Eagles Gather For Flock Fest
(It's kind of long so grab your coffee)
In case you don't pay attention to the latest right wing conspiracy theories, let me clue you in, this one is good, and even kind of funny.
A group of right wingers who call themselves the "Gathering Of Eagles" (as pointed out by HP's Chris Kelly a group of eagles is not actually a "gathering" but a "congress") are gearing themselves up for the largest assault on American Freedom yet - an anti-war demonstration in Washington D.C. on March 17.
The Gathering claims that on this fateful date in history all hell will break lose when antiwar demonstrators deface the Vietnam Memorial and spit at war veterans. It's like the tribulations only worse for the chest thumping "Gathering of Hawks".
The only problem with this theory? Well, it's just that, a theory.
There has not been any plans made by the "radical left" for vet spitting contests or wall defacing debacles led by the "Hanoi Jane's" and "Cindy Sheehan's" who will be attending the peaceful demonstration.
So obviously the strange paranoia that "The Gathering" is suffering from is quite unfounded and quite delusional. But then again, with the "dedication" (some call it radicalism) of this group it wouldn't surprise me if some of their own "Eagles" defaced the memorial or spit at vets, just to reinforce the rest of the "flocks" point of view.
So however unfounded the conspiracy theory is, that didn't stop fellow flocker Russ Vaughn at Eagle Fest from writing an eloquent and creative poem (?) about the.. ah..umm.. huh.. umm.. imminent disaster that isn't going to happen on March 17.
I don't want to torture everyone with the simple mindedness of the entire poem, but a few lines are just screaming to be pointed out.
Linguistic genius Russ Vaughn at the Flock of Eagles or Gathering of Flocks, or Flock of Seagulls or whatever it is called wrote the following :
"You can shout and scream all you want,
On all that we'll give you a pass;
But you try some Wall-defacing stunt,
And, son, I'm gonna kick your ass."
First, I can't imagine in what world the words "want" and "stunt" would have any rhyming capability in. "Donchu be pullin' no stant" ?? Okay...
Second, it surely doesn't surprise me that a pro-war person would reduce themselves to the level of violence to prove their point, it doesn't surprise me a bit. I mean, it makes logical sense doesn't it?
Anyway, my friend Russy goes on to write in his "poem" (ahem)
"And understand you ain't layin' a hand
On our Wall you leftie mothers."
BOY! This guy has an incredible amount of insight, his writing skills are superb, I mean, all that stuff about Shakespeare being a good writer? Blasphemy! "Leftie motherfuckers" is art, it's poetry! "Ain't layin' "? That's a superior use of the English language right there.
But there is more, I can't stop now, it's just too interesting. Like, WOW, I thought people like this only existed in parodies of right wing lunatics, I didn't know they were actually real.
"And, son, you hear this loud and clear,
Don't even think about spittin'
Less you want that smart mouth busted here,
And believe me, we're not shittin'."
Oooh, more solving problems with violence! That's typical of a right winger for you. I'm glad to know that they are "not shittin'" because otherwise this whole thing could get messy...
OK, I am just going to pop this question ... Is this guy sitting in a splintered rocking chair on a dilapidated porch with a piece of wheat hanging from his toothless grin, wearing rolled up overalls splashed with mud, beat up old banjo in one hand, bottle of whiskey in the other and his shotgun leaned up against the house behind him while belting "Yah- whoo!!" somewhere? Because that is the pik-a-cher (picture in English) Russ Vaughn is painting of himself in my head.
Also, as already written there is not a vast left conspiracy to deface the Vietnam memorial, or spit on Veterans for that matter on March 17. Vaughn is just propagating anger and paranoia towards "the left" (I guess he means the majority of Americans who are now opposed to the war).
In a shift-the-blame-scapegoating tactic Vaughn also writes:
"Because of you losers we lose our wars,"
Really, who is this guy kidding? Or more accurately, who does he think he is trying to kid?
