Monday, November 29, 2004

Some Insight from Another Author

The following is an excerpt from Andrew Tanenbaum’s website, I followed it religiously during the months leading up to the election in 2004. It contains a lot of valuable data even though the election is over. His insights in the following passage are valuable.

"…living abroad I know first hand what the world thinks of America and it is not a pretty picture at the moment. I want people to think of America as the land of freedom and democracy, not the land of arrogance and blind revenge. I want to be proud of America again. The U.S. media do a spectacularly bad job of informing Americans about what is going on in rest of the world. After Sept. 11, the U.S. could do no wrong. The entire world was on America's side. The invasion of Afghanistan was seen as completely justified. After all, the Al-Qaida leadership had to be decapitated. No one questioned that.

But Iraq was a completely different matter. Bush, Cheney, and Powell said they had conclusive proof that Saddam had WMD and could attack at any instant. The rest of the world wanted to see the proof. No proof was forthcoming. The answer was "trust us." We now know there were no WMD. There weren't even factories or labs to produce them. Saddam was an evil dictator with evil fantasies but he was no threat to America. Yet former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that the planning to invade Iraq began the day Bush was inaugurated. The administration simply misused the horror of Sept. 11 as a convenient excuse for doing something that was already in the works.

Let me tell you a short story. When I was in elementary school, the school was plagued by a bully. He was the biggest, strongest kid around and would beat up anyone he didn't like. We were all exceedingly polite to his face, but hated his guts behind his back. One day he was chasing some poor kid and he tripped and skidded a considerable distance, scraping his face on the rough asphalt of the playground. He was bleeding and in pain, screaming for help. But nobody came to help him. We all just walked away. George Bush is the world's playground bully. The world sees him--and by inference, America--as arrogant, self-centered, and mean. I spoke to Americans from dozens of countries at the DA caucus. Everyone told the same story--the world hates America. When talking to foreigners, I can tell them about the Bill of Rights or freedom or World War II, or whatever I want, but all they see is this big, stupid, arrogant, playground bully and a stolen election... I think America deserves better. I want America to be respected in the world again...

Don't believe me that the world hates us? The Guardian, one of Britain's most respected newspapers, ran a column by Charlie Brooker… ending with this paragaph: "On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed ..." Then it gets so bad that I refuse to quote it. Maybe Brooker is a nut and maybe it was a joke, but the fact that a serious newspaper would publish this piece shows how deep the hatred of George Bush runs. And this comes from our closest ally. Imagine what people in Spain or Indonesia or the Arab world think.

Now you might be thinking: Who the hell cares if America is the world's pariah, along with, say, North Korea and Zimbabwe? Well, I care, for one, and I think most Americans want to be respected for being a democracy rather than simply being feared because we have more nuclear weapons than anybody else. You can't make the world love you by running commercials full of snarling wolves on worldwide TV.

But there are some practical matters to consider as well. If you look at British and Canadian publications, such as The BBC, The Guardian, The Economist, and The Globe and Mail, you get a picture not colored by partisan electoral considerations. You sometimes wonder if they are reporting the same war as the U.S. media. The situation in Iraq has deteriorated very badly. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the war, mostly women and children. Well over 1000 American soldiers--many of them just kids who signed up for the National Guard and never expected to go to war--have been killed there and thousands more have been maimed for life. Americans are being killed daily in increasing numbers and unless there is a radical change, this will go on for years. Reenlistment rates are way down and manpower needs are way up. With a President Kerry, there is hope that other countries might contribute serious numbers of troops to help stabilize Iraq. With a second Bush administration they will just say: "You broke it, you fix it."

If other countries won't help out, Bush is going to be faced with an unpleasant choice: accept another Vietnam-type quagmire lasting for years or reinstitute the draft. There is no way we can win in Iraq with current troop levels. Something has to change. More of the same won't work. And it is an open secret that after the election, Bush is going to ask Congress for another $70 billion down payment on Iraq. Who is going to pay for it? We are. In addition, the U.S. needs the help of other countries to gather intelligence about terrorists, cut off their funding, and track them down. Trouble is, when the playground bully comes asking for help, everyone just walks away. A new president who shows respect for the world instead of arrogance will get a lot more help. And we need help, believe me.

