Our Republic, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, was intended to prevent us from being in the situation we find ourselves in. If everything worked as intended, Bush would never have been selected in 2000, re-elected in 2004, or would have been impeached by the end of 2007.
But everything has failed us. Our economy is declining. We're deep in debt. Our troops are bogged down in the Middle East. Our dependence on oil and fossil fuels threatens to cripple us further. (Ironic how the price of oil is hurting our economy so much, when steps to move away from it are often cast aside as likely to 'hurt our economy.')
And now, the venerable Seymour Hersh, who has been right about so many things these past eight years, brings us this: Preparing the Battlefield, a report on how the Bush Administration, with the consent of the so-called "Gang of Eight" have been stepping up covert activities inside Iran.
Who are these congressmen (and woman?) to think that they have any place in colluding with an Executive to draw us closer to a war that they seem to think is a foregone conclusion? How are these actions any different than an overt declaration of war? Of course, if we found out that Iran was leading covert operations in the U.S. to undermine our government, would we not consider that an act of war? I think we would.
The article, and other commentators elsewhere, have suggested that the Bush administration wants to do something about Iran before Bush leaves office, or that Israel might want to strike while it still has a hawkish supporter in office.
Thankfully, Bush doesn't have much time left. But every day this President is still in office, we are in danger. Can we afford even one more day, let alone seven months?
I don't think we can take that chance.
If our Republic was operating as the Founders intended, we would be well into the impeachment process by now. Little did they expect that the sacred Impeachment would become a political tool by the Republican party, and that the opposition party would be adverse to using it because there are 'better' things they could be doing--ignoring the fact that the Republicans have been obstructing everything they have tried to do, making that excuse worse than irrelevant.
Without impeachment, re-election, or any other possible consequences to his actions, this administration has no incentive to restrain itself.
When the Executive ignores the popular will, and Congress refuses to take action, what recourse is left to the ignored public?
Unfortunately, short of armed revolution, I don't see any. I don't believe, this day in age, that anything like revolution would be successful anyway--we've become too urbanized, too pampered and lazy to even consider it.
Some would say that as long as our elections are in tact and the Democrats are able to take power again, everything is A-Okay. That will be true, when it happens. But for the next seven months, we are closer to a dictatorship than we've ever been. Hopefully it will be temporary, and there is no reason to think anything will happen to prevent that, fortunately.
But my question to you is, what can we do in the meantime? Can a war with Iran be prevented? And if our worst fears are realized, and one does start... what should be done then?
(Cross-posted at DailyKos and on Facebook.)
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, June 30, 2008
Can we afford even one more day?
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Damned if we do...
Recently I've been thinking about the situation in Iraq, and struggling. I hate this war as much as the next person; I was against it from the beginning. It has weakened us domestically and internationally, and it has strengthened our enemies. I've wanted us to get out of there for a long time now... but I'm no longer as confident of that option anymore. Would leaving truly be the end of our involvement, or might we end up with a new problem 5 or 20 years down the road which will cost much more to tackle than sticking it out now? Will Iraq, now Shiite-majority, align with Iran after a bloody civil war? But if we stay instead, is there really a significantly decreased chance of that outcome, with much more American--and Iraqi--blood having been spilled in the process?
Regardless of how odious the start of the war was, we need to look at the problem of Iraq detached from those emotions, as a stand-alone problem. If we do not do this, we risk over-correcting and causing a greater problem than we already have, in a vain attempt to turn back the clock and pretend the invasion never happened. If we do pull out, we must do so only after careful, sober contemplation of the possible outcomes.
Regardless of how odious the start of the war was, we need to look at the problem of Iraq detached from those emotions, as a stand-alone problem. If we do not do this, we risk over-correcting and causing a greater problem than we already have, in a vain attempt to turn back the clock and pretend the invasion never happened. If we do pull out, we must do so only after careful, sober contemplation of the possible outcomes.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Immigration
It's been a while, hasn't it? I'd like to talk about immigration policy in the United States, specifically the legislation which was recently rejected in Congress twice in the past two months.
First let's explore some of the principles underlying the issue. "We are a country of immigrants," is a commonly-heard phrase, but what does it really mean? At the simplest level, it means that the vast majority of the people living in America today can trace most of their ancestors from Europe and elsewhere, arriving after the 1500s. We're all familiar with the Jamestown colony and the Pilgrims, and all the waves of immigration since then. Every new wave of immigration was seen very similarly by those already established here. They were cast with suspicion, there were fears that they are taking "our" jobs, that they weren't assimilating. Thus, it is argued, we or our ancestors were subject to these same irrational fears at one point, and they eventually assimilated quite well. On the whole this is true; over several generations, assimilation has tended to occur.
There is certainly a small subset of Americans who are anti-immigrant and harbor these fears and prejudices, but that isn't the major reason that some people are against illegal immigration. Another phrase often used is "no one is illegal." This is supposed to strike an empathetic note, emphasizing how people who come live in the United States illegally are doing so because they're experiencing hardship in Mexico and are trying to improve their lives coming to America. It's sad that they are having this hardship, and it is commendable that they are trying to improve their lives by coming here. But lets consider this line of thinking... does everyone facing oppression and hardship have some right to come live in the U.S.? Any realist would have to admit that there are far more impoverished, starving, downtrodden masses (and there are people in the world facing much more hardship than those entering the country illegally) in the world than our country could accommodate, and if we even attempted to make an open invitation, the standard of living for everyone would drop precipitously, and there would soon be no more American Dream to reach for. As a practical matter, it would be impossible to allow everyone to come in if they wanted to. There is no inherent right for any person or group of people to pursue the 'American Dream'.
