone" published in April 2007. Even tho the excerpt is a little long it is well worth the read. It expresses what I have felt since the early 2000's in a much better way than I ever could. Hope this activates you as much as it did me!!!! Who would you say matches his criteria, and why?

Lee Iaccoca
Remember Lee Iacocca, the man who rescued Chrysler Corporation from it's death throes?
He has a new book, and here are some excerpts. Put it on my Christmas list!

Had Enough?

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies.

Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.

My friends tell me to calm down. They say, "Lee, you're eighty-two years old. Leave the rage to the young people." I'd love to — as soon as I can pry them away from their iPods for five seconds and get them to pay attention. I'm going to speak up because it's my patriotic duty. I think people will listen to me. They say I have a reputation as a straight shooter. So I'll tell you how I see it, and it's not pretty, but at least it's real. I'm hoping to strike a nerve in those young folks who say they don't vote because they don't trust politicians to represent their interests. Hey, America, wake up. These guys work for us.

Who Are These Guys, Anyway?

Why are we in this mess? How did we end up with this crowd in Washington? Well, we voted for them — or at least some of us did. But I'll tell you what we didn't do. We didn't agree to suspend the Constitution. We didn't agree to stop asking questions or demanding answers. Some of us are sick and tired of people who call free speech treason. Where I come from that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.

And don't tell me it's all the fault of right-wing Republicans or liberal Democrats. That's an intellectually lazy argument, and it's part of the reason we're in this stew. We're not just a nation of factions. We're a people. We share common principles and ideals. And we rise and fall together.

Where are the voices of leaders who can inspire us to action and make us stand taller? What happened to the strong and resolute party of Lincoln? What happened to the courageous, populist party of FDR and Truman? There was a time in this country when the voices of great leaders lifted us up and made us want to do better. Where have all the leaders gone?

The Test of a Leader

I've never been Commander in Chief, but I've been a CEO. I understand a few things about leadership at the top. I've figured out nine points — not ten (I don't want people accusing me of thinking I'm Moses). I call them the "Nine Cs of Leadership." They're not fancy or complicated. Just clear, obvious qualities that every true leader should have. We should look at how the current administration stacks up. Like it or not, this crew is going to be around until January 2009. Maybe we can learn something before we go to the polls in 2008. Then let's be sure we use the leadership test to screen the candidates who say they want to run the country. It's up to us to choose wisely.

So, here's my C list:

A leader has to show CURIOSITY. He has to listen to people outside of the "Yes, sir" crowd in his inner circle. He has to read voraciously, because the world is a big, complicated place. George W. Bush brags about never reading a newspaper. "I just scan the headlines," he says. Am I hearing this right? He's the President of the United States and he never reads a newspaper? Thomas Jefferson once said, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate for a moment to prefer the latter." Bush disagrees. As long as he gets his daily hour in the gym, with Fox News piped through the sound system, he's ready to go.

If a leader never steps outside his comfort zone to hear different ideas, he grows stale. If he doesn't put his beliefs to the test, how does he know he's right? The inability to listen is a form of arrogance. It means either you think you already know it all, or you just don't care. Before the 2006 election, George Bush made a big point of saying he didn't listen to the polls. Yeah, that's what they all say when the polls stink. But maybe he should have listened, because 70 percent of the people were saying he was on the wrong track. It took a "thumping" on election day to wake him up, but even then you got the feeling he wasn't listening so much as he was calculating how to do a better job of convincing everyone he was right.

A leader has to be CREATIVE, go out on a limb, be willing to try something different. You know, think outside the box. George Bush prides himself on never changing, even as the world around him is spinning out of control. God forbid someone should accuse him of flip-flopping. There's a disturbingly messianic fervor to his certainty. Senator Joe Biden recalled a conversation he had with Bush a few months after our troops marched into Baghdad. Joe was in the Oval Office outlining his concerns to the President — the explosive mix of Shiite and Sunni, the disbanded Iraqi army, the problems securing the oil fields. "The President was serene," Joe recalled. "He told me he was sure that we were on the right course and that all would be well. 'Mr. President,' I finally said, 'how can you be so sure when you don't yet know all the facts?'" Bush then reached over and put a steadying hand on Joe's shoulder. "My instincts," he said. "My instincts." Joe was flabbergasted. He told Bush, "Mr. President, your instincts aren't good enough." Joe Biden sure didn't think the matter was settled. And, as we all know now, it wasn't.

Leadership is all about managing change — whether you're leading a company or leading a country. Things change, and you get creative. You adapt. Maybe Bush was absent the day they covered that at Harvard Business School.

A leader has to COMMUNICATE. I'm not talking about running off at the mouth or spouting sound bites. I'm talking about facing reality and telling the truth. Nobody in the current administration seems to know how to talk straight anymore. Instead, they spend most of their time trying to convince us that things are not really as bad as they seem. I don't know if it's denial or dishonesty, but it can start to drive you crazy after a while. Communication has to start with telling the truth, even when it's painful. The war in Iraq has been, among other things, a grand failure of communication. Bush is like the boy who didn't cry wolf when the wolf was at the door. After years of being told that all is well, even as the casualties and chaos mount, we've stopped listening to him.

A leader has to be a person of CHARACTER. That means knowing the difference between right and wrong and having the guts to do the right thing. Abraham Lincoln once said, "If you want to test a man's character, give him power." George Bush has a lot of power. What does it say about his character? Bush has shown a willingness to take bold action on the world stage because he has the power, but he shows little regard for the grievous consequences. He has sent our troops (not to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens) to their deaths — for what? To build our oil reserves? To avenge his daddy because Saddam Hussein once tried to have him killed? To show his daddy he's tougher? The motivations behind the war in Iraq are questionable, and the execution of the war has been a disaster. A man of character does not ask a single soldier to die for a failed policy.

A leader must have COURAGE. I'm talking about balls. (That even goes for female leaders.) Swagger isn't courage. Tough talk isn't courage. George Bush comes from a blue-blooded Connecticut family, but he likes to talk like a cowboy. You know, My gun is bigger than your gun. Courage in the twenty-first century doesn't mean posturing and bravado. Courage is a commitment to sit down at the negotiating table and talk.

If you're a politician, courage means taking a position even when you know it will cost you votes. Bush can't even make a public appearance unless the audience has been handpicked and sanitized. He did a series of so-called town hall meetings last year, in auditoriums packed with his most devoted fans. The questions were all softballs.

To be a leader you've got to have CONVICTION — a fire in your belly. You've got to have passion. You've got to really want to get something done. How do you measure fire in the belly? Bush has set the all-time record for number of vacation days taken by a U.S. President — four hundred and counting. He'd rather clear brush on his ranch than immerse himself in the business of governing. He even told an interviewer that the high point of his presidency so far was catching a seven-and-a-half-pound perch in his hand-stocked lake.

It's no better on Capitol Hill. Congress was in session only ninety-seven days in 2006. That's eleven days less than the record set in 1948, when President Harry Truman coined the term do-nothing Congress. Most people would expect to be fired if they worked so little and had nothing to show for it. But Congress managed to find the time to vote itself a raise. Now, that's not leadership.

A leader should have CHARISMA. I'm not talking about being flashy. Charisma is the quality that makes people want to follow you. It's the ability to inspire. People follow a leader because they trust him. That's my definition of charisma. Maybe George Bush is a great guy to hang out with at a barbecue or a ball game. But put him at a global summit where the future of our planet is at stake, and he doesn't look very presidential. Those frat-boy pranks and the kidding around he enjoys so much don't go over that well with world leaders. Just ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who received an unwelcome shoulder massage from our President at a G-8 Summit. When he came up behind her and started squeezing, I thought she was going to go right through the roof.

A leader has to be COMPETENT. That seems obvious, doesn't it? You've got to know what you're doing. More important than that, you've got to surround yourself with people who know what they're doing. Bush brags about being our first MBA President. Does that make him competent? Well, let's see. Thanks to our first MBA President, we've got the largest deficit in history, Social Security is on life support, and we've run up a half-a-trillion-dollar price tag (so far) in Iraq. And that's just for starters. A leader has to be a problem solver, and the biggest problems we face as a nation seem to be on the back burner.

You can't be a leader if you don't have COMMON SENSE. I call this Charlie Beacham's rule. When I was a young guy just starting out in the car business, one of my first jobs was as Ford's zone manager in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. My boss was a guy named Charlie Beacham, who was the East Coast regional manager. Charlie was a big Southerner, with a warm drawl, a huge smile, and a core of steel. Charlie used to tell me, "Remember, Lee, the only thing you've got going for you as a human being is your ability to reason and your common sense. If you don't know a dip of horseshit from a dip of vanilla ice cream, you'll never make it." George Bush doesn't have common sense. He just has a lot of sound bites. You know — Mr. they'll welcome us as liberators no child left behind heck of a job Brownie mission accomplished Bush.

