Just for tonight

I was going to write a long post, but I have been waiting to post this cartoon up for some time, and so with blogger's block, I will simply give you my view, as it were.

{Clicking on the image should give you a larger view}


The Ethics of Immigration

One of the top concerns for American citizens right now, during the ever so precocious election season, is immigration. Legal immigration, illegal immigration, the economy and immigration, crime and immigration, national security and yes, you got it, immigration. It would seem that all the world's evils are precariously balanced on the legislation surrounding US immigration, and what to do about "border crossing" by illegal aliens, and furthermore what to do with the illegal aliens who are already here, all ten million of them, give or take a million.

Do we give them amnesty, and grandfather them in? Do we continue to keep illegal aliens with US born children, as we have done in the past? Do we issue temporary guest passes, visas, and U visas for those willing to work with law enforcement? Who should we blame for their arrival? The country they came from, the immigrants, or the corporations and businesses who employ them?

And what about legal immigrants? Should we narrow our borders, letting fewer and fewer in? Manage immigration with a stranglehold technique? Do immigrants really have a negative affect on our economy? So many questions, and so few answers.

One of the top concerns is of course, the question of illegal aliens. Some people would like to build a great big wall, so they can't walk across the border, that is assuming of course, that all illegal aliens come from Mexico. I would highly doubt they are flooding in from Canada, but there are a great deal of aliens who come here with a temporary visa, but set up shop past their expiration date who aren't from Mexico. Either way you slice and dice it, they are here, and they are working.

It would be prudent to remember that illegal aliens provide services for US companies, who do employ them knowingly or unknowingly (and if the worker is receiving less than minimum wage, you can be sure the employer knows they aren't legal), and that course of action has its benefits and its drawbacks. Again, either way they are inextricably linked to our economy, thus complicating the problem a great deal.

A large portion of the population who cry out against any sort of amnesty use unemployed Americans which are now on the rise as well as supposed crime statistics for their argument. Get rid of the illegals, and we'll get our jobs back! Oh, if it were only that simple.

The fact is, many Americans either won't, or can't work the jobs that illegal immigrants fill. I say won't, because most Americans are over qualified for the jobs or have some issue of social status pride and they feel they must not "lower themselves" by working such tedious low paying jobs. Leading me of course, to the second problem, many Americans can't afford to work such low paying jobs. Even if the company does pay minimum wage, and not the slave wages they pay illegal aliens. With the ever increasing cost of living, and the stagnation of wages American are finding they can only work so many jobs to make ends meet before they end up making less because they have to work three and four part time, minimum wage jobs. Never mind the loss of benefits.

Therein lies the problem. Of course, people assume that once the illegal aliens go away (at what cost, and who will pay for it?) companies will be willing to up their wage base, and hire on a bunch of Americans, even the high school drop outs who can't get a beginner's management position. That assumption is of course, false. For a company to do that they will be forced to take a profit loss. There mere thought of it sends upper management types running into closed board rooms where there will be much wrending of garments, and gnashing of teeth.

What will happen, is the companies will automate whatever positions they can, thus eliminating an entire employment base, they will outsource what they can, and they will force high salary earners with little to no influence into the company into retirement before their pensions are collectible with a small severance package, a gold watch, and a note not to let the door hit them in the rear end on the way out. "It's been nice working with yu, but you simply earn too much, oh yeah, you retired before your contract ended, so no pension for you."

Then they will hire the just out of college fresh face willing to take any job available in their field, for a fraction of the salary. Needless to say, the CEOs and upper, upper management will get their yearly bonus for doing such a fine job.

What was I saying? Oh yes, so the ousting of illegal immigrants will inevitably only serve for a larger loss of jobs, not the security of more jobs for Americans. It should be noted, that their 9immigrants) effect on our economy will have little to no effect on consumer costs, or even our economy as a whole. In fact, not having them here could make things for us harder to buy, as we won't have our jobs at all.

There is another, more human side to this story of course, and that is immigrant exploitation, and crimes against immigrants. Mainly illegal immigrants, how ever legal immigrants have their fair share of problems in the US as well. Many foreigners who live in poverty and oppression are tempted by the very corporations who entice them to come here, to the US legally or not to work for them for twice, four times, or even ten times what they earn in their home country. If you were starving, didn't meet the criteria for US immigration, didn't win the Visa Lottery and were desperate...what would you do? What we consider to be slave wages, many consider to be fair-er wages then what they receive at home. So, employers entice, then exploit. Forcing workers to work in just as harsh conditions as they expected at home, for many hours, even entering into the human trafficking network if they need to, and for only a little more than what they earned at home.

Never mind the crimes that occur against them on a normal basis. Illegal aliens are easy targets for criminals. They fear deportation, so the pickin' is easy as criminals know they are less likely to report the crime to police or other authorities. Now I know what you're thinking, if they were here legally this wouldn't be an issue in the first place. Please see the above economic reasons for that answer. Our corporations, our government and our economy are simply too entwined to let go of such a cheap labor force. Then of course you have the camp that blames every little rise in crime on illegal immigrants. That's xenophobic propaganda for you, though. The US has consistently blamed our woes on the influx of foreigners since the beginning of the country, and immigration here. This is nothing new, and it certainly is no truer now than it was then.

Now, legal immigrants have their share of problems too. Approximately 50% of legal immigrants to the US, in the last eight years live at or below the poverty level. Remember what I said about US citizens not being able to afford the minimum wage jobs? This is why. A great deal of legal immigrants, permanent or temporary workers aren't qualified by US standards, or are simply discriminated against because they are foreign, and so they work low wage jobs. They too, still suffer at the hands of discrimination and xenophobia, just not as badly as illegal immigrants do.

What then is the moral of the story here? Quite frankly it is that the marriage of Big Business and Big Government has left any serious regulation of corporate companies and conglomerates on the outskirts of real legislation that would help both the immigration issue, and our economy.

So what is the solution? Well, that is widely debated, and certainly not easily solved.

John Sileo, '06
India Daily
Bush on Immigration
Center for Immigration Studies
US Citizenship and Immigration Services
George Weissinger
Adam Davidson, NPR
About.com Illegal Immigration
China Daily
Visa Lottery, CIS


Plenty to Be Ashamed of...

{Click Title to be redirected to the artists page}
It has come to my attention, time and time again that offering up complaints or criticisms about this country is to be labeled anti-American, spoiled, unpatriotic and so on. This is the problem of revisionist history, something almost anyone who reads my blog knows is a massive irritation to me.