The United States of America is an entity containing a society, defined territory, resources, and a sovereign government. The government exists to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (Preamble, U.S. Constitution), and it thus has a vested interest in monitoring and controlling the flow of people into the country. There are population vs. resources considerations (as noted above) and health and medical considerations, as well as security interests, among other things.
I agree with immigration in general: it's vital and in keeping with our national ideals. However, it becomes a problem when some would-be immigrants circumvent the legal, official immigration process and they aren't being caught and deported. The first problem with this is that we lose control over how many people are coming into the country and who they are. Second, we discourage and frustrate all the people who are patiently wading through the legal channel. Third, those that get through illegally are forced to stay underground and are subject to extortion and more hardship.
Currently there are two immigration paths. You can go through the legal process and enter American society as just another person, or you can try to cross the border illegally (sometimes almost killing yourself via smugglers) and taking day-labor jobs that pay far below the poverty level until you're caught or you die.
The first step to dealing with the problem is to shut off the second path. The border must be secured. Granted, this would be much easier if we weren't spending $144 billion/year in Iraq (Thanks Bush!), but it must be done. Why? Well, no matter what path you would choose to take to deal with the immigrants already here, it's much easier to do if you bring the rate coming in form a deluge to a trickle or not at all. Not to mention that there are security benefits from securing the border as well, from smugglers to possible terrorists.
The next step is to deal with those immigrants already here. Now I can sympathize with the boot-'em-out strategy, but they won't be very efficient or effective. The passive version, which is to make it so inhospitable for them here (by tightening enforcement on employers and the like) that they'll have to leave, likely won't work because these people are poor, may not have the resources to go back, or it may still be a better life here then at home. The active version, which is to actively hunt down and deport them, would require astronomical resources and effort from our law enforcement agencies and judiciary, and this would likely detract from the more important victim crimes. Also, as a nation we're partly responsible for their current situation. We didn't secure the border very well and we also didn't apply enough pressure on employers and to deporting them when their numbers were few. Thus many found it easy to live here, told their friends and family back home, and more and more came in. At this point, once we have secured the border, then implementing a program--call it 'amnesty' if you must, but the term shouldn't matter--which would give these people, who are currently living as a permanent underclass--a status which, ironically, would discourage assimilation--a path to legality, and eventually citizenship. Now of course we'd run background checks and deport those who had committed felonies and maybe make those with misdemeanors work a bit extra hard. But no other system is practical enough or accounts for the fact that our prior negligence allowed this to become as big a problem as it is.
I hope now you can see why we need to secure the border first, and that doing what this immigration bill would have done is putting the cart before the horse. And this is why I, a Democrat, am glad that it failed.
First let's explore some of the principles underlying the issue. "We are a country of immigrants," is a commonly-heard phrase, but what does it really mean? At the simplest level, it means that the vast majority of the people living in America today can trace most of their ancestors from Europe and elsewhere, arriving after the 1500s. We're all familiar with the Jamestown colony and the Pilgrims, and all the waves of immigration since then. Every new wave of immigration was seen very similarly by those already established here. They were cast with suspicion, there were fears that they are taking "our" jobs, that they weren't assimilating. Thus, it is argued, we or our ancestors were subject to these same irrational fears at one point, and they eventually assimilated quite well. On the whole this is true; over several generations, assimilation has tended to occur.
There is certainly a small subset of Americans who are anti-immigrant and harbor these fears and prejudices, but that isn't the major reason that some people are against illegal immigration. Another phrase often used is "no one is illegal." This is supposed to strike an empathetic note, emphasizing how people who come live in the United States illegally are doing so because they're experiencing hardship in Mexico and are trying to improve their lives coming to America. It's sad that they are having this hardship, and it is commendable that they are trying to improve their lives by coming here. But lets consider this line of thinking... does everyone facing oppression and hardship have some right to come live in the U.S.? Any realist would have to admit that there are far more impoverished, starving, downtrodden masses (and there are people in the world facing much more hardship than those entering the country illegally) in the world than our country could accommodate, and if we even attempted to make an open invitation, the standard of living for everyone would drop precipitously, and there would soon be no more American Dream to reach for. As a practical matter, it would be impossible to allow everyone to come in if they wanted to. There is no inherent right for any person or group of people to pursue the 'American Dream'.
The United States of America is an entity containing a society, defined territory, resources, and a sovereign government. The government exists to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" (Preamble, U.S. Constitution), and it thus has a vested interest in monitoring and controlling the flow of people into the country. There are population vs. resources considerations (as noted above) and health and medical considerations, as well as security interests, among other things.
I agree with immigration in general: it's vital and in keeping with our national ideals. However, it becomes a problem when some would-be immigrants circumvent the legal, official immigration process and they aren't being caught and deported. The first problem with this is that we lose control over how many people are coming into the country and who they are. Second, we discourage and frustrate all the people who are patiently wading through the legal channel. Third, those that get through illegally are forced to stay underground and are subject to extortion and more hardship.