Former President Bill Clinton once said, "I grew up in an alcoholic home. I spent half my childhood trying to get into the reality-based world — and I like it here."

I think our current President should visit the real world once in a while.

The Biggest C is Crisis

Leaders are made, not born. Leadership is forged in times of crisis. It's easy to sit there with your feet up on the desk and talk theory. Or send someone else's kids off to war when you've never seen a battlefield yourself. It's another thing to lead when your world comes tumbling down.

On September 11, 2001, we needed a strong leader more than any other time in our history. We needed a steady hand to guide us out of the ashes. Where was George Bush? He was reading a story about a pet goat to kids in Florida when he heard about the attacks. He kept sitting there for twenty minutes with a baffled look on his face. It's all on tape. You can see it for yourself. Then, instead of taking the quickest route back to Washington and immediately going on the air to reassure the panicked people of this country, he decided it wasn't safe to return to the White House. He basically went into hiding for the day—and he told Vice President Dick Cheney to stay put in his bunker. We were all frozen in front of our TVs, scared out of our wits, waiting for our leaders to tell us that we were going to be okay, and there was nobody home. It took Bush a couple of days to get his bearings and devise the right photo op at Ground Zero.

That was George Bush's moment of truth, and he was paralyzed. And what did he do when he'd regained his composure? He led us down the road to Iraq — a road his own father had considered disastrous when he was President. But Bush didn't listen to Daddy. He listened to a higher father. He prides himself on being faith based, not reality based. If that doesn't scare the crap out of you, I don't know what will.

A Hell of a Mess

So here's where we stand. We're immersed in a bloody war with no plan for winning and no plan for leaving. We're running the biggest deficit in the history of the country. We're losing the manufacturing edge to Asia, while our once-great companies are getting slaughtered by health care costs. Gas prices are skyrocketing, and nobody in power has a coherent energy policy. Our schools are in trouble. Our borders are like sieves. The middle class is being squeezed every which way. These are times that cry out for leadership.

But when you look around, you've got to ask: "Where have all the leaders gone?" Where are the curious, creative communicators? Where are the people of character, courage, conviction, competence, and common sense? I may be a sucker for alliteration, but I think you get the point.

Name me a leader who has a better idea for homeland security than making us take off our shoes in airports and throw away our shampoo? We've spent billions of dollars building a huge new bureaucracy, and all we know how to do is react to things that have already happened.

Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.

Name me an industry leader who is thinking creatively about how we can restore our competitive edge in manufacturing. Who would have believed that there could ever be a time when "the Big Three" referred to Japanese car companies? How did this happen — and more important, what are we going to do about it?

Name me a government leader who can articulate a plan for paying down the debt, or solving the energy crisis, or managing the health care problem. The silence is deafening. But these are the crises that are eating away at our country and milking the middle class dry.

I have news for the gang in Congress. We didn't elect you to sit on your asses and do nothing and remain silent while our democracy is being hijacked and our greatness is being replaced with mediocrity. What is everybody so afraid of? That some bobblehead on Fox News will call them a name? Give me a break. Why don't you guys show some spine for a change?

Had Enough?

Hey, I'm not trying to be the voice of gloom and doom here. I'm trying to light a fire. I'm speaking out because I have hope. I believe in America. In my lifetime I've had the privilege of living through some of America's greatest moments. I've also experienced some of our worst crises — the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, the Kennedy assassination, the Vietnam War, the 1970s oil crisis, and the struggles of recent years culminating with 9/11. If I've learned one thing, it's this: You don't get anywhere by standing on the sidelines waiting for somebody else to take action. Whether it's building a better car or building a better future for our children, we all have a role to play. That's the challenge I'm raising in this book. It's a call to action for people who, like me, believe in America. It's not too late, but it's getting pretty close. So let's shake off the horseshit and go to work. Let's tell 'em all we've had enough.

Start chatting with friends and family now!

G.W. BUSH resume (up to date)

2008-01-09T20:34:00.000-05:00

I could not resist this sent to me by an old friend. It's hard for me to find anything that is "over the top".

GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20520

*EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:*
Law Enforcement:
I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the
influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's
license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been "lost"
and is not available.

Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a
drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the
Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

College:
I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a
cheerleader.

*PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:*
I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil
business in Midland,Texas, in 1975.

I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas.
The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took
land using taxpayer money.

With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry
(including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

*ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS*
I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making
Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston
replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in
borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American
history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's
appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by
over 500,000 votes.

*ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:*
I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal
record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of
over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any
12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans
lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire," Condoleeza
Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most
corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends,
Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in
U.S. History, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to
assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against
investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent
investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent
investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.

I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to
intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed. I
presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded
government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to administration than any
President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in
the history of the United States government.

I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations
remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war"
detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election
inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any
President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one year
period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the
worst security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S. after the World Trade Center
attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country
in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to
simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people),
shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of
mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,
pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I
did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S.
citizens, and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in
duty benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in wartime.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking
Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans
(71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden [sic]
to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES: *
All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's
library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my
bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice President,
attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and
unavailable for public review.
*----------------------------------------------------------------------- *
"Peace comes not from the absence of conflict, but from the ability to
cope with it."
--anonymous

Is it Treason?

2007-08-14T18:28:00.000-05:00

How well do you know the reasons Bush senior did not order a full invasion of Iraq after he pushed Iraq out of Kuwait? If you knew they were the same reasons we Progressives give for why the Decider Bush should not have invaded Iraq. If you knew that in 1994 that Cheney gave Bush senior's reasons for not invading Iraq, and then in 2003 he made a 180 degree turn and gave arguments diametrically in opposition to his 1994 statements, did he lie in 1994 or in 2003? If he was correct in 1994 he must have lied in 2003. If he lied in 2003 (along with Duba and others) I would certainly think that was grounds for impeachment, but would it not also be grounds for Treason? Treason not only for the deaths and maiming of US citizens based on lies but also hundreds of thousands of Iraqi men , women and children killed, maimed or displaced also based on those lies. If you would like to see what Cheney said in '94 and what he,Rummey, Bush and others said in 2003 click on the following; Treason or Not?

How to Control The Senate

2007-07-29T11:24:00.000-05:00

Recently we saw an attempt by Harry Reid to encourage the GOP Senators to drop their filibustering of any Democratic proposed bills with an all night session. In reviewing years past tactics in the Senate I came across the following as a means of stopping debate and ending any attempt to filibuster.
1) Limit speeches to 2/day on any one subject.
2) Adjourn at the end of each day instead of recessing thereby limiting debate on a bill. (prevents a filibuster)

Any comments on effectiveness?

FDR & The Supreem Court

2007-07-29T11:05:00.000-05:00

Is this an approach the Dems will have to take after the 2008 election?

In November 1936, Roosevelt won re-election by carrying all but two states. Although FDR did not make the Supreme Court an issue in his campaign, he nevertheless considered his landslide election as a mandate for federal court reform. He knew he had to act quickly since many New Deal laws passed during his first term were headed for the Supreme Court(& their Conservative Majority).

Working quietly, Attorney General Cummings drafted a bill that, on the surface, appeared to streamline the entire federal court system. But the real target was the Supreme Court. Cummings proposed that Congress pass a law granting the president the power to nominate an additional judge for every federal judge who, having served a minimum of 10 years, did not resign or retire within six months after reaching age 70. In effect, this would enable FDR to add up to six more justices to the Supreme Court as well as nearly 50 more lower-court federal judges. Of course, the Senate would still have to approve his nominations.

The "Court-Packing" Fight

Much to the surprise of President Roosevelt, his court-reform plan came under serious attack. The press soon began to refer to it as FDR's "court-packing" scheme. The president was compared with Hitler (GWB?) in seeking dictatorial powers. Even some liberal New Deal Democrats in Congress voiced their reservations.

Supporters of the bill decided to concentrate their efforts in the Senate. Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Cummings presented the administration's case. "The proposed increase in the number of judges is not for the purpose of enslaving the judiciary," he said. "The purpose is to rejuvenate the judicial machinery, to speed justice, and to give to the courts men of fresh outlook who will refrain from infringing upon the powers of Congress."