I would like to make some intentions and opinions clear, noted, and as concise as humanly possible. I cannot speak for all people who share my same opinion, but i can speak for myself and for many that I know personally...

The US has a tumultuous history, one that is typically clouded by patriotic visions of heroism, good deeds, and altruism. We are taught from very young ages that all that we have done, and all that we have fought for was right, just, and moral. We are taught to be proud, we are taught to be appreciative of what we have, and we are taught, above all to believe in our country regardless of what we may learn when we grow up.

Let me pose a scenario and a question to my fellow readers however. Lets begin by imagining we are in the seventeen to twenty-something age category, and we have a wonderful life. The full American Dream. Our parents have provided us with food, shelter, love, toys and everything we could possibly want. We are privileged, are we not? Top education, the best medical care, the newest Playstation and the best sneakers money can buy. We have social status, power, and prestige. We have everything, and we owe it all to our parents.

Let's just say that one day you, the privileged child uncovers a truth about your family...and then another, and another and so on until you become critical. Let's just say that your parents have high paying jobs, but you find out that their pay, and their job, targets and abuses the impoverished (here or in other countries), lets say you find out that their job requires them to (knowingly) be bigots, racists, and regularly use child labor to boost profits, and thus their bonuses. Lets say that you find out your parents did not in fact buy you the newest Playstation or best sneakers, but stole them from the poor families in the next town over. lets say you find out that your parents regularly make deals with head drug dealers or Mafia heads, just to gain that new car or house.

Would you still want all of these things they have given you? Would you still want the stolen Playstation, the nice house, the fancy education if you knew, for a fact, that it cost other human beings something dear?

Just how proud would you be of your parents if you found out they were hitmen? How proud would you be if all the wonderful things you have were ill gotten gains? Just how appreciative of your parents would you be if you found out that their intentions were never about you and what's best for you, but rather a nice way to line their own pockets, and take care of you at the same time?

How would you feel if you realized your parents bought your affections?

Would standing up and addressing their unethical lifestyle betray you as a brat? Would refusal to accept ill gotten gains automatically mean you are spoiled, stupid, or unloving of your parents? Does it mean you hate them, or will never be able to work with them in hopes of change and progress?

Of course it wouldn't. It would mean that you are finally standing up for what is right, addressing past mistakes and wrong doings, forcing them to own up to their actions and take responsibility, instilling a bit of humility and over all, changing a bad situation into one of hope and progress. And you do so out of love, not hate.

Well, after rummaging around unrevised history of the US, many of us feel the same way. That sort of betrayal one feels when they realize their parent has lied to them, that discontent one feels when they understand that what they have was stolen from someone else.

Spoiled? Anti-American? Unpatriotic? Not even close.

It's called realism folks, and it is required to initiate any kind of progress worth progressing to. So why don't we all cut to the chase and be honest with ourselves, and force our country to do the same.

There are a lot of actions, policies and behaviors that Americans have to be ashamed of. That doesn't mean it has to stay that way. What that means is that it's time to stand up, and do something that will make you proud.

Tell the truth about our history, and make our country face it's consequences, instead of drowning in a sea of patriotism.


Your Vote is Your Voice

I've heard this phrase numerous times in many incarnations over the years. Voice yourself by voting, your vote is your voice, let your voice be heard - vote, and so on and so forth. The slogan and the concept is catchy to be certain. It is also, however, discouraging.

It implies that the act of voting is the only way to voice your concerns, your wants and your ideas for this nation. Of course most people do know that you can write your representatives, and even the president should you feel the need, but how many of you have tried this tactic, and just how successful were you? The average citizen will receive an automated reply, a form letter thanking them for taking the time to "voice" their concerns with absolutely no guarantee that their opinion was even read, let alone heard or considered.

So it would be reasonable to presume that voting, the act of electing a representative whose policies closely resemble your own views, really is the best way to let yourself be heard on issues that are important to you. After all, you're electing an extension of yourself, only with more experience, yes?

Or is it?

First the question needs to be asked, does your vote actually count? In local elections, this answer is simple. Winner takes all is the basic premise, dependent on state law, of course. So yes, your vote actually counts. Just as soon as you step it up to the federal level however, things get a little bit strange. In primaries and caucuses, we elect individuals for the position of presidential candidate by way of delegates. In a primary, the delegates take the place of the Electoral College, as it were, and cast the appropriate vote for the candidate in their respective parties based not on the popular vote, but by percentages in counties and cities, as a way to create a fair representation of what each state as whole wants, rather than what the majority of voters want.

This was a practice devised to help smaller counties sway elections. See, if the majority of people live in one area or county of a state (or as in the practice of the Electoral college, very large states) vote one way, for one candidate, that has promised to help them, but not the smaller counties or areas you get a tipped scale of representation. The notion was to create a way to elect a leader based on who would be best for the entire nation (or state) rather than just the majority of the populace in concentrated areas. Or, it's a plan that is supposed to keep the minority safe from the tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, it isn't working correctly anymore.

Add in the super-delegates and things get even more complicated. Regular delegates are pledged voters, who are responsible and bound to vote for the candidate the constituents have selected, within the frame work of the percentage rules. The super-delegates, however have no such commitment to the people and can vote any way they wish.

Suffice it to say, that even if your favorite candidate gets the majority of the votes he or she may not in fact, end up being the candidate who runs for the presidency.

So just how much weight does your vote actually carry? Not much, to be truthful. Your vote will never have the kind of weight that tips an election one way or another. The idea that even one vote can make a difference is a farce, an illusion to make Americans believe that they are being heard, individually, and so have no further need to bother the government with their pesky requests.

After all, they did vote, and the vote is their voice, right?

To make matters worse, it has become much harder to vote in recent years. It isn't that citizens need to pass tests or that voting has stipulations per se, only that the actual process, from registering to voting according the laws has become rather complicated. First, and this has been major complaint of voters, is that not everyone who has registered is allowed to vote come election day because their information wasn't processed by the specified time according to the law. This, mostly by no fault of the voter, is the reason many voters are turned away during elections.

Registering to vote through the DMV, or social services via the state can wait such long periods of time before turning in their paperwork, that the voters aren't put into the system until it's too late. Going into your town hall is the best bet, to ensure your registration is processed. Even then, human error sometimes permits voters to slip through the cracks anyway.

Then there is the issue of party affiliation, and voting rights. Some states require that the voter be affiliated with either the Republican or Democrat party before being allowed to vote in federal primaries. Ergo, a huge percentage of voters who have no desire to be a part of either party are turned away come election day.