Currently there are two immigration paths. You can go through the legal process and enter American society as just another person, or you can try to cross the border illegally (sometimes almost killing yourself via smugglers) and taking day-labor jobs that pay far below the poverty level until you're caught or you die.
The first step to dealing with the problem is to shut off the second path. The border must be secured. Granted, this would be much easier if we weren't spending $144 billion/year in Iraq (Thanks Bush!), but it must be done. Why? Well, no matter what path you would choose to take to deal with the immigrants already here, it's much easier to do if you bring the rate coming in form a deluge to a trickle or not at all. Not to mention that there are security benefits from securing the border as well, from smugglers to possible terrorists.
The next step is to deal with those immigrants already here. Now I can sympathize with the boot-'em-out strategy, but they won't be very efficient or effective. The passive version, which is to make it so inhospitable for them here (by tightening enforcement on employers and the like) that they'll have to leave, likely won't work because these people are poor, may not have the resources to go back, or it may still be a better life here then at home. The active version, which is to actively hunt down and deport them, would require astronomical resources and effort from our law enforcement agencies and judiciary, and this would likely detract from the more important victim crimes. Also, as a nation we're partly responsible for their current situation. We didn't secure the border very well and we also didn't apply enough pressure on employers and to deporting them when their numbers were few. Thus many found it easy to live here, told their friends and family back home, and more and more came in. At this point, once we have secured the border, then implementing a program--call it 'amnesty' if you must, but the term shouldn't matter--which would give these people, who are currently living as a permanent underclass--a status which, ironically, would discourage assimilation--a path to legality, and eventually citizenship. Now of course we'd run background checks and deport those who had committed felonies and maybe make those with misdemeanors work a bit extra hard. But no other system is practical enough or accounts for the fact that our prior negligence allowed this to become as big a problem as it is.
I hope now you can see why we need to secure the border first, and that doing what this immigration bill would have done is putting the cart before the horse. And this is why I, a Democrat, am glad that it failed.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Surge and a Dictator's Death
Read: "He takes his secrets to the grave. Our complicity dies with him." Robert Fisk, The Independent
Read/Watch: "Olbermann: Special comment about 'sacrifice'" Countdown w/Keith Olbermann, MSNBC
It's unbelievable that we've reached this point. Over 3,000 U.S. troops killed on the battlefield. Many thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives. Nearly 47,000 U.S. troops, and God only knows how many Iraqis, have been wounded (link). And for what? Iraq has an insurgency that's been in its "last throes" (link) for a year and a half now, and there's no end in sight. It's even been reported that many members of the Bush administration, possibly even Cheney himself, may actually believe that the war is already lost (link).
So why, then, is a surge being considered? At this point, the reason is morbidly obvious: Bush does not want to be the guy who lost Iraq, does not want to be the one to oversee the withdrawal. NBC reported (link) that a pentagon official told them that the "surge" idea (a "surge" is not a strategy) was "more of a political decision than a military one." This is sickening. If you haven't, please watch Keith Olbermann's 'Special Comment' linked above.
Thankfully, the Democrats were able to take over both the House and the Senate, and we might be able to finally see some changes. The Democratic leaders of both bodies sent a letter stating, in the strongest terms ever used by Democrats, that a surge should not occur and that a phased withdrawal and shift to training and counter-terrorism operations must begin. Read it here.
And of course, Saddam Hussein was executed last week by hanging. His crimes, of course, are indisputably horrific, and there is no question that if anyone deserved the death penalty, he would be one of them. However, execution in this manor was a very, very bad plan. The 'trial' which got him to this point was a joke--a 'kangaroo court'--set up by a shaky Iraqi government under the guidance of the "Coalition:" lawyers and judges were killed, and Saddam's lawyers were hampered. In the end, he was only tried for one of his crimes and killed immediately. Why couldn't we have a proper international tribunal to fully document all of his crimes? Part of the reason, perhaps, is that U.S. complicity--and the people behind it--would very likely have been brought up, things they hope people would forget. Please read the first article linked at the top regarding this. It is a shame we rushed through this, and all for revenge.
The war did not start out impossible to win; we may have ended up in this place even if we had done things right, but we are certainly much worse off than we could have been.
Happy New Year.
Read/Watch: "Olbermann: Special comment about 'sacrifice'" Countdown w/Keith Olbermann, MSNBC
It's unbelievable that we've reached this point. Over 3,000 U.S. troops killed on the battlefield. Many thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives. Nearly 47,000 U.S. troops, and God only knows how many Iraqis, have been wounded (link). And for what? Iraq has an insurgency that's been in its "last throes" (link) for a year and a half now, and there's no end in sight. It's even been reported that many members of the Bush administration, possibly even Cheney himself, may actually believe that the war is already lost (link).
So why, then, is a surge being considered? At this point, the reason is morbidly obvious: Bush does not want to be the guy who lost Iraq, does not want to be the one to oversee the withdrawal. NBC reported (link) that a pentagon official told them that the "surge" idea (a "surge" is not a strategy) was "more of a political decision than a military one." This is sickening. If you haven't, please watch Keith Olbermann's 'Special Comment' linked above.