It must be himself, because last time I checked the reasons we lose wars is because we plan them poorly, have morons in charge, or have a flawed foundation for invasion - or all three.
When we win wars it is largely because we had intelligent and strategic planning and men of vision in charge and a justified foundation for war.
We don't lose wars because of protesters, but it is convenient to try to blame the protesters, isn't it? "We could have won the war if you supported it." Is a lot easier than admitting mistakes and failures, a lot easier. What the right wing ideologues fail to mention is that they had everyone support right up until the moment everything collapsed into scandal, corruption and failure. It's kind of hard to support those things, when, you know, you have a conscious.
Anyway, back to Vaughn's articulate and thought provoking "poem"
"So follow these traitors, those loser bitches,
Let them lead you to your fall;
But I promise you, son, you're gonna need stitches,
You even get close to this Wall."
More threats of violence, what a shock!
I was wrong to assume Vaughn was a harmless if ignorant hick, no, he's much more than that, more like the guy who will throw a brick through your windshield for accidentally cutting him off in traffic.
So all this talk of Vaughn, his poem, and the upcoming demonstrations (and counter demonstrations) in D.C. made me curious enough to look up the "Gathering of Eagles" on "the Internets". I had to use "the Google", but I found it, and let me tell you, it blew my mind.
Curiosity compelled me so I clicked on the link. Who are these people? Do they really believe what they are writing? If so, what planet are they from? Why do they claim to be the "Silent Guard of America's Memorials" but appear to be hosting an array of right wing conspiracy theories and talking points? Some of those soldiers must surely be liberals...
In "Answering the Call of Our Fallen" Kit Jarrell uses the cloak of patriotism to assail the left with conspiracies and fallacies such as :
"the American Left called for the defeat and humiliation of our military, even going so far as to support the barbaric hordes of Islam in their quest to destroy America." Do you hear that? Shhh... (coo-coo, coo-coo)
Yeah, I hear the Demoncrats are holding mass conversions, daily now, you know, for those of us who have decided to "support the barbaric hordes of Islam". The statement shows how little Kit Jarrell knows about "the left" or Islam.
Radical Islam is not compatible with the the Liberal left! (After all, according to the Conservative right, the radical Muslims attacked us because of our Liberal values, not despite of them). Radical Islam is, however, compatible with the values of right wing conservatism. There is no such thing as a Liberal Jihadist, they are all extremist conservatives! So to suggest the Liberals and Terrorist are in "cahoots", so to speak, is quite simple minded, their values are as opposite as the poles.
The same writer comments that :
"The college-age hippies of 1969 were now parents and grandparents, with families who didn’t have the faintest idea where Iwo Jima is and wouldn’t dream of enlisting in the “imperialist army” of their nation."
Oh, puh-leaze! Don't forget to mention the fact that the children and grandchildren of the "imperialist" war hawks wouldn't dream of enlisting in the military either, but their reasons are of cowardice and greed, not guided out of principals like the children of the "hippies".
"The antiwar crowd kept marching and declared themselves the majority."
The "antiwar crowd" did not declare itself to be the majority, the majority joined the antiwar crowd and left the ailing pro war "gathering".
The "antiwar crowd" did not grow because there is an alarming amount of anti-American citizens in this country (as the right wing likes to claim).
The "antiwar crowd" grew because successes in Iraq are few and far between, the crowd grows every time new evidence against the Bush Administrations flawed basis for war are unveiled, the crowd grows bigger when US soldiers are killed, when Iraqi children die, when we see the staggering amount of money invested and the new threats on the horizon.
But these vast right wing conspiracies, that become a way of life for some, about "the enemy at home" which blame Liberals for everything but the extinction of the dinosaurs, can get a little out of touch with reality.
Instead of undermining their Liberal antiwar "enemies" these right wing extremist validate them with their offering of assorted conspiracy theories(always a good friend of the right), violent poetry and insane ramblings tainted with endorsements of violence.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Support Or Oppose It, There Needs To Be An Honest Debate On Iraq
Since the beginning the Iraq War has been framed and defined by two points of view in American politics, and neither is wholly realistic.