How can we possibly claim to voice our opinions through our votes, and elect the best representative for the position if we continually turn voters away in large numbers?

No wonder voter apathy exists.

Back to the moral of the story however, and that is American complacency. If we truly feel that voting is the best or only way to have our voices heard, even though our voices are not being properly heard in the voting booths, or in the offices once the representative has been elected, what does that say about us?

Have we become so apathetic that we refuse to take it any farther than that? Are we so submissive to our government that we actually buy into the hype that Voting is Our Voice, and all that it implies?

Voting is clearly not an accurate representation of our collective voices, not during the elections, and particularly not after. Is it but a whisper. We need to roar if we wish to be heard. We need to actually use our voices, and not simper away after being compartmentalized into neatly lined voting booths, and discharged as quickly as we were ushered into them, fully fooling ourselves that we have now "been heard".


Top Ten Concerns for 2008

10) Cuba

With Castro's resignation, his brother has taken the helm. This could bode badly for the US. Although some believe that the US will try to squeak out another democratic extension of the US, as we did so many moons ago with Cuba, I fear that if the US does, the new leader will react in a manner that makes Castro's most fierce reactions look tame. This is a new development worth keeping an eye on.

9) Immigration
There has been a major brouhaha over the status of illegal immigrants nationwide. Some want amnesty, others are vehemently opposed to such compassion. Still others just want a wall built to protect the borders, and other want reform so more immigrants can come in legally. No matter how you slice and dice it, illegal immigrants are inextricably tied to US economy, and the decision, in the end, won't make anyone happy. Look forward to a post on immigration in the near future. Either way, it's a huge campaign topic at the moment. Speaking of campaigns...

8) Electoral shenanigans
This year, the presidential election is hot, hot, hot. Hot under the collar, anyway. With smear campaigns, fear campaigns tight races, and super-delegates we need to watch our collective rears this year, and make sure that this election isn't stolen too. Never mind the debate about whether or not super-delegates are even a valid way to decide primaries, or if the electoral college should even exist anymore. I'll be posting much more about that topic, in coming posts.

7) Environment
Another electoral hot button issue, the environment with all of the divisional debates going on about it still isn't fairing all that well. Regardless of your opinions about global warming, and the cause thereof, we are still leaving a hefty footprint on this planet, and are certainly having an effect. Let's keep our eye on policies and issues such as lowering emissions being rejected by government run agencies in charge of protecting the environment (and not the corporate conglomerates, contrary to popular actions).

6) Economy
Our economy is tanking, no doubt about it. Thats bad, but it's also something I personally saw coming about four years ago. Everyone thought I was crazy then, but not anymore. The government sending out piddly checks to entice citizens to buy more crap we don't need isn't going to solve the problem. What we need to do is something our government now run by corporate America will refuse to do. Quite simply, it's big business as usual, and we don't' want to disturb the multi-millionaires about our pesky national debt problem, mass foreclosures, bankruptcies, and all around tanking economy. As long as they don't have to sell their yachts, then it's not a real recession...

5) Health Care
For a first world country, we sure do have a lot of people without the ability to pay for or receive quality medical care. So far, none of the presidential hopefuls have offered any real solution to the problem. The US is so darned afraid of the big bad Socialism that we now refuse over forty million people the ability to seek proper treatment for what ails them. We are grossly overweight, over medicated, unhealthy, sick and under treated. With a tanking economy, this is sure to get worse.

4) Exxon and Chavez
The dynamic duo's relationship went all pear shaped, and left a lawsuit in it's wake. Exxon Mobile, with lawsuits pending and Chavez with $12 billion in assets frozen over the nationalization of an oil project has come to blows with threats of oil embargoes to the US. Although Chavez did soften his opinion a few days ago, I can't help but smell economic coercion in the works. With the current lack of global support, I think the US will be in for a rough ride if we keep poking countries that own things we need to survive. Such as huge amounts of oil.

3) The imbalance of power in the Whitehouse
As Bush Jr. leaves the gaping hole of power in he hands of the next president, one can only wonder, who will win that brass ring, and how will it be used? Bush has undermined the principles of a checks and balances government more than any other president by usurping power for the "Decider" and taking away as much congressional oversight as he possibly could. Of course, people are still wondering if Martial Law won't be enacted before a new president is elected, leaving the election itself in a democratic limbo long enough for the Bush boys to have their last hoorah in office. Lets keep a keen eye out folks.

2) Martial law, interment camps, and the fascism of the State
As noted above the Decider has taken it upon himself to maintain as much power as possible, to undermine the constitution, to revoke rights, and has even begun to build the long talked about internment camps in the US. As discussed over at Len's blog "In the meantime, the Department of Homeland Security moved forward toward the planned construction of "emergency detention facilities" --concentration camps in locations throughout the US, letting no-bid contracts totalling some 385 million dollars to Dick Cheney's Halliburton and KBR. As to be expected, the camps will be "activated" in the event of a terrorist attack or a declared "national emergency", perhaps the kind of attack recently predicted by Bush."

He has also overturned the Posse Comitatus act, enabling the use of our own troops to force us into these "detention facilities". Are you worried yet? I am.

Last but certainly not least number 1) US - Russian relations
As strange as it may seem to have this, and not number two in the number one spot for concerns in 2008, the fact of the matter is this, the use of nuclear weapons, and the call for nuclear war is being thrown around like an old rag doll. We are supporting the independence of countries like Kosovo, which in and of itself might not be a bad thing except that it's one more thorn in the side of a giant bear named Russia. We are plopping missiles and defense systems in Poland, or around that area and are provoking Russia into conflict with the US. We are planning to go into Iran, which Russia has monies tied in, and again, are poking Russia. All we need is one war, one threat of war, one perceived act of hostility and number two becomes a dreadful reality for all of us, the economy will tank, the environment will be blown to smithereens, immigrants will be the first to get the worst of it, the elections will be out the window, and we will be in the midst of a World War with a whole lot of countries that don't like us. This time around, we won't be the good guys....you can kiss the other concerns good-bye, if we even survive it.

And those are my concerns for the blessed year of 2008. There is a lot to be worried about, folks. So hold on to your hats, your kids and your testicles it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Why I Oppose the Police as an Authority.