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Nice Guys (and Gals) Finish Last

Are we liberals doomed to failure? Probably, because, simply put, we're too nice.

We respect others' right to their own opinion, and in so doing allow a platform for right-wing hate mongers, who then refuse to allow us the same courtesy.

We embrace diversity, and in so doing allow intolerant bigots to thrive.

We believe that Americans still value freedom and democracy, and in so doing we are dismissed as irrelevant by the power elite who control the republican party, who violate every last shred of ethical behavior in order to secure their power.

We believe in freedom of religion; that we are free to worship as we choose or not at all, and in so doing, allow religious zealots to enforce their religion upon the rest of us through legislation, in full opposition to the wishes of our nation's founders.

We believe in freedom of speech, and in so doing allow free reign to the venomous, hate-mongering, fear-mongering, lying, manipulative, demagogues of the radical right - the neocons - who have usurped conservative politics and replaced it with fascism.

The very definition of liberal is one who believes in liberty, in freedom, which unfortunately invites freedom for both good and evil. We welcome all to the table, and those who would subdue us take their place, and proceed to take ours as well.

The neocons, now in control of the republican party, possess the Darwinian advantage of nature's other successful predators: single-minded focus, clarity of purpose, unrelenting resolve to eliminate all competition through any means necessary. They are well aware of this advantage. To them the end justifies the means. To them, ethics are merely an annoyance requiring less and less attention. They still are inconvenienced by the need to placate their supporters by claiming exclusive ownership of “moral values,” knowing full well that it is a wildly subjective phrase. Their Christian supporters hear what they want to hear and assume their own values are being referenced, which could not be further from the truth.

The republicans are now the mighty flesh-eating dinosaurs, ruling their world without mercy. Liberals are the tiny mammals scrabbling through the underbrush, eking out a niche in the dinosaurs’ hostile environment and hoping to survive.

It took a lot of evolution, but they did survive, didn’t they? Let’s hope it doesn’t take another world-wide cataclysm to free us from their tyranny.

Saturday, November 27, 2004

How To Be A True Bush Conservative In 2004

Note to liberals: you can ignore these instructions unless you want to discover what life would be like as a republican as defined by Bush's 2004 "mandate."

1. Do not collect Social Security. You are not "paying into it," nor have you ever done so. It is not a savings account. It is a socialist redistribution of wealth. Don't accept it. If you do, you're a hypocrite.

2. Do not accept health benefits from your employer. You already condemn liberals who consider them an entitlement. Do not accept them. Take the money you save on those premiums and buy your own health insurance on the free market like a true capitalist. Otherwise, you are a socialist.

3. Do not join a trade union. They are the closest thing to communism we have in this country. If you accept the benefits provided for you by union membership, you are a traitor to conservatism. You'll have a hard enough time reconciling the fact that you enjoy benefits such as overtime pay, won for you by union workers who came before.

4. Since you voted to wage war against Iraq (and other countries in the "axis of evil"), you must join the military and serve your country. You support the war, so you should go fight unless you are disabled. Volunteer to fight terrorists. If you are too old to do so (don't worry, they’re recalling reservists in their 50’s), then send your children. To do anything less makes you a hypocrite. And, be prepared for the “war” to continue… forever.

5. Go to a Christian church and live by its teachings. Do not disobey the "ten commandments," or the commandments given by party-recognized religious leaders, such as Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. And since social services are to be scrapped in favor of “faith-based initiatives,” you must either give enough to charity to support the poor or shelter someone in your own home. It’s not the taxpayers’ responsibility anymore. It’s yours.

6. If your daughter should become pregnant, or if a girl should become pregnant by your son, you must accept responsibility for the baby. If they, or you if you are a woman, or your wife if you are a man, becomes pregnant and the mother’s life is threatened by irregularities in the pregnancy, they (or you) must carry out the pregnancy, even if it kills them. It is God’s will.