Side A supports the war and view American and Iraqi sacrifices as worth the long term benefits and also sees Iraq War as the front on global terrorism, though Iraq was not involved in the planning, execution or funding of 9/11.
Side A also believes that a liberated democracy is feasible in Iraq, though many warned Iraq was not fertile grounds for a democracy after decades of oppressive dictatorship.
Side A even supports torture of the same people Side A claims it wants to liberate.
Side A is firmly against "setting a time table" and also believes that "staying the course" (though they don't use that expression anymore ) and accelerating the course will result security at home and in "victory", which we are all assuming is a free Iraq that can protect itself from terrorist.
Side B opposes the war believes the sacrifices being made in Iraq far outweigh the benefits for both Iraqi's and Americans and that the real "War on Terror" is in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden allegedly is, the 9/11 hijackers were trained and the Taliban is making a resurgence.
Side B argues that the basis for the war in Iraq and execution thereof was fundamentally flawed and therefore the continued execution of it is unjustified.
Side B views the torture of prisoners as unacceptable and contrary to the image of a liberator and contrary to the conduct of a democratized nation.
Side B believes that the United States cannot continue to extend itself indefinitely and that a "time table" and perhaps even restrictions should be introduced.
OK, so it's obvious -- Side A are the Republicans and Side B are the Democrats. But it isn't really so clearly defined anymore, an increasing amount of Republicans are coming out against the war, but it is still impossible to get an honest debate where facts, not political poetry or quotes frame the debate.
If this country is to ever move forward in the right direction the issue of Iraq has to be addressed immediately and directly, we cannot keep sweeping this debate under the metaphorical rug.
The answers will not be easy to find, the options will not be favorable, but our commitment cannot be indefinite, no matter how much we would wish to see a free and prosperous Iraq.
In order for the issue to be resolved there must be debate, and it needs to be open and honest and present only the facts before a reasonable course of action can be drawn.
Since the beginning the Iraq War has been framed and defined by two points of view in American politics, and neither is wholly realistic.
Side A supports the war and view American and Iraqi sacrifices as worth the long term benefits and also sees Iraq War as the front on global terrorism, though Iraq was not involved in the planning, execution or funding of 9/11.
Side A also believes that a liberated democracy is feasible in Iraq, though many warned Iraq was not fertile grounds for a democracy after decades of oppressive dictatorship.
Side A even supports torture of the same people Side A claims it wants to liberate.
Side A is firmly against "setting a time table" and also believes that "staying the course" (though they don't use that expression anymore ) and accelerating the course will result security at home and in "victory", which we are all assuming is a free Iraq that can protect itself from terrorist.
Side B opposes the war believes the sacrifices being made in Iraq far outweigh the benefits for both Iraqi's and Americans and that the real "War on Terror" is in Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden allegedly is, the 9/11 hijackers were trained and the Taliban is making a resurgence.
Side B argues that the basis for the war in Iraq and execution thereof was fundamentally flawed and therefore the continued execution of it is unjustified.
Side B views the torture of prisoners as unacceptable and contrary to the image of a liberator and contrary to the conduct of a democratized nation.
Side B believes that the United States cannot continue to extend itself indefinitely and that a "time table" and perhaps even restrictions should be introduced.
OK, so it's obvious -- Side A are the Republicans and Side B are the Democrats. But it isn't really so clearly defined anymore, an increasing amount of Republicans are coming out against the war, but it is still impossible to get an honest debate where facts, not political poetry or quotes frame the debate.
If this country is to ever move forward in the right direction the issue of Iraq has to be addressed immediately and directly, we cannot keep sweeping this debate under the metaphorical rug.
The answers will not be easy to find, the options will not be favorable, but our commitment cannot be indefinite, no matter how much we would wish to see a free and prosperous Iraq.
