-- SEX POLITICS RELIGION ARTS -- SERIOUS AND HUMOROUS --
It is just a place to come with an open mind,
though ours are not always-Please tell us if they're not!
I have been to and seen many town hall meetings and as much as I appreciate political concern, I have no patience for ignorance, heated passion or anything that cannot be logically applied to an issue, and backed up with relevant facts. It embarrasses me that our media play unedited, live town halls which demonstrate our worst instead of our best intellectual thought.
I don't care what someone's position is; it never holds value to repeat something or to say it more loudly; and doesn't not change its truth. Loud idiots should never have an advantage over thoughtful, intelligent people.
When others across the globe see rednecks talking about "death panels", and for that matter, when one of those rednecks was a VP candidate, it makes America look like a nation of JerrySpringerUniversity graduates.
I respect my conservative and liberal friends alike, as long as they don't confuse emotionality and quickened anger for "Americanism".
Personally, if I were a congressman and I held a town hall, I would lay down the law that there is as much a right to hear as a right to speak. When one speaks in a disrespectful way, just as in my classroom, I would immediately dismiss them.
These politicians, who fail to manage a respectful, intelligent discourse, should not have town halls, plain and simple.
If people scream, chant or disrupt in any way someone else's right to civil communication, and they refuse to leave, tazer them and drag them out. They may protest as loudly as they like outside the meeting as long as they don't disturb communication among those who came to advance real political thought.
American media who play unedited, live reports, are irresponsible and the people who see live reporting know they can misbehave and get on the air. Both are wrong, but ultimately, it is the media's responsibility to avoid being an unfiltered megaphone for idiots.
A recent story broke in the National Enquirer that Sarah Palin had an affair with her husband's business partner. It is already spreading in mainstream British papers and will no doubt hit our networks soon. Despite the bad taste this publication puts in my mouth, they are most often correct in matters of political seriousness. John Edwards was but one example. Normally, I wouldn't care about, much less morally judge one's politics by their personal lives, but I can't help but to find it interesting that the party of Christian conservatism who has waved their fingers at far too many others, is the party with the most sex scandals.
The only thing that makes this an issue, is that of hypocrisy among self-righteous dominionists. Clinton never pretended to be a religious person, though clearly a man of strong faith and conviction. I just find it so interesting that a huge majority of evidence suggests the Dem ticket has the most "family values"; personally, I say Sarah should keep getting laid as long as she can, as she will not be very hot much longer. She will age quickly before our eyes. As with most movie stars whose only appeal is sex, hers is only a couple of years away.
Sarah Palin is a typical housewife in midlife crisis, having realized her mediocrity despite her clear intellectual yearning. She wasted her youth and squandered her formal education, lackluster at best. Like many beautiful women, as her beauty faded, she sought other ways to get attention. People no longer liked her just for being cute.
In politics, she is still young, but her "cuteness" is soon gone. What is left is a sarcastic prose, a grating voice and a penchant for low blows. Her affairs only fit into a psychological profile of a woman who has coasted on sexual allure without any intellectual substance.
The sad reality is (and hopefully the truth doesn't insult too many from non-competitive universities) a 3.3 average GPA is quite low compared to "competitive universities" that hover well over 3.7, and the average HS from which students come, is of far greater difficulty at Harvard and other top tiers. Most valedictorians cannot get into Harvard. It takes objective excellence. The quality of the average HS a U of I student attended would be nowhere near that of NY, Mass., well almost any other. Idaho is generally near the bottom when ranking public education, according to Kiplinger, #98 among publics.
It would seem to be common sense that Americans would demand such information about a Presidential candidate as GPAs, SATs, any objectively comparable data.
The fact is, Sarah Palin, by any stretch, is of a mediocre academic track, as is McCain. America allowed a coups d'etat (didn't elect) George Jr., and despite his poor academics, he went to the finest schools (with a D average). His presidency hasn't worked out very well. Hopefully, America has learned it's lesson from that fiasco.
Our President should be the brightest and best, not someone that simply "fits in" at the local PTA or drinking establishment.
I suspect Sarah's IQ is unimpressive or else it would be made public. The same can be said of any other data that somehow has been demanded in her "long political career". I guess Alaskans don't have much regard for objective standards, just redneck values and NRA membership.
1. Why didn't he just pick his wife Cindy if he just wanted a beauty pageant winner? 2. Why not Anita Bryant? 3. Sarah Palin, oh yeah, she makes great desserts, doesn't she? 4. Her foreign policy experience is that Alaska is adjacent to Russia. 5. Is that the best he could do? 6. Hey, anybody can be President in America! 7. Beauty Queen, Hockey mom, Mayor of a town of 5-thousand people, Governor of a rural state; hasn't she satisfied the Peter principle of being elevated to her highest level of incompetence yet? 8. Proof that McCain thinks with his guts; like a man with no head. 9. McCain, the next morning: "I'm sorry; what was your name? I was a little drunk last night."
Even if not perfectly politically aligned with a particular voter, Obama presents several factors with which McCain cannot compete, the largest being "sex appeal". Despite the fact, most will not consciously admit that such a thing could possibly be a motivator for their vote for such an important office, psychologically, it is unavoidable and powerful.