But most of those testifying before the Judiciary Committee rejected FDR's plan as little more than a cover to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices. The plan, they claimed, would make the court more political,(like where we are today?) thus undermining its independence. Critics argued that since there were no age regulations placed on the president or members of Congress, there should be none on federal judges either. Others claimed that it was not the Supreme Court justices who were overturning Roosevelt's New Deal laws, but the Constitution itself.(so today GWB modifys the meaning of the Constitution to fit his desires?)

"The Switch in Time"

In the midst of the "court-packing" fight, a series of unexpected events occurred that finally sank FDR's court-reform bill. On March 29, 1937, the Supreme Court reversed itself and upheld a state minimum-wage law very similar to laws that the court had previously struck down. This case was decided by another 5–4 vote. But this time the four conservative justices were in the minority. Shortly afterward, the Supreme Court ruled as constitutional both the Social Security Act and the National Labor Relations Act, two key pieces of New Deal legislation. These cases, too, were decided by slim 5–4 majorities. (It's amazing how the threat changed at least one Justices spine.)

As it turned out in the years that followed, the Supreme Court upheld virtually all of FDR's New Deal reforms. Over the span of his remaining three terms in office, Roosevelt got to name a total of eight new justices to the Supreme Court. In the end, he did get to "pack" the court with men of his choosing. This "Roosevelt Court" took a more liberal direction in interpreting the Constitution, at least for a while. But the question remains, even today, whether the Supreme Court can truly be an independent body completely separated from political influences.

From the CFR: Constitutional Rights Foundation

Bush Family History

2007-07-29T10:07:00.000-05:00

Recently Tom Cat of "Politics Plus" posted an excellent article on the Bush family history which was put together by OpEd.com. If you have not seen it yet it describes how Grandfather Prescot Bush amassed his fortune through any means necessary. Even playing both sides leading up to WW II. In reading the story I was struck by the continued reference to Nazi ism and all that that conjures up in our current day mind set. To me, the use of that word does not properly describe what was taking place then (and still now). It obscures the deeper concerns of these events by using a term that means many things to many people without clearly enunciating the basic driving force. And what is that driving force you ask? To me it is "Super Nationalistic Capitalism"or in other words FASCISM. As far as I'm concerned Prescot Bush was nothing more than a latent and greedy Fascist who passed his genes down to his megalomaniac grandson George. Review the list of 14 characteristics that describe fascist philosophy for a full understanding. Of course, fascism was also an underpinning of Nazism.
What are your thoughts?

TSA Warnings

2007-07-25T18:52:00.000-05:00

U.S. authorities warn of "dry runs" at airport

I'm not quite sure how to react to this report. Is it just another statement to keep the "fear" factor in front of the general public in some perverted manner to gain sympathy for our imperial leader and his "protect the homeland" program? Or is it just another example of overreaction? Have the TSA personnel not been properly trained to look for anything suspicious and they need to be reminded? I assume the TSA itself, if they are doing their job properly, are testing the "system" with their own "dry runs". Is that representative of the 4 items characterized as potential dry runs? Also, why only target the airports? What's your reaction?
WASHINGTON, July 25 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has alerted law enforcement officers across the country to be on the lookout for what could be "dry runs" for a terrorist attacks at airports.
The TSA sent an unclassified advisory on July 20 to law enforcement agencies, after series of suspicious incidents occurred at U.S. airports, raising the possibility that recent activity could be "pre-attack security probes," U.S. media reported Wednesday.
The advisory, which has been widely reported, detailed four incidents from the past 11 months in which screeners found unusual objects with items such as wires, switches, tubes, cell phone components that could mimic bomb components in passengers' checked or carry-on bags.
"The unusual nature and increase in number of these improvised items raise concern and TSA personnel should continue vigilance for groupings of ordinary items that look like IED components," the alert said.
The bulletin warned that terrorists could be conducting repeated operations to desensitize security officials. (this seems like a long reach)
The TSA, however, downplayed on Wednesday the significance of the advisory. (why make a deal out of it then)
"This bulletin is not classified nor does it contain secret material," the TSA said in a statement.
The TSA said the advisory was one of more than 90 unclassified bulletins sent to police during the past six months to provide information to front line officers.
"There is no intelligence that indicates a specific or credible threat to the homeland," the TSA said.

The United States has tightened security at its airports since the Sept. 11 attacks, by manning airports with additional security personnel and installing high-tech devices to screen both passengers and their baggage.

Circle of Neo-Con Chatter on Iraq

2007-07-19T14:48:00.000-05:00

Following is a Letter To The Editor in our local newspaper by a concerned citizen. Is this a case of deliberate media spin, or media incompetence. I agree with the writer, how about you?

Your July 15 editorial "Trust Petraeus", unwittingly or not, gave the false impression of being factual, objective and frank.
It was not Gen. Petraeus but Frederick W. Kagan, a prominent neo-conservative writing an article for the American Enterprise Institute, who was the acknowledged architect of the "surge", or escalation, in Iraq. Petraeus is carrying out this troop escalation and will report to Congress in September. Do you suppose he will report failure when he has previously said we need to stay in Iraq for many years?
You also cite Kimberly Kagan of Harvard's John Olin Institute of Strategic Studies as saying that Petraeus' efforts have "had some measurable success".Did she decide this by talking to the troops who are actually doing the fighting or by getting Pentagon briefings or by talking with her husband? Oh, yes. She is the wife of "surge" architect Frederick W. Kagan.

Should Congress Impeach Both NOW!!!

2007-07-14T16:45:00.000-05:00

Are there any valid reasons out there for the impeachment of Bush & Cheney? I quite frankly have felt both should be impeached based upon their imperial and cavalier attitudes that have lead us into an unnessesary war for the benefit of a foreign government and the greed of some corporate companies. My emotional side said “dam the torpedos, full speed ahead”, go getum Nancy and stop this war.. However, my rational side said” we only have 1 1/2 years left, lets fight them on funding and any other basis we can rather than risking a tremendous turmoil for the country.
Then I watched Bill Moyers Journal on PBS 7/13/07. I was floored by the discussion Bill had with a journalist and a scholar. They provided me with the best reasons yet as to why BOTH Bush and Cheney need to be impeached NOW, before the end of their term. It has less to do with “them” and their imperial manner than with what they are doing to the Constitution of the U.S. and the precedents they are setting for the future. They are slowly shreding the Constitution leading us into future dictatorships by abrogating the oversight resposibilities of Congress. They alluded to the fact that this “enhancing” of powers by the Executive branch has been happening over the years by many administrations through the “Chiness water drop” method. It was hard for me to believe that previous admins. have also instigated such nefarious power grabs. I decided to do more research and discovered a piece by Bill Moyers done a few years back that details the historical progression of presidential power enhancement starting with Harry Truman in the 1940’s. This is an hour and a half video, well worth seeing the whole thing. Type the following URL into your browser.
http://brasschecktv.com/page/122.html

We should request ALL our representatives to view both of Moyers programs. If that doesn’t galvanize action, then citizen response will be required!!!!

Alive and Kicking

2007-07-08T20:08:00.000-05:00

Have you ever had a time when you have not been able to accomplish a thing? The last few months have been like that. Between entirely gutting our kitchen ( and moving/storing the furniture, applainces etc) and making it more handicap accessible for my wife and trying to maintain a couple of acres along with dismantaling my 24' above ground aluminum pool (for recycling) I have had precious little time to update my blog. All I could do is save articles for later commentary. I also have to admit that I have gotten so damn angry with current government events that I would have lost all capability for rational commentary anyway.Things are now beginning to settle in so hopefully I can continue my blog...

Law of the Land

2007-05-24T19:54:00.000-05:00

Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers
Directive for emergencies apparently gives authority without congressional oversight

Posted: May 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight. The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column. It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."
Corsi says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over. The directive says the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, currently Frances Fragos Townsend, would be designated as the national continuity coordinator.
Corsi says the directive makes no attempt to reconcile the powers created for the national continuity coordinator with the National Emergency Act, which requires that such proclamation "shall immediately be transmitted to the Congress and published in the Federal Register."

A Congressional Research Service study notes the National Emergency Act sets up Congress as a balance empowered to "modify, rescind, or render dormant" such emergency authority if Congress believes the president has acted inappropriately. But the new directive appears to supersede the National Emergency Act by creating the new position of national continuity coordinator without any specific act of Congress authorizing the position, Corsi says.
The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists.

It suggests instead that the powers of the directive can be implemented without any congressional approval or oversight. Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke affirmed to Corsi the Homeland Security Department would implement the requirements of the order under Townsend's direction.
The White House declined to comment on the directive.

