FOX'S "Half Hour News Hour" - Funny Or Lame?
Only FOX would combine the toxic ingredients of two pundits - one who thinks making fun of people with Parkinson's Disease is funny, and another who thinks forcibly converting Muslims to Christianity is acceptable, and expect comedy to come out.
It made me laugh, but it was probably not for the same reasons the producers of the show had originally intended. Put it this way, I wasn't laughing with them.
I almost felt sorry for Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh as they desperately tried to be funny and miserably failed. After all, I expected at least one stinging but good joke from the "Queen of Mean", but nada.
The punchlines were ancient cliches that have been recycled by Republicans so often they cease to have any meaning or bite, if they ever had any in the first place.
How FOX was ever able to drum this stale show out like it was going to be "A Daily Show for Conservatives" is beyond my reasoning, because if it were to be a Conservative "Daily Show" wouldn't it be necessary for it to be funny in the first place?
What a bomb, and a boring bomb at that - until Ann "dropped the bomb"...
When she didn't forget to add in her infamous "invade their [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" cringe inducing statement, it wasn't funny (nor was it funny the first time), but this is what a neoconservative sounds like when they are trying to be funny. (Like an ignorant bigot)
It really clues you into the sociology of hard line Conservatives in America when such a statement could be deemed as "humorous" when it should be considered unacceptable.
If Conservatives knew what was good for the long term prosperity of their political party they would be best suited to distance themselves from such vocal (and apparently unfunny) despots like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Surprise, Surprise "Senate Blocks Iraq War Resolution Debate"
The vote (56-34) marked the second time this winter that Senate Republicans have blocked action on nonbinding measures critical of the president's war policies, as reported by the AP.
Senate Republicans blocked the debate after The House has passed the non-binding resolution opposing the troop escalation in Iraq by a vote of 246-182, including 17 Republicans.
The vote (56-34) marked the second time this winter that Senate Republicans have blocked action on nonbinding measures critical of the president's war policies, as reported by the AP.
Senate Republicans blocked the debate after The House has passed the non-binding resolution opposing the troop escalation in Iraq by a vote of 246-182, including 17 Republicans.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Little Thorns In The Sides Of Progress
"This nonbinding resolution serves no purpose other than pacifying the Democrats' political base and lowering morale in our military," claimed Republican Rep. Geoff Davis of Kentucky.
What he did not mention is that a few days ago a Dear Colleague plea titled "Iraq Resolution Debate - Their Terms Or Ours" was circulated among Republicans which stated :
“The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily.”
So, in other words [in the eyes of the apparent loyalist Republicans] the debate about the surge shouldn't be about the surge... Forget the details, details harm their case. To put it this way, this debate about the surge in the Iraq War cannot be allowed to turn into a debate about our surge in the Iraq War! Screw talking about whether we can win or not, because...
"Rather the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamist movement." The letter reads.
Hey - good idea , an even bigger task! Since we have some such a wonderful job in Iraq we figured we ought to spread a little of that democracy to the rest of the middle east, where all the other "Islamofacist" are. You know, because of those "enormous successes" in Iraq.
Newsflash : Our war in Iraq is fueling existing extremist and creating new ones! Instead of fixing problems that led to 9/11 we are creating new ones! Our war in Iraq only contributes to the "global threat" of radical Islam and leaves us vulnerable at home.
The Republicans who wrote the letter even blame the "liberal mainstream media" because Americans understand the consequences of the Iraq War in "American lives and dollars" (Gee, sorry we are worried about all the lives and money disappearing into that abyss, assholes).
The letter focuses on radical Islam in the entire middle east, rather than the facts about the Iraq War and the surge, when the nonbinding resolution is specifically about the increase in US troops.
This is the classic Republican technique of evasion, nothing more and nothing less than running from the truth.
The letter "Their Terms or Ours" shows Republicans trying to shift the debate on the troop surge in Iraq to a blame game and fear mongering.
Forget the fact that the Iraq War has been done by Republican terms and forget the fact that it has been a miserable mistake, by Republican terms.
So, why are the Republicans so fearful of a nonbinding resolution? It will have as much power, as say an Op-Ed in the New York Times, hence the whole nonbinding part.
It's probably very simple, and I doubt it's as complicated as having some grandiose vision of liberty and democracy in the middle east.
They fear an honest and focused debate concluded with a vote because voting against the resolution will harm them (again) come elections, but voting in favor of the resolution puts them in clear opposition with the President, and as we have witnessed this President wields amazing control over the Republicans.
But there will have to come a time and a place when these hardliners have to realize that it is not just the "democratic base" that is opposed to the war in Iraq, it is a fair majority of Americans, and the longer these hardliners refuse to serve the will of the American people, the worse they will go down in the history books as.
"This nonbinding resolution serves no purpose other than pacifying the Democrats' political base and lowering morale in our military," claimed Republican Rep. Geoff Davis of Kentucky.
What he did not mention is that a few days ago a Dear Colleague plea titled "Iraq Resolution Debate - Their Terms Or Ours" was circulated among Republicans which stated :
“The debate should not be about the surge or its details. This debate should not even be about the Iraq war to date, mistakes that have been made, or whether we can, or cannot, win militarily.”
So, in other words [in the eyes of the apparent loyalist Republicans] the debate about the surge shouldn't be about the surge... Forget the details, details harm their case. To put it this way, this debate about the surge in the Iraq War cannot be allowed to turn into a debate about our surge in the Iraq War! Screw talking about whether we can win or not, because...
"Rather the debate must be about the global threat of the radical Islamist movement." The letter reads.
Hey - good idea , an even bigger task! Since we have some such a wonderful job in Iraq we figured we ought to spread a little of that democracy to the rest of the middle east, where all the other "Islamofacist" are. You know, because of those "enormous successes" in Iraq.
Newsflash : Our war in Iraq is fueling existing extremist and creating new ones! Instead of fixing problems that led to 9/11 we are creating new ones! Our war in Iraq only contributes to the "global threat" of radical Islam and leaves us vulnerable at home.
The Republicans who wrote the letter even blame the "liberal mainstream media" because Americans understand the consequences of the Iraq War in "American lives and dollars" (Gee, sorry we are worried about all the lives and money disappearing into that abyss, assholes).
The letter focuses on radical Islam in the entire middle east, rather than the facts about the Iraq War and the surge, when the nonbinding resolution is specifically about the increase in US troops.
This is the classic Republican technique of evasion, nothing more and nothing less than running from the truth.
The letter "Their Terms or Ours" shows Republicans trying to shift the debate on the troop surge in Iraq to a blame game and fear mongering.
Forget the fact that the Iraq War has been done by Republican terms and forget the fact that it has been a miserable mistake, by Republican terms.
So, why are the Republicans so fearful of a nonbinding resolution? It will have as much power, as say an Op-Ed in the New York Times, hence the whole nonbinding part.
It's probably very simple, and I doubt it's as complicated as having some grandiose vision of liberty and democracy in the middle east.
They fear an honest and focused debate concluded with a vote because voting against the resolution will harm them (again) come elections, but voting in favor of the resolution puts them in clear opposition with the President, and as we have witnessed this President wields amazing control over the Republicans.
But there will have to come a time and a place when these hardliners have to realize that it is not just the "democratic base" that is opposed to the war in Iraq, it is a fair majority of Americans, and the longer these hardliners refuse to serve the will of the American people, the worse they will go down in the history books as.
War With Iran Imminent, Or A Distracting Red Herring?
CNN: White House Now Blames Briefer For Going Too Far On Iran Intel
Rumors Of War
US Backpedals Accusations Against Iran
CNN: White House Now Blames Briefer For Going Too Far On Iran Intel
Rumors Of War
US Backpedals Accusations Against Iran
Monday, February 12, 2007
Right Wing Extremist Secretly Yearns For Another Terrorist Attack To Make Anti-War Liberals "Irreverent" Again
So, your guessing that the right wing extremist I am writing about is, say, Osama bin Laden or Aiman al-Zawahiri?
No, it is right wing pundit Mike Gallagher, who writes in his online blog :
"it will take another terror attack on American soil in order to render these left-leaning crazies irrelevant again. Remember how quiet they were after 9/11? No one dared take them seriously. It was the United States against the terrorist world, just like it should be."
It is a disturbing statement, to say the least and it brings to mind a conversation I had with a friend shortly after the Democrats took the majority in the recent elections.
My friend and I discussed the possibility that fringe right wing extremists might hope for a new terrorist attack, to turn the country back towards the Republicans and back towards a pro-war stance.
I was right, and I was wrong.
I was right with the assertion that some Americans would like to see another attack on America for political reasons.
I was wrong to assume it would be a fringe element of the right wing, because Mike Gallagher is about as Mainstream Right Wing as possible.
But in all my wildest dreams I never thought that a right winger would be so bold as to basically state : look, if there's another terrorist attack it is beneficial to Republicans, it will put the Left back in it's place... and that's basically what Gallagher wrote in a not so veiled way.
Republicans and 9/11, the two dance together in a deadly tango, or should I say tangle.
Republicans revere 9/11, it embodies the height of their power and influence over America.
Gallagher is right; no one dared question the motives of the Republicans and the Bush Administration following 9/11.
So Gallagher, like other hard right Republicans naturally seek a return to "the good old days" following 9/11 during the Republican Age of Unaccountability, and if it takes another terrorist attack... so be it?
So, your guessing that the right wing extremist I am writing about is, say, Osama bin Laden or Aiman al-Zawahiri?
No, it is right wing pundit Mike Gallagher, who writes in his online blog :
"it will take another terror attack on American soil in order to render these left-leaning crazies irrelevant again. Remember how quiet they were after 9/11? No one dared take them seriously. It was the United States against the terrorist world, just like it should be."