This is a repost, from another blog. I do know the people in question, or have known them in my past. I do know that what is being said about certain police departments is true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is one of many reasons I oppose the police force being used as a social authority, or that police officers should be obeyed beyond all common sense and reason, and why I oppose the system that is used to protect abusive police officers. I do understand that not all officers behave this way, and I applaud the ones who don't allow the power they have to corrupt their humanitarian compassion.

The story:

True Story

Just was wondering what everyone thought of this. It's a true story published on a kids personal page. I was absolutely shocked when I read this and horrified at the response of the court systems. YES, we live in a authoritarian dictatorship.
Gotta love the police state!

Names changed to protect the innocent.
It was Friday night, October 6th in the year 2000. A group of nine teenagers were hanging out at a common meeting place, Howard T. Brown Park, in downtown Norwich, CT USA. They were meeting up with two friends of theirs who drove up from New York City so they could see their friends band, Suiciety, play the El-n-Gee Club in New London on Saturday night.

A police cruiser pulled in to the parking lot. It drove all the way to the end of the parking lot, did a circle then drove back towards the teens, coming to a stop in the no parking zone. More cruisers began pulling into the lot.

The officer in cruiser 1, James Curtis, got out of his car and approached Patrick P., age 18, of Norwich. The officer yelled at the teen, telling him to take his hands out of his jacket pockets. The teen did as he was told when suddenly the officer grabbed him by the arm, put him in a restraining hold, demanded identification, then cuffed him. Mr. P. was quickly whisked away and placed in the back of the cruiser.

Officers Gomes and Dye got out of cruiser 2 and approached Andrew L., age 18, from Bozrah, from behind. He asked the officers what was Mr. P. being detained for. Officer Curtis walked over and punched him directly in the face while Gomes and Dye held him down and hog tied him. The three officers beat and pepper sprayed him, but the teen refused to fight back.

Mike A., age 14, from Norwich, witnessed his friend getting beat by the officers and tried to get them to stop. He was immediately clubbed over the head, handcuffed, then thrown into another cruiser, followed by another shot of pepper spray.

From inside the first cruiser 1, Mr. P. watched in horror as he saw the cops pulverize his friend. Mr. P. kicked out the passenger side window and yelled in vain to the rest of the group to call for help.

April V., age 16, of Norwich ran to the pay phones and dialed 911. She told the dispatcher, "the cops are beating my friends!". The dispatcher told her that if the cops are already there, then there is no problem, and if she called back she would be arrested. The dispatcher then hung up on her.

Mr. L. was dragged through the shards of broken glass and sprayed once again with the pepper spray, this time point blank.

By this time, the parking lot was full with eight cruisers, one SUV, and one van, plus all the cops driving them. Mr. P. was taken from the cruiser 1 and placed into a new one.

When they arrived at the station, Mr. A. was brought to the juvenile area and the other two were brought to regular booking. They were all searched.

The only thing of interest were two crumpled photocopied fliers that both Mr. P. and Mr. A. had in their possession. These fliers were for the October 22nd Protest Against Police Brutality, taking place on the NFA/Chelsea Parade Green.

The officers in the station thought it was quite amusing and quickly photocopied the papers and hung them on the wall.

Mr. A. was released to his mother's possession not long after he was booked.

The other two were locked up. Within 24 hours they were both bailed out.

A few days later in The Norwich Bulletin, there was an article entitled,

'Teens Organize Protest After Arrests'

They article claimed the teens were self-proclaimed anarchists. Another man that had been arrested that night, Christopher C. age 27, was also thrown into the article although he had nothing to do with the incident. The newspaper failed to mention how the police officers beat a couple of local teenagers to a bloody pulp.

The court process went like this:

Mr. L.3 counts of assaulting an officer were thrown out of court, but he was also barred from taking any legal action against the Police. To this day, Mr. L. is still paying for his court costs.

Mr. P. was ordered to pay $2,026.89 for the cruiser window, door, decals, and Officer Curtis' medical bill. Curtis claimed it was from the broken glass from the cruiser window, but it was really for his hand that he hurt from punching Mr. L. in the teeth. Mr. P. also received minimal probation with 144 hours of community service and was ordered to write an apology letter to the Norwich Police Department. The first written letter was rejected by both the police and by probation, and another, more 'sincere' apology was ordered.

Mr. Arsenault got 50 hours community service.

The officers involved are still on the force.

It should be mentioned that at this same time in Norwich history, the NPD were taking topless pictures of three 18 year old girls in an underage drinking sting, and also drank with them while on the clock in their police van.

All of the teens knew each other, having grown up together in the small town of Norwich, CT.


Related links:
Blind Obedience


What is The Difference Between Power, and Insanity?

In every culture throughout history people have always railed against oppression, and rallied for change. The humans who are most vulnerable to the whims of cruel dictators consistently look to the one who will be their savior, the one who will fight for them, and make their world a safer place. They put the entirety of their dreams and hopes into the valiant efforts of the revolutionary who steps up and promises them the lives they deserve.

The revolutionary, I'm certain, is full of noble intentions. The need for political and social metamorphosis is so dire that action comes swiftly, and with harsh judgment. Violence may erupt, but with the blessings of the people, as they are under the impression that their savior fights for them. Grand coups are met with thunderous cheers and mass approval, everyone ready for a glorious new country, and all the opportunities one can handle.

When the inauguration of the new leadership has ended, and all of the party goods swept away, and everyone goes back to life as usual, the true metamorphosis begins. It seems that throughout history whenever change has come swiftly, and even violently the new leadership eventually mirrors the old. History also tells us that some new leadership turned out to be much worse than what they had before. It calls into to question the motivation of leadership, and the transformative power of leadership.

Does power corrupt?

Some say absolute power corrupts absolutely. There is a certain aspect to gaining mass control over a situation, or imagine this, a country that I'm confident has the power to change a person's moral capabilities. The ethics once touted as the force to create change and a new world will slowly fade away with the conveniences of luxury and authority.

There is also, of course, paranoia. Paranoia of losing the command so forcefully taken. If a revolution can spark a coup, then the new leader will lose all that they fought so hard for. The precious nature of power and authority become overwhelmingly apparent to the once free, yet angrily passionate revolutionary.

One would think that this threat would encourage the new leader to do a very good job - so as to thwart the need for popular revolution. If the newly found president or king, or whathaveyou applied the policies as promised, and created sustainable wealth that brought everyone out of abject poverty, the people would rejoice, and worship him.

Is this worship healthy?

There is an aspect to leadership that brings to light the annoyingly persistent question. Which came first, the power or the megalomania? As it seems that throughout the majority of history those who seek power, absolute power - no matter how good the initial intentions - come to rule with a brutal iron fist.