While the National Emergency Act has been in existence since the days of FDR it had previously required the consent of Congress. I'm curious as to the current motivation to write congress out of the loop? Could this be a path to circumvent our constitution and cement the role of dictator? The "DECIDER" can implement the start AND the end of the event... I can see it now... the internet shut down as a security risk!!!!! What do you think?

OxyContin Maker, Execs Plead Guilty

2007-05-10T18:59:00.000-05:00

AP
ROANOKE, Va. (May 10) - The maker of the powerful painkiller OxyContin and three of its current and former executives pleaded guilty Thursday to misleading the public about the drug's risk of addiction, a federal prosecutor and the company said.

Purdue Pharma L.P. and the executives will pay $634.5 million in fines, U.S. Attorney John Brownlee said in the news release.

The plea comes two days after the Stamford, Conn.-based company agreed to pay $19.5 million to 26 states and the District of Columbia to settle complaints that it encouraged physicians to overprescribe OxyContin.

"With its OxyContin, Purdue unleashed a highly abusable, addictive, and potentially dangerous drug on an unsuspecting and unknowing public," Brownlee said. "For these misrepresentations and crimes, Purdue and its executives have been brought to justice."
Inserted from AP

Is there any doubt about the greed in the Pharma industry? And they were able to convince Congress that our buying drugs from outside the US is so dangerous that the FDA must certify anything imported (even from US Co's). So how come the FDA approved OxyContin and its marketing plan in the first place?

Reasons for Iraq War: Bush or Cheney?

2007-05-04T20:21:00.000-05:00

When elected, Bush was opposed to "nation building," but Dick Cheney brought in eight fellow neocons who advocated "regime change" and re-building Iraq. This was before 9/11 and had nothing to do with Bush's war on terrorism.

Cheney's group all belonged to PNAC or IASPS. IASPS advocated regime change to increase Israeli security, while PNAC focused on our Middle East allies but named only Israel. Using 9/11, Cheney and the neocons convinced Bush to go against the long-standing conservative principles he proclaimed during his election campaign.
The 9 Iraq-War Planners Surrounding Bush
A Short History of the Neocons' Push for War.
1996. Report: why removing Saddam is crucial to Israel.
Written by Feith, Wurmser and Fairbanks.
Delivered in person by Perle to the Israeli Prime Minister.
1997. PNAC's founding "principles" signed by necons:
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Abrams.
1998. PNAC letter to Clinton: removal of Saddam ... military efforts
signed by: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, Abrams
Bombing Iraq Isn't Enough (NY Times) / A way to Oust Saddam ("the Wolfowitz plan ... US military might") —PNAC
1999. The Neocons' book on US/Israeli strategic interest in Iraq
"Iraq also has large, proven oil reserves, water, ..." —Wurmser
PNAC Memo: "Above all, only ground forces can remove Saddam."
2000. Talk of war with Iraq was discontinued during the election.
2001. War planning by neocons' PNAC.
Liberate Iraq—PNAC "At minimum, 50,000 troops." "Thousands of Iraqi soldiers would likely change sides and fight." "Chalabi may be ideal man to lead the opposition. He is rich and upper class."
From www.zfacts.com
How much more info is required before our Congress stops this madness and restores an even handed approach to the Middle East. It would do more to fight Islamic radicals than our military could ever hope to do.

Mystery of the Missing Meters:Iraq"s missing oil revenues

2007-05-04T14:20:00.000-05:00

By Pratap Chatterjee
CorpWatch

March 22, 2007
The line of ships at the Al Basra Oil Terminal (ABOT) stretches south to the horizon, patiently waiting in the searing heat of the Northern Arabian Gulf as four giant supertankers load up. Close by, two more tankers fill up at the smaller Khawr Al Amaya Oil Terminal (KAAOT). Guarding both terminals are dozens of heavily-armed U.S. Navy troops and Iraqi Marines who live on the platforms.

These two offshore terminals, a maze of pipes and precarious metal walkways, deliver some 1.6 million barrels of crude oil, at least 85 percent of Iraq's output, to buyers from all over the world. If the southern oil fields are the heart of Iraq's economy, its main arteries are three 40-plus inch pipelines that stretch some 52 miles from Iraq's wells to the ports.

Heavily armed soldiers spend their days at the oil terminals scanning the horizon looking for suicide bombers and stray fishing dhows (boats). Meanwhile, right under their noses, smugglers are suspected to be diverting an estimated billions of dollars worth of crude onto tankers because the oil metering system that is supposed monitor how much crude flows into and out of ABOT and KAAOT - has not worked since the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Officials blame the four-year delay in repairing the relatively simple system on "security problems." Others point to the failed efforts of the two U.S. companies hired to repair the southern oil fields, fix the two terminals, and the meters: Halliburton of Houston, Texas, and Parsons of Pasadena, California. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) is scheduled to publish a report this spring that is expected criticize the companies' failure to complete the work.

Rumors are rife among suspicious Iraqis about the failure to measure the oil flow. "Iraq is the victim of the biggest robbery of its oil production in modern history," blazed a March 2006 headline in Azzaman, Iraq's most widely read newspaper. A May 2006 study of oil production and export figures by Platt's Oilgram News, an industry magazine, showed that up to $3 billion a year is unaccounted for.

see Corpwatch for complete text

I wonder how much of Big Oil's profits are coming from "unmetered"oil.

Brasscheck TV

2007-04-29T10:57:00.000-05:00

For anyone with an itching curiosity and a little patience, the site has an interesting catalog of videos/clips from various sources. Lots of info you won't see in our general media. Just Google Brasscheck TV .

Joe Biden on Meet The Press

2007-04-29T10:43:00.000-05:00

I had an opportunity to watch Tim Russert interview Joe Biden today and I must admit that Biden impressed me with his candor and straight talk. No matter what Russert threw at him Joe did not beat around the "bush".

Historical Perspective on Ahmed Chalabi

2007-04-07T14:19:00.000-05:00

Tinker, Banker, NeoCon, Spy
Ahmed Chalabi's long and winding road from (and to?) Baghdad

By Robert Dreyfuss
Issue Date: 11.18.02
If T.E. Lawrence ("of Arabia") had been a 21st-century neoconservative operative instead of a British imperial spy, he'd be Ahmed Chalabi's best friend. Chalabi, the London-based leader of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), is front man for the latest incarnation of a long-time neoconservative strategy to redraw the map of the oil-rich Middle East, put American troops -- and American oil companies -- in full control of the Persian Gulf's reserves and use the Gulf as a fulcrum for enhancing America's global strategic hegemony. Just as Lawrence's escapades in World War I-era Arabia helped Britain remake the disintegrating Ottoman Empire, the U.S. sponsors of Chalabi's INC hope to do their own nation building.
"The removal of [Saddam Hussein] presents the United States in particular with a historic opportunity that I believe is going to prove to be as large as anything that has happened in the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the entry of British troops into Iraq in 1917," says Kanan Makiya, an INC strategist and author of Republic of Fear.
Chalabi would hand over Iraq's oil to U.S. multinationals, and his allies in conservative think tanks are already drawing up the blueprints. "What they have in mind is denationalization, and then parceling Iraqi oil out to American oil companies," says James E. Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Even more broadly, once an occupying U.S. army seizes Baghdad, Chalabi's INC and its American backers are spinning scenarios about dismantling Saudi Arabia, seizing its oil and collapsing the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). It's a breathtaking agenda, one that goes far beyond "regime change" and on to the start of a New New World Order.
What's also startling about these plans is that Chalabi is scorned by most of America's national-security establishment, including much of the Department of State, the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is shunned by all Western powers save the United Kingdom, ostracized in the Arab world and disdained even by many of his erstwhile comrades in the Iraqi opposition. Among his few friends, however, are the men running the Bush administration's willy-nilly war on Iraq. And with their backing, it's not inconceivable that this hapless, exiled Iraqi aristocrat and London-Washington playboy might end up atop the smoking heap of what's left of Iraq next year.
The Chalabi Lobby
Almost to a man, Washington's hawks lavishly praise Chalabi. "He's a rare find," says Max Singer, a trustee and co-founder of the Hudson Institute. "He's deep in the Arab world and at the same time he is fundamentally a man of the West."
In Washington, Team Chalabi is led by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, the neoconservative strategist who heads the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Chalabi's partisans run the gamut from far right to extremely far right, with key supporters in most of the Pentagon's Middle-East policy offices -- such as Peter Rodman, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Michael Rubin. Also included are key staffers in Vice President Dick Cheney's office, not to mention Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former CIA Director Jim Woolsey.
The Washington partisans who want to install Chalabi in Arab Iraq are also those associated with the staunchest backers of Israel, particularly those aligned with the hard-right faction of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Chalabi's cheerleaders include the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). "Chalabi is the one that we know the best," says Shoshana Bryen, director of special projects for JINSA, where Chalabi has been a frequent guest at board meetings, symposia and other events since 1997. "He could be Iraq's national leader," says Patrick Clawson, deputy director of WINEP, whose board of advisers includes pro-Israeli luminaries such as Perle, Wolfowitz and Martin Peretz of The New Republic.
For complete text; Google>The American Prospect, Tinker,Banker

The more I understand the background leading up to the invasion of Iraq the more irate I become of the power structure and the foreign/domestic lobbies in our country.