It is a disturbing statement, to say the least and it brings to mind a conversation I had with a friend shortly after the Democrats took the majority in the recent elections.
My friend and I discussed the possibility that fringe right wing extremists might hope for a new terrorist attack, to turn the country back towards the Republicans and back towards a pro-war stance.
I was right, and I was wrong.
I was right with the assertion that some Americans would like to see another attack on America for political reasons.
I was wrong to assume it would be a fringe element of the right wing, because Mike Gallagher is about as Mainstream Right Wing as possible.
But in all my wildest dreams I never thought that a right winger would be so bold as to basically state : look, if there's another terrorist attack it is beneficial to Republicans, it will put the Left back in it's place... and that's basically what Gallagher wrote in a not so veiled way.
Republicans and 9/11, the two dance together in a deadly tango, or should I say tangle.
Republicans revere 9/11, it embodies the height of their power and influence over America.
Gallagher is right; no one dared question the motives of the Republicans and the Bush Administration following 9/11.
So Gallagher, like other hard right Republicans naturally seek a return to "the good old days" following 9/11 during the Republican Age of Unaccountability, and if it takes another terrorist attack... so be it?
New Construction Sparks Old Debate
In a move hoping to defuse anger, the mayor of Jerusalem has ordered a review of construction being done to a walkway near the Dome of the Rock and al-Asqa mosque.
The construction has angered many, who say the construction could harm the third holiest site in Islam and has sparked protests.
The review will not halt preparatory excavations, but is aimed at "proving" Israel will not damage the site. Israel claims it only seeks to repair a earthen walkway that is partially collapsed, but those who are protesting the construction say that Israel will harm the site.
Any sudden moves around the Dome of the Rock, or Noble Sanctuary as Muslims call it, sparks tensions, as the site was formerly occupied by a Jewish Temple which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
It is no secret that the Jews and Christians seek to eventually reclaim this site.
Jews believe the site is "rightfully" theirs and the Christians believe that the Jews must build a Third Temple on the site so that the "Antichrist" can destroy it and usher in the way for Jesus Christ, who will then battle the "Antichrist" and bring about 1,000 years of peace.
When Muslims built the sanctuary it had been abandoned for hundreds of years, and Muslims believe the Rock to be the spot where Prophet Mohammad ascended to heaven -- but that does not stop Jews and Christians from claiming that the site belongs to the Jews.
Because of this, and other factors there is a constant tension that can cause almost any move near the site to cause conflicts, as we witnessed following the visit of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the site in 2000.
The Israeli's claim they just want to repair a walkway and make sure they are not destroying any artifacts in the process.
But my question is : If the construction is so necessary, why didn't Israel consult with the Islamic authorities first, then propose that qualified Muslims carry out the work? To me, it seems that simple, conflict could have been avoided.
I'm not a Muslim, but it is very easy for me to see the sensitivities involved, after all, Israel has taken everything else of value including the land, so one would naturally assume it was only a matter of time before they moved in on the prize of Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock.
The media is failing to connect the dots and see the story from both sides, we also have to consider Israel is building a "museum of tolerance" on top of a Muslim graveyard. How's that food for thought? It's the most insulting and absurd thing I have ever heard.
But Israel is a "liberated democracy", you can't say that...
There was a point in time when early Americans showed the same amount of disrespect to the American Indians, who lived in what is now America millenia before the arrival of the Europeans.
Early European settlers systematically cleansed the land of Indians, herding the survivors into "reservations" and calling the Indians who fought back for their land "barbarians" and "animals" as they stole the Indians land and broke their treaties with them.
The settlers also disrespected the graveyards of Indians, desecrating and stealing from them. It appears as if the early settlers of the new Israel are doing the same thing to the Palestinians, the same thing.
Will it take hundreds of years for the world and the Israeli's themselves to realize what they are doing is wrong, just as it took hundreds of years for Americans to recognize what they had done to the American Indians was bad?
However, moving back to the original point of the blog, it would have been simple for Israel to consult with Islamic authorities about the walkway, it doesn't take a genius to figure out when you show up at the holy shrine with a bulldozer people are going to get tense.
The conflict could have been avoided all together if Israel had consulted with Muslims and asked qualified Muslims to repair the walkway if such repairs are indeed necessary.
UPDATE : Turkey to inspect Jerusalem work
In a move hoping to defuse anger, the mayor of Jerusalem has ordered a review of construction being done to a walkway near the Dome of the Rock and al-Asqa mosque.
The construction has angered many, who say the construction could harm the third holiest site in Islam and has sparked protests.
The review will not halt preparatory excavations, but is aimed at "proving" Israel will not damage the site. Israel claims it only seeks to repair a earthen walkway that is partially collapsed, but those who are protesting the construction say that Israel will harm the site.
Any sudden moves around the Dome of the Rock, or Noble Sanctuary as Muslims call it, sparks tensions, as the site was formerly occupied by a Jewish Temple which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.
It is no secret that the Jews and Christians seek to eventually reclaim this site.
Jews believe the site is "rightfully" theirs and the Christians believe that the Jews must build a Third Temple on the site so that the "Antichrist" can destroy it and usher in the way for Jesus Christ, who will then battle the "Antichrist" and bring about 1,000 years of peace.
When Muslims built the sanctuary it had been abandoned for hundreds of years, and Muslims believe the Rock to be the spot where Prophet Mohammad ascended to heaven -- but that does not stop Jews and Christians from claiming that the site belongs to the Jews.
Because of this, and other factors there is a constant tension that can cause almost any move near the site to cause conflicts, as we witnessed following the visit of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to the site in 2000.
The Israeli's claim they just want to repair a walkway and make sure they are not destroying any artifacts in the process.
But my question is : If the construction is so necessary, why didn't Israel consult with the Islamic authorities first, then propose that qualified Muslims carry out the work? To me, it seems that simple, conflict could have been avoided.
I'm not a Muslim, but it is very easy for me to see the sensitivities involved, after all, Israel has taken everything else of value including the land, so one would naturally assume it was only a matter of time before they moved in on the prize of Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock.
The media is failing to connect the dots and see the story from both sides, we also have to consider Israel is building a "museum of tolerance" on top of a Muslim graveyard. How's that food for thought? It's the most insulting and absurd thing I have ever heard.
But Israel is a "liberated democracy", you can't say that...
There was a point in time when early Americans showed the same amount of disrespect to the American Indians, who lived in what is now America millenia before the arrival of the Europeans.
Early European settlers systematically cleansed the land of Indians, herding the survivors into "reservations" and calling the Indians who fought back for their land "barbarians" and "animals" as they stole the Indians land and broke their treaties with them.
The settlers also disrespected the graveyards of Indians, desecrating and stealing from them. It appears as if the early settlers of the new Israel are doing the same thing to the Palestinians, the same thing.
Will it take hundreds of years for the world and the Israeli's themselves to realize what they are doing is wrong, just as it took hundreds of years for Americans to recognize what they had done to the American Indians was bad?
However, moving back to the original point of the blog, it would have been simple for Israel to consult with Islamic authorities about the walkway, it doesn't take a genius to figure out when you show up at the holy shrine with a bulldozer people are going to get tense.
The conflict could have been avoided all together if Israel had consulted with Muslims and asked qualified Muslims to repair the walkway if such repairs are indeed necessary.
UPDATE : Turkey to inspect Jerusalem work
Friday, February 09, 2007
The Tabloid Nation's Takeover Of The Real News
Anna Nicole Smith. The stripper who became a model who married an 89 year old billionaire. She was emotionally and intellectually disadvantaged, a tragic train wreck America watched with fascination and sometimes pity. She died at 39, of causes yet to be determined.
The death of Anna Nicole Smith has exposed the state of stupidity the mainstream media is living in. While the death of Anna Nicole Smith is tragic because any death is tragic, it is not life changing and is certainly not the most pressing issue of our nation.
Shouldn't someone ask the media how it is possible they are able to showcase the life of someone who we wouldn't want our own daughters to grow up to be -- but fail to provide adequate coverage and information on the Scooter Libby trial? Many people don't even understand what the Scooter Libby trial is, let alone understand what is going on during it. No wonder. The dumbing down of the news.
Is it true? America is more preoccupied with Tabloid stars than they are the young men and woman who are dieing and getting maimed in Iraq? We get shoddy coverage of the war, but full access to the personal problems of Anna Nicole Smith? This can't be real.
Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah), and Ismail Haniyeh (Hamas) meet with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Mecca and agreed to form a national unity government in Palestine and end the fighting between Hamas and Fatah. But this too was obscured by the death of the tabloid princess.
US helicopters are being swiped out of the sky like flies and all we can talk about is how depressed Anna Nicole was.
The stars are aligning for a war with Iran, and no one really knows what to do about it, but here is the media, obsessing about Anna Nicole's final moments.
What about our soldiers last moments? What about the last moments of mothers in a marketplace who are brutally wiped out by a terrorist?
There are real problems in this nation, and there are real problems in this world and I would like to see them reported on and investigated on as thoroughly as the color of nail polish Anna Nicole Smith might have been wearing when she died.
Anna Nicole Smith. The stripper who became a model who married an 89 year old billionaire. She was emotionally and intellectually disadvantaged, a tragic train wreck America watched with fascination and sometimes pity. She died at 39, of causes yet to be determined.
The death of Anna Nicole Smith has exposed the state of stupidity the mainstream media is living in. While the death of Anna Nicole Smith is tragic because any death is tragic, it is not life changing and is certainly not the most pressing issue of our nation.
Shouldn't someone ask the media how it is possible they are able to showcase the life of someone who we wouldn't want our own daughters to grow up to be -- but fail to provide adequate coverage and information on the Scooter Libby trial? Many people don't even understand what the Scooter Libby trial is, let alone understand what is going on during it. No wonder. The dumbing down of the news.