Thankfully, the Democrats were able to take over both the House and the Senate, and we might be able to finally see some changes. The Democratic leaders of both bodies sent a letter stating, in the strongest terms ever used by Democrats, that a surge should not occur and that a phased withdrawal and shift to training and counter-terrorism operations must begin. Read it here.
And of course, Saddam Hussein was executed last week by hanging. His crimes, of course, are indisputably horrific, and there is no question that if anyone deserved the death penalty, he would be one of them. However, execution in this manor was a very, very bad plan. The 'trial' which got him to this point was a joke--a 'kangaroo court'--set up by a shaky Iraqi government under the guidance of the "Coalition:" lawyers and judges were killed, and Saddam's lawyers were hampered. In the end, he was only tried for one of his crimes and killed immediately. Why couldn't we have a proper international tribunal to fully document all of his crimes? Part of the reason, perhaps, is that U.S. complicity--and the people behind it--would very likely have been brought up, things they hope people would forget. Please read the first article linked at the top regarding this. It is a shame we rushed through this, and all for revenge.
The war did not start out impossible to win; we may have ended up in this place even if we had done things right, but we are certainly much worse off than we could have been.
Happy New Year.
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Bureau of the Public Debt : FAQ 4.2 - How do you make a contribution to reduce the debt?
This is just too good. ^Click the title^
As of 9/16, the debt was $7,919,996,476,821.03, aka ~$7.9 trillion.
Can you imagine Bush going door-to-door asking for donations?
"Your $100 contribution will bring us just $7,919,996,476,721.03 away from our goal! If you donate right now, we'll also throw in bioweapons-certified duct-tape, science-proof earmuffs, and a box of official Presidential M&Ms!"
Oh man... and this guy refuses to repeal his tax cuts even in the face of what we'll have to pay with both Katrina and Iraq on our hands. So where's the money coming from? China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. Woohoo! Buy American! Oh... wait...
This is ironic... really it is. Bush wants to separate from the international community and wants to basically end any international agreements, doesn't want the UN to have any force (despite claiming he thought the UN should be stronger... guess that's only when it's aligned with US interests). And yet, with all this borrowing from other countries, with the oil we depend on from the Middle East, we're becoming ever more dependent on the rest of the world financially while at the same time trying to distance ourselves from the world politically.
Looks like democrats are waking up. Along with the interview Bill Clinton gave linked above, John Kerry and John Edwards both gave awesome speeches recently. I'm sorry, but at least Edwards can speak well spontaneously, and either of them would be better Presidents. I reserve judgement on what policies they might or might not have done, but in terms of the President's responsibilities and such, I'd be willing to bet both of them would be more Presidential than our current one.
And it looks like Americans are starting to think the same thing. Too bad they couldn't have realized this just a year ago, or we might have improved things some.
One last note... again with the appointment of political hacks by this administration! Bush wants to appoint Julie Myers to be head of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency. Funnily enough, she just married Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff's chief of staff, her uncle is Air Force General Richard B. Myers, and she has no experience with immigration or customs.
That's all I have for right now. Maybe next time I'll post something more my-life and not current-news.
As of 9/16, the debt was $7,919,996,476,821.03, aka ~$7.9 trillion.
Can you imagine Bush going door-to-door asking for donations?
"Your $100 contribution will bring us just $7,919,996,476,721.03 away from our goal! If you donate right now, we'll also throw in bioweapons-certified duct-tape, science-proof earmuffs, and a box of official Presidential M&Ms!"
Oh man... and this guy refuses to repeal his tax cuts even in the face of what we'll have to pay with both Katrina and Iraq on our hands. So where's the money coming from? China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia, and the UK. Woohoo! Buy American! Oh... wait...
This is ironic... really it is. Bush wants to separate from the international community and wants to basically end any international agreements, doesn't want the UN to have any force (despite claiming he thought the UN should be stronger... guess that's only when it's aligned with US interests). And yet, with all this borrowing from other countries, with the oil we depend on from the Middle East, we're becoming ever more dependent on the rest of the world financially while at the same time trying to distance ourselves from the world politically.
Looks like democrats are waking up. Along with the interview Bill Clinton gave linked above, John Kerry and John Edwards both gave awesome speeches recently. I'm sorry, but at least Edwards can speak well spontaneously, and either of them would be better Presidents. I reserve judgement on what policies they might or might not have done, but in terms of the President's responsibilities and such, I'd be willing to bet both of them would be more Presidential than our current one.
And it looks like Americans are starting to think the same thing. Too bad they couldn't have realized this just a year ago, or we might have improved things some.
One last note... again with the appointment of political hacks by this administration! Bush wants to appoint Julie Myers to be head of the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency. Funnily enough, she just married Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff's chief of staff, her uncle is Air Force General Richard B. Myers, and she has no experience with immigration or customs.
That's all I have for right now. Maybe next time I'll post something more my-life and not current-news.