In order for the issue to be resolved there must be debate, and it needs to be open and honest and present only the facts before a reasonable course of action can be drawn.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Who Supports The Troops?
Democrats and antiwar activist have often been accused not only of being unpatriotic but also of failing to support the troops serving in Iraq and Afganistan.
But the real failure to support the troops comes in the form of neglect of troops who have served their country and come home maimed or psychologically damaged.
Over the weekend Washington Post revealed that "Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility"
Key points from the article include :
- Recovering soldiers living in poor conditions, including rodent and cockroach infestation, rotting floors and bathrooms and rooms with deadly black mold growing in them.
- Seventy-five percent of the troops polled by Walter Reed last March said their experience was "stressful."
- Poor care of patients who are often left on their own, in some cases forgotten about. Wounded managing the wounded, those with psychological trauma counseling others with psychological trauma.
- Inexcusable mismanagement such as case workers who don't know where their patients are, and patients not knowing where their case workers are.
- Soldiers with brain injuries sit waiting for weeks with no appointments or help from the staff, some for longer and some, frustrated, just left for home, without the notice of their caretakers.
- The disappearance of necessary forms and records, sometimes the Army has no record that a soldier ever even served in Iraq.
All of this happened about six miles away from the "beautiful White House", where President Bush had said it was hard for him to access if Iraq was in a civil war or not.
But what is more revealing are the statements the President has made about the specific facility in question.
On March 19, 2004 "Every time I come to Walter Reed, it confirms that which I know, which is we're providing the very best -- the best care, the best compassion."
The President had proclaimed this, during a time when the non profit group Disabled American Veterans was blocked from meeting with patients at the facility.
As recently as the 2007 State of the Union address the President asked Americans "to support our troops in the field, and those on their way." Curiously absent was a call for support soldiers who have already sacrificed themselves and need medical and psychological treatment.
However, the point is, anyone who has been paying attention knows that Bush and the Republicans have brandished their "support of the troops" mantra like a weapon against Democrats and antiwar activist while only six miles away from the residence of George W. Bush soldiers who sacrificed themselves for their effort in the War on Terror languish.
So the rush is on to make repairs to the buildings in question. The White House seems "appropriately outraged" but no one is fist to the podium outraged about something so...outrageous.
While the repairs appear to be in the process of being made no one is really questioning how the conditions were allowed to deteriorate so badly in the first place, and no one, including the television media is asking how the bureaucratic tangle and poor outpatient care is going to be resolved.
Supporting the troops doesn't just mean putting a yellow ribbon sticker on your car and denouncing the terrorist and supporting the Iraq War.
Supporting the troops includes providing adequate care for them after they have sacrificed for their country - not treating them like children and forcing formation on injured men, not shoving them in a rotting building where they disappear under care that would not even be acceptable in a hospice, let alone a facility for injured soldiers in this "glorious" War on Terror.
It's an outrage, and whether or not the problem is now being fixed is not the point. The point is that the conditions should have never been allowed to exist in the first place.
Democrats and antiwar activist have often been accused not only of being unpatriotic but also of failing to support the troops serving in Iraq and Afganistan.
But the real failure to support the troops comes in the form of neglect of troops who have served their country and come home maimed or psychologically damaged.
Over the weekend Washington Post revealed that "Soldiers Face Neglect, Frustration At Army's Top Medical Facility"
Key points from the article include :
- Recovering soldiers living in poor conditions, including rodent and cockroach infestation, rotting floors and bathrooms and rooms with deadly black mold growing in them.
- Seventy-five percent of the troops polled by Walter Reed last March said their experience was "stressful."
- Poor care of patients who are often left on their own, in some cases forgotten about. Wounded managing the wounded, those with psychological trauma counseling others with psychological trauma.
- Inexcusable mismanagement such as case workers who don't know where their patients are, and patients not knowing where their case workers are.
- Soldiers with brain injuries sit waiting for weeks with no appointments or help from the staff, some for longer and some, frustrated, just left for home, without the notice of their caretakers.