Is there a connection between the type of personality that would seek out total power, rather than leadership, that allows for insanity to sink in once that power is attained? It isn't all life circumstances that dictate these behaviors. Undoubtedly, growing up in oppression would help fuel passion, anger, or even hatred. Growing up in unhealthy homes showered in hatred and baptized with abuse would create the psychological conditions so easily ripened into brutality. However, not all dictators were raised in these circumstances, so it can't be the whole of the answer. There is the possibility that the type of person who would fight to gain total control may already have the capacity for mental instability.

At which point, the attainment of power works the magic that is corruption. When you see the masses celebrate a new leader for his promises, his character, his relationship with the people and his rise to power, then watch them be crushed months, or sometimes years after the fact, it is astounding. It is also evident that a rise to power contains some sort of intoxication that eventually brings on their demise.

Is history consistently doomed to repeat itself? Is the problem at hand one that intimates that humans don't want change nearly as badly as they pretend to? Is it a deeper social psychological problem of desiring the father figure as leadership, no matter how abusive he was?

Are we so accustomed to abuse, oppression, and brutality that we crave it, subconsciously? Thus continuously supporting those who will only turn on us? Or do we, as humans really do desire change, and want it so badly we are willing to swallow whatever bittersweet pill we are given, only to be poisoned by it time and time again?

Perhaps there is a combination of all of these factors. That not withstanding I do believe firmly however, that both those who continuously seek ultimate power, and that power itself are a corrupting, psychological two punch combo that has wrought brutality on this world for centuries.

And yet we, the people, the world powers and so called righteous sit and do nothing to stop the brutal cycle.

Perhaps some day greed will be labeled as a psychological disorder, making all the world's leaders madmen in the end.


Making the Case for War.

The Plague of Revisionist History.

It seems to me that there are more – or simply still – people in the American population who are greatly confused by the actions of our president and administration. More specifically, there is a younger generation, the future, who are using the same techniques of cherry picking and flip-flopping of information to achieve the desired results so that they can sleep better at night, thinking they made the right choice in supporting a wholly corrupt government.

Or is it that simple?

I am always shocked when I see or hear a person from an older generation fall for lies and deceit. Although some do so simply because they lack the ability to change, so they go along with whatever their party or president of choice does, because they can’t do anything else, even if they disagree with policies and actions. The younger crowd has always seemed to be the crowd most ready for change, and easily question the actions of authority figures. The youngest of us – those just graduating high school – have always been the hope of the aforementioned generation, hoping they would join in and not just help initiate change, but be the generation to make the changes last. Lately I have noticed a swarm of this youngest generation behave in the same corrupt manners as our current leaders. Could this be the ultimate backlash of poor role models taking leadership positions? I fully understand the passion and exuberance of youth; I understand the almost desperate need not to just be right, but to defend their parent’s beliefs (believe it or not). But what I can’t understand is the lack of independence, the lack of questioning of authority, the lack of “punk” so to speak.

However, indeed I felt it would be prudent to look, really look, at the events that led up to, and influenced the invasion of Iraq under Bush Jr. Even compared to many of the folks that I read or speak to on a daily basis I found that once you start putting everything together from the multitude of sources that we all use and reference it all makes more sense, so much more sense than it ever did before. From domestic policies, attempted wars, international intervention, UN sanctions and “spies” – the end result is a damning amount of information that does everything but put the president and vice president behind bars. Still yet, some of the information calls into question whether or not we should retroactively hold previous presidents accountable as well, for the parts they played in creating the international quagmire that has resulted in such political negligence.

More than just lost lives, world-wide rebukes, and mounting deficit woes – this action, the most current war our country has waged – has left a gaping hole in international policy that may harm countries and foreign relations for generations to come.

The time has come for individuals to understand the greater ramifications of unchecked national pride, ignorance and indifference towards the policies set forth by united councils – as well as heed the deafening sound of voices world wide, echoing against the now vacant halls of responsible, ethical politicians.

The best place to start would be at the beginning. To fully understand what has happened, why it has happened and what the underlying purpose is, it isn’t good enough to look back over one or two presidential terms – one must go back farther, to the root of the problem. The premise, as it were, is to take a look and un-revise the history that much of America seems not to remember, or even know. Our youth needs to know the whole, uncovered truth if they are to eventually lead this country.

In the Beginning.

In 1990, George H. W. Bush and his cabinet decided, (partially) in concert with the previous Reagan administration to intervene in the invasion of Kuwait by then Dictator Saddam Hussein. This served several purposes, one, the U.S. was looking for a way to help Americans get over the opposition to military intervention, an American sentiment since Vietnam, two Bush needed to boost his popularity as the ’92 elections were fast approaching (what better way than ousting a dictator?), as well as gaining more influence over OPEC than any other country has ever had. Much like the current war in Iraq, Bush and the CIA went after the war in secret. Although the U.N. had placed sanctions against Hussein – sanctions that were working – Bush brought the troop numbers in Iraq up to half a million right after Democrats had gains in congress from the November elections. Much like this time around, the U.S. also sought American popular support by playing up the aspect of “Liberating Kuwait” even though (like this time) the U.S. showed no signs of concern or need to liberate any other country being occupied by a military force, or oppression by a dictator. Again the U.S. brought forth claims of Iraq’s ability to build a nuclear bomb, although once again all intelligence said otherwise. Not only did Iraq need years to build a bomb, they had no delivery method to boot. On August 29th 1990, there had been an opportunity to negotiate Iraq’s withdrawal from Kuwait, but war–bent–Bush said “No negations.” In January of ’91, Bush convinced Congress to let the U.S. go to war with Iraq. The U.S. gave Hussein an ultimatum, he defied it, and we invaded.

Eventually the U.N.’s sanctions brought a ceasefire from Hussein, and he withdrew from Kuwait. UNSCR 687 (1991) left a laundry list of “things to do “ for Iraq, such as respecting borders for Kuwait, and disarming any potential nuclear weapons, claiming any and all weapons or files etc…

Yet the U.S. continued to follow Hussein straight into Iraq – then for some odd reason stopped short in Baghdad. Bush never did unseat the brutal dictator, even though he had every chance to do so.

Iraq Invasion, Take Two.