A recent article in The Nation said, "Barack and Michelle Obama channel some of the style of the current early-'60s revival--sleeveless sheaths and chunky pearls, Ocean's 11 and Mad Men--without the alienation. America, they say, you can be cool and sexy again, "back!" and swinging, but secure this time. Those "excesses" of the '60s that Barack mentioned, those family fractures across the demographic board, they can all be resolved through hot married love."
Clearly, this is reflective of a deep attraction that many Americans share. Much like some of Hollywood's top stars, it is the kind of sex appeal that crosses many borders, both geographically and psychologically. Obama is old enough that young men don't feel threatened. He is young enough that old men can admire his virility and obtain a vicarious thrill. And because he is married to an attractive woman and he expresses a clear sense of family values and religiosity, even moderate Christians have no basis for accusations of sexual opportunism, while the right wing can find nothing true over which to judge him, at least of a sexual nature. As for women, gay and bisexual men (even those who simply fantasize), Obama's attraction is self-evident.
The fact he is black, it goes without saying, but I will say it, conjures certain stereotypes that cannot possibly hurt. He sizes up in every category, at least in the voter's imagination.
All of this reasoning stands firm even without considering his opponent. However, McCain couldn't possibly be in a worse position to compete with these factors. McCain's only sex appeal is his wife, and that certainly makes most voters wonder why a beautiful women like Cindy, would favor him sexually. He is a walking poster child for Viagra, which is probably why he shied away from questions given him earlier about Viagra versus birth control. No doubt he has lost the sexual stamina he might have had as a young man. This perception of impotence inevitably parallels a sense of political impotence. Just add to that, McCain's numerous "senior moments", and it is no wonder. The same would never be suggested about Obama.
America seems to secretly admire virility in its politicians, while outwardly condemning it. There seems to be no other explanation for the incredible support Clinton enjoyed while he was otherwise being impeached for his poor sexual judgment. Deep down, most people understand naughty urges , because almost everyone has had them. Europeans are more comfortable with a conscious recognition of this, but Americans at least still pretend to disdain sex while simply doing it or fantasizing about it while watching various entertainers.
Politicians, unlike other entertainers, are highly sexual beings. Anyone who has ever worked on a political campaign can tell you about the sexual attraction to power. When we add to the power, objectively powerful bases, Obama's physicality, intellect, smile, generally gentle yet bold demeanor and his race; it is no wonder many people feel a tingle that may cloud their other political motivations.
Today's politics is full of good metaphors (if "metaphor" becomes a metaphor for "BS"), but I find myself needing to address this with stark reality in order to make sense of it. As a college teacher of Logic and Critical Thinking with most of my education in Literature and Comp, I am adept at dealing with analogies, but the propaganda has become so overwhelming that I find myself wanting to simply scream, "The Emperor has no clothes."
Even on US news we hear such ridiculous terminology that ignores and veils the goal of objectivity. Those charged with a stated goal of love and compassion lead the assault on those weaker than they. So called "Christian" right-wingers would rather you sit in prison after you commit crimes of survival, than to prepare you for the world with adequate education, then they call you "criminal" for the rest of your life. Proof is certain of the failure of religion to protect the moral code; instead they prefer the propaganda code.
When young men from Islamic nations oppose the establishment, they call them "radicalized youth". If the US kills women and children; we are soldiers/brave young men and THEY are collateral damage. When France did it to their Nazi occupiers, they called them the "French Underground." It almost sounds sexy. If their soldiers do it, we call them "terrorists", despite the clear fact they would prefer to do what they do with B-1 Bombers than with Toyota Tercels. When we do something to intimidate the enemy, we call it a "show of force", though our goal is the same, to provide terror, yet we have the nerve to name it "Shock and Awe".
When the colonists opposed the British, and dumped tea, it was called a "party". Sounds like fun. They, who combine to fight back, we call the "axis of evil". But when we are lucky enough to pull together 3 or 4 countries that still agree with us, we call them "an alliance of the willing."
If Al Quaeda soldiers do it, we call them "extremist" or "brainwashed" unless they are doing it to Russia in Afghanistan under CIA support; then they are "committed and disciplined freedom fighters".
The biggest problem is, that news just reports using the same terminology as if it were rational, when clearly these terms have been market tested and are designed by the greatest, most skillfull and technically trained Psy-Ops officers in the world.
I don't know how much longer I am willing to just nod my head. I am close to screaming when my mind is assaulted by all this purely emotional language intended to brainwash rather than to communicate truth. The list is replete with examples of double standards of terminology.
It is war. People are killed in order to allow one group of rich men to prevail over another less rich group. We don't fight for honor, though the men who fight have the best intentions because they don't know any better. They follow the bouncing ball and sing the song, ooh rah, and people die while my finances, peace of mind and safety quickly fade.
If we haven't been too drugged by the dumbing down within our education system, or by the mass therapy and anti-depressant wave, I think it's a time for the lions that sleep at the heart of America to wake. These are the lions that saw through the repressive regime that taxed without representation and the lions rebelled against the tamers!
Truth, Justice and The American Way.
It's time for the Truth, and it's time for some Justice. As for the "American Way", we must decide a way that is defined by truth and justice or the way we are going is simply a path paved with lies.
It seems that Americans have fallen for one of the oldest political lies of all, that inevitability means we should join the pack. Yes, it is true the world is globalizing, and we stand to benefit if it is properly managed, but to suggest it is a positive policy goal to pursue it and to expedite it just because it is inevitable, is a fallacy.