Is it true? America is more preoccupied with Tabloid stars than they are the young men and woman who are dieing and getting maimed in Iraq? We get shoddy coverage of the war, but full access to the personal problems of Anna Nicole Smith? This can't be real.
Mahmoud Abbas (Fatah), and Ismail Haniyeh (Hamas) meet with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Mecca and agreed to form a national unity government in Palestine and end the fighting between Hamas and Fatah. But this too was obscured by the death of the tabloid princess.
US helicopters are being swiped out of the sky like flies and all we can talk about is how depressed Anna Nicole was.
The stars are aligning for a war with Iran, and no one really knows what to do about it, but here is the media, obsessing about Anna Nicole's final moments.
What about our soldiers last moments? What about the last moments of mothers in a marketplace who are brutally wiped out by a terrorist?
There are real problems in this nation, and there are real problems in this world and I would like to see them reported on and investigated on as thoroughly as the color of nail polish Anna Nicole Smith might have been wearing when she died.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Hagel Waggles His Tail For The GOP
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has proven he is all talk and no action when it comes to his alleged opposition to the Iraq War.
Hagel won the adulation of Iraq War critics and the hearts and minds of a fair majority of Liberal and Progressive bloggers with bold statements regarding the Iraq War that even garnered a grumble of disapproval from fellow Republican Dick Cheney.
But when it came to Republicans blocking or filibustering a debate and a vote on a non-binding bipartisan resolution which opposes the troop "surge" in Iraq, it was time for Chuck Hagel to show his true colors and alliance and follow his Conservative counterparts -- rather than adhering to what he had previously implied.
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on Iraq, two weeks ago :
"This is a very real, responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam. Yes, sure, it’s tough. Absolutely. And I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this.
What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected?
If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes. This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves and have the courage to step up on what we’re asking our young men and women to do?
I don’t think so.
When I hear, on both sides of this argument, impugning motives and patriotism to our country, not only is it offensive and disgusting but it debases the whole system of our country and who we are.
My goodness. Can’t we debate the most critical issue of our time, out front, in front of the American people? The expect it. Are we so weak, we can’t do that?"
Note how Hagel so boldly proclaimed "But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves and have the courage to step up on what we’re asking our young men and women to do?"
Perhaps that's a question Chuck Hagel needs to be asking himself after participating in a filibuster to avoid voting on the very issue of which he had been speaking.
Or, how about "My goodness. Can’t we debate the most critical issue of our time, out front, in front of the American people?"
Apparently not, Chuck because you aided in blocking the debate. What a hypocrite you are, you have proven you are more loyal to the Republican Party than you are to the will of the American people.
Finally "They expect it. Are we so weak, we can’t do that?" APPARENTLY YOU ARE AND YOU CAN'T.
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has proven he is all talk and no action when it comes to his alleged opposition to the Iraq War.
Hagel won the adulation of Iraq War critics and the hearts and minds of a fair majority of Liberal and Progressive bloggers with bold statements regarding the Iraq War that even garnered a grumble of disapproval from fellow Republican Dick Cheney.
But when it came to Republicans blocking or filibustering a debate and a vote on a non-binding bipartisan resolution which opposes the troop "surge" in Iraq, it was time for Chuck Hagel to show his true colors and alliance and follow his Conservative counterparts -- rather than adhering to what he had previously implied.
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska on Iraq, two weeks ago :
"This is a very real, responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam. Yes, sure, it’s tough. Absolutely. And I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this.
What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected?
If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes. This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves and have the courage to step up on what we’re asking our young men and women to do?
I don’t think so.
When I hear, on both sides of this argument, impugning motives and patriotism to our country, not only is it offensive and disgusting but it debases the whole system of our country and who we are.
My goodness. Can’t we debate the most critical issue of our time, out front, in front of the American people? The expect it. Are we so weak, we can’t do that?"
Note how Hagel so boldly proclaimed "But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves and have the courage to step up on what we’re asking our young men and women to do?"
Perhaps that's a question Chuck Hagel needs to be asking himself after participating in a filibuster to avoid voting on the very issue of which he had been speaking.
Or, how about "My goodness. Can’t we debate the most critical issue of our time, out front, in front of the American people?"
Apparently not, Chuck because you aided in blocking the debate. What a hypocrite you are, you have proven you are more loyal to the Republican Party than you are to the will of the American people.
Finally "They expect it. Are we so weak, we can’t do that?" APPARENTLY YOU ARE AND YOU CAN'T.
Screw The Poor To Pay For War
Republicans have a few core beliefs, beliefs they hold sacred above all others, one of those beliefs is "small government".
On the surface an idea like small government doesn't sound that bad, until you realize what exactly Republicans mean by "small government".
A small government means inadequate response to natural disasters, a "small government" means eliminations or cuts to essential social programs for the poor who need it most while giving massive tax relief to the rich who need it least.
During his State of the Union Address the President announced his intention to "stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009" but failed to mention that in order to do that he would be cutting or eliminating social programs that are vital to low income families and the elderly.
$400 million or 18 percent to be cut from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which aides low income families in paying high utility bills.
Remember how Bush likes to talk about an educated America and "No Child Left Behind"?
$4.9 billion or 8 percent to be cut from education, social service grants, training, and employment services.
$100 million to be cut from Head Start, a program that "serves the child development needs of preschool children (birth through age five) and their low-income families."
Remember how America loves it's children?
$223 million or 4 percent to be cut from the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Our elderly will also shoulder the burden of Bush's new budget.
$77 billion in funding cuts to Medicaid and Medicare over the next five years, and $280 billion in cuts over the next decade.
$172 million, an astounding 25 percent, to be cut in funding for housing for low-income senior citizens.
Since the poor are taking a hit in the 2008 budget it would be natural to assume the rich would also be negatively impacted by the budget. This is not the case, per usual with any Republicans.
While social programs for the poor will be cut or eliminated, the rich will continue to benefit.
As The Center On Budget And Policy Priorities reports “People with incomes of more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging $162,000 a year in perpetuity.”
Well, it's nice to know that the rich are getting tax cuts while the poor are getting the ax.
CBPP also reports that "The President says he wants to promote fiscal responsibility and address growing inequality, but his budget fails on both counts. In fact, it would make both problems worse."
"Future generations would foot the bill for the much larger long-term deficits that the President’s extravagant tax cuts would produce. The tax cuts in the budget far exceed proposed reductions in domestic programs."
(CBS reports that "Bush's spending plan would make his first-term tax cuts permanent, at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years.")
"It is important to note that "in the fine print of the budget, the Administration acknowledges that deficits will shoot up not many years after 2012. The President’s budget would make these long-term deficits even larger."
Bush is also seeking 624.6 billion for the Pentagon and an estimated $141.7 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan plus $37.6 billion for refurbishment as reported by the New York Times.
Because Republicans believe in "small government" they see it as far more decent to cut social programs for the elderly and the poor to fund a war rejected by the American people, than to take back the unnecessary tax cuts from the rich.
For anyone looking for an eye opener as to what true Republicans and Bush supporters stand for one only needs to look to the 2008 Budget plan and note the high military spending and huge tax cuts for the rich while the burden of the cost of paying for a war is placed solely on the shoulders of the poor and the elderly.
How it can even be deemed fair or acceptable in a "civilized" society to cut benefits to the poor and give tax cuts to the rich is beyond me, and I have given up on trying to explain it to myself, it can be nothing other than imperialism and greed.
These same Republicans who support tax breaks for the rich and cut funding for social programs for the poor are the same Republicans who refused to raise minimum wage without a new tax cut and are the same Republicans who orchestrated and continue to hold this country hostage in the Iraq War.
It should say something loud and clear to the average American about the values Republicans in this country hold dear, and those values do not include helping the elderly and the poor.
The Republicans model of America and a "small government" means a government that is anti-social to it's own people, a "fend for yourself" and "dog eat dog" world.
A "small government" to a Republican means the government foots the tax bill for the rich and tries to eliminate assistance for the poor.
But a "small government" to Republicans never means they will stay out of your business or adhere to the Constitution for that matter.
Tax cuts do the society absolutely no good when they embroil the society in massive debt while the poor suffer the worst consequences of all.
A society is not truly rich is not truly successful if it has people who live in desperation.
The poor have been offered a cold shoulder rather than a helping hand by all Republicans and specifically by the Bush Administration, who would rather help those who already have the means to help themselves.
Republicans have a few core beliefs, beliefs they hold sacred above all others, one of those beliefs is "small government".
On the surface an idea like small government doesn't sound that bad, until you realize what exactly Republicans mean by "small government".
A small government means inadequate response to natural disasters, a "small government" means eliminations or cuts to essential social programs for the poor who need it most while giving massive tax relief to the rich who need it least.
During his State of the Union Address the President announced his intention to "stay on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009" but failed to mention that in order to do that he would be cutting or eliminating social programs that are vital to low income families and the elderly.
$400 million or 18 percent to be cut from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which aides low income families in paying high utility bills.
Remember how Bush likes to talk about an educated America and "No Child Left Behind"?
$4.9 billion or 8 percent to be cut from education, social service grants, training, and employment services.
$100 million to be cut from Head Start, a program that "serves the child development needs of preschool children (birth through age five) and their low-income families."
Remember how America loves it's children?
$223 million or 4 percent to be cut from the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
Our elderly will also shoulder the burden of Bush's new budget.
$77 billion in funding cuts to Medicaid and Medicare over the next five years, and $280 billion in cuts over the next decade.
$172 million, an astounding 25 percent, to be cut in funding for housing for low-income senior citizens.
Since the poor are taking a hit in the 2008 budget it would be natural to assume the rich would also be negatively impacted by the budget. This is not the case, per usual with any Republicans.