Enter in the Clinton Administration. Bush, despite his last ditch attempt to win popularity by invading Iraq lost the election because quite frankly, people didn’t want a war for oil. The population went for the “candidate of change”, a Democrat something new in the Whitehouse. I firmly believe that the hope was for economic surplus, and peace. Granted, Bush did bring the economy back from the depths of the Reagan administration (if you are one to go by GDP’s), but it still wasn’t good enough – not for many people. Even still – the election was lack luster, with an underwhelming amount of voter turnout to support Clinton (or Bush and even fewer voting for Perot).

The fact remains that however hopeful the American populace was, the Clinton administration just seemed better at keeping its misdeeds under wraps. For the purpose of this essay, and without getting too far into the Clinton administration’s doings, even Clinton sought to go after the Middle East. In fact, both the Bush administration’s invasion and the Clinton administration’s decision to go into Iraq after sanction violations seem to be the reoccurring nightmare playing over and over again in American history.

Have we lost the ability to learn from past mistakes?

Apparently not, as Clinton decided to bomb Baghdad for four days following sanction violations. At least however, Clinton didn’t opt to send ground troops and occupy Iraq. He also at the very least, called back American planes after U.N. Secretary - General Annan had made last minute negotiations with Hussein. The other theory that is floating around is that the bombings were also linked to Hussein’s clumsy attempt at assassinating president Bush. The rhetoric comes into play when you listen to Clinton’s speeches about Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. It is so similar to the rhetoric we hear now that the mention of September 11th is the only way to tell the difference. (Well, that and the ability to articulate coherent thoughts.) To read Clinton’s address and the reasoning behind the bombing click here.

The Axis of Evil, and the War on Terror.

After Bush Jr. was appointed the presidency, and sworn into office the inevitable happened. The backlash of previous years, and systematic invasions of the Middle East had finally come to a head, and exactly eleven years to the very date his father swore to create a New World Order, and invade the Middle East in the same breath, they took their revenge. Coincidence? Again, I'll say I think not. That not withstanding however, Our government saw the perfect opportunity to take what they have coveted for so many years.

The Middle East has been seen as the "Key to the World" by many nations, throughout centuries, for a variety of reasons. This has not changed, and the US has long been aiming for a greater presence in OPEC, to line Big Oil's profit pockets, and to guarantee that oil production will bend to our needs, above others. This attack, with the world's sympathy as our strongest ally, opened up the possibility of attacking Iraq, and then moving forward to other countries under the guise of altruistic attempts to rid the world of its "Axis of Evil".

The debate as to whether or not our government allowed, caused, or encouraged the September 11th attacks is immaterial here, because it happened, and no amount of theorizing will change that fact. One can speculate, but the end results remain the same.

There is a reason we, the US have been so far unsuccessful in the invasion of Iraq, prior to the terrorist attacks. In fact, there are several. One big reason is that we, the US no matter how badly Hussein behaved, counted on his political alliance throughout many decades, for a variety of politically and financially motivated reasons. We, the US also had no real, tangible way to get in, stay in, and move forward to other parts of the Middle East without stirring up too many questions. Therefore, Islamic based terror attacks became the perfect justification for the US to invade, and occupy the Middle East.

Bush and his administration immediately undertook the task of compiling several justifications for invading. One justification, and still considered the biggest one, was the need to hunt down terrorists. Hence, our invasion into Afghanistan, which until recently barely hit the main stream media as major news, many people didn't even realize we, or Al-Queda were there. The US also used the rumor of terrorist cells, and terrorist sympathizers hiding in Iraq as excuse number one, for invasion into Iraq. Because the UN, and several major hurdles in the US throughout the departments and the country doubted the validity of the US's accusation that Hussein was harboring Bin Laden and/or his affiliates, they fell back on previous reports and less than cooperative behavior by Hussein with regards to weapons of varying sorts. Most notably, the "weapons of mass destruction" that never were. When Clinton was in office, and indeed long before that Hussein had used biological and chemical weapons against his neighboring countries, including Iran. Hussein had also defied the UN's sanctions against him, and repeatedly refused access to the UN inspectors. This became a leverage point for the Bush administration, and they used it for all it was worth. The third, and increasingly more desperate emotive reason, was that Hussein was a heinous dictator, known for torture and other abhorrent, inhumane acts. This was never a real reason, was hardly ever mentioned in UN meetings or briefings, and lived in the realm of news programs, public speeches, and presidential press releases to gain momentum, and support at home.

The UN, US, and a great deal of Sanctions.

In 2002 after the attacks, the US began pressuring the UN to allow an invasion into Iraq, as a means to destroy the world of terrorists. The UN, and all but four countries (including the US) made it clear that violence was not to be used. The UN allows the use of force for only two reasons;

Article 42, or the authorized use of force

Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.

And article 51, or the use of self defense in a time of immediate, and impending danger.
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

With that in mind, the US tried as hard as it could to convince the members of the UN that "preemptive self defense was appropriate, and should be allowed. The US was largely outvoted, and the UN began anew with sanctions issuances to Hussein.

Hussein began cooperating.

On December 30th 2002, the UN issued another sanction, stating that they requested 180 days to look over the new documentation from Hussein, and the inspectors and requested that all members of the UN abide by their request. Most members felt that the sanctions were working, and the UN wanted enough time to make a thorough determination.

Instead of abiding by that sanction, the US began deploying ships to Iraq, fully equipped for war on January 6th, 2003, just seven days into the requested time. The US understood that it lacked the international support to go to war, and so decided to use force without UN approval.

It has since come to the surface that the majority, if not all, of the information used to convince the world that this war was justified was either a shameless lie, "bad information", lack of proper intelligence and interdepartmental communication, ignored reports, and political slight of hand.

And yet, the much of the American public is still in the dark.

More to come...

UN Charters
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy
International Law of Iraq War

{Note, some references were lost when transferring the information from one computer to this one. Citations and sources will be added, as soon as they are found.}

Related links:
Same Old Battle, Different Century
Do As You're Sold, the Mindless Mantra of America
Troubled Times
The End of Democracy As We Know It
Lesser of Two Evils
Hell Hath No Fury Like a Woman Scorned
Dancin' With a Demon


Same Old Battle, Different Century

It occurred to me the other day, after having read numerous scathing remarks about Muslims, Islam, and watching a "Battle training video" for Christians, that the Crusades never ended.

There is an age old battle being waged, still.

Christianity, versus Islam. In recent history the outspoken citizens of this country have attempted to remind us, time and time again, that this is a Christian country. Regardless of one's personal opinion on the truth of that statement, it is in fact what many believe to be true. And so, for many, it is the truth.