Monday, September 05, 2005
"A National Disgrace" | The Rachel Maddow Show | Air America Radio
Sunday, September 04, 2005
The Taming of the Shrub
Contracts are being handed out by the military to help restore their bases in the South. Guess who? Yup, that's right, Halliburton, the company that Cheney had never told to stop sending him money. And another thing, do you know why those people stuck in the convention center in New Orleans didn't have any food or water? The so-called Department of Homeland Security ordered the Red Cross not to enter the city, because it would "make people not want to evacuate and cause more people to enter the city" Take a look.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the worst presidency in American history. Some of you may have been shocked by how long it took to get relief and help into New Orleans, and how Bush went to gave his VJ-day speech more importance than rushing to the disaster area. You may have scoffed whenever someone brought up how everything he does is politically-driven (where I mean 'politics' in the worst sense) and his public appearances are highly controlled and scripted, or how any protesters are forced into a fenced-in zone far away from where the president actually is. Maybe you've dismissed seeming character flaws as "charming" and "he's a man of the people." Perhaps you've overlooked some bad moves just because he's part of your party, or supports some policies you like. Well guess what? Just as we had plenty of warning of what a hurricane could do to New Orleans, we could have had plenty of warning about Bush from his years as governor of Texas, which were enshrined in Mary Ivins's book Shrub: The Short and Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. What she reported there has been carried over verbatim into the federal government, with little or no exception; but even worse, because the Texas governorship is one of the least powerful in our country, while the Presidency is extremely powerful, and he's been increasing it even further. And it doesn't help that Republicans in Congress are putting politics and party above the best interests of the nation, and have stood behind Bush in lockstep until recently. Bush hasn't changed any, it's just that this horrendous disaster and the stress that has been placed on him by Cindy Sheehan's rekindling of the anti-war movement is pushing him to the breaking point, causing him to lose his cool and to start making political mistakes.
However, many of the Democrats are no better, Hillary Clinton one of the worst among them. She's as politcal and scripted as any number of Bushes. We need real leadership in this country. We need to boot out our representatives who are placing politics at the forefront and show them that we will not tolerate a government run by elite, calculating politicos jostling for power first and doing their jobs second.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the worst presidency in American history. Some of you may have been shocked by how long it took to get relief and help into New Orleans, and how Bush went to gave his VJ-day speech more importance than rushing to the disaster area. You may have scoffed whenever someone brought up how everything he does is politically-driven (where I mean 'politics' in the worst sense) and his public appearances are highly controlled and scripted, or how any protesters are forced into a fenced-in zone far away from where the president actually is. Maybe you've dismissed seeming character flaws as "charming" and "he's a man of the people." Perhaps you've overlooked some bad moves just because he's part of your party, or supports some policies you like. Well guess what? Just as we had plenty of warning of what a hurricane could do to New Orleans, we could have had plenty of warning about Bush from his years as governor of Texas, which were enshrined in Mary Ivins's book Shrub: The Short and Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. What she reported there has been carried over verbatim into the federal government, with little or no exception; but even worse, because the Texas governorship is one of the least powerful in our country, while the Presidency is extremely powerful, and he's been increasing it even further. And it doesn't help that Republicans in Congress are putting politics and party above the best interests of the nation, and have stood behind Bush in lockstep until recently. Bush hasn't changed any, it's just that this horrendous disaster and the stress that has been placed on him by Cindy Sheehan's rekindling of the anti-war movement is pushing him to the breaking point, causing him to lose his cool and to start making political mistakes.
However, many of the Democrats are no better, Hillary Clinton one of the worst among them. She's as politcal and scripted as any number of Bushes. We need real leadership in this country. We need to boot out our representatives who are placing politics at the forefront and show them that we will not tolerate a government run by elite, calculating politicos jostling for power first and doing their jobs second.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
What God giveth, God can taketh away
Update: I left out how Bush has cut funding for the Veterans Administration and has cut veterans benefits since he came into office, while we're starting to see the first homeless Iraq vets on the streets. There's just so much he's done that one can't even begin to list everything they've done which is dragging us down.
A man who claims to be doing God's work and who claims to talk to Him personally is being brought down by his Creator.
This is the worst disaster we've ever seen as a country. We knew, however, that this was a danger, and Americans all over are asking why the levees in New Orleans failed and why our President didn't mobilize our forces quickly or rush to the scene immediately. European countries, including the Netherlands which faces the same problems as New Orleans, don't understand this either, because a disaster of these proportions is not something you'd expect to see in a very wealthy, powerful nation which has known of the danger for a long time. Meanwhile over $70,000,000 has been donated to the Red Cross by Americans, $100,000,000 donated by businesses. The American people are doing there part, but where's our president? Why are we facing such a horrible disaster we've forseen?
Take a look at these editorials:
New York Times: "Waiting for a Leader"
Washington Post: "A Dearth of Answers"
Manchester Union Leader (a conservative paper, folks): "Bush and Katrina"
We also have to ask oursleves about where we've placed our priorities. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. Most of our armed forces, including our National Guard who are supposed to be on-hand for situations like this, are tied up in Iraq as well, let alone those who have been killed over there. Getting involved in Iraq has weakened our country. Iraq and the all-important tax cuts were directly blamed by the Army Corps of Engineers for the Bush Administration's cuts in funding for New Orleans' levy reinforcement and for the Federal Emergency Management Administration's Project Impact which was supposed to help us prepare for such a hurricane hit. And what have we gotten in return for stretching ourselves so thin? World opinion has turned against us, and some people have turned so far as to be susceptible to recruitment by terrorist organizations. Iraq is unstable, and it's turning into an Islamic republic and an incubator of hatred for America. We've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of Americans. Many thousands of lives both here and there have been scarred forever, and many communities are badly wounded as well. We've employed contractors in Iraqi prisons who've been getting away with raping and murdering and torturing the captives. No weapons of mass destruction were secured, and it sounds like we didn't make a big attempt to secure those UN-sealed facilities which were in Iraq or the nuclear scientists there, possibly making it easier for other countries to get WMDs. Iran and North Korea have become more determined on the Nuclear front just because they want a deterent against US invasion. Saudi Arabia is still considered one of our biggest allies. Afghanistan is still not entirely stablized and we still haven't caught Osama bin Laden and the Taliban is still in the country in force.