The New Pentagon Papers

2007-04-04T14:12:00.000-05:00

The new Pentagon papers
A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war.
I realize this is a long post, but I believe it is extremely important!- - - - - - - - - -

By Karen Kwiatkowski

March 10, 2004
In July of last year, after just over 20 years of service, I retired as a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Air Force. I had served as a communications officer in the field and in acquisition programs, as a speechwriter for the National Security Agency director, and on the Headquarters Air Force and the office of the secretary of defense staffs covering African affairs. I had completed Air Command and Staff College and Navy War College seminar programs, two master's degrees, and everything but my Ph.D. dissertation in world politics at Catholic University. I regarded my military vocation as interesting, rewarding and apolitical. My career started in 1978 with the smooth seduction of a full four-year ROTC scholarship. It ended with 10 months of duty in a strange new country, observing up close and personal a process of decision making for war not sanctioned by the Constitution we had all sworn to uphold. Ben Franklin's comment that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia had delivered "a republic, madam, if you can keep it" would come to have special meaning.

In the spring of 2002, I was a cynical but willing staff officer, almost two years into my three-year tour at the office of the secretary of defense, undersecretary for policy, sub-Saharan Africa. In April, a call for volunteers went out for the Near East South Asia directorate (NESA). None materialized. By May, the call transmogrified into a posthaste demand for any staff officer, and I was "volunteered" to enter what would be a well-appointed den of iniquity.

The education I would receive there was like an M. Night Shyamalan movie -- intense, fascinating and frightening. While the people were very much alive, I saw a dead philosophy -- Cold War anti-communism and neo-imperialism -- walking the corridors of the Pentagon. It wore the clothing of counter terrorism and spoke the language of a holy war between good and evil. The evil was recognized by the leadership to be resident mainly in the Middle East and articulated by Islamic clerics and radicals. But there were other enemies within, anyone who dared voice any skepticism about their grand plans, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Gen. Anthony Zinni.

From May 2002 until February 2003, I observed firsthand the formation of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and watched the latter stages of the neoconservative capture of the policy-intelligence nexus in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. This seizure of the reins of U.S. Middle East policy was directly visible to many of us working in the Near East South Asia policy office, and yet there seemed to be little any of us could do about it.

I saw a narrow and deeply flawed policy favored by some executive appointees in the Pentagon used to manipulate and pressurize the traditional relationship between policymakers in the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies.

I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president.

While this commandeering of a narrow segment of both intelligence production and American foreign policy matched closely with the well-published desires of the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, many of us in the Pentagon, conservatives and liberals alike, felt that this agenda, whatever its flaws or merits, had never been openly presented to the American people. Instead, the public story line was a fear-peddling and confusing set of messages, designed to take Congress and the country into a war of executive choice, a war based on false pretenses, and a war one year later Americans do not really understand. That is why I have gone public with my account.

To begin with, I was introduced to Bill Luti, assistant secretary of defense for NESA. A tall, thin, nervously intelligent man, he welcomed me into the fold. I knew little about him. Because he was a recently retired naval captain and now high-level Bush appointee, the common assumption was that he had connections, if not capability. I would later find out that when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense over a decade earlier, Luti was his aide. He had also been a military aide to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich during the Clinton years and had completed his Ph.D. at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. While his Navy career had not granted him flag rank, he had it now and was not shy about comparing his place in the pecking order with various three- and four-star generals and admirals in and out of the Pentagon. Name dropping included references to getting this or that document over to Scooter, or responding to one of Scooter's requests right away. Scooter, I would find out later, was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the vice president's chief of staff.

Co-workers who had watched the transition from Clintonista to Bushite shared conversations and stories indicating that something deliberate and manipulative was happening to NESA. Key professional personnel, longtime civilian professionals holding the important billets in NESA, were replaced early on during the transition. Longtime officer director Joe McMillan was reassigned to the National Defense University. The director's job in the time of transition was to help bring the newly appointed deputy assistant secretary up to speed, ensure office continuity, act as a resource relating to regional histories and policies, and help identify the best ways to maintain course or to implement change. Removing such a critical continuity factor was not only unusual but also seemed like willful handicapping. It was the first signal of radical change.

At the time, I didn't realize that the expertise on Middle East policy was not only being removed, but was also being exchanged for that from various agenda-bearing think tanks, including the Middle East Media Research Institute, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. Interestingly, the office director billet stayed vacant the whole time I was there. That vacancy and the long-term absence of real regional understanding to inform defense policymakers in the Pentagon explains a great deal about the neoconservative approach on the Middle East and the disastrous mistakes made in Washington and in Iraq in the past two years........

Note the date of Karen's statement.. well before current revelations concerning the lobbying of "special interests" to influence the invasion of Iraq. Think the Project For a New American Century and P. Wolfowitz testimony to Congress on Sept 18, 1998. To see Karen's complete statement click the following.. the new Pentagon papers-salon

The New Enabling Act

2007-03-30T08:58:00.000-05:00

As you read this post keep in mind the illegal actions the FBI took under cover of the Patriot Act!!

The New Enabling Act (Our Patriot Act?)
John Steinberg - Raw Story Columnist
Published: Wednesday September 27, 2006

I cannot view the current debate about the Bush Administration’s latest attempt to remove all checks on its power without thinking about how my German and Austrian grandparents must have watched with disbelief as Europe sank into the madness of fascism. I think about how unprecedented those changes were, and how difficult it must have been to believe that things could really become as bad as they did. My grandparents had once been as comfortably integrated into their communities as I am in mine. In the end their assimilation mattered not at all; they fled, leaving behind family, friends, property and possessions. Unlike millions of others, they were fortunate to escape with their lives.
At the time, perhaps, it was difficult to recognize the exact moment when the die was cast – when the malignancy gained sufficient momentum to make what followed inevitable. But in hindsight, the Enabling Act, passed by the German legislature in 1933, might well have been the point of no return.
Hitler was elected Chancellor (a point conveniently forgotten by many) in January 1933 on a platform of anti-communist propaganda. In February, the Reichstag, the equivalent of our Capitol, was destroyed by arsonists, who may or may not have been affiliated with the Nazis. Appropriately cowed by these and other intimidations, the German parliament passed the Enabling Act that March.
The Enabling Act, officially known as the “Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and Realm,” was short and simple. Its operative provisions were as follows:
Article 1

In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich….(my emphasis)

Article 2

Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3

Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette….
That, seasoned with only a soupçon of legalistic detail, was it. What it meant was that the executive was empowered by the legislature to decide what the law was. He was empowered to ignore the constitution. Neither the courts nor the legislature would have means to check executive power.
When the world saw the logical conclusion of that social experiment, it promised, “never again.”
Never again.
That promise has usually been understood to refer to the Holocaust. To that extent, the tragedies of Darfur and Bosnia and Rwanda stand as silent refutation, differing in scale but not culpability. But there was another implicit promise of lessons learned: Never again would the people of a powerful Western democracy descend into the madness of unrestrained dictatorship.
That second promise was largely implicit, because it seemed superfluous. After the obscenity of WWII, the idea that it could be broken by the United States or its allies was unthinkable. And that promise, at least, was largely kept.
Until now.
Forget, for the moment, that the proposed “compromise” torture legislation effectively abrogates the Geneva Conventions. Forget that it effectively licenses torture in the name of every American. Focus instead on the fact that it “vests in the administration the singularly most tyrannical power that exists – namely, the power unilaterally to decree someone guilty of a crime and to condemn the accused to eternal imprisonment without having even to charge him with a crime, let alone defend the validity of those accusations.” Focus on this language from the proposed law:
…(N)o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, … including challenges to the lawfulness of procedures of military commissions under this chapter.