Rewind for a moment to the eleventh century, a time when pilgrimages to the holy land for Christians were ever increasing, and tension between "The Church" or Christians, and anyone else, particularly "The Infidels" or Muslims (also referred to at times, as "Mohammedan") were intensifying.

As most know, the battle to control the holy lands in the Middle East is nothing new, in fact it's a down right ancient tradition of sorts. As the territories in the vicinity are seen as religiously important places, and the further importance of these places has become known to the world via Big Oil, it certainly makes sense that war is ever present.

However, for those of us who question the motives of the US in the Middle East, if we consistently focus on oil, and not the religious connotations, we could be missing a piece of the puzzle, no? What if, just what if, there are still religious intentions running as a sub current to the modern day warfare so seemingly secular raging on today?

Is it hard to believe that religious warfare could be the cause of so much strife in the Middle East, and that the US is party to it?

Thats not to say that this is a main cause of war today, not even our invasion into Iraq. There is this gut feeling however, that perhaps it is a subconscious effort. I still can't help but think about the battle cries that Christianity is our nation's religion, and that our country is Christian, and how we need to be good Christians in this country, and create laws that reflect that, and furthermore the pairing of our expansion into other pats of the world as a symbol of "witnessing" in a Christian manner...

Perhaps I am getting ahead of myself.


I love The Smell of Demise In The Morning

Well, the far right pundits have finally done it, they've engaged in the age old cliche of cutting off their nose to spite their face. In a lack luster effort to manipulate the election process, several right wing pundits have have offered support of one type or another to Hillary Clinton.

While some pundits, realizing their mistake, tried to backpedal and make their intentions clearer and undoubtedly more conservative, the backlash ensues anyway. It neither amazes me nor surprises me that they have finally gone so far over the top with their opinions and incessant need to be the be-all, end-all in political commentary that they are now alienating their own audience.

Both Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have attempted to save a little face by explaining the reasons behind their non-supportive support. The circular logic includes one, or both, of the following game plans;

1) Support Clinton and hope she wins the nomination so the republican candidate will win the election in November, and/or,

2) Support Clinton so that after four years of "Liberal Hell" republicans will be voted back into office, by a newly appreciative public.

Of course, the back and forth in the oval office is nothing new. Every so many years we, the people, decide to vote in the opposite party in hopes that change will occur. And as always, nothing really changes. So why then, have the right wing politicos taken it upon themselves this time around to force this type of change, or rather to prevent it from happening?

I smell fear.

The "Obama threat" now sweeping the nation, stealing the hearts of Americans thus causing the neo-cons to lie awake at night in utter terror seems to have hit a nerve. A very raw nerve, at that. For whatever reason, the notion that he may win the nomination means total defeat for republicans nation wide, come election day. Or does it? Perhaps the possibility of uniform support and excitement about this up and coming president to be has permeated the moderate to conservative political sphere, and so starts the smear campaigns, the threats, the scare tactics, and fear mongering.

The neo-cons certainly can't have a nation initiate change that doesn't benefit a handful Americans, and encourages wage slavery for the rest of us. Nor can they stomach the thought that policies would be implemented that would prove their decades of crowing and bashing were nothing more than self serving affirmations that their bigotry was still socially acceptable.

But alas, as we all know, you can only go so far before it's too far, and hopefully credibility will be lost, and Americans will finally come out of their media fed stupor, to initiate real change and engage in real progress.

But lets, for just one minute, look at why all of this manipulative politics from outside of the government won't work, no matter what tricks they try. Try to imagine for one moment, that what was actually said, or what was actually intended didn't matter. Why? Because what was said, what was intended, wasn't what was actually heard. Regardless of backpedaling, explanations, and fine print apologies for the misprint, the damage has been done, the forward momentum of chatter has finally allowed these pundits to taste the bitterness of propaganda when it has been peppered among the media about them, and not some liberal target.

Thanks to the media deciding for us, we now have four candidates who are still alive and kicking in the primary. On the republican side, Huckabee and McCain, for the democrats, Clinton and Obama. I think it is plain to see that the democratic candidates have swept up the vast majority of support across the nation. Even republicans are leaning away from towing the party line, and are finally voting their conscience. The scant few votes that are left for the republican candidates to gobble up like scraps from a garbage can are being split up even farther between the two men. It is divide and conquer at its finest.

The democrats certainly are having a field day with all of this. The neo-cons also understand that McCain, the likeliest of nominees, doesn't stand a chance against Obama, but might live through Clinton. So the idea that getting Clinton the support she needs to win the nomination will give McCain a fighting chance.

Why it will backfire.

First, the idea that a conservative mouth piece would even consider supporting Clinton turns other not so conservative republicans away from the hard right faster than you can say fascism. It will push their vote more towards anyone but who the pundits support, thus losing control of their target audience. Second, when democrats catch wind of this - and they have - it could feasibly make them reconsider voting for Clinton. Afterall, if a hard right wing conservative can say her name without sneering, then something must be up, and it probably isn't a good bet to vote for her.

It is also the tell tale sign of a weak party. And weak it is, voter turnout for republicans have been far outmatched by democrats who are coming out in droves. Never mind the independents who really are the swing vote - they are the middle of the road voters whose opinion is more important to sway than the extreme choir to which the pundits enjoy preaching to.

Furthermore, even if the support works, and Clinton is nominated, I doubt that McCain will really have that great of a chance. No where near the kind chance the conservatives are hoping for. The country is screaming for change, and McCain isn't exactly the epitome of progress. Never mind the fact that many conservatives are actually unhappy with McCain, in general.

Regardless of the political outcome however, I think it is still sweet justice to hear former fans of such vocal bigots and extremists openly berate them for their current choices and decisions. All in good time, my friends, all in good time.


Into the Arms of Despotism?

After watching some public television tonight, and an interesting round-table political forum full of experts and journalists I've never heard of, I got to thinking, and that is always dangerous.

There was a unanimous consensus that the general public was craving change from the Bush regime so badly that they are looking to elect anyone who isn't Bush. The sentiment is echoed on the "Anyone but Bush" bumper stickers one sees about town. More than a desire for change, however, is the fervent nature of new political followers. I know that we all understand the need for change, the need to get away from Bush and Cheney style politics, and generally speaking, an overhaul to fix what ails this country. However, the fact remains that Bush isn't running for re-election, so why are we still pushing for anyone but Bush? We already have that demand covered.