By this same reasoning, if we truly saw that illegal immigration would inevitably result in irreversible job loss and wage reduction; therefore we should speed up the process? Absurd!
The same goes for globalization, if indeed, we can even separate them. To those who support this rush, globalization seems only a fair ultimate end in a world full of too many borders. To those in the middle class, who actually have something and want to protect and keep it, globalization presents a huge threat. Sure, the rich benefit, as they have no national vested interest; they are already diversified and multinationalized. What is good for these rich, is not good for the average American, or even the world as a whole. The poor are still as poor as the rich want them to be. There is no such thing as voluntary "trickle-down".
The fervor of globalization has several ultimate ends, all of which depend on one failed assumption, that increased worldwide consumerism, is good for everyone. Well, anyone can look around America and see that this is leading to our demise as the average household owes more than $10,000 in consumer debt and each of us is responsible for our fair share of a huge and growing federal debt under which our grandchildren must suffer. American consumerism alone has pushed the Earth's natural resources to its limits and most agree it seems to have many irreversible effects on the environment. Global warming and human impact on it, is a scientific fact.
We already see that America's failure to seek alternative energies, has put us at odds with all developing nations as we compete for oil. Great for those who own the oil, terrible for anyone at the pumps. America's economy is delicately perched on its dependence on oil to feed and lubricate the workflow. It is the key to our productive output. Apparently, by design, we have become slaves to oil and politicians have done nothing about it, but to worsen it.
What happens as we globalize? China becomes wasteful consumers, just like America, Japan, and Europe? Some say, it's only fair they have the right to have what we have. I say the opposite. We should reduce our waste, not encourage theirs.
As oil hovers at $100/barrel, the average American just throws up their hands, giving up in desperation and fear, believing the lie that we can do nothing about it. But we can and everybody knows it. The question is, will we? My prediction is no; my hope is yes!
The first step is to recognize the lies the rich and powerful are telling us. The second is for so called "bleeding hearts" to stop killing us by hastening the expansion of consumerism in the name of "fairness". Finally, it is time for Americans to regain the thing that built this country, revolution. We must stop our fear of government and reinstill the fear of the people in the our politicians. They honestly don't fear losing their elections once they become incumbents. They have built a police state to guarantee they cannot be physically removed. They have imprisoned anyone who had the creativity necessary to oppose government, either by labeling them as "drug addicts" or by criminalizing other private activities. It is still illegal in many states to have sex in any position but "missionary." Wow!
On one hand, the rich tell us to be greedy, to consume more. That's best for the economy, right? On the other hand, some misguided "bleeding hearts" tell us we have too much, and we should volunteer to reduce our quality of living to allow and "equalization of wealth". Sounds good, but it is a lie. The only people bearing the burden of this equalization, are the poor and middle class. America's rich are getting richer, by a landslide while we have lost ground to the tune of 40% in 10-years, all things considered.
What to do?
Vote for someone who believes America should NOT be policemen and owners of the newly globalized world.
Socially revolt. Stop buying anything you don't need to actually survive and put up a tent on the capitol lawn until lawmakers take you seriously.
Demand your rights to control your own minds and bodies. Decriminalize drug use, thus freeing our minds. Protect a woman's right to control her reproduction.
Demand that those who come to America to find their dream, do it LEGALLY and in a controllable fashion, lest chaos ensues.
Finally, refuse to kill and to be killed for the protection and pursuit of money, land and resources. Protect others from their own ignorance by bringing them home from wars. They think they are patriots, but they are killing themselves for unjust policies of global expansionism.
America can lead this change by remembering we are a nation of leaders and a nation of laws. Rather than fiddle while Rome burns, our leaders can remember who they represent, and it's NOT the world; it is their own nation.
The black and female candidates for president, especially the latter, are suffering from severe lack-of-personality disorders. Just a year ago the hot question was: Is America ready for a black or female president? As the campaigns wear on, the question has shifted to: Can America survive the tedium of its black and female candidates?
This week, I am going to get to the point as it seems few are willing to among those either seeking or sitting in office in the executive branch.
1-Bush: Almost 100 Al Quaedas 2-Gonzales: Waiting for the "privilege" of being fired 3-Hillary and Obama: Friends or Foes 4-Mike Gravel - Who's buying our government?
1-Bush: Almost 100 Al Quaedas - How many times can you lie in one speech? And how many times can you harp on the same lie? There is no doubt that someone in the Bush political machine is still determined that Americans are going to believe the lie repeated often enough is going to be believed.In fact, total score Al Quaeda and bin Laden 118 times in 29 minutes.
It seems that Bush may have mentioned Al Quaeda as many times as there are members of the group operating within Iraq, all in a single speech. But more disturbing was the notion that he was consistently attaching Iraq to 9/11. Just when we thought this had been conceded when long ago, Bush finally admitted the Iraq war had "nothing to do with 9/11," he begins a a new phase. So, it seems his reasoning is that, though there were no Al Quaeda in Iraq at the time of the 9/11 incident; now that there are because he invited them, I guess; we must stay and fight them there to prevent them from coming here.
The problem with this is, if there are Al Quaeda there now because we have fed their recruitment efforts by continuing to fight in Iraq well after our welcome was exhausted, what makes him think that by staying there, we will decrease their numbers? And why does he continue to ignore the real experts within the Islamic circles who say the Sunni and Shia (i.e. Saudi Arabia and Iran) hate Al Quaeda even more than the US does?