While social programs for the poor will be cut or eliminated, the rich will continue to benefit.
As The Center On Budget And Policy Priorities reports “People with incomes of more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging $162,000 a year in perpetuity.”
Well, it's nice to know that the rich are getting tax cuts while the poor are getting the ax.
CBPP also reports that "The President says he wants to promote fiscal responsibility and address growing inequality, but his budget fails on both counts. In fact, it would make both problems worse."
"Future generations would foot the bill for the much larger long-term deficits that the President’s extravagant tax cuts would produce. The tax cuts in the budget far exceed proposed reductions in domestic programs."
(CBS reports that "Bush's spending plan would make his first-term tax cuts permanent, at a cost of $1.6 trillion over 10 years.")
"It is important to note that "in the fine print of the budget, the Administration acknowledges that deficits will shoot up not many years after 2012. The President’s budget would make these long-term deficits even larger."
Bush is also seeking 624.6 billion for the Pentagon and an estimated $141.7 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan plus $37.6 billion for refurbishment as reported by the New York Times.
Because Republicans believe in "small government" they see it as far more decent to cut social programs for the elderly and the poor to fund a war rejected by the American people, than to take back the unnecessary tax cuts from the rich.
For anyone looking for an eye opener as to what true Republicans and Bush supporters stand for one only needs to look to the 2008 Budget plan and note the high military spending and huge tax cuts for the rich while the burden of the cost of paying for a war is placed solely on the shoulders of the poor and the elderly.
How it can even be deemed fair or acceptable in a "civilized" society to cut benefits to the poor and give tax cuts to the rich is beyond me, and I have given up on trying to explain it to myself, it can be nothing other than imperialism and greed.
These same Republicans who support tax breaks for the rich and cut funding for social programs for the poor are the same Republicans who refused to raise minimum wage without a new tax cut and are the same Republicans who orchestrated and continue to hold this country hostage in the Iraq War.
It should say something loud and clear to the average American about the values Republicans in this country hold dear, and those values do not include helping the elderly and the poor.
The Republicans model of America and a "small government" means a government that is anti-social to it's own people, a "fend for yourself" and "dog eat dog" world.
A "small government" to a Republican means the government foots the tax bill for the rich and tries to eliminate assistance for the poor.
But a "small government" to Republicans never means they will stay out of your business or adhere to the Constitution for that matter.
Tax cuts do the society absolutely no good when they embroil the society in massive debt while the poor suffer the worst consequences of all.
A society is not truly rich is not truly successful if it has people who live in desperation.
The poor have been offered a cold shoulder rather than a helping hand by all Republicans and specifically by the Bush Administration, who would rather help those who already have the means to help themselves.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Giuliani in '08?
Today Rudy Giuliani filed a "statement of candidacy" with the Federal Election Commission, signaling his intent to run for President in 2008.
Rudy Giuliani was the major of New York City when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred. Because Giuliani stood on a lot of ruble and attended a lot of funerals and because Giuliani was a Republican he has become their "icon" of 9/11.
One cannot look at Rudy Giuliani without being forced to recall the tragic events of September 11, 2001, which is precisely why I would prefer to never see Rudy Giuliani again. It's not so much personal, I just don't like to linger around a grave site five years after the funeral is over.
Republicans embrace Giuliani because Giuliani evokes images of the 9/11 American hero and Republicans yearn for a return to "the good old days" immediately following 9/11 when their leadership, motives and decisions were not questioned in a frightening new world of terrorism, fear and justified revenge.
Giuliani is favorable for many Republicans because with the evocation of the post 9/11 mindset by one of it's Republican "hero's" helps to justify atrocities in Iraq and the Middle East with the "Remember 9/11" mantra.
While Giuliani may find challenges because of his abortion and gay rights stance, he may be able to nab some Democratic and Independent voters who would not vote for John McCain because his hawkish tendencies.
Because many Republicans still refuse to admit a failed agenda in the Middle East and are quickly losing support for that policy their wild card appears to be Rudy Giuliani, "Remember 9/11" because that is the reason we are fighting people in Iraq, why we want to fight people in Iran and why we don't help Palestine, etc. etc... And look, he's "moderate" too.
Why on earth would we want to look at Rudy Giuliani for four years? It's an honest question because haven't we spent the past five years hashing and rehashing 9/11?
Because tough guy Giuliani was a mayor in city that got attacked by terrorist suddenly he has credentials to be the President, during a time when the duty holds more responsibility than usual? That the man who led New York out of the dark days following 9/11 can lead us threw the dark days of Iraq?
Please say it isn't so.
Today Rudy Giuliani filed a "statement of candidacy" with the Federal Election Commission, signaling his intent to run for President in 2008.
Rudy Giuliani was the major of New York City when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred. Because Giuliani stood on a lot of ruble and attended a lot of funerals and because Giuliani was a Republican he has become their "icon" of 9/11.
One cannot look at Rudy Giuliani without being forced to recall the tragic events of September 11, 2001, which is precisely why I would prefer to never see Rudy Giuliani again. It's not so much personal, I just don't like to linger around a grave site five years after the funeral is over.
Republicans embrace Giuliani because Giuliani evokes images of the 9/11 American hero and Republicans yearn for a return to "the good old days" immediately following 9/11 when their leadership, motives and decisions were not questioned in a frightening new world of terrorism, fear and justified revenge.
Giuliani is favorable for many Republicans because with the evocation of the post 9/11 mindset by one of it's Republican "hero's" helps to justify atrocities in Iraq and the Middle East with the "Remember 9/11" mantra.
While Giuliani may find challenges because of his abortion and gay rights stance, he may be able to nab some Democratic and Independent voters who would not vote for John McCain because his hawkish tendencies.
Because many Republicans still refuse to admit a failed agenda in the Middle East and are quickly losing support for that policy their wild card appears to be Rudy Giuliani, "Remember 9/11" because that is the reason we are fighting people in Iraq, why we want to fight people in Iran and why we don't help Palestine, etc. etc... And look, he's "moderate" too.
Why on earth would we want to look at Rudy Giuliani for four years? It's an honest question because haven't we spent the past five years hashing and rehashing 9/11?
Because tough guy Giuliani was a mayor in city that got attacked by terrorist suddenly he has credentials to be the President, during a time when the duty holds more responsibility than usual? That the man who led New York out of the dark days following 9/11 can lead us threw the dark days of Iraq?
Please say it isn't so.
Saturday, February 03, 2007
Attack On Iran Would Have "Disastrous Consequences"
Three former United States Generals have published a letter in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper, warning of the consequences of military action against Iran.
The drumbeat for war with Iran is growing, and the war hawks may soon have their way, ushering in an age of greater destruction and instability - not only for the middle east, but for the world.
BBC reports that "Three former high-ranking American military officers have warned against any military attack on Iran."
Lt Gen Robert Gard, Gen Joseph Hoar, and Vice Adm Jack Shanahan wrote that diplomatic measures "would serve the interests of the US and the UK and potentially could enhance regional and international security," and warned that military force against Iran could result in "disastrous consequences".
But will the suggestions of these former Generals cause the hawks in Washington, London or Jerusalem to reconsider their plans for the new Armageddon? Or will they fall on deaf ears?
A war with Iran now seems inevitable, maybe only months or even weeks away. One can hope something can be done to change this, but as pointed out in the video below by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, the rhetoric President Bush is using to describe Iran, is eerily similar to the rhetoric the President used shortly before the invasion of Iraq.
FOX News (?) pundits have been caught proclaiming that an Iran attack would not be a bomb and run expedition but a full ground invasion, like Iraq was and is.
If a war with Iran is indeed inevitable one has to consider where the troops and resources will come from. In reality the United States never did have enough troops in Iraq, so in reality where would troops for an Iran invasion come from?
A draft? How would the young people of American, already so thoroughly disgusted with the war and with George W. Bush react to a draft? My guess (as an elder of 25), is with anger and noncompliance.
Hypothetically, let's imagine the United States invades Iran, either under the context that Iran is building "the bomb" or Iran is funding/arming insurgents in Iraq.
What will the President say then? "Trust us, we are right this time. I know we were wrong about the WMD's in Iraq -- but that was then, this is now, this is the real bogeyman I have been telling you about, the real threat to liberty and democracy, I found 'em, and we gonna smoke 'em out, this time I promise."
I certainly don't trust Ahmadinejad and what his aspirations may or may not be. But I certainly don't trust Bush either.
It is not that I don't "have the stomach" for war, because I do. But I don't have the stomach for any more wars based on loose intelligence. What I really feel like I don't have enough of for the war is money. War is expensive for most and lucrative for a few.
I am not convinced a war with Iran would in any way benefit the United States. I see where it benefits Israel, I see where it benefits terrorist and defense contractors, but I don't see where it benefits the United States or anyone else in the world.
On the contrary it is likely a war with Iran will strain or eliminate or tedious relationship with the former Iran exiles who now run Iraq's government and further contribute to instability and bloodshed in the region.
If there were no nuclear weapons in Iran the United States would be in a situation precariously similar to Iraq, the credibility of the United States would be further diminished and our allies would be reconsidering their relationship with us, viewing us as an imperialist force that may be dangerous to the world.
The insurgency that would grip Iran shortly thereafter which would include pro-government militias, foreign fighters and domestic dissidents. All would be fighting each other and all would be fighting the occupying US troops and the endless line of greedy defense contractors eager to "rebuild" Iran.
All of this would be happening, as we were still in Iraq battling an insurgency.
This would leave our country spread even further, economically and militarily, and still our country would be no safer, it would just be more vulnerable.
Three former United States Generals have published a letter in Britain's Sunday Times newspaper, warning of the consequences of military action against Iran.