7. If a hospital performs unnecessary surgery upon you; if they accidentally amputate the wrong limb, or remove the wrong organ, or sexually assault you while you are anesthetized, or overcharge you, or anything else you find disagreeable, just live with it. You are not allowed to sue them, because you agree that trial lawyers are responsible for high medical costs.

8. Do not complain because you do not earn enough money if you earn minimum wage (or more), or cannot find a job that pays a decent wage, or cannot afford health care. It’s your own fault, so accept responsibility for it. You will have a tax rebate soon (most likely in the form of a Wal-Mart voucher).

9. Do not expect “overtime” pay if you work over 40 hours a week. The “time-and-a-half” formula was devised by communist-backed labor unions to gouge honest business owners. The same goes for all the other liberal/leftist "entitlements" like "unemployment insurance," "vacation days," "sick leave," etc. An honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay – no work, no pay.

10. Do not complain if your health should suffer due to poisons in land, water or air. If you want all the wonderful things offered by a moral, conservative society, then you must accept the consequences.

11. If you should be thrown into jail, do not expect the “rights” that were demanded by whining liberals, such as the right to an attorney, or to be told the charges against you, or to receive any medical care while incarcerated, or to be released anytime before the government decides to do so, if at all. Know also that your government, as directed by George W. Bush, may decide to torture while you are jailed. Accept it.

12. Do not expect the news media to report “news.” The media are a function of government. News delivered by radio, television or print media is a privilege granted by the republican party. They will decide what you need to know.

More later...

Friday, November 26, 2004

Government Of The Idiots, By The Idiots, and For The Rest of Us

I know someone who is active in her union at work, and is marching soon encourage another company (same trade) to allow their workers to unionize. The irony? She voted for Bush/Cheney! That's right, she flies the flag of union representation, she lets all her coworkers think she's on their side, she claims to support the union, and she happily collects all the benefits of her membership in the union. Then, she turns around and stabs her coworkers in the back, along with union brothers and sisters everywhere, by voting against their (and her) interests. Her own union endorsed Kerry and urged her to vote democrat, she betrayed them by voting for the anti-union party. She's a die-hard republican who attends union meetings and is completely clueless about the contradiction. And everyone in her circle of friends voted republican also, even though they all reap the benefits of liberal democrat policies and often decry the injustices visited upon them by republican plutocracy. The blind leading the blind, and dragging us along with them... into oblivion.

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Subjective Reality, or, The Truth Hurts

What does it mean to "support the troops"? Before you answer, consider this: have you ever asked anyone how they define it? I believe that just about everyone has a different definition of what it means to "support the troops." It is a patriotic catchphrase that inspires ideas that are never discussed. People simply state the phrase and assume that everyone else is on the same page.

During the first gulf war in the '90's, bumper stickers proclaiming "I oppose the war but I support our troops" began proliferating (yes, for those who have forgotten, that was also a very unpopular war). I immediately saw a contradiction in this. How can one oppose a war but support those who conduct the war? Doesn't it follow, logically, that one would oppose the Nazi's invasion and occupation of countries in Europe, yet still support the German soldiers who were serving their country? Or oppose the war waged by Japan but still support their troops who served their country?

Soon the phrase was shortened to "support the troops" because, I suppose, it was a given that most people didn't support the war but were afraid of being called unpatriotic if they didn't support the troops. Yet there was still no consensus on what it actually meant. Did it mean that they supported them financially? Those of us who pay taxes had to do so whether we wanted to or not (and let's not forget that it is the Bush administration who claims to support the troops one minute and then takes away veterans' benefits the next). Did it mean that they supported them emotionally; cheering them on to victory because they do their nation's bidding and carry out their orders? Shades of the Nuremburg Trial defense "Just Following Orders".

In the end, the only definition that seemed to stick was the notion that Vietnam veterans had not treated well enough upon their return home, and the resulting problems made people decide that any soldiers who fought in a war were always to be considered heroic good guys. No matter what they might have done during their tour of duty; it was okay, none of it was their fault, they were sent by politicians and had to kill people because they were told to do so. Ultimately, "support the troops" meant "I hold the troops blameless and free from responsibility because they were only following orders. They'll do anything they're told, no matter what, to anyone for any reason we want, and we love them for it."