According to Rajiv Chandrasekaran, author of Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq's Green Zone and Vali Nasr, author of Shia Revival, as soon as the US leaves, both sides are more than willing to eliminate Al Quaeda by any means, as they hate them even more than the US does. According to both authors (neither of which can get a date with Bush), the only reason they tolerate Al Quaeda presence now, is that they provide additional insurgence.
Bush would have us believe all the violence is a result inner turmoil, but Iraq's hate of Al Quaeda could very well bring them together after we leave. Yes, there would be a bloodbath, but one that leads toward a stable Iraq.
2-Gonzales: Waiting for the "privilege" of being fired - Is Gonzales aware of some complex legal standard of truth that has somehow evaded the entirety of the legal community throughout history? Does he actually have a law degree? And if so, how does that reflect on the Harvard class of 1982? He seems to forget one of the basics of law practice, that once it has been established that a witness is lying, we can't believe anything else he says. He passed that point long ago. It is clear he has it in his mind that he is untouchable as long as his boss, an even bigger liar, stands behind him with various executive privileges. Doesn't Gonzalez realize the Dems are simply letting him and Bush coast as they hold a spot for an apparent Democratic heir?
Meanwhile, Press Secretary Tony Snow accused the Democrats of "possibly committing treason". full transcript via CNN
Frankly, if it weren't for the very important work the AG's office needs to do to protect our nation, the Dems would love for him to stay and continue to soil the GOP reputation. I suspect the GOP wants him, Bush, Cheney and the whole embarrassing bunch, to voluntarily disappear, so they could have enough time to reestablish legitimacy.
5min32sec
3-Hillary and Obama: Friends or Foes - It is very confusing to see the two of them walk arm in arm to cast their symbolic votes on the Senate floor, often at the last minute; then to see them trying to find real differences while running for the Dem Nomination in such a way that they can still get the general voter to accept them. The posturing is entertaining but confusing.
This week, when asked in the CNN/You Tube Debate, "Would you meet diplomatically with these countries' leaders?" They took opposite positions, and later spun their positions to accommodate each other. Hillary has, in the past, suggested she would deal with those who oppose us in the international front, though she has never suggested she would do so in a summit of heads of state.
3min25sec
It was clear from Obama's answer that he would directly meet with them just as Reagan had done when he was in the Cold War. But the next day, he claimed he would not necessarily meet with them in such a way as to legitimize them; clearly back peddling and straddling the issue.
Also the next day, Hillary simply spun this situation as one that highlighted Obama's "inexperience and naivete", to which Obama called her "Bush and Cheney Lite" in her refusal to deal with despots. Overall, it seemed to work to her advantage as she could very well claim she would maintain an open dialog with these nations while she wouldn't necessarily meet with them personally. The name-calling didn't reflect well on Obama either, as it just didn't fit. She has clearly separated herself from Bush despite her original support of the Iraq War, as did most, based on Bush's lies.
4-Mike Gravel - Who's buying our government? You had best not ignore Mike Gravel. As usual, he's angry. In this case his focus is on who's been bought among Dem contenders. He says if you really want to know who a candidate is going to represent, just follow the money:
With presidential elections looming, the debate on healthcare reform is once again in the headlines. Every candidate has their opinion and their ideas of how to reform the system.
American citizens want to be able to choose a doctor they can trust and respect; they also want coverage that is adequate and affordable. With premiums rising between 13-25 % per year, our current system is incapable of providing that. But to understand the debate about reform you need to have some knowledge of the terminology that is being used in these debates. There are a few different systems that are currently being discussed. The first, Private Insurance, is the system that we are on now. The second, Socialized Medicine, is a system where the doctors and the hospitals work directly for the government and are paid by the government. This system is similar to the VA. Another, National Health Insurance or Single Payer, is a system that is managed by the public and the services provided remains in the private sector.
Our current system of spending more for lower quality has left 46 million uninsured and 50 million more with insufficient coverage. Those 96 million people are hard working middle class citizens. Lower income citizens are cared for through Medicare/aid and the higher income citizens can afford to purchase a decent plan. Private insurance has proven itself to be an ineffective means of providing care. They waste money on outrageous executive salaries, they have to worry about profit margins for the stockholders, they maintain very expensive sales and marketing departments, and there is overhead to run the company. Private insurance knowingly drives up the cost for the consumer, while forcing the provider to lower the cost of their services, and pocketing the difference.
Hospitals are forced to maintain a costly administrative staff to deal with the bureaucracy created by the insurance industry. All of these problems (and many more) are eating up a third of the money we spend on healthcare. We spend two times as much on our healthcare (about $7,000 per capita) than other developed nations. In short, the insurance industry is responsible for using up a whopping 30% of our healthcare dollars.
Private insurance has also created much of the mess that is associated with Medicare/aid. Healthy people use very little of the premiums that they pay in and that helps to pay for the sick people. Insurance companies cherry pick the healthy patients and provide them with coverage. Once they become sick, the patients’ premiums sky rocket and they drop out of the plan. This leaves programs like Medicare/aid to cover only the sick people and creates huge deficits in their budgets.