The drumbeat for war with Iran is growing, and the war hawks may soon have their way, ushering in an age of greater destruction and instability - not only for the middle east, but for the world.
BBC reports that "Three former high-ranking American military officers have warned against any military attack on Iran."
Lt Gen Robert Gard, Gen Joseph Hoar, and Vice Adm Jack Shanahan wrote that diplomatic measures "would serve the interests of the US and the UK and potentially could enhance regional and international security," and warned that military force against Iran could result in "disastrous consequences".
But will the suggestions of these former Generals cause the hawks in Washington, London or Jerusalem to reconsider their plans for the new Armageddon? Or will they fall on deaf ears?
A war with Iran now seems inevitable, maybe only months or even weeks away. One can hope something can be done to change this, but as pointed out in the video below by MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, the rhetoric President Bush is using to describe Iran, is eerily similar to the rhetoric the President used shortly before the invasion of Iraq.
FOX News (?) pundits have been caught proclaiming that an Iran attack would not be a bomb and run expedition but a full ground invasion, like Iraq was and is.
If a war with Iran is indeed inevitable one has to consider where the troops and resources will come from. In reality the United States never did have enough troops in Iraq, so in reality where would troops for an Iran invasion come from?
A draft? How would the young people of American, already so thoroughly disgusted with the war and with George W. Bush react to a draft? My guess (as an elder of 25), is with anger and noncompliance.
Hypothetically, let's imagine the United States invades Iran, either under the context that Iran is building "the bomb" or Iran is funding/arming insurgents in Iraq.
What will the President say then? "Trust us, we are right this time. I know we were wrong about the WMD's in Iraq -- but that was then, this is now, this is the real bogeyman I have been telling you about, the real threat to liberty and democracy, I found 'em, and we gonna smoke 'em out, this time I promise."
I certainly don't trust Ahmadinejad and what his aspirations may or may not be. But I certainly don't trust Bush either.
It is not that I don't "have the stomach" for war, because I do. But I don't have the stomach for any more wars based on loose intelligence. What I really feel like I don't have enough of for the war is money. War is expensive for most and lucrative for a few.
I am not convinced a war with Iran would in any way benefit the United States. I see where it benefits Israel, I see where it benefits terrorist and defense contractors, but I don't see where it benefits the United States or anyone else in the world.
On the contrary it is likely a war with Iran will strain or eliminate or tedious relationship with the former Iran exiles who now run Iraq's government and further contribute to instability and bloodshed in the region.
If there were no nuclear weapons in Iran the United States would be in a situation precariously similar to Iraq, the credibility of the United States would be further diminished and our allies would be reconsidering their relationship with us, viewing us as an imperialist force that may be dangerous to the world.
The insurgency that would grip Iran shortly thereafter which would include pro-government militias, foreign fighters and domestic dissidents. All would be fighting each other and all would be fighting the occupying US troops and the endless line of greedy defense contractors eager to "rebuild" Iran.
All of this would be happening, as we were still in Iraq battling an insurgency.
This would leave our country spread even further, economically and militarily, and still our country would be no safer, it would just be more vulnerable.
Friday, February 02, 2007
Let The Spin Begin
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) has issued an authoritative report which concludes Global Warming exists, is man made and will continue for centuries, and rising sea levels and temperatures will continue even with efforts made to control emissions.
The United Nations IPCC, composed of 2,500 scientists from more than 113 countries also said it was "very likely", meaning more than 90 percent probable, that human activities - primarily the burning of fossil fuels explained most of the warming over the past 50 years.
A PDF summary of the report or a web-cast of the conference is available at The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website.
The release of the report comes shortly after Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said at a hearing that evidence indicated Bush administration officials had tried to "mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming." as reported by the Chicago Tribune.
Also making news, the Guardian is reporting that the American Enterprise Institute, an ultra conservative Exxon-Mobil funded lobbying group with close ties to the Bush Administration has offered to pay scientists and Global Warming critics a sum of $10,000 to emphasize shortcomings in the IPCC report.
Liberal Progressive website Think Progress is also reporting that "Prominent global warming deniers, such as Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James Inhofe, have already been downplaying the report and contravening the science."
Which goes to prove that no amount of science can change the mind or mouths of those who are financially or politically motivated to hold to a certain conclusion.
They repeat "there is no such thing as global warming" and it reminds me of the mobsters who repeat "there is no such thing as the mob" and it reaffirms the Nazi belief that if one repeats a lie often enough that people will believe it.
In the coming days and weeks we can expects to see the usual pundits and quasi scientist try to debunk the evidence presented in the IPCC report without offering any real evidence to the contrary.
Those who deny global warming now will in the future be viewed much the same as people who once believed the world was flat, as ignorant, almost inexplicably so.
So now, we sit back and wait for the Spin to begin.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) has issued an authoritative report which concludes Global Warming exists, is man made and will continue for centuries, and rising sea levels and temperatures will continue even with efforts made to control emissions.
The United Nations IPCC, composed of 2,500 scientists from more than 113 countries also said it was "very likely", meaning more than 90 percent probable, that human activities - primarily the burning of fossil fuels explained most of the warming over the past 50 years.
A PDF summary of the report or a web-cast of the conference is available at The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website.
The release of the report comes shortly after Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said at a hearing that evidence indicated Bush administration officials had tried to "mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming." as reported by the Chicago Tribune.
Also making news, the Guardian is reporting that the American Enterprise Institute, an ultra conservative Exxon-Mobil funded lobbying group with close ties to the Bush Administration has offered to pay scientists and Global Warming critics a sum of $10,000 to emphasize shortcomings in the IPCC report.
Liberal Progressive website Think Progress is also reporting that "Prominent global warming deniers, such as Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James Inhofe, have already been downplaying the report and contravening the science."
Which goes to prove that no amount of science can change the mind or mouths of those who are financially or politically motivated to hold to a certain conclusion.
They repeat "there is no such thing as global warming" and it reminds me of the mobsters who repeat "there is no such thing as the mob" and it reaffirms the Nazi belief that if one repeats a lie often enough that people will believe it.
In the coming days and weeks we can expects to see the usual pundits and quasi scientist try to debunk the evidence presented in the IPCC report without offering any real evidence to the contrary.
Those who deny global warming now will in the future be viewed much the same as people who once believed the world was flat, as ignorant, almost inexplicably so.
So now, we sit back and wait for the Spin to begin.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Israel 'broke US arms deal terms'
BBC reports :
"Israel probably violated the terms of its arms deals with Washington by using US-made cluster bombs in Lebanon last year, a US government report says."
Read more at BBC.Com
BBC reports :
"Israel probably violated the terms of its arms deals with Washington by using US-made cluster bombs in Lebanon last year, a US government report says."
Read more at BBC.Com
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Common Lies And Misperceptions About Minimum Wage Workers
Minimum wage in this country has been ridiculously low for a ridiculously long time, while members of Congress received annual raises, many Americans lived with the same low income in a world that is increasingly becoming more expensive.
Big money and Conservatives have argued for years that raising minimum wage was counterproductive, words that sound harsh to the ears of people who routinely have to choose between toilet paper and food.
To put it this way, someone who works full time (40 hours a week) that is making $5.25 an hour will only make $210 a week, before taxes. In a mid sized city, such as the one I live in, a one bedroom apartment can go from anywhere from $400-$600 a month, in larger cities the price is higher.
Assuming we are paying $500 a month for rent alone that eats away half our monthly income in one shot, and we still have utilities to pay. In a state such as the one I live in, Michigan, it is not uncommon for a gas bill in the winter to range at low $100 to a high of $200 plus. So now $600 of our monthly income is already spent, leaving approximately $200 to pay all other utilities, buy food with, provide personal hygiene products with and pay for transportation with.
The way I figure it, even living frugally minimum wage workers have very little chance to succeed and live at least a somewhat comfortable life.
You would hope that there would not be people in this country who were so unimaginably cruel that they believed that people who were at a lesser advantage did not deserve something more.
But there are, and they come making false claims about the America worker, their worth and whether or not the workers actually deserve the raise, even though this country boasts of being the richest in the world.
Take example Conservative columnist Mona Charen, who's views most likely reflect those of the Conservative snobarchy in right wing America.
Charen tries to make the case that American minimum wage workers do not really need, nor deserve a raise. How pleasant of this pro-life mother of three to proclaim that working families do not actually need a raise.
I am assuming Charen has never endured the grinding wheels of a real working life, nor has she actually ever tried to live on the budget of a minimum wage worker, so her ability to determine the worth of American workers is.. well.. worthless.
Charen launches into her "the poor don't deserve more help" column by writing
"Fewer than one in five minimum wage workers lives in a family with income below the poverty line."
According to that statistic that means 4 out of 5 minimum wage workers do not have children and are only reliant on themselves for income. So is Charen trying to say that people without children do not need to have an income above the poverty line to sustain a high quality of life? That no one needs to be concerned about minimum wage workers, because many of them are single?
A one person unit is considered as living in poverty if they make less than $9,750 a year in the 48 Contiguous States and D.C. A minimum wage worker who works 40 hours a week will make 10,920 in a year, putting the worker just over $1,000 over the poverty line.
A unit of four, with two full time working adults at minimum wage will only clear the poverty line by about $2,000 in a year and that is with two adults working full time.
Other arguments Charen makes against the poor as follows:
"more than 82 percent of minimum wage workers have no dependents"
Is that to suggest that because one has no dependants they should be doomed to working hard for relatively little reward, to barely get by in the richest country in the world?
In fact, people should rejoice that the average minimum wage worker has no dependants, because if they did, because of their low incomes they would be forced to ask for additional help from the government threw welfare programs.
"Minimum wage workers tend to be young (under 25) and single (often they are students working part time)," Charen writes.