Well, I think that is an ignorant, destructive, and just plain stupid way to think. Sorry, to all those who have loved ones in the military.

Here's what I believe: Soldiers are responsible for war, not the other way around.

Consider this: if a charismatic friend or loved one, whom you respected and admired, told you to go kill your neighbor and claim all their property on their behalf (and promised to share it with you), would you do it? No? What if they managed to persuade you with absolute conviction that you were absolutely correct to take over your neighbor's property because neighbor was evil, he deserved it, he was scheming against you, already causing no end of problems and certainly responsible for the bad things that have been happening lately at your house? Not only that, but he could "prove" that the neighbor was already planning to light fires all over your property until you consent to do whatever it is they want. Would you carry out your orders then? Don't say you'd want to see the proof - would you unquestioningly carry out your orders to kill your neighbor and take his property simply on the strength of being ordered to do so?

Imagine what would have happened if, when Hitler or Hirohito ordered people to invade and conquer other countries, those people simply refused. Imagine what would have happened if the people simply refused to destroy another country simply because they were told to do so. Imagine what would have happened if, when Saddam Hussein ordered his troops to invade Kuwait, they refused. No invasion, no war, just a despot throwing a tantrum in the palace, alone.

The scenarios go on and on. Throughout history, there have been raving lunatics on every corner, spewing madness and hate-speech. Tell me who is crazier: the lunatic on the corner or the idiot who does what the lunatic tells him? Which one would you rather be? Or, would you rather walk on by the lunatic and ignore him?

The way to completely end war forever is outrageously simple. The way to completely end war forever is for people to simply decide to stop fighting wars.

Now, I realize that you're saying "That's the stupidest, most unrealistic pie-in-the-sky peacenik fantasy crap I've ever heard." But the fact is, my statement is absolutely true. I have proven it through personal experience. I have been told to do stupid destructive things; I refused to do them; and thus the stupid destructive things did not happen. Theory tested, applied in practice, and proven correct. If I can do it, and others too, why can't everyone? It's certainly easy to do. They say war is hell. It stands to reason that it would be easier not to fight one.

By the way, I understand that by having this opinion I am among the tiniest minority on the planet. So be it. I'm not divorced from reality. If our troops are defending our nation from foreign invaders, then I support the troops. If our troops are the foreign invaders, then I most certainly do not.

Wednesday, November 24, 2004


I cannot believe the hypocrisy of the Bush administration! Get a load of this statement, by Colin Powell, in reference to the Russian election:

"We have been following developments very closely and are deeply disturbed by the extensive and credible reports of fraud in the election. We call for a full review of the conduct of the election and the tallying of election results... We cannot accept this result as legitimate because it does not meet international standards and because there has not been an investigation of the numerous and credible reports of fraud and abuse."

This, from the Bush administration!? The lying, cheating, hypocritical, two-faced, anti-democracy, anti-American, plutocratic, backstabbing, traitors have the unmitigated gall to criticize someone else for voter fraud!? AAAUUUGGGHHH!!!

And another thing... what is this reference he makes to "international standards"? Oh my God -- are they saying that it DOESN'T PASS THE GLOBAL TEST!?

How in all the universe can anyone support such a gang of lying hypocrites!? They condemn another country for doing what they themselves have done without remorse! THEY DO THIS ALL THE TIME! THEY GET AWAY WITH IT ALL THE TIME! AND THEIR FOLLOWERS LOVE THEM FOR IT! Why won't the republicans allow the citizens of the United States to enjoy the same rights and freedoms they claim other countries should have? If Afghanistan and Russia deserves free and open democratic elections, why don't we? If they can use my tax money to "spread freedom and democracy" around the globe, why won't they allow us to have some? Oh, of course: because the republican party is wholly and entirely opposed to freedom and democracy. They are terrified of a fair election in our own country because they know they would lose.