- The disappearance of necessary forms and records, sometimes the Army has no record that a soldier ever even served in Iraq.
All of this happened about six miles away from the "beautiful White House", where President Bush had said it was hard for him to access if Iraq was in a civil war or not.
But what is more revealing are the statements the President has made about the specific facility in question.
On March 19, 2004 "Every time I come to Walter Reed, it confirms that which I know, which is we're providing the very best -- the best care, the best compassion."
The President had proclaimed this, during a time when the non profit group Disabled American Veterans was blocked from meeting with patients at the facility.
As recently as the 2007 State of the Union address the President asked Americans "to support our troops in the field, and those on their way." Curiously absent was a call for support soldiers who have already sacrificed themselves and need medical and psychological treatment.
However, the point is, anyone who has been paying attention knows that Bush and the Republicans have brandished their "support of the troops" mantra like a weapon against Democrats and antiwar activist while only six miles away from the residence of George W. Bush soldiers who sacrificed themselves for their effort in the War on Terror languish.
So the rush is on to make repairs to the buildings in question. The White House seems "appropriately outraged" but no one is fist to the podium outraged about something so...outrageous.
While the repairs appear to be in the process of being made no one is really questioning how the conditions were allowed to deteriorate so badly in the first place, and no one, including the television media is asking how the bureaucratic tangle and poor outpatient care is going to be resolved.
Supporting the troops doesn't just mean putting a yellow ribbon sticker on your car and denouncing the terrorist and supporting the Iraq War.
Supporting the troops includes providing adequate care for them after they have sacrificed for their country - not treating them like children and forcing formation on injured men, not shoving them in a rotting building where they disappear under care that would not even be acceptable in a hospice, let alone a facility for injured soldiers in this "glorious" War on Terror.
It's an outrage, and whether or not the problem is now being fixed is not the point. The point is that the conditions should have never been allowed to exist in the first place.
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
United States Won't Call Ahmadinejad's Bluff
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday offered to shut down it's nuclear facilities, if the United States agreed to do the same.
"If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production facilities." Ahmadinejad stated on state run television.
When asked about Iran's offer White House Press Secretary Tony Snow responded "Do you believe that's a serious offer?" according to Reuters India.
In the war of rhetoric between Bush and Ahmadinejad tensions have been rising, and to answer Tony Snow - no, I don't think Ahmadinejad is serious because he knows the United States will never shut down it's nuclear facilities and this fact does not escape the Iranian President.
What Ahmadinejad suggestion seems to indicate is that he believes his nuclear program is as legitimate as the United States and that he is as likely to abandon his nuclear aspirations as the US is.
This news comes as CNN reports that for several months Iranian boats have increasingly crossed into Iraqi waters but "the United States does not see the Iranian moves as aggressive or provocative. The assessment is that the probes are part of an Iranian effort to raise its military presence in the gulf."
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday offered to shut down it's nuclear facilities, if the United States agreed to do the same.
"If they say that we should close down our fuel production facilities to resume talks, we say fine, but those who enter talks with us should also close down their nuclear fuel production facilities." Ahmadinejad stated on state run television.
When asked about Iran's offer White House Press Secretary Tony Snow responded "Do you believe that's a serious offer?" according to Reuters India.
In the war of rhetoric between Bush and Ahmadinejad tensions have been rising, and to answer Tony Snow - no, I don't think Ahmadinejad is serious because he knows the United States will never shut down it's nuclear facilities and this fact does not escape the Iranian President.
What Ahmadinejad suggestion seems to indicate is that he believes his nuclear program is as legitimate as the United States and that he is as likely to abandon his nuclear aspirations as the US is.
This news comes as CNN reports that for several months Iranian boats have increasingly crossed into Iraqi waters but "the United States does not see the Iranian moves as aggressive or provocative. The assessment is that the probes are part of an Iranian effort to raise its military presence in the gulf."
Saturday, February 17, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