So, I see. Because some are young, tend to be single and go to school they do not need more money! I get it, they need less money! That way they have to work more hours just to make ends meet so they can never graduate from college and never get ahead! It's so clear now.
Now here is the statement that has me confounded, Charen writes that
"a full 40 percent come from homes with an annual income of $60,000"
If that statistic were true it would have to mean that there were at least five adults in one household who were all working full time for minimum wage, and that idea just doesn't hold water.
In the past I have lived on minimum wage and know for a fact hat it isn't fun, it isn't easy and sitting a mere couple hundred or a couple thousand dollars above the poverty line and it does not bring much comfort when you can barely afford to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Making minimum wage you often find yourself in positions where you have to choose between food and toilet paper, you choose to not go to the hospital when you are sick because you cannot afford the high cost and you have no insurance.
You have to choose between ramen noodles and the luxury of hamburger helper. Social activities? Forget it, it cost five hours of work just to go to a movie and buy a popcorn and soda and that's a lot of work for a little gratification.
Charens elitist hogwash continues
"63 percent of minimum wage workers receive a raise after the first year of employment"
Oh, WOW, so after a year they were making $5.25 an hour, a whole extra ten bucks a week buys a lot of ramen noodles! They must be wallowing in luxury by the time they are making a whopping $5.25 an hour. That's Kool-Aid money, we won't be drinking Flavor Aid tonight!
"part-time workers are far more likely to be paid minimum wage than full-time employees." Goes on the capitalist jargon dribble.
BUT, don't bother to mention the fact that many employers would rather employ several part time workers rather than a few full time workers, because employers are not required to provide health insurance to part time workers and do not have to promote or give raises to part time workers.
Wake up people, this is America, and we are supposed to be a civilized society. A civilized society should not let people fall between the cracks. These people are working and trying to make a living.
Unfortunately, for various heartbreaking reasons, these people were unable to achieve a college education, whether it is because they do not have the opportunity, finances or time.
Minimum wage workers do not come from families of privilege and they have no one other than themselves to rely on, so a helping have should be reached out to them. Their working and trying to make a living, not trying get something for nothing.
Minimum wage in this country has been ridiculously low for a ridiculously long time, while members of Congress received annual raises, many Americans lived with the same low income in a world that is increasingly becoming more expensive.
Big money and Conservatives have argued for years that raising minimum wage was counterproductive, words that sound harsh to the ears of people who routinely have to choose between toilet paper and food.
To put it this way, someone who works full time (40 hours a week) that is making $5.25 an hour will only make $210 a week, before taxes. In a mid sized city, such as the one I live in, a one bedroom apartment can go from anywhere from $400-$600 a month, in larger cities the price is higher.
Assuming we are paying $500 a month for rent alone that eats away half our monthly income in one shot, and we still have utilities to pay. In a state such as the one I live in, Michigan, it is not uncommon for a gas bill in the winter to range at low $100 to a high of $200 plus. So now $600 of our monthly income is already spent, leaving approximately $200 to pay all other utilities, buy food with, provide personal hygiene products with and pay for transportation with.
The way I figure it, even living frugally minimum wage workers have very little chance to succeed and live at least a somewhat comfortable life.
You would hope that there would not be people in this country who were so unimaginably cruel that they believed that people who were at a lesser advantage did not deserve something more.
But there are, and they come making false claims about the America worker, their worth and whether or not the workers actually deserve the raise, even though this country boasts of being the richest in the world.
Take example Conservative columnist Mona Charen, who's views most likely reflect those of the Conservative snobarchy in right wing America.
Charen tries to make the case that American minimum wage workers do not really need, nor deserve a raise. How pleasant of this pro-life mother of three to proclaim that working families do not actually need a raise.
I am assuming Charen has never endured the grinding wheels of a real working life, nor has she actually ever tried to live on the budget of a minimum wage worker, so her ability to determine the worth of American workers is.. well.. worthless.
Charen launches into her "the poor don't deserve more help" column by writing
"Fewer than one in five minimum wage workers lives in a family with income below the poverty line."
According to that statistic that means 4 out of 5 minimum wage workers do not have children and are only reliant on themselves for income. So is Charen trying to say that people without children do not need to have an income above the poverty line to sustain a high quality of life? That no one needs to be concerned about minimum wage workers, because many of them are single?
A one person unit is considered as living in poverty if they make less than $9,750 a year in the 48 Contiguous States and D.C. A minimum wage worker who works 40 hours a week will make 10,920 in a year, putting the worker just over $1,000 over the poverty line.
A unit of four, with two full time working adults at minimum wage will only clear the poverty line by about $2,000 in a year and that is with two adults working full time.
Other arguments Charen makes against the poor as follows:
"more than 82 percent of minimum wage workers have no dependents"
Is that to suggest that because one has no dependants they should be doomed to working hard for relatively little reward, to barely get by in the richest country in the world?
In fact, people should rejoice that the average minimum wage worker has no dependants, because if they did, because of their low incomes they would be forced to ask for additional help from the government threw welfare programs.
"Minimum wage workers tend to be young (under 25) and single (often they are students working part time)," Charen writes.
So, I see. Because some are young, tend to be single and go to school they do not need more money! I get it, they need less money! That way they have to work more hours just to make ends meet so they can never graduate from college and never get ahead! It's so clear now.
Now here is the statement that has me confounded, Charen writes that
"a full 40 percent come from homes with an annual income of $60,000"
If that statistic were true it would have to mean that there were at least five adults in one household who were all working full time for minimum wage, and that idea just doesn't hold water.
In the past I have lived on minimum wage and know for a fact hat it isn't fun, it isn't easy and sitting a mere couple hundred or a couple thousand dollars above the poverty line and it does not bring much comfort when you can barely afford to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Making minimum wage you often find yourself in positions where you have to choose between food and toilet paper, you choose to not go to the hospital when you are sick because you cannot afford the high cost and you have no insurance.
You have to choose between ramen noodles and the luxury of hamburger helper. Social activities? Forget it, it cost five hours of work just to go to a movie and buy a popcorn and soda and that's a lot of work for a little gratification.
Charens elitist hogwash continues
"63 percent of minimum wage workers receive a raise after the first year of employment"
Oh, WOW, so after a year they were making $5.25 an hour, a whole extra ten bucks a week buys a lot of ramen noodles! They must be wallowing in luxury by the time they are making a whopping $5.25 an hour. That's Kool-Aid money, we won't be drinking Flavor Aid tonight!
"part-time workers are far more likely to be paid minimum wage than full-time employees." Goes on the capitalist jargon dribble.
BUT, don't bother to mention the fact that many employers would rather employ several part time workers rather than a few full time workers, because employers are not required to provide health insurance to part time workers and do not have to promote or give raises to part time workers.
Wake up people, this is America, and we are supposed to be a civilized society. A civilized society should not let people fall between the cracks. These people are working and trying to make a living.
Unfortunately, for various heartbreaking reasons, these people were unable to achieve a college education, whether it is because they do not have the opportunity, finances or time.
Minimum wage workers do not come from families of privilege and they have no one other than themselves to rely on, so a helping have should be reached out to them. Their working and trying to make a living, not trying get something for nothing.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
The State Of The "Ideological Battle" In The Union
Opinions are very divided about the Iraq War. While all Americans ultimately want to achieve victory in Iraq, fewer Americans are able to see the means to the way of that victory.
During last nights State of the Union Address the President addressed energy, immigration and health care before getting to the real point that everyone was waiting for, Iraq.
The President claimed that his Iraq plan offered "best possible approach" for defeating terrorism and asked Congress to give the plan a chance to succeed.
The plea for another "do over" fell on mostly deaf ears in the Democratic controlled Congress. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee moved forward, unaffected by the speech and voted in a non binding measure which was 12-9 against increasing troop levels in Iraq.
One of the numerous problems the President is confronting with the home-front regarding Iraq is that the President is asking America to join in on an "ideological struggle" they do not fully understand nor support.
The President wants the country to participate in what he likes to call the "ideological battle" or "struggle" of the 21st century.
The American people are fully resisting joining an ideological battle, this became very obvious with the 2006 elections and staunch disapproval of the "ideological battle" in Iraq.
Ideological is the key word. Ideology cannot be defeated with troop numbers alone, and ideology cannot be defeated with ideology and the sheer will of the ignorant or misinformed.
The President is struggling to gain support for a policy that is not working, and his few supporters have been lashing out at opponents like wild animals who have been cornered.
Some expect that the country should support the President "no matter what" and we should all fall into a neat and orderly line behind the President even if we feel his plans and aspirations endanger America more than it secures America.
These pundits and politicians who support the President with a feverish and blind intensity use fear rather than logic to try to drive Americans into supporting an agenda that may in fact undermine national security and long term prosperity of America.
The State of the Union? It is in utter tatters because there are Republicans who put party allegiance before common sense and decency. They would rather be united in their plunge from a cliff, instead of warning their comrades that the plunge was imminent if a change in course was not made. They would rather be united in failure than disunited in success, and that, my friend, is utterly unacceptable and unhealthy for not only the country but the world.
Opinions are very divided about the Iraq War. While all Americans ultimately want to achieve victory in Iraq, fewer Americans are able to see the means to the way of that victory.
During last nights State of the Union Address the President addressed energy, immigration and health care before getting to the real point that everyone was waiting for, Iraq.
The President claimed that his Iraq plan offered "best possible approach" for defeating terrorism and asked Congress to give the plan a chance to succeed.
The plea for another "do over" fell on mostly deaf ears in the Democratic controlled Congress. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee moved forward, unaffected by the speech and voted in a non binding measure which was 12-9 against increasing troop levels in Iraq.
One of the numerous problems the President is confronting with the home-front regarding Iraq is that the President is asking America to join in on an "ideological struggle" they do not fully understand nor support.