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.
The language of the new Enabling Act is a bit more baroque than that used seventy years ago. And, to be sure, it is not as far-reaching as that of its predecessor. But make no mistake: Just as the 1933 Enabling Act created the context for dictatorship, so does this one. The German legislature told the executive that it had the power to make law and ignore the constitution. If Congress passes this bill, the American legislature will second the motion.
It is just one bill, you may object; it only applies to terrorists, you may say; we are not Nazi Germany, you may insist. And yet. The forthcoming FISA bill extends Enabling Act thinking to additional unreviewable executive powers. The slippery slope has been well-oiled. The Niemöller (never again) poem stands waiting.
It is probably unrealistic to expect bright lines to be obvious at the moment they are crossed. But they don’t get much brighter than this: Congressional leaders have agreed to suspend habeus corpus, grant the President of the United States the power to torture, and allow the executive branch to operate beyond judicial review. The Administration will be free to dispense with the pretense that Abu Ghraib was a rogue operation of unsupervised underlings. Like a black hole, an Administration exercising unprecedented power accretes still more, with the blessings of those who cede it. We are on our way back to the nightmare that Nietzsche foresaw (but did not advocate) in which all is permitted.
President Bush, in yet another dog whistle callout to his faithful, has claimed that the disaster of Iraq will eventually be seen as “just a comma,” a reference to a sermon urging that followers not “put a period where God puts a comma.” The first Enabling Act was one such comma. There can be little doubt as to the kind of sentence Bush wants to write.

Allegory of the Cave

2007-03-29T18:32:00.000-05:00

(from the REPUBLIC by Plato)

This allegory is a must read for those who seek to understand how we as a general populace can gain control of a sane and just society....

Elementary levels of education occur, of course, more or less automatically in all human communities--by the learning of language and certain basic skills, for example. Plato takes that for granted. In his philosophy he is concerned with the more advanced forms of learning. In his famous "Allegory of the Cave" from Book VII of the Republic he depicts the broad stages of education through which a human being can pass. He depicts education in such a way that its stages can be seen as a process of human emancipation and self-realization. Socrates (here clearly the mouthpiece for Plato's own thoughts) lays out the Allegory of the Cave by reporting a conversation that he had had with one of Plato's brothers a few days earlier:

“Compare," I said, "the absence of education to the following scene. Imagine people who live in a big cave with an entrance that is open to the light. A number of people have been there since an early age, and they are chained in such a way that they can look only in one direction. Light comes from a fire that burns some way behind and above them. Between the fire and the prisoners is a raised footpath with a low wall--of the sort puppet players put up between themselves and their audience."
"I am imagining it," he said.
"Imagine further a number of men carrying along the wall all sorts of vessels that are raised above it, and figures of men and animals that are made of stone or wood or other materials. Some of the men who carry these things are talking, and others are silent."
"Strange figures, and strange prisoners!" he said.
"The prisoners are like us," I replied. "But now tell me, do you think that it would have been possible for these prisoners to see themselves, or to see each other? To see anything except the shadows cast on the wall of the cave by the fire?"
"Not if they hadn't moved their heads since their childhood."
"And wouldn't that also hold for the objects that were carried in front of the fire?"
"Naturally."
"And if they could talk to each other, and give names to what they saw, wouldn't they think they were naming real objects, instead of mere shadows?"
"Of course."
"And if the cave had an echo coming from the wall in front of the prisoners--don't you think that they would assume that it is the shadows that are talking?"
"They surely would," he said.
"Prisoners like that would believe that the mere shadows of things are real things, wouldn't they?"
"How could they not?"
"But now what would happen if these prisoners were liberated and thus relieved of their delusion? Take any one of them who is released from his chains and suddenly forced to stand up, turn his head, walk around, and look up at the fire. Clearly he will be in pain doing all this, and he will be unable to see clearly those things the shadows of which he saw earlier--because he will be blinded by the brightness of the light. What do you think he will say if he is told that what he had seen before was a mere illusion? And that what he was seeing now was real, and that his vision was now more truthful? And if someone pointed to the things being passed along the wall one by one, and asked him what they were, don't you think the ex-prisoner would be at a loss, and that he would believe that what he had seen before was more real than the things now pointed out to him?"
"A lot more real."
"And if he were made to look directly at the light, wouldn't he feel such great pain that he would turn back to those things which he could perceive clearly, and believe they were clearer than the new things that are shown to him?"
"No doubt he would."
"And if, furthermore, somebody dragged him by force up the rough and steep path to the entrance of the cave, and if that person didn't let go of him until he had dragged him out into the light of the sun, wouldn't the liberated prisoner be upset and quite angry? And after coming out into the light, wouldn't his eyes be so filled by the rays of the sun that he couldn't possibly perceive all of the things that we know to be real?"
"No doubt. For a while he wouldn't be able to see anything."
"He would have to get used to the light before he could perceive what exists outside the cave. At first it would be easier for him to see mere shadows, then the reflections of people or other objects in water, and only in the end the things themselves. Later he could go on and look at the things in the sky and the sky itself. And first he would see more easily the light of the stars and the moon by night, and then the sun by day in its full brightness."
"Naturally."
"So the last thing he would see is the sun as it is in itself--the real thing in its proper setting?"
"Necessarily."
"Eventually he would come to the conclusion that it is the sun that produces the seasons and the years, and that it is the guardian of all things in the realm of the visible, and that in some way it is also the cause of all the things that he and his fellow prisoners had seen down in the cave."
"That's what he would conclude in the end."
"And after all that? Don't you think he would consider himself lucky on account of the changes, and that he would feel pity for his former fellow prisoners?"
"Certainly."
"And if there had been honors and prizes among the prisoners which they awarded to the person who was fastest at recognizing shadows as they passed by, and best at remembering the sequence in which they were usually carried past the fire, and therefore was the most capable of predicting which one would come next--do you think the liberated prisoner would want to win those prizes, and that he would be envious of those who were honored in this way, and therefore had authority among the other prisoners? Or would he share the attitude of Homer and greatly desire to 'be on the earth, the slave of another man, a man without land,' and suffer anything rather than share the same opinions and live the same life as these people in the cave?"
"I think he would prefer any kind of misery rather than live the life of the cave."
"And if an ex-prisoner were to go down again and take his old place, wouldn't the sudden change from sunlight to darkness prevent him from seeing anything?"
"Quite."
"And if he had to compete once more with these cave dwellers in judging the shadows while his vision was still dim, wouldn't he be laughed at by everyone else, and wouldn't they maintain that he had ruined his eyesight outside the cave, and that the enterprise of getting outside was therefore a waste of time? And if they had a chance to grab and kill the man who tried to liberate them and lead them out of the cave, wouldn't they do just that?"

In this allegory education is measured in terms of the sorts of things that people are able to perceive. At an early stage people will not see anything except shadows, and shadows for them will be reality. At the end of the educational process people will not only be able to see the things that cause the shadows (the puppets or statues) and the original models of these things (people and things outside the cave), but also the sun that makes all seeing possible. They will realize that shadows are less real than what they are shadows of, and that the puppets and statues in turn are less real than the originals outside the cave. People who have managed to leave the cave will have a comprehensive view of reality, and they will see how every kind of thing is related to every other kind.

There are four kinds of things in Plato's allegorical tale: (1) shadows, (2) puppets or statues, (3) the original objects of which the puppets or statues are imitations, and (4) the sun. These four kinds of things are the symbolic representations of the four kinds of entities that make up reality in Plato's philosophical view of the world. What are these four kinds of entities?

The shadows on the wall of the cave stand for the notions of things that people have in their minds, notions that are more or less closely related to the things that they are notions of. People may have a certain notion of what a rhinoceros is, for example, or an Egyptian temple, or who Socrates was. But there is often a considerable difference between such a notion and the real thing. People may be mistaken about any number of details concerning rhinos or Egyptian temples, and they may have gotten their notion of Socrates from Aristophanes' slanted portrait in "The Clouds" rather than from any familiarity with the real Socrates. There is often no incentive or opportunity to check one's notions against the real world, and thus many people may live their whole lives in the illusory world of their private, unexamined conceptions of things. Like the chained prisoners in Plato's Cave who think that shadows are real they are prisoners of their own closed minds.

The puppets or statues from which the shadows are cast stand for what ordinarily are called the "real things," that is, real rhinos, actual Egyptian temples, or Socrates as he was in real life. People who are free to compare the notions in their minds with the real things are still cave dwellers, but they are not chained anymore. They have reached the first level of their emancipation. They know that private notions or images in people's mind do not necessarily reflect reality, but could be the result of their own projections or other people's lies. These halfway liberated cave dwellers, in other words, are familiar with two kinds of thing: private notions in the mind, and things in the outside world. They have gained a certain degree of freedom because they are able to evaluate critically any possible discrepancy between people's notions of things and the things themselves.