I'll tell you something: I started out my adult life convinced that most of the adult population of this country were idiots. Yes, I am aware that this is a common misconception among those idiots at that age. As years passed, I tried to convince myself that I was just being pretentious and egotistical. I forced myself to give them the benefit of the doubt, until I reached a point where I was willing to accept that they simply had different values, and those were still valid. Not anymore, damn it! I swear, anyone who willingly ingests the stinking poison that is the Bush administrations' policies, is a either a complete moron, or a traitor, a vile scheming plutocrat manipulator, or any combination of the three.

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

A Note About This Blog

It's like this: I am hopelessly behind in my blogging, etc., so this blog is goint to bounce back and forth between contempory commentary and reflections upon past events (most specifically during the last 4-5 years, where politics are concerned). I hope to write about more than politics, but where passions lie, fingers follow. There's a loaded statement for you. Anyway, off we go...

One Is Not Necessarily The Other

reposted from November because it still seems relevant; slightly edited

I often find myself explaining to people that the words republican, democrat, liberal, and conservative describe four different things, not two. Too many people are under the misconception that republican is synonymous with conservative, and democrat is synonymous with liberal. They use the words interchangeably, but that is an inaccurate portrayal.

The truth is, not all members of the "big two" parties can be defined according to the stereotypes. A few examples:

Liberals are perceived as anti-war, yet Democrats presided over WWII, the Korean war, Vietnam, Bosnia, and ran their 2004 presidential candidate as a war veteran. At the same time, Republicans portray themselves as the hawk's party, when in fact many republican proponents of war did not serve any military duty, some being actual draft dodgers, while many anti-war democrats actually did serve in the military. Conservatism defines itself as the standard-bearer of fiscal restraint, yet Republicans outspend democrats and run up astronomical debts. Democrats are regarded as creators of bigger government, yet the Clinton administration reduced the size of government while the Reagan administration expanded it. And at one time, the Democrats were the southern-state, "state's rights" party, while the Republicans placed federal authority over the states; a situation that reversed in later years. Republicans proclaim themselves to be the party of Christian values and accuse Democrats of being opposed to them, when in fact, republican values (pro-execution, pro-war, opposed to social programs) are decidedly anti-Christian, while democratic values (generally anti-death-penalty, anti-war, pro-social-programs) seem truer to Christian ones.

At the grassroots, some Democrats and Republicans are openly critical of their own parties or of politicians presented to them as their only choice on voting day. My observation is that most voters' values are blended from left- and right-, more or less according to what is appropriate in their lives. Once they were called moderate, although that term was saddled with a derogatory connotation of indecisiveness (wrongly so, in my opinion). In any event, I maintain that not all republicans are conservative, not all democrats are liberal, and to lump them all together paints a picture that just isn't true.

Sunday, November 21, 2004

The Real Threat of Republican Fascism

The following excerpts are from the article Fascism Anyone? by Laurence W. Britt, published in Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2. The author considered the common methods of several fascist regimes (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Papadopoulos's Greece, Pinochet's Chile, and Suharto's Indonesia). Those common methods of fascist regimes are:

"1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia."

"2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation."

"3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice, relentless propaganda and disinformation, were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite spontaneous acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and terrorists. Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly."

"4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite."

"5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses."

"6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes' excesses."

"7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting national security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous."

"8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion."

"9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens."

"10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice."

"11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist."

"12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power."

"13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population."

"14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite."

Reads like the republican party platform, doesn't it? Sounds like stories taken right from today's headlines, doesn't it? Or more accurately, from the campaign diary of Carl Rove - Dick Cheney - George Bush.

To "conservatives" I say this: you've been duped. You've been used as the machinery to put yet another fascist regime into power, and they don't give a damn about you. They're not Christians. They posess no lofty "moral values". They're not looking out for your interests. They have no intention of employing any fiscal responsibility with public funds (that's our tax money). The only national security they are concerned with is the security of their own corporate revenue...they're simply out to secure their own bottom line. Oh, sure, they'll continue to tell you what you want to hear; they're expert at that. They'll even convince you to sacrifice your children for them and their interests by sending them off to be used as cannon fodder in foreign wars which have no bearing whatsoever on our national defense (while their own children won't have to go).