We've had so many problems here we should be spending our resources on, and it's so apparent that there wasn't any urgent need to attack Iraq; how can anyone now think that Iraq was a good idea? At least with Saddam in power the Mideast was more stable, and we were succeeding in keeping him in check, yet Bush took us to war, wouldn't tell us how much it would cost while cutting taxes massively, he wouldn't say how long we'd be there, told us Iraq's oil would pay for the war, told us Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, told us Saddam was a wildcard who had secret WMDs and was in cahouts with terrorists (as if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan weren't), told us that it didn't matter that we weren't able to catch Osama, told us that Afghanistan was doing just great, told us war was the last resort against Iraq, opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commision until it became politically expedient, puts political friends in positions of power regardless of whether they're actually qualified for the job, and has been consistently doing things to the benefit of large corporations without regard to what is actually good for our country and the people. Something's fundamentally wrong with this administration, and it needs to go.
Of course, none of this mentions peak oil. Peak oil is the point at which no matter how many oil wells we drill, no matter how fast we pump oil out of the ground, the amount of barrels filled per day will not increase, and will begin to decrease. Almost everyone agrees that it will occur within 50 years. Some experts think we may have already reached it, but most predictions put it within 15 years. Think about how high gas prices have gotten already. Then look at how a disaster has affected that price. Now imagine that supply starts decreasing while demand keeps increasing. Unless we make a major initiative to break free of the grasp of oil and to start using renewable sources of energy and to push fuel efficiency as far as we can until we can find some non-oil method for fueling cars, we may not be able to survive the peak. Such a change in the economy has the potential to be catastrophic, especially for those below the current poverty line. I think we can, and we will survive it. But we have to make the necessary changes now, before it becomes a problem.
A man who claims to be doing God's work and who claims to talk to Him personally is being brought down by his Creator.
This is the worst disaster we've ever seen as a country. We knew, however, that this was a danger, and Americans all over are asking why the levees in New Orleans failed and why our President didn't mobilize our forces quickly or rush to the scene immediately. European countries, including the Netherlands which faces the same problems as New Orleans, don't understand this either, because a disaster of these proportions is not something you'd expect to see in a very wealthy, powerful nation which has known of the danger for a long time. Meanwhile over $70,000,000 has been donated to the Red Cross by Americans, $100,000,000 donated by businesses. The American people are doing there part, but where's our president? Why are we facing such a horrible disaster we've forseen?
Take a look at these editorials:
New York Times: "Waiting for a Leader"
Washington Post: "A Dearth of Answers"
Manchester Union Leader (a conservative paper, folks): "Bush and Katrina"
We also have to ask oursleves about where we've placed our priorities. We've spent hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. Most of our armed forces, including our National Guard who are supposed to be on-hand for situations like this, are tied up in Iraq as well, let alone those who have been killed over there. Getting involved in Iraq has weakened our country. Iraq and the all-important tax cuts were directly blamed by the Army Corps of Engineers for the Bush Administration's cuts in funding for New Orleans' levy reinforcement and for the Federal Emergency Management Administration's Project Impact which was supposed to help us prepare for such a hurricane hit. And what have we gotten in return for stretching ourselves so thin? World opinion has turned against us, and some people have turned so far as to be susceptible to recruitment by terrorist organizations. Iraq is unstable, and it's turning into an Islamic republic and an incubator of hatred for America. We've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and thousands of Americans. Many thousands of lives both here and there have been scarred forever, and many communities are badly wounded as well. We've employed contractors in Iraqi prisons who've been getting away with raping and murdering and torturing the captives. No weapons of mass destruction were secured, and it sounds like we didn't make a big attempt to secure those UN-sealed facilities which were in Iraq or the nuclear scientists there, possibly making it easier for other countries to get WMDs. Iran and North Korea have become more determined on the Nuclear front just because they want a deterent against US invasion. Saudi Arabia is still considered one of our biggest allies. Afghanistan is still not entirely stablized and we still haven't caught Osama bin Laden and the Taliban is still in the country in force.
We've had so many problems here we should be spending our resources on, and it's so apparent that there wasn't any urgent need to attack Iraq; how can anyone now think that Iraq was a good idea? At least with Saddam in power the Mideast was more stable, and we were succeeding in keeping him in check, yet Bush took us to war, wouldn't tell us how much it would cost while cutting taxes massively, he wouldn't say how long we'd be there, told us Iraq's oil would pay for the war, told us Iraqis would welcome us with open arms, told us Saddam was a wildcard who had secret WMDs and was in cahouts with terrorists (as if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan weren't), told us that it didn't matter that we weren't able to catch Osama, told us that Afghanistan was doing just great, told us war was the last resort against Iraq, opposed the creation of the 9/11 Commision until it became politically expedient, puts political friends in positions of power regardless of whether they're actually qualified for the job, and has been consistently doing things to the benefit of large corporations without regard to what is actually good for our country and the people. Something's fundamentally wrong with this administration, and it needs to go.