The President wants the country to participate in what he likes to call the "ideological battle" or "struggle" of the 21st century.
The American people are fully resisting joining an ideological battle, this became very obvious with the 2006 elections and staunch disapproval of the "ideological battle" in Iraq.
Ideological is the key word. Ideology cannot be defeated with troop numbers alone, and ideology cannot be defeated with ideology and the sheer will of the ignorant or misinformed.
The President is struggling to gain support for a policy that is not working, and his few supporters have been lashing out at opponents like wild animals who have been cornered.
Some expect that the country should support the President "no matter what" and we should all fall into a neat and orderly line behind the President even if we feel his plans and aspirations endanger America more than it secures America.
These pundits and politicians who support the President with a feverish and blind intensity use fear rather than logic to try to drive Americans into supporting an agenda that may in fact undermine national security and long term prosperity of America.
The State of the Union? It is in utter tatters because there are Republicans who put party allegiance before common sense and decency. They would rather be united in their plunge from a cliff, instead of warning their comrades that the plunge was imminent if a change in course was not made. They would rather be united in failure than disunited in success, and that, my friend, is utterly unacceptable and unhealthy for not only the country but the world.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
D'Souza Tha Louza
Are American Liberals to blame for 9/11 or is neoconservative mouthpiece Dinesh D'Souza inventing a right wing conspiracy theory to avoid the truth and responsibility that ultimately leads to the real reasons we were really attacked in 2001?
Ultra-Conservative Indian American Dinesh D' Souza has risen a few eyebrows and perhaps even a few fists with a new book that blames Liberals (what else?) for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
I am guessing D'Souza's next book will blame Liberals for killing the dinosaurs.
The book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" should be offensive to all Americans with an ounce of decency and a sliver of logic.
But, before attacking the inaccuracies of the new book, let's take a look a D'Souza's track record of bigotry.
Though he is an Indian American and a minority himself D'Souza has the audacity to attack African Americans, who unlike he, were actually born in America.
In an older book written by D'Souza ironically titled "The End Of Racism" D'Souza wrote "Am I calling for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes." What an appalling thesis.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in America based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to call for a repeal of it is to call for a return to the Dark Ages of America.
In the same book D'Souza also claims that “The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.”
Pretty well???? I didn't realize selective breeding, routine beatings and forced labor was a "pretty well" way to be treated. Furthermore, being treated like property is perhaps one of the worst ways to be treated and perhaps on of the worst crimes to commit.
If that doesn't simultaneously disgust and disturb the reader D' Souza has also stated that he does not believe slavery was a racist institution.
Really? So that's why there were not any white slaves in America? There were African slaves, and even Native Indian slaves but I don't recall reading about the plight of the white slaves in the history books, so yes, it was a racist institution.
D'Souza must live in AmeriKKKa, not America. Because D'Souza is a minority himself I really have a difficult time understanding his inherent racism.
D'Souza also wrote Caucasians who were accused of being racist were not racist but only responding to the so called deficiencies of minorities. To me, that just sounds like a false basis for a false justification for racism, period. Actually, that sounds like something Hitler would have said.
These are some of the most heinously racist statements I have ever had the misfortune of hearing, and it is all inside of a book titled "The End Of Racism". It would have been more appropriate to title the book "The Revival Of Racism" by a guy who knows squat about America.
D'Souza's new book "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" rolls Liberals into a mass that can alone be blamed for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Never mind that Anti-Israel and Anti-American militant organizations that attack always declare the same reasons, Israel and Palestine, American Imperialism, American troops in the "Holy Land", "Christian Crusaders", and most recently, as with the 7/7 bombers in London who blamed their attacks on the War in Iraq.
Militant Muslim groups often claim that "the West" is in a "War against Islam" being led by "Christian Crusaders" in pursuit of "imperialism" in the "Holy Land". It's that simple!
As for D'Souza's remarks that rampant sexuality offends traditional Muslims, I will not disagree with that assertion and to a certain extent does factor into the equation, but they are the secondary, not the primary modus operandi of terrorist who are attacking the United States.
If one were to blame the terrorist attacks on Liberalism alone, which is absurd by the way, one would have to ask why very Liberal countries in Europe had never been attacked by Islamic militants.
There are counties in Europe where newscasters actually strip their clothing and gay marriage is legal - so if Liberalism and rampant sexuality were to blame it would only be natural to question why these countries had not been attacked, or even threatened.
Is it because these countries have never meddled in the affairs of the Middle East, which we have been doing quite frequently, extensively and unsuccessfully for the past six decades?
But, as written I will give D'Souza a shred of credit, to point out that yes, rampant sexuality does offend right wing militant Muslims, traditional and even moderate Muslims, it offends Christians and Jews as well.
But Liberalism is not the basis of the terrorist attacks against us, there are real reasons behind their attacks and if we are ever to put an end to militant Islam we must address the real problems and the real basis of their attacks if we are to ever hope to change the future.
Are American Liberals to blame for 9/11 or is neoconservative mouthpiece Dinesh D'Souza inventing a right wing conspiracy theory to avoid the truth and responsibility that ultimately leads to the real reasons we were really attacked in 2001?
Ultra-Conservative Indian American Dinesh D' Souza has risen a few eyebrows and perhaps even a few fists with a new book that blames Liberals (what else?) for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
I am guessing D'Souza's next book will blame Liberals for killing the dinosaurs.
The book, "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" should be offensive to all Americans with an ounce of decency and a sliver of logic.
But, before attacking the inaccuracies of the new book, let's take a look a D'Souza's track record of bigotry.
Though he is an Indian American and a minority himself D'Souza has the audacity to attack African Americans, who unlike he, were actually born in America.
In an older book written by D'Souza ironically titled "The End Of Racism" D'Souza wrote "Am I calling for the repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes." What an appalling thesis.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination in America based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to call for a repeal of it is to call for a return to the Dark Ages of America.
In the same book D'Souza also claims that “The American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well.”
Pretty well???? I didn't realize selective breeding, routine beatings and forced labor was a "pretty well" way to be treated. Furthermore, being treated like property is perhaps one of the worst ways to be treated and perhaps on of the worst crimes to commit.
If that doesn't simultaneously disgust and disturb the reader D' Souza has also stated that he does not believe slavery was a racist institution.
Really? So that's why there were not any white slaves in America? There were African slaves, and even Native Indian slaves but I don't recall reading about the plight of the white slaves in the history books, so yes, it was a racist institution.
D'Souza must live in AmeriKKKa, not America. Because D'Souza is a minority himself I really have a difficult time understanding his inherent racism.
D'Souza also wrote Caucasians who were accused of being racist were not racist but only responding to the so called deficiencies of minorities. To me, that just sounds like a false basis for a false justification for racism, period. Actually, that sounds like something Hitler would have said.
These are some of the most heinously racist statements I have ever had the misfortune of hearing, and it is all inside of a book titled "The End Of Racism". It would have been more appropriate to title the book "The Revival Of Racism" by a guy who knows squat about America.
D'Souza's new book "The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11" rolls Liberals into a mass that can alone be blamed for the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Never mind that Anti-Israel and Anti-American militant organizations that attack always declare the same reasons, Israel and Palestine, American Imperialism, American troops in the "Holy Land", "Christian Crusaders", and most recently, as with the 7/7 bombers in London who blamed their attacks on the War in Iraq.
Militant Muslim groups often claim that "the West" is in a "War against Islam" being led by "Christian Crusaders" in pursuit of "imperialism" in the "Holy Land". It's that simple!
As for D'Souza's remarks that rampant sexuality offends traditional Muslims, I will not disagree with that assertion and to a certain extent does factor into the equation, but they are the secondary, not the primary modus operandi of terrorist who are attacking the United States.
If one were to blame the terrorist attacks on Liberalism alone, which is absurd by the way, one would have to ask why very Liberal countries in Europe had never been attacked by Islamic militants.
There are counties in Europe where newscasters actually strip their clothing and gay marriage is legal - so if Liberalism and rampant sexuality were to blame it would only be natural to question why these countries had not been attacked, or even threatened.
Is it because these countries have never meddled in the affairs of the Middle East, which we have been doing quite frequently, extensively and unsuccessfully for the past six decades?
But, as written I will give D'Souza a shred of credit, to point out that yes, rampant sexuality does offend right wing militant Muslims, traditional and even moderate Muslims, it offends Christians and Jews as well.
But Liberalism is not the basis of the terrorist attacks against us, there are real reasons behind their attacks and if we are ever to put an end to militant Islam we must address the real problems and the real basis of their attacks if we are to ever hope to change the future.
Monday, January 15, 2007
Remember Martin Luther King Jr And His Opposition To Oppression
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man with a dream, a dream most Americans know well. A dream of equality and tolerance and integration that he tried to pass on to the rest of America and the world.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of great courage and conviction with an extraordinary vision of peace and equality for all man, and even those of caucasian ancestry should honor his memory and his principals, he was and is an American hero, very much responsible for shaping our country.
Martin Luther King Jr. was not only a hero, but he is also one of the few true martyr's borne of this nation of great men and cowards alike. Dr. King was the former of the aforementioned, and his opponents were the latter.
As with all activist, King had enemies, enemies who were eventually successful in quelling his voice but not his vision nor his movement.
What we recall the most about this great American hero was his role in the Civil Rights Movement, his intolerance of injustice and opposition to oppression, his inspiring speeches and the strength of his character.
What we have forgotten about Martin Luther King Jr. was his stance against the Vietnam War, which could be meaningful to remember in the time in which we are living in. A time that is already drawing up comparisons to Vietnam.
One can read the text of King's speech "Beyond Vietnam" to understand the specific reasons he was opposed to the war, or on can read the several quotes of Dr. King on the war in Vietnam below.