Up to this point, however, any progress in education has taken place inside the cave. Even prisoners who are rid of their chains still find themselves in a realm of relative darkness. The most significant step in their emancipation still lies ahead: the difficult and demanding climb out of the cave. Only when they have made their way into the realm of daylight will the former prisoners encounter the next category of things: the original persons, animals, and other things after which the puppets and statues inside the cave are modeled.
While Plato thus described the emancipating value of education, he obviously was rather pessimistic with regard to its popularity. In the tale of the allegory great emphasis is placed on the hostility that people feel toward education and educated individuals. The ascent out of the cave and into the light is not easy, and it requires a willingness to undergo changes that most people would find too strange to contemplate, or too painful to endure. Not only do cave dwellers dislike leaving the cozy darkness to which they have grown accustomed, they also hate and mistrust those who have been outside and who have come back to suggest that as continuing cave dwellers they may be seriously deficient. Most people strongly dislike being told that they are ignorant. Possibly alluding to the fate of Socrates in his role as intellectual gadfly, Plato concludes the Allegory of the Cave with the merely rhetorical question whether the complacent troglodytes would not “grab and kill the man who attempts to free them and lead them up out of the cave.” In Plato’s estimate, they would always be ready to do just that.

The majority of people, in other words, are too attached to their narrow-minded ways, and too resentful of anyone who tries to shake them out of their complacency. They are not willing to seriously question their own situation and their basic assumptions. And that, according to Plato, is the ultimate reason why democracy is bound to fail. Plato thought that it is not in the nature of most people to exert themselves sufficiently in the pursuit of serious knowledge and self-understanding, or to muster the necessary energy and will to embark on the long march out of the cave of half-knowledge and ignorance. It will always be only a relatively small number of people in any given population who will be willing and able to develop their intellectual faculties to a point where they can grasp their own limitations, and see what would be necessary to organize human society on a comprehensive scale and for the benefit of all.

The majority of people in any sizable polity have rarely been in control of their own destiny, and, according to Plato, they hardly ever will be. The masses will always put too much trust in their authorities, follow too readily their elected or unelected leaders, leave their serious thinking to their representatives, accept their inferior positions as natural, allow themselves to be exploited as long as it is not too crassly done, and--unless they are driven to the point of too extreme suffering--seek their happiness in little and private things. "Bread and circuses" was the formula that the imperial Romans used to pacify their masses—enough food to get by, and enough entertainment to distract their minds from their real situation. The combination of minimum amenities and non-stop entertainment by spectator sports and soap operas serves a similar function in modern societies. For a Platonist it would show a blatant disregard for human nature to expect anything else.

War is a Racket

2007-03-28T20:52:00.000-05:00

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

To get the full flavor of this two time winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor you can Google "General Smedley Butler". He was an interesting character. It seems things have not really changed that much......

No Room at The Inn

2007-03-13T18:20:00.000-05:00

In Iraq, No Room at The Inn for Auditors
By Paul Kiel - March 12, 2007, 4:04 PM

How strained are resources in Iraq? So strained that the State Department can't afford for three auditors to make a three month visit.

The State Department recently turned down a request for three congressional auditors to make a three-month stay in Baghdad, saying that having them around for that long would be "a serious challenge to mission resources."

In response, 22 Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), have called on Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice to make room. "American taxpayers are currently being asked to spend approximately $3,420 every second and $280 million per day in Iraq," reads a letter to Rice sent today. "It is imperative that GAO be given the access it needs to serve as the eyes and ears of the United States Congress...."

But the burden of having those three auditors around would seem almost insurmountable... or at least that's the impression a State Department official gave in a letter to Harkin last week:

"each of [the auditors] would require lodging, extensive support services, security, computers, and other administrative support, as well as the attention of our staff in Baghdad in responding to their requests and inquiries."

You can read the entire letter here. The State Department turned down the GAO's request for a three-month stay, agreeing only to a two-week visit -- although the official pointed out that even that "will place considerable burden on Embassy staff and resources."

In the letter sent to Sec. Rice today, the Democrats didn't buy that argument, asking instead that the State Department make room for a six-month stay for the auditors.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002733.php

Human Values?

2007-03-10T14:57:00.000-05:00

Israeli army 'used human shields'
By Katya Adler
BBC News, Jerusalem

An Israeli human rights group has accused Israel's army of using two young Palestinians as human shields during a recent raid in the West Bank.
The B'Tselem group said it had testimony from a 15-year-old boy, his 24-year-old cousin and also an 11-year-old boy.
They said soldiers had forced them at gunpoint to enter houses ahead of the troops during the raid in Nablus.
The use of human shields is illegal under Israeli and international law.
The Israeli defence force says it is investigating the allegations.
'Knowingly exposed'
The Israeli army occupied the Kasbah, or old town, in Nablus for five days at the end of last month. It said it was hunting for militants and their weapons.

Soldiers conducted house-to-house searches. They imposed a two-day curfew on tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians.
Amid Omeira, aged 15, told B'Tselem that a group of soldiers used the barrels of their rifles to force him to enter a number of houses ahead of them.
His 24-year-old cousin Samah told the group and the BBC of a similar experience, as did Jihan Dadush, aged 11.
From their testimonies, B'Tselem says it believes the Israeli soldiers knowingly exposed Samah and the two children to danger as they expected to find armed men in the houses.
B'Tselem has accused Israel's military authorities of not adequately informing soldiers about both Israeli and international laws which prohibit using civilians as human shields.
B'Tselem says the delay in investigating similar alleged incidents in the past suggests a leniency in the army's attitude towards soldiers who use civilians in this way.
Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2007/03/08 17:42:09 GMT

© BBC MMVII

Regardless of which side of the fence you support, have we as a culture degraded so far that we find it not only ok, but desireable to use human shields?

Unwelcome Guests???

2007-03-09T14:20:00.000-05:00

Have you ever had guests that overstayed their welcome? I mean guests that you really like to see every once in a while? Do they show up unannounced in the middle of the night ready to stay for an extended period of time? Do they bring with them a voracious appetite? Do they let their kids desecrate your well manicured lawn and nicely trimmed hedges?

Now don’t get me wrong, I love to see this menagerie as well as anyone else. I love to watch their interactions and various cavorting as they run and jump and play. As they meander into and out of our life, as they constantly fly into and out of our space.

They do keep me hopping. Making sure there’s enough food around, trying to protect the bushes and shrubs from their onslaughts. Just who are these sometimes unwelcome guests you ask?

Well the list is long and getting longer as the word spreads about our unrestrained hospitality. Here is our guest list:
1) a dozen or so white tail deer( have you ever seen them stand on their hind legs to trim your cedar trees?)
2) a couple of coyotes (they love to lounge under the oaks on sunny days)
3) a extended family of gray squirrels (there is no such thing as a squirrel proof bird feeder)
4) A rather nasty family of red squirrels (they actually drop pine cones on you)
5) chipmunks galore
6) sharp shinned hawks (they love our smaller feathered friends)
7) skunks, ground hogs (we call them wood chucks- have you ever seen how they climb fruit trees?)
8) my favorites are the nut hatches, juncos, cardinals, chickadees, various sparrows, blue jays, three varieties of woodpeckers and the humming birds in warmer weather. Even wild turkeys love to dine under our oak trees.
Well, no matter how much I complain, I guess I’ll settle back, enjoy the activity and try not to get too upset with the lousy job of hedge trimming the deer are doing.

Real Heroes II

2007-03-08T23:37:00.000-05:00

Real Heroes II

Recently I entered a post involving Lee Marvin, Capt. Kangaroo and Mr. Rogers. It is a story that has circulated over the last three or four years to emphasize a point. The point being that true heroes are usually those common folks that show uncommon courage when in the heat of battle and still be able to not allow those experiences to overcome their humanitarian spirits. The purpose of this myth is to set up a construct to elicit a positive response from the reader and follow that with an action requesting positive support. In other words, to “sell” a point of view or action that if stated alone would may not engender support. Classic marketing technique!
This is fine in the ordinary world of commercial advertising. However,
some of our politicians have refined this technique to help sell their policy's to the unsuspecting public. The technique is as follows;

1) start with the truth (i.e. Lee Marvin was a Marine) (but not on Iwo Jima)!! or (Sadam is a strong man dictator)

2) use a half truth ( Capt. Kangaroo was in the Marines) ( but only at the end of W.W.II, too late to see combat). or (Sadam controls his country in a brutal fashion)

3) Use of a total fabrication ( Mr. Rogers was never in military service) ( upon graduation from university he became an ordained minister). or ( Sadam has weapons of mass destruction and is in cahoots with Al Quida)

4) Use points 1-3 above to support your desired action. ( Invade Iraq NOW) (so we can fight them there so we won’t have to fight them here)

Thus the advertising technique becomes a cynical inverting or distortion of facts, which, for example, makes the victim appear as culprit.
As Joseph Goebbels has been quoted “Propaganda is the art of persuading others of what you do not necessarily believe yourself”.