Single payer national insurance will solve these problems. Representatives Kucinich (D-OH), Conyers (D-MI), and McDermott (D-WA) are working on a bill, HR 676, which provides America with an intelligent solution to our health care crisis. The proposal provides all American citizens with a comprehensive medical plan which includes primary and preventative care, inpatient/outpatient services, ER services, prescription drugs, long term care, mental health services, dental coverage (excepting cosmetic), hearing, and vision coverage. It even provides for substance abuse treatments and chiropractic services. There are no deductibles, co-pays or other out of pocket expenses. This plan is also portable and will allow you to see any doctor anywhere in the United States.
It sounds good so far but many will raise the question of how we will pay for such a plan. We all know that nothing is free. The good news is that the majority of the funding is already there. Right now we pay 64% of healthcare costs through our taxes. Those funds cover citizens that are on Medicare/aid, the VA, public employees, and teachers, elected officials, the military, and tax subsidies to employers for offering insurance to employees. The citizens are currently paying 17% for healthcare out of their pockets. Employers that offer insurance pay 19% of the cost out of their profits. In fact, 25% of their payroll is dedicated to the cost of health care.
Under a single payer system, we will be saving the $350 billion dollars wasted by the insurance industry per year. Along with those savings, the payroll taxes for employers will be reduced to about 7% saving them 12% of their profits. Citizens will contribute about 2% of their payroll taxes. The plan actually gives the average citizen a 10% raise. They will increase taxes on personal income for the top 5% of income earners, and place a small tax on stock and bond transactions to accommodate for any differences in funding.
The plan will not affect a doctor’s income. There will be reduced malpractice costs and overhead to run their offices. Licensed practitioners will be paid a fee based on the service that they provide. Some physicians will be paid a salary. Hospitals will be given a budget that will be determined by the regional, state, and national board. The plan will be managed by the National Board of Universal Quality and Access, and will be comprised of elected officials with extensive knowledge of the health care industry.
Private insurance will be allowed to cover anything that the national plan doesn’t. It will, under no circumstances, be allowed to compete with the national plan. Competition from private insurers will create a deficit of healthy people in the national plan. This deficit will cripple the plan and we’ll end up back at square one. The only thing that the current bill doesn’t provide for is the retraining and placement of those currently working in the private insurance sector. This is a serious flaw that will need to be considered before the bill is passed.
Whether we like it or not, the government is determined to overhaul our system of delivering healthcare in this country. There are a number of ideas being proposed that could be devastating to the average middle class family. You have to ask yourself if you want a system like Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s (R-CA) that forces citizens into expensive policies that are written by insurance companies. These policies will cost a single person $4,000 per year with a $2,000 deductible including co-payments. This law will fine people a $1,000 and up for not purchasing a plan they’re unable to afford. When you consider that the median income is around $29,000 per year, the cost of a policy like this will be devastating to hard working Americans.
There is little to no regulation written into these types of bills to stop the insurance companies from basing the cost of coverage on risk factors. So, future costs are guaranteed to skyrocket. Is this a plan that will help the citizens or is this a plan that will only serve to make the insurance company stock holders wealthier? With plans like this, we’re still forcing Americans to choose between their health and other basic necessities. A single payer program means death to the insurance industry and I’m grabbing my shovel.
They’ve had a nice run but all profitable things may end. Let's just hope they made enough money to retire gracefully. It’s time to seriously consider a single payer plan. It’s time to consider HR 676.
I am but one of the many citizens that made it possible for you to hold office. I think I remember a thank you speech somewhere along the way; speeches of a New Day. However that seems like such a long time ago .
I now realize as most Americans do, that those words you spoke in November of 2006 had absolutely no substance at all. Though, like many others, I did believe them at the time. Just as we believed your words of hope, change, accountability and morality. The only problem is, we assumed that your ideals would continue to be the same as ours and our Country would be reclaimed as ours. You would follow up on your campaign promises.
Unfortunately, the victorious celebration of regaining the House and Senate was short lived as we watched with shear indignation, the reality of your political character and the choices you made in our name. As it became more evident with each passing day, we knew we were once again far removed from the debate. And in the end, you made a choice. A choice which excludes the very principles the majority of voters hold in this Country.
Why did you decide amongst yourselves that the voters of this country were only worth the votes tallied and anything beyond that, well, we were excluded. How does it feel to have it be known that many in the democratic party are no longer viewed as the Sir Galahad's of our times? Reality is a difficult swallow but so too is your fall from grace.
By now, you've made it quite clear that neither of you represent the individuals that placed you in office. Your decision to not hold to your pre-election ideals... our ideals, proves many things, none of which I would think you ought to be proud of. But then again, perhaps we the voters were merely desperate for change and actually believed your rhetoric, sound bytes and slogans. It's quite clear that we the voters were simply the necessary medium which would pave your way to Washington. Nothing more, nothing less.
You are no different than those that have preceded you and America has learned another startling reality of human behavior and politics. The U.S. Political Arena is a total farce. It's a system that has been broken for quite some time and you are now part of the problem. Our government is no longer viewed as being filled with potential positive possibilities and hopeful solution.
Talk is cheap, as the adage goes, and so too, is the purchase of an elected official. For it is your actions by which you will be gaged by and remembered. Not the campaign slogans which you've failed to adhere to and make a reality.
So lets call this what this actually is. We no longer have a Government that is for the People and by the People. It has been transformed into a seedy dark private business and we the people are merely the road in which you've trampled upon in order to ensure your place in the Corporation . Once there, we the people are left behind once again and it's business as usual.