"We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others."
"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation."
"The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."
"War is the greatest plague that can affect humanity; it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it."
"Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows."
"The bombs in Vietnam explode at home; they destroy the hopes and possibilities for a decent America."
"We have guided missiles and misguided men."
"We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but the positive affirmation of peace."
"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government."
It is eerie how one can look at King's observations of the Vietnam War and easily apply the same expressions to the Iraq War.
Martin Luther King Jr. had a very strong stance against not only the Vietnam War, but against all war and all aggression in the world, he made that very clear with the statement "I have condemned any organizer of war, regardless of his rank or nationality."
So on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day of 2007 let us consider his words on war and aggression as we prepare to escalate the war in Iraq, a war that has become like Vietnam in more ways than one.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a man with a dream, a dream most Americans know well. A dream of equality and tolerance and integration that he tried to pass on to the rest of America and the world.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a man of great courage and conviction with an extraordinary vision of peace and equality for all man, and even those of caucasian ancestry should honor his memory and his principals, he was and is an American hero, very much responsible for shaping our country.
Martin Luther King Jr. was not only a hero, but he is also one of the few true martyr's borne of this nation of great men and cowards alike. Dr. King was the former of the aforementioned, and his opponents were the latter.
As with all activist, King had enemies, enemies who were eventually successful in quelling his voice but not his vision nor his movement.
What we recall the most about this great American hero was his role in the Civil Rights Movement, his intolerance of injustice and opposition to oppression, his inspiring speeches and the strength of his character.
What we have forgotten about Martin Luther King Jr. was his stance against the Vietnam War, which could be meaningful to remember in the time in which we are living in. A time that is already drawing up comparisons to Vietnam.
One can read the text of King's speech "Beyond Vietnam" to understand the specific reasons he was opposed to the war, or on can read the several quotes of Dr. King on the war in Vietnam below.
"We all have to be concerned about terrorism, but you will never end terrorism by terrorizing others."
"Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation."
"The chain reaction of evil--wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation."
"War is the greatest plague that can affect humanity; it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it."
"Wars are poor chisels for carving out peaceful tomorrows."
"The bombs in Vietnam explode at home; they destroy the hopes and possibilities for a decent America."
"We have guided missiles and misguided men."
"We must concentrate not merely on the negative expulsion of war but the positive affirmation of peace."
"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today is my own government."
It is eerie how one can look at King's observations of the Vietnam War and easily apply the same expressions to the Iraq War.
Martin Luther King Jr. had a very strong stance against not only the Vietnam War, but against all war and all aggression in the world, he made that very clear with the statement "I have condemned any organizer of war, regardless of his rank or nationality."
So on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day of 2007 let us consider his words on war and aggression as we prepare to escalate the war in Iraq, a war that has become like Vietnam in more ways than one.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Pro-War Critics Of War Critics Try To Quell Dissent By Fear And Guilt By Association
Recently an article caught my eye, titled, "Criticism gives comfort to the enemy" I didn't need to even read the article to understand the rhetoric and propaganda that was written inside.
I have a question, Why do we even care if criticism comforts the enemy or leaves him cold inside? Should that stop us from observing the obvious?
Should we let that not very significant and regrettable fact stop us from doing the right thing? The answer is a firm "no".
It is my belief that our real enemies, the ones who are capable of hurting us at home, want us to continue to fight in Iraq.
The enemy loves seeing America tied down in a Civil War in Iraq, wasting our time and resources while leaving our country vulnerable by trying to build a "democratic" nation in Iraq which is being met with the full resistance of factions of warlike and feuding Iraqi's and amplified by foreign terrorist, while countless Iraqi civilians lives get washed away in the bloodshed.
These "critics of the critics" need to step back and logically evaluate the situation.
We have no one to blame for our misfortunes in Iraq but ourselves for we have done more damage to ourselves in Iraq than any terrorist organization could pray for.
We cannot continue to deceive ourselves for the sake of the fact that the truth is ugly.
We deviated from the path, our mission should have been the metaphorical decapitation of Osama bin Laden and those who plotted against the United States. Instead we went on a nation building foray in Iraq and all but abandoned our true call to war.
While these critics of the critics shield the President, what will they feel in six months or nine months when the situation in Iraqi has likely deteriorated further?
How will they feel to know in a year Muqtada al Sadr will most likely still be controlling masses of Shia in Iraq?
How will they feel to know the Iraqi government yet again was unable to live up to their promises?
You heard Condoleeza Rice, there is no "plan B", only a "plan A" which is precisely how we became mired in Iraq in the first place, no "back up plans" for when and if your original blue print falls through.
How will they feel when Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a sectarian war by proxy that we are stuck in the middle of, while the only people who gain from the experience are terrorist and companies like Halliburton?
Will they even care, or will they have made up even more rhetoric filled slogans to guide the nation threw a war that should have never been and didn't need to be?
Will they still feel criticism comforts the enemy, or will they finally become concerned with our overburdened military and the incredible damage that has been done to US credibility?
Will they shield the President further, or will they realize aligning themselves with him is to sell our country out to war profiteers who have no real intention of solving these problems before their reign of power has ended?
These defenders of Bush need to realize the obvious.
The only way that we are possibly winning the war in Iraq is if our mission was to cause a Civil War and destabilize the region, let Osama bin Laden go free and give the terrorist cause to celebrate and fight. If that is so, then we are winning the War in Iraq.
We have helped placed men who are loyal to sects and not to Iraq in positions of power.
We have placed men who fought against Iraq in the war between Iraq and Iran in control of Iraq.
We have helped prop up men who have allegiance to Iran, not to Iraq, in dominance of Iraq.
These men were also aided in their elevation to power by militant Shia organizations in Iraq, who are accused of running "death squads", I do not need to write names, if these critics of the critics are so well informed then they should know precisely who I am writing of.
It is unfortunate that the President's policy is so misguided it is met with the criticism of all, including his own constituents.
Regardless of what terrorist in the Middle East or right wing pundits believe or say it does not change the fact that we were misguided into a war by a President who knew very little about who he was fighting and what tactics would be necessary.
It only aides the President, not the terrorist or the people to spread the belief that "criticism comforts the enemy" because it serves as an effective buffer of freedom of speech and dissent, aimed at trying to make war critics feel as if they are on the enemies side by criticizing such a transparently tragic policy
Recently an article caught my eye, titled, "Criticism gives comfort to the enemy" I didn't need to even read the article to understand the rhetoric and propaganda that was written inside.
I have a question, Why do we even care if criticism comforts the enemy or leaves him cold inside? Should that stop us from observing the obvious?
Should we let that not very significant and regrettable fact stop us from doing the right thing? The answer is a firm "no".
It is my belief that our real enemies, the ones who are capable of hurting us at home, want us to continue to fight in Iraq.
The enemy loves seeing America tied down in a Civil War in Iraq, wasting our time and resources while leaving our country vulnerable by trying to build a "democratic" nation in Iraq which is being met with the full resistance of factions of warlike and feuding Iraqi's and amplified by foreign terrorist, while countless Iraqi civilians lives get washed away in the bloodshed.
These "critics of the critics" need to step back and logically evaluate the situation.
We have no one to blame for our misfortunes in Iraq but ourselves for we have done more damage to ourselves in Iraq than any terrorist organization could pray for.
We cannot continue to deceive ourselves for the sake of the fact that the truth is ugly.
We deviated from the path, our mission should have been the metaphorical decapitation of Osama bin Laden and those who plotted against the United States. Instead we went on a nation building foray in Iraq and all but abandoned our true call to war.
While these critics of the critics shield the President, what will they feel in six months or nine months when the situation in Iraqi has likely deteriorated further?
How will they feel to know in a year Muqtada al Sadr will most likely still be controlling masses of Shia in Iraq?
How will they feel to know the Iraqi government yet again was unable to live up to their promises?
You heard Condoleeza Rice, there is no "plan B", only a "plan A" which is precisely how we became mired in Iraq in the first place, no "back up plans" for when and if your original blue print falls through.
How will they feel when Iran and Saudi Arabia are engaged in a sectarian war by proxy that we are stuck in the middle of, while the only people who gain from the experience are terrorist and companies like Halliburton?
Will they even care, or will they have made up even more rhetoric filled slogans to guide the nation threw a war that should have never been and didn't need to be?
Will they still feel criticism comforts the enemy, or will they finally become concerned with our overburdened military and the incredible damage that has been done to US credibility?
Will they shield the President further, or will they realize aligning themselves with him is to sell our country out to war profiteers who have no real intention of solving these problems before their reign of power has ended?
These defenders of Bush need to realize the obvious.
The only way that we are possibly winning the war in Iraq is if our mission was to cause a Civil War and destabilize the region, let Osama bin Laden go free and give the terrorist cause to celebrate and fight. If that is so, then we are winning the War in Iraq.
We have helped placed men who are loyal to sects and not to Iraq in positions of power.
We have placed men who fought against Iraq in the war between Iraq and Iran in control of Iraq.
We have helped prop up men who have allegiance to Iran, not to Iraq, in dominance of Iraq.
These men were also aided in their elevation to power by militant Shia organizations in Iraq, who are accused of running "death squads", I do not need to write names, if these critics of the critics are so well informed then they should know precisely who I am writing of.
It is unfortunate that the President's policy is so misguided it is met with the criticism of all, including his own constituents.
Regardless of what terrorist in the Middle East or right wing pundits believe or say it does not change the fact that we were misguided into a war by a President who knew very little about who he was fighting and what tactics would be necessary.
It only aides the President, not the terrorist or the people to spread the belief that "criticism comforts the enemy" because it serves as an effective buffer of freedom of speech and dissent, aimed at trying to make war critics feel as if they are on the enemies side by criticizing such a transparently tragic policy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