Of course, none of this mentions peak oil. Peak oil is the point at which no matter how many oil wells we drill, no matter how fast we pump oil out of the ground, the amount of barrels filled per day will not increase, and will begin to decrease. Almost everyone agrees that it will occur within 50 years. Some experts think we may have already reached it, but most predictions put it within 15 years. Think about how high gas prices have gotten already. Then look at how a disaster has affected that price. Now imagine that supply starts decreasing while demand keeps increasing. Unless we make a major initiative to break free of the grasp of oil and to start using renewable sources of energy and to push fuel efficiency as far as we can until we can find some non-oil method for fueling cars, we may not be able to survive the peak. Such a change in the economy has the potential to be catastrophic, especially for those below the current poverty line. I think we can, and we will survive it. But we have to make the necessary changes now, before it becomes a problem.
Monday, August 08, 2005
The Revolution is Now
MeetWithCindy.org
Everyone (and I know there aren't many of you), go check out that website and see what this one woman is doing. Cindy Sheehan is the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, and she is camping outside of Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch until he meets with her. Why is she doing this? Because she wants to know why Bush sent her son to die in Iraq, she wants to know what the "noble cause" is which Bush keeps referring to. A lot of people are starting to join her there and support her in this. She's been there for several days now and plans to stay there until she gets her answer. She's starting to attract huge amounts of attention; Google had counted 609 articles written about her all over the world. Is it possible that she, along with the indictments that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald might hand down to people in the Bush administration, will be the key to unraveling this administration only 8 months into its second term? We can only hope, but I will definately try to help her if I can, and I plan to donate some money once they have the website set up to accept PayPal payments.
Here's to the beginning of the end of the Bush administration.
Everyone (and I know there aren't many of you), go check out that website and see what this one woman is doing. Cindy Sheehan is the mother of a soldier who died in Iraq, and she is camping outside of Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch until he meets with her. Why is she doing this? Because she wants to know why Bush sent her son to die in Iraq, she wants to know what the "noble cause" is which Bush keeps referring to. A lot of people are starting to join her there and support her in this. She's been there for several days now and plans to stay there until she gets her answer. She's starting to attract huge amounts of attention; Google had counted 609 articles written about her all over the world. Is it possible that she, along with the indictments that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald might hand down to people in the Bush administration, will be the key to unraveling this administration only 8 months into its second term? We can only hope, but I will definately try to help her if I can, and I plan to donate some money once they have the website set up to accept PayPal payments.
Here's to the beginning of the end of the Bush administration.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Help! I'm drowning in idiocy and ignorance!
I can't believe this. I just can't believe this. How can there be so much idiocy in the world? How can people possibly think like this?
Here's an example, one person's response to the Doonesbury comic I mentioned previously which was posted on Doonesbury's website (http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/blowback/):
Here's an example, one person's response to the Doonesbury comic I mentioned previously which was posted on Doonesbury's website (http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/blowback/):
"I was disappointed in today's strip. You place the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Bush administration for "causing" the war in Iraq. Reacting to the war already declared on us by terrorists would have been more accurate (or did you forget about 9/11)? Also, did Tony Blair cause London to be bombed by terrorists? There is a war going on, that you can be sure of. But to blame GWB for "causing" it? You're reaching, and I fear it's in the wrong direction."Or how about this one?
Sir, I know your political leanings are liberal, but in today's strip your humor was lost on me. I find it incredible that you suggest that the President of our country does not care about the soldiers that have given their lives fighting terrorism in Iraq. Sir, have you forgotten about 9-11? Do you want to see that repeated on our soil? I have in the past laughingly looked past your political leanings. Today was too much. I want to continue enjoying your comic strip, but if this keeps up, I'm done. Thanks for all your crazy humor.Forgive my language, but how in hell can these people possibly think that attacking Iraq had anything to do with 9/11? I mean, they can't be blamed entirely because Bush and Cheney kept saying that they were (or rather, alluding to it enough times to allow people to come to that conclusion theirselves, which is all the more insidious). However, you'd think people would be smart enough to realize that Iraq only now has terrorists because we invaded! And invading Iraq has given terrorist groups a potent recruiting and training tool, one which wasn't there beforehand. If we had stayed out of Iraq and focused on Afgahnistan and al Qaeda, we'd be much safer today. We'd have more money to spend on security, and would be able to devote more resources to tracking down Osama bin Laden and others who were plotting against Western countries. I mean, look, it's one thing to have a conservative ideology, and it's valid to think that way. But it's quite another to be ignorant of the facts and think that 9-11 was linked to Iraq, because that's not conservative, that's just stupid.
Friday, July 15, 2005
It's the stem cells. I hear their cries.
If you haven't read it already, check out this Doonesbury comic from last Sunday.
Stem cells hold much promise for many treatments for debilitating diseases, and our country is falling behind in stem cell research. Even if other kinds of stem cells which "don't involve the destruction of an embryo" might be possible, it is ludicrous to categorically rule out stem cell research before it is actually known what is possible.