Government has been reduced to nothing more than a backroom business deal. Welcome to the Corporation of the United States, as we, the shareholders have no voice, votes, or say. It is your way once you step into the confines of the murky, seedy beltway.
I am ashamed, appalled, and sickened . I am tired of the lies, faux democratic hype, spin and above all, I am no longer disillusioned. That is the reality that you also must face in the next election. We the People have learned a very important lesson. Those that serve us as "Elected Officials", merely use the power of the people to win. Once the finish line has been crossed, you do not look back but rather proceed to ignore those that placed you there while you work out your own agenda filled with private promises in closed meetings to secure deals.
I suppose I could ask, how do you sleep at night, however, I think I know the answer. Very easily. And for that, you ought to be ashamed as you are no different than the last Congress. Our problem is that we actually trusted you to do what was right for America, not what was felt to be right for the Bush/Cheney agenda or your political career.
So, this has taught us that you are not the solution we all had hoped for, but rather, part of the problem. There are those that claim , the Democratic Party has sold us out. I disagree. As it is quite obvious your agenda was apparently already set in stone.And you merely told us what we so desperately needed and wanted to hear."Change In Washington" Didn't matter to you that it was a con, as long as your goals were reached and you won the election.
Ahh, but you might state, "We've been holding investigations, hearings,ordered committees which can be viewed on CNN, and have threatened to send subpoena's and add non binding resolutions." That is all fine and good, as window dressing. But let the truth be known, you've done nothing in terms of enforcing accountability, ending the Iraq Invasion which was based on Cherry picked intelligence. There ought not even be a debate concerning Iraq, when the basic premise was a lie to begin with. Anything after that is simply moot. You've missed so many opportunities when it comes to making individuals accountable for the injustices we've been forced to endure the world over.
How many times must the world see just what a charade your investigations have been? Despite the overwhelming evidence that corruption from the top down has grown like a cancer, along with years of obstruction of justice. Still, you've done nothing except to provide the continuation of a broken political system. In a real court of law, a real investigation or hearing, there would be those that would have already been charged with the RICO Act. After all, lets be real here, U.S. Politics has become nothing more than a cover for Organized Crime. And, I would rather place bets on the loyalty of the Mob, than Washington Officials at this point. At least there is honor and loyalty to some extent. You have no honor. Nor do you have a sense of loyalty to those that put you in office. How unfortunately typical for what has become Politics in America.
In closing I would like to say that the American People are tired of the abuse. Sickened by private agendas. And we the people are so distrustful of anyone right now. I see this Country being forced down a revolutionary road and and it will be a matter of survival and preservation. It will be in response to the abuse of power, ignoring your base, and selling out the entire Country for what? I blame you as well as the Congresses that have gone before you. You now have blood on your hands in terms of Iraq.
You also have proved that you also work in a "Decider" like fashion, by proclaiming that Impeachment is off the table. By who's authority may I ask? Certainly not the voter's. When will America be returned to it's people? America has had enough and the world will no longer be held hostage and lay victim to such a manipulative Industrial Military Complex driven by your Political Agendas. While you continue the charade by referring to America as a Democracy, people are dieing all over the globe. The United States of America has wreaked havoc over the entire world .
Let's be real here and call it what it actually is: Organized Global Crime, which you helped shape and forge as a willing participant . You've no humanity left and it is becoming increasingly clear that you are also a very large part of the problem, not the solution.
Cartoon-Copyright by Bryan E. Hall/Duly Consider Click pictures to enlarge
It's getting very confusing for those on the left when they find more in common with conservatives than they find different, but with the decider's approval ratings sliding lower and lower, he is decidedly the most unpopular president in modern history. Even the Nixon family is regaining their reputation.
It seems while Republican Presidential candidates are standing in line to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan, despite his legacy of Alzheimer's, they are standing in quiet yet growing lines of those who distance themselves from the man who appears to be the worst President in history.
On this, the true conservatives and, well, everybody else except Bush's children agree, and frankly I haven't heard his twin daughters nor his wife defend him recently.
I have recently had to avoid my general assumptions that the GOP is steadfast as more and more of my Republican friends tell me they are more angry than I. People didn't understand until now that there really are some Republican that do love America and can admit when they were wrong. It is difficult for both extremes, but in this case, only so much weight on the chest can be resisted before suffocation. Mr. Bush has brought shame on his party, family, our military, his co-workers and government as a whole.
We may very well never repair the damage he has done to the entire system and its legitimacy. We are in a constitutional crisis and all with higher than a 50 IQ or an income lower than a billion would agree he has hurt America. Frankly, I don't know any billionaire Republicans personally, so it's hard to even get someone into a fight unless I visit the local Nazi party, and they are even hard to find nowadays; and I live in Georgia.
From staunch Right Wing News to the liberal San Fransisco Sentinel, we find people holding hands ready to lynch the President. Some may want his neck because he has made them unelectable, while others hate him for simply ignoring the value of life (at least those already born).
On one thing we all agree, the men and women in Iraq have been incredibly mismanaged and the President has used them in an attempt to look like a "real man". Even W's father suggested recently "there is Bush fatigue" when he was asked about the possibility of younger Bush brother, Jeb, having a chance of filling W's shoes. If this is what GHWB and Barbara say, imagine what they think.