The worrisome part of the new political climate among the masses is the rate at which it is moving. You might be thinking to yourself at this moment, "But wait, Anok? Aren't you constantly calling for change, for action? Immediately at that?" Why yes I am, and I would not go so far as to say that the fever pitch of political change is a bad thing. We do need change, and we do need it quickly.

The concern comes into play when you begin to analyze the international and national climate alike, with regards to change that has already occurred, stability, or lack thereof, and history. In every history book there is a warning, a big red flag that pops up with regard to political change. It happens, typically, when the masses feel that they haven't been listened to or treated fairly, and begin to clean house, and enthusiastically support the "bringer of change". It is a mob mentality issue, that is to say, we can all get caught up in it.

History also tells us that the kind of sweeping reconstruction we are clamoring for doesn't always go badly, but when it does, it does so with paramount repercussions.

The problem isn't the call for something different, but rather the impassioned, and sometimes blind following it creates. It leaves a power vacuum of sorts, and if the wrong person fills the vacancy, or says exactly what the mob wants to hear, we could be in a lot of trouble. The Bush administration has left gaping holes in the security of the average citizen's privacy, and constitutional rights. It has mocked the constitution on many issues, and even thumbed it's nose at international laws and treaties. What that does is propagate an imbalance of power geared towards a president and his or her second in command. The damage to governmental checks and balances has already been done, and most fear will get worse. Should the wrong sort of person get into a position that already grants too much power to the country's leader, the next step isn't hard to imagine. Neither Congress nor the populace will have the power to stop the US from becoming a dictatorship.

Hopefully, if you are an optimist you may already be thinking this, the presidential candidates are not corrupt, or will not succumb to the drug like effects that power has on a person. Hopefully, we will not fall for a candidate who wants change, only to realize a day later that the kind of change he or she will initiate isn't quite what we had hoped and dreamed of. That doesn't mean, however, that we should throw caution to the wind. In fact, a regime change such as the one to take place in one year's time, is or should be, the cause of sleepless nights and heartburn. At least, to the political junkies out there reading everything in print, and even picture books too.

The international cooperative efforts, otherwise known as the globalization of economic, political and military powers, has destabilized the international community more so than it has benefited the safety of the world. In an age with new technology, international "easy access" policies, quick transportation, and online communities that open up dialog and organization across the globe, the game of political tug of war just got a bit nastier, and more dangerous. Prior to World War II, the world, with all of its problems, still had base countries who maintained a certain degree of autonomy and certainly the sheer power of a very real threat. Russia was Russia and Germany was a power unto itself, the US had a powerful military and a particular aptitude that generally helped anchor the world with some modicum of peace and security. There was a stability there, without the financial ties and energy dependence, and fight for domination the large, powerful countries could stand fairly well on their own, and the reputation alone seemed to be enough.

Today, as we can all plainly see, this is not the case. Contrary to days of yore small groups of people can now get together and create a great deal of damage to a country using these new technologies. That might sound like a call of fear towards terrorism, but it isn't, it is simply a statement of fact. Governments can spy on other countries, as well as their own with much more accuracy, and could theoretically pin point and target particular groups for the simple sake of dissent or harassment.

Should the mob get too excited, a little too enthusiastic about the idea of change, the seemingly impossible could happen. If the country collectively lost its ability to reason, and see clearly a unified, yet non aggressive vision for the future the door for a despot will be left wide open, no keys required.

I personally live in a world of reality, and I feel that should something like that happen, should we jump off a dangerous cliff simply to get away from some wolves, the world as a whole would not recover from the consequences, nor would anyone be able to stop it.

That is not to say that you shouldn't support who you want to support, it is only a cautionary thought meant to encourage the average citizen out there to keep themselves from dying because of an overdose of political enthusiasm. We cannot settle for just "Anyone but Bush". We cannot let passion cloud sound judgment. We cannot fall prey to the same tactics and political use of mass hysteria, fear, propaganda, and desire as our predecessors have.

We must encourage change, we must pave the way for progress, however we must not lose sight of the ultimate goal.

Related post: Dictatorship in America?


Much Ado About Nothing....

Well, actually, there isn't even much ado about nothing, there's just....nothing! As my cold medication is wearing off, and my nose is Rudolph red, I am slowly preparing for "Super Tuesday". I have lists to make, and food stuffs to prepare...set the alarm clock for an alarmingly early 4 am, and it's hi-ho, hi-ho, off to the polls I go!

Tell me, does it scare you that an Anarchist is running polling places during a primary?

Muhwahahaha! Actually, it should come as a relief for all my lefty leaning blogging friends out there. Why? Because I have an inherent mistrust of the election process, I have no inclination or support for any of the candidates, Democrat or Republican, I have a quick temper, and I am borderline obsessive compulsive. That means that I have absolutely no desire to tamper with anything, and if I find someone who does, I'll bite them until they cry. Furthermore, nothing gets past me, because I keep impeccable notes of all goings on while the polling place is open.

Good for lefties, bad for neo-cons. There will be no cheating while I'm on duty!

I also make sure that all paper trails are kept, just in case. (I even made our registrar watch the Diebold hacking on youtube!).

So thats that, and when I am back to full speed I'll will back to post deep, thoughtful posts. In the meantime, I'm having fun making up quotes for a dildo, over on The Offended Blogger

Have a good night and remember, if you don't like your choices, vote "None of the above"!


Liberal is a Dirty Word

I caught this editorial today, very good you should read it, By Tom Teepen

Here is the snippet that caught my attention:

If you have been paying any attention at all to conservative rhetoric over the last, oh, three or so decades, you know that liberals are evil and the source of all of America's problems. Liberal is such a dirty word that many, just like Rush Limbaugh, have to spit it out instead of simply saying it.

The liberal horrors began right there in 1776, when that lefty gang of Washington, Jefferson and the rest started a revolution. If it weren't for them, we wouldn't be trying to sing the unsingable "Star Spangled Banner" and instead would be happily giving hearty voice to "God Save the Queen."

Go read the rest of it, I found it amusing.

The fact of the matter is that we as a nation were born out of a fiery, (relatively) Liberal battle waged by what we call Freedom Fighters and Patriots of the highest order, and what England no doubt called enemy combatants, traitors, and terrorists.

And yet we have become what we once fought against, and are using the same tactics against others, including our own citizens, that our founding fathers fought to eradicate.

Traitors? I think not, the American citizens who are fighting to improve this country and let the rest of the world breath a little, and those who are dissenting and forming serious grievances are confronting the government without backing down are not traitors. They are following the Grand American Tradition of bucking a system that doesn't work.

So there.