I hope you're all happy with yourselves now. Thanks to you, America will soon be ranked with Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.

Friday, November 19, 2004

The Worst Thing Ever

Okay, here is the worst thing ever that any political party has ever done, ever, to the American people: THEY TOOK AWAY OUR RIGHT TO VOTE.

Oh, sure, they let us go through the motions, under the misguided notion that we are actually voting. But guess what? This time, it didn't make any difference. The republican party had their machinery in place long before the 2004 election. They knew their plan would work and there was nothing we could do about it.

Throughout American history, the one thing we had going for us was our power of self-government through voting. Now matter how much you disagreed with government policy, you were reassured that your voice could be heard through your vote. Now, that's all gone. I cannot overemphasized the significance of this loss. Our right to vote was the most important legacy of our nation's founders; all our other rights were subject to it... until now. That is why I was literally sickened by the outcome of this election. Results from a fair vote, I can live with. Results based on dirty tricks played by the corrupt, lying, cheating republican party, I cannot.

I beleive this is an impotant step in the neocons' plan to eradicate democracy from the face of the earth and replace it with a plutocracy ripped from the dark ages. Unless they are stopped, it signals the end of democracy in the United States.

Thursday, November 11, 2004

Me Too!

Practically everyone else seems to have posted this (all credit to the author), so I will do so also... Because it is great and deserves to be considered.

A Day In The Life Of Joe Republican

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joy's bacon is safe to eat because some girl-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalism wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joy's employer pays these standards because joy's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joy's deposit is federally insured by the FOSSILS because some godless liberal wanted to protect joy's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fanny Mae-underwriter mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Friday, November 5, 2004

What th' -- !?

Remember the story about Johnny Rotten asking a Sex Pistols audience, "Did you ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"

When John Kerry conceded the election, there were still hundreds of thousands of votes to be counted. Why did he concede so soon? I feel betrayed. I don't know if the decision was his, or the party's, or his campaign manager's, or whomever. It was an insult to all of us who invested so much in this election; emotionally, financially, and otherwise. We deserved to know that our votes, at least the ones that were not stolen by the Diebold machines, would be counted. Anything less is a betrayal of one of our most precious rights. Quite disturbing, too, is the notion that soldiers' votes will never be counted. Shouldn't their votes have been considered important during wartime?

I've hear the reasons and conjecture, but I'll always wonder, with a sick feeling, why John Kerry conceded the election before the votes were counted.

(ps: even so, I still believe Kerry would be a better president than Bush or Cheney)

Monday, November 1, 2004

One More Thing

Okay, I just have one thing I wanted to say before the election which I was not able to post due to unforeseen circumstances. It is this:

Osama Bin Laden sends a new video message to America... AUGH! Why don't the followers of George Bush realize that GEORGE BUSH DELIBERATELY ALLOWED OSAMA BIN LADEN TO GO FREE!? Bush assured us he would pursue Bin Laden until he was brought to justice. He lied! He soon said he did not care about capturing the real villain behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He never cared about it! He might as well have spit on the graves of the victims of the attack. Of all the terrible things George Bush and his administration have done, this is one of the two most vile (the other I'll save for another post).

George W. Bush's and Osama Bin Laden's actions serve to compliment each other so well. The 9/11 attack ensured Bush's popularity and gave him a pretense for expansion of his corporate-religious-plutocratic empire into the middle east. At the same time, Bush's immoral and unnecessary invasion of Iraq ensured a wave of popularity for Osama Bin Laden's cause, inspiring countless followers to join him in holy war against the United States of America. Both men exchanged with each other gifts of incredible power. They seem to care not a whit for the thousands of men, women and children who die horribly as a result of their actions, or that the whole world has been made to suffer for what they have done, and will continue to suffer as long as it continues and well after it has ended.

The Bushes and the Bin Ladens. Old business partners. George and Osama: best friends.