I love "nappy" hair. It's soft, free and it stands and delivers.
As for "Ho's", what is a ho? A woman who enjoys sex with multiple partners? Hmm, if it were a guy wouldn't we call him a stud?
As for the intentions of Imus, clearly racist and ignorant but so are all the rap songs I hear that denigrate women and their own race.
Isn't it time we remove the double standard. If a white man says it, its bad? But if a self-hating black says it, is it okay? If a black politician calls white members of the Mondale Presidential staff, the "Smart Ass White Boys" (Andrew Young), or a Presidential candidate calls New York "Hymy Town", is it okay (Jackson)? When on many occasions black politicians blindly refer to "white people" saying or doing one thing or another, is it okay? As if all white people do or say the same things.
Frankly, I am tired of the double standards. Will it ever be the right time for us to start all over and walk hand in hand like children with others of different color, creating the rainbow society Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned, or has it become an intractable and an all too profitable industry to point fingers, even when four of them are pointing back at you?
Shame on Imus for thinking he was ever funny. Shame on Sharpton for ever thinking he was without sin and for parading his own daughter before Imus in his stone-throwing exhibition. Shame on Jackson for his focus on one fool while ignoring himself and many others. Aren't their better racists to point at; like Bush and the other white men who send black men disproportionately to their deaths and injuries in war and prison?
Is anyone other than me tired of hearing that it is terrible for whites to express their racism while pretending there is no such thing as black racism? As I have said to the many black men for whom I have worked, "you have the power, not I." Can we just finally start treating each other by the "content of our character rather than the color of our skin."
Maybe I'm just being naive and idealistic to suggest that the time to do the right thing, once we recognize it is right, is now!
It is confusing enough to be either a student or teacher in todays politically charged environment, but one would think that it would be okay to maturely discuss tolerance toward gays and lesbians in high school. If you are from some communities in America, you would would be mistaken as freedom of the press apparently does not extend to some subjects that offend the religious sensibilities of a public high school.
That's right. In Woodburn, IN a teacher was suspended for failure to ask for specific approval of a student column promoting such tolerance.
It was the usual practice Woodlan Junior-Senior High School to submit "anything controversial" for prior censorship to the principal. School newspaper teacher Amy Sorrell figured the articles on teen pregnancy, teen motherhood and sexually transmitted diseases would be controversial, so she submitted them to her principal before publishing. No problem there. But she didn't submit an article she considered less controversial promoting tolerance of homosexuals.
It never occurred to her that attention from state and national news would cause her principal to suspend her.
"If we can talk about herpes and gonorrhea on one page, we should be able to talk about tolerance on the next page," says Sorrell, who doesn't believe she did anything wrong.
Commentary: If teachers and students are put in a position of prior restraint in the first place, it should be a hint that their independent decisions are subject to arbitrary moralization. In this society where children can watch hundreds of people being killed in a graphic fashion in a horror movie or one that glorifies war, but can't be trusted to process 1 second images of Janet Jackson's nipple, I guess it should be no surprise that tolerance of homosexuals would be preposterous.
What is a teacher to do? The safest answer, nothing and that's how we got where we are. Teachers are under such scrutiny that they either choose not to enter the profession or if they do, they choose to water down the curriculum so much that it has no parallel to the larger society for which they pretend to prepare students.
It is no wonder the teachers who get the best report cards are those who make things unchallenging, uncontroversial, and often uninformed.
A 107 mm rocket hit two feet from Specialist Jon Town's head in Ramadi, Iraq. His injuries included rocket shrapnel deep in his neck and head, leaving him partially deaf and with memory loss. Town was declared unfit for combat. But instead of sending Town to a medical board, doctors at Fort Carson, Colorado declared Town's injuries the result of a "personality disorder". As a result, he will not receive disability or medical benefits.
Recent investigations have shown that Army doctors have often ruled injured soldiers to have "pre-existing conditions" that therefore disqualify them for benefits - even for injuries clearly sustained in combat.
The recent wave of intentional misreporting of statistics that the Bush administration and the war machine find embarrassing, expensive or "unpatriotic" has created an environment of legitimate mistrust of the entire military apparatus. Veterans are being deliberately misdiagnosed to cut off all benefits and thus save money. More importantly, if this practice undermines the legitimacy of recruitment efforts or the deserved loyalty of soldiers, the US could suffer irreparable harm to the essential spirit and of our defense structure.
Much like the boy who cried, "wolf", our failure to re-establish integrity and honor may result in a generation of cynical citizens, and deservingly so, but detrimental nonetheless. More on the subject at www.thenation.com
Below is a well-written review by an anonymous reader on Amazon of the book that serves as the bible for PNAC (The Project for the New American Century) prior to the 9/11 Crisis:
This is undoubtedly one of the most important books on US foreign policy published in recent years and should be read by anyone who cares about the future of the United States and the rest of the world. This is the manifesto of "conservative internationalism" whose proponents, including many of the books authors, now infest the Bush administration and are his loudest ventriloquists. Here, then, is the current administration's strategic vision.
The basic argument is that the US needs to exercise world domination, here spun as "benevolent global hegemony" and that there are a number of external obstacles which stand in the way and must be dealt with. These are Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, the Middle East peace process and an independent Europe. In its clear and reasoned enunciation of strategy and future plans, it both rivals and surpasses the later chapters of Mein Kampf. Here is the game plan which must be read to understand where these people intend to take the world next.