So many Congressmen who know virtually nothing about a topic think they can talk for hours about morality and ethics and what's good for people. How hypocritical can these people get? "I respect life," they say, " and we must build a culture of life!" Of course by that they mean "We must end abortion! We must protect the life of embryos!" Yet these same people seem to have no qualms with throwing away the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of non-Americans in a war we've been duped into and which has subsequently been bungled so badly. What about their lives? Shouldn't a "culture of life" also mean a "culture of peace"?
There was absolutely no reason we had to go into Iraq when we did. Iraq had little to no connection with al Qaida, unlike Afghanistan, or with 9/11, much less than, say, Saudi Arabia. And we know that Iraq wasn't necessary and was pushed for no other reason than to get rid of Saddam, even though he posed no real threat to us or almost anyone, from leaked documents such as the Downing Street Memo, among other things. Explore that website to find out what it's all about, and tell me you see nothing wrong with it, especially with the changing rhetoric the administration was using. Going to war with Iraq has resulted in a damaged economy at home, instability in the Middle East, and a new training ground and more reasons extremist leaders can give to gain converts to terrorists organizations. All the money we're now spending in Iraq could be going to many better pursuits.
But speaking of abortion, anyone who considers themselves "pro-life" must realize that a full-out ban of abortion will not work. All such a thing would achieve is to push desperate women to illegal clinics or to attempt to perform abortion themselves. This would lead to a very dangerous situation for these women, and for pro-lifers to be taken seriously, they must want to protect these women at least as much as their fetuses.
The goal of pro-lifers should be to reduce the number of abortions, and any pro-choice supporter should recognize this as a noble and ideal goal. To do this, however, not only should options such as adoption be promoted, birth control must be promoted as well. Unfortunately, many pro-lifers also fall on the side of abstinence-only education, which, it is shown, doesn't work effectively enough to protect people when they finally do have sex, even though it is effective in delaying a person's first time. This is why comprehensive sex-ed, emphasizing abstinence but including birth control, is a much better idea. But many pro-lifers basically want to force abstinence on people and then want to punish them for having sex by forcing them to give birth. This is a sad worldview, and it won't help pro-lifers achieve their goal of reducing the number of abortions.
And again, I'll express my believe that that's a goal my fellow pro-choicers should aim for as well. We must make abortion a rare last-choice procedure, and to cultivate that as a common view in our society, promoting birth control and informing about adoption. It should be the woman's choice, but we need to decrease the chances that a woman should have to make that choice, and to let her know, without pushing one or the other, of other choices she has.
Stem cells hold much promise for many treatments for debilitating diseases, and our country is falling behind in stem cell research. Even if other kinds of stem cells which "don't involve the destruction of an embryo" might be possible, it is ludicrous to categorically rule out stem cell research before it is actually known what is possible.
So many Congressmen who know virtually nothing about a topic think they can talk for hours about morality and ethics and what's good for people. How hypocritical can these people get? "I respect life," they say, " and we must build a culture of life!" Of course by that they mean "We must end abortion! We must protect the life of embryos!" Yet these same people seem to have no qualms with throwing away the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of non-Americans in a war we've been duped into and which has subsequently been bungled so badly. What about their lives? Shouldn't a "culture of life" also mean a "culture of peace"?
There was absolutely no reason we had to go into Iraq when we did. Iraq had little to no connection with al Qaida, unlike Afghanistan, or with 9/11, much less than, say, Saudi Arabia. And we know that Iraq wasn't necessary and was pushed for no other reason than to get rid of Saddam, even though he posed no real threat to us or almost anyone, from leaked documents such as the Downing Street Memo, among other things. Explore that website to find out what it's all about, and tell me you see nothing wrong with it, especially with the changing rhetoric the administration was using. Going to war with Iraq has resulted in a damaged economy at home, instability in the Middle East, and a new training ground and more reasons extremist leaders can give to gain converts to terrorists organizations. All the money we're now spending in Iraq could be going to many better pursuits.
But speaking of abortion, anyone who considers themselves "pro-life" must realize that a full-out ban of abortion will not work. All such a thing would achieve is to push desperate women to illegal clinics or to attempt to perform abortion themselves. This would lead to a very dangerous situation for these women, and for pro-lifers to be taken seriously, they must want to protect these women at least as much as their fetuses.
The goal of pro-lifers should be to reduce the number of abortions, and any pro-choice supporter should recognize this as a noble and ideal goal. To do this, however, not only should options such as adoption be promoted, birth control must be promoted as well. Unfortunately, many pro-lifers also fall on the side of abstinence-only education, which, it is shown, doesn't work effectively enough to protect people when they finally do have sex, even though it is effective in delaying a person's first time. This is why comprehensive sex-ed, emphasizing abstinence but including birth control, is a much better idea. But many pro-lifers basically want to force abstinence on people and then want to punish them for having sex by forcing them to give birth. This is a sad worldview, and it won't help pro-lifers achieve their goal of reducing the number of abortions.
And again, I'll express my believe that that's a goal my fellow pro-choicers should aim for as well. We must make abortion a rare last-choice procedure, and to cultivate that as a common view in our society, promoting birth control and informing about adoption. It should be the woman's choice, but we need to decrease the chances that a woman should have to make that choice, and to let her know, without pushing one or the other, of other choices she has.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)