SOUND FAMILIAR?????

Real Heroes

2007-03-08T23:35:00.000-05:00

Thursday, February 22, 2007
Real Heros

Here is something given to me by a friend. I thought it spoke volumes and I hope you do also.

Captain Kangaroo passed away on January 23, 2004 at the age of 76. (DOB: 6/27/27) His death reminded me of the following story.

Some people have been offended that the actor, Lee Marvin, is buried in a grave alongside 3 and 4 star generals at Arlington National Cemetery. His marker gives his name, rank (PVT) and service (USMC). Nothing else. Here’s a guy who was only a movie star who served his time, why the hell does he rate burial with these guys????

Well, following is the amazing answer: I always liked Lee Marvin as an actor but never knew the extent of his Corps experiences. In a time when many Hollywood stars served their country in the armed forces, often in rear echelon posts where they were carefully protected only to be trotted out to perform for the cameras in war bond promotions, Lee was in the heat of battle. A genuine hero, He won the Navy Cross at Iwo Jima. There is only one higher Naval award……. The Medal Of Honor. If that is a surprising testament on the true character of the man, Lee credits his sergeant with an even greater show of bravery.

Dialog from “The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson”: His guest was Lee Marvin. Johnny said,” Lee, I’ll bet a lot of people are unaware that you were a Marine in the initial landing at Iwo Jima… and that during the course of that action you earned the Navy Cross and” “yeah, yeah… I got shot square in the butt and they gave me the Cross for securing a hot spot about halfway up Suribachi. Bad thing about getting shot up on a mountain is guys getting’ shot hauling you down. But, Johnny, at Iwo I served under the bravest man I ever knew. We both got the Cross on the same day, but what he did for his Cross made mine look cheap in comparison.”

“That dumb guy actually stood up on Red beach and directed his troops to move forward and get the hell off the beach. Bullets flying by, with mortar rounds landing everywhere and he stood there as the main target of gunfire so that he could get his men to safety. He did this on more than one occasion because his men’s safety was more important than his own life. That Sergeant and I have been lifelong friends. When they brought me off Suribachi we passed the Sergeant and he lit me a smoke and passed it to me, lying on my belly on the litter and said, “wher’d they get you Lee?” Well Bob… if you make it home before me, tell Mom to sell the outhouse!!!! Johnny, I’m not lying, Sergeant Keeshan was the bravest man I ever knew.
You and I know Sergeant Keeshan as Bob Keeshan, our one and only Captain Kangaroo!!!!

On another note, there was this wimpy little man (who just passed away) on PBS, gentle and quiet. He is another of those you would least expect of being anything but what he portrayed to out youth. His name, Mr. Rogers; he was a U.S. Navy Seal, combat-proven in Vietnam with over twenty-five confirmed kills to his name. He wore a long-sleeved sweater on TV to cover the many tattoos on his forearm and biceps. He was a master in small arms and hand-to-hand combat, able to disarm and kill in a heartbeat. After the war Mr. Rogers became an ordained Presbyterian minister and a pacifist. Vowing to never harm another human and also dedicating the rest of his life to trying to help lead children on the right path in life. He hid away the tattoos and his past life and won our hearts with his quiet wit and charm.

America’s real hero’s don’t flaunt what they did: they quietly go about their day-to-day lives, doing what they do best. They earned our respect and the freedoms that we all enjoy. Look around and see if you can find one of those hero’s in your midst!!

Often, they are the ones you’d least suspect, but would most like to have on your side if anything ever happened. Take the time to thank anyone that has fought for our freedom. With encouragement they could be the next Captain Kangaroo or Mr. Rogers.

(I’m also sure that Captain Kangaroo and Mr. Rogers would want us as ordinary citizens to protect those rights and freedoms they so bravely fought for. We don’t need unnecessary wars and government restrictions on our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, else we diminish the sacrifices of our hero’s. We must now be the non-combat heros. Stand up and be heard. It’s our patriotic duty!!!)
Labels: duty, freedoms, heros, patriots, war

posted by jaybird @ 3:19 PM 2 Comments Links to this post
Sunday, February 11, 2007

Are WE at fault?

2007-03-08T23:33:00.001-05:00

Is it ALL our Fault

I struggle lately with what I've been reading in the papers and seeing on the various TV "news" shows. Is it my imagination or have we lost the critical skills of thinking and evaluation. Of what is important and what is trivial, or what's the difference between leading and being led. As far as I'm concerned, the world has been turned upside down when "news" consists of a constant barrage of Anna Nicole or an astronaut love triangle. When innuendo and gossip interests (or titillates) our print/TV media more than the long-term implications of the war in Iraq, the preemptive invasion strategy of this administration and its relationship in increasing geometrically the number of potential terrorists. When we allow certain well-funded lobbyists to influence our governmental actions to satisfy THEIR selfish interests and not the best interests of the general public. When instead of INSISTING that the Middle East situation be solved according to UN Resolution 242, our government aids and abets the Israeli and Palestinian sides with money and arms in order to continue their blood feud.

Are we so lazy that we are eager to believe anything we are told? That we accept as truth the marketing campaigns by various power groups, including our own government? The use of shibboleths like "we must achieve VICTORY" without defining in meaningful terms exactly what that means and how it affects our ordinary citizens, not platitudes like "if we don’t' defeat them there we'll have to fight them here" (the use of fear rather than reason!!!!) Are we using old-time war making strategy where there is self-contained and well-defined enemy against an amorphous and ephemeral enemy? Have we learned anything from our own revolutionary war when WE were the terrorists hiding behind the trees and picking off the cream of England’s army?

I suspect Pogo”s comment that “we have met the enemy and he is us” is absolutely true. By not using critical thinking and evaluation skills we have let the “Deciders” guide and shape our lives according to their desires, not ours. For whatever reasons (fear of retaliation? being unpatriotic?) we have not inculcated in our young, let alone ourselves the sand to question, stand up and be heard. To band together so that we have more than just a voice- in- the- wind but the roar of as hurricane.

Does anyone recall Dwight D. Eisehower's admonition " Beware the military -Industrial Complex"?
Labels: Iraq, lobbyists, middle east, thinking skills

posted by jaybird @ 2:24 PM 5 Comments Links to this post

molly Ivans

2007-03-08T23:29:00.000-05:00

Tuesday, February 6, 2007
Molly Ivins Charmed and Challenged Us

For those of you that missed Kathleen Parker's recent column, you can see the full article at kparker@kparker.com. Now I am not a fan of Ms Parker since I am an admitted progressive while she is decidely right wing conservative. But I must say that Ms Parker paid her respects to Molly in an very enlightened manner. I wish we could all show the same respect for the person expressing opposing view points. To quote a smal portion of her article "Ivins, the syndicated writer beloved by liberals and despised by conservatives..../ died Wednesday after a seven- year battle with breast cancer. Her parting words to readers : "Raise Hell." I have no special claim to grief when it comes to Ivins. I'm just one of millions who loved reading her. As I said in an E-mail to her a few days ago, which I'm guessing she never saw, I've been a fan as long as I can remember.
She was funny,irrevent and smart. It did'nt matter that she was often wrong, in my view (but not in mine)......Ivins fans took pleasure in telling me I should read Ivins before I died of chronic stupidity; her un-fans wrote to say they read me as an antidote to that Ivins woman. My favorite letters came from readers who said they liked us both the best, even though we were both wrong most of the time........ Molly made me laugh. I admired her style, wit, passion and smarts. As a fellow toiler in the field, I appreciated her doggedness in pursuit of our craft and the skill of her execution.......In a world short on class acts, Ivins was a star--- and the marketplace of ideas will be poorer without her. She was one great columnist. And one great broad"

Thank you Kathleen for your enlightened and thoughtfull comments.
Labels: Ivins, KParker, writer

posted by jaybird @ 3:33 PM 1 Comments Links to this post

Posted by jaybird at 3/08/2007 05:31:00 PM