If we ignore the desirability of this mission, its feasibility (the cost in money, lives and freedom) certainly merits discussion, but here the book is thin, relying on fairy story assumptions (budget surpluses!!!) and wishful thinking.
The one distasteful aspect of the book is the attempt to wrap the entire endeavor in the cloak of "American morality", understood as protecting citizen's liberties. This is breathtaking stuff from accomplices in the most extensive attempt to incinerate the Constitution in recent history.
Stripped of its ideological air cover and romantic fantasies, this is still an important, timely and lively document since this is the future course of foreign policy which the Bush administration plans to pursue.
I begin this piece with a warning to anyone that wants to remain in ignorant bliss. The "Neo-conmen" who serve on this committee truly believe that America is chosen by God to dominate the world by any means. This is NOT a conspiracy theory as the book above states very clearly this is their intention and, as any self-proclaimed, God-endorsed dictators would, they move forward with no shame and no mercy on those who stand in their way.
This is NOT the Illuminati or Trilateral Commission where their existence and membership remain secret. The main committee is as follows according to their website and publications:
Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg
Francis FukuyamaFrank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan
Zalmay KhalilzadI. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen
Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld
Vin WeberGeorge Weigel
Paul Wolfowitz Richard Armitage
The following graphic is a result of a huge database compiled over 20 years recording known social associations as verified by public record and reputable journalistic sources. Click to enlarge. It reads as a who's who of the Fascist NeoCon movement.
If these names look familiar, they should. They are the very people who have put America and the world into it's potentially perilous positions. They planned their work and they worked their plan, again, without shame. Research any of them and you will see a blatant pattern and history of belief in Fascism (everything in service to the state).
This list is by no means complete as to the men and women who follow their commands, but it is a good beginning and the list certainly does not suggest that all members are knowledgeable of or participating in any efforts of treachery.
Before 9/11 even began, these men realized, according to their own writings, that it would take "another Pearl Harbor" to scare American citizens enough to be willing to support massive exercise of military power and the destruction of constitutional rights that would ensue. Their report went so far as to suggest in great detail the very things that did happen in NYC on the most infamous date in history.
They have made such things happen to advance their goals of global power since the writing of this document. They have done what is necessary to destroy and suppress evidence of their illegal actions. Without getting too specific, we can all see one thing after another that couldn't have been more perfectly scripted for the advancement of the wealth of those who control the military industrial complex.
My suggestion, as always is to Duly Consider all the facts; not just the ones presented by the establishment but, before they shut them down, the alternate news sources, mostly on the web.
This site has an extensive collection of articles and documentaries on this subject and others. You may want to begin here 9/11 or 911. Other books by and endorsed by PNAC include:
If you are easily seduced by emotional persuasion, you are in danger of becoming a fascist by reading these. If you go into it with the quest of "knowing thine enemy" you will drop your jaw and come out with armor on your mind.
Here is the direct testimony of Congressman Ron Paul (R), previously Libertarian Party honcho. He tells it the way it is about how the Federal Reserve System (a private corporation - in case you didn't know) and the World Bank have created an ever increasing disparity between the rich and poor as corporations and wealthy people insist on protection from inflation and they get raises whether or not they do a good job.
PREFERENCE IF GOP NOMINATION WERE JUST MCCAIN V. GIULIANI (Among Republican Primary Voters)
Giuliani 50% McCain 21% Neither 13%
CBS Polls what would have been unexpected just six months ago as it once appeared that McCain was the likely Republican nominee.
What explains this? Many feel that the idea that Giuliani looks more like a Democrat than McCain and he's the next best thing in the GOP. He's from NYC and he still maintains the positive emotions associated with leadership during 9/11 according to words used to describe him by those polled at Pew. He is open to current standards regarding abortion but says he opposes abortion which is the same thing Bill Clinton said in order to straddle the issue Also, keep in mind this poll is among the general population, not exclusive Republicans. Pew Research released words most commonly used to describe current candidates from both parties from leaners of their respective parties which would also help us understand what is on America's mind. Click Graphs to Enlarge
Senate in the next election which could be the tail that wags the dog if they face the same thing they did in the lastThe big question in the election will be whether or not the most recent Democratic advantage overall holds its position or improves. It should be noted there are a huge number of Republicans up for re-election in the.
I have been to and seen many town hall meetings and as much as I appreciate political concern, I have no patience for ignorance, heated passion or anything that cannot be logically applied to an issue, and backed up with relevant facts. It embarrasses me that our media play unedited, live town halls which demonstrate our worst instead of our best intellectual thought.
50%
It would seem to be common sense that Americans would demand such information about a Presidential candidate as GPAs, SATs, any objectively comparable data.
The fact is, Sarah Palin, by any stretch, is of a mediocre academic track, as is McCain. America allowed a coups d'etat (didn't elect) George Jr., and despite his poor academics, he went to the finest schools (with a D average). His presidency hasn't worked out very well. Hopefully, America has learned it's lesson from that fiasco.
Our President should be the brightest and best, not someone that simply "fits in" at the local PTA or drinking establishment.
I suspect Sarah's IQ is unimpressive or else it would be made public. The same can be said of any other data that somehow has been demanded in her "long political career". I guess Alaskans don't have much regard for objective standards, just redneck values and NRA membership.