September 11-20, 2006

Onward Superstition Soldiers

As a Catholic school survivor I am hardly a fan of that two-legged medieval anachronism, the Pope. And I am not exactly jumping to his defense, though the quote he used to describe Islam was right on the money. Nevertheless, I'd like nothing better than to see the Vatican converted into the Trump Hotel/Casino, Rome and the Pope forced to earn his keep as concierge.

(So okay, I have issues. What Catholic school survivor doesn't still awake at 2 am dreaming he/she is being chased by a yardstick swinging 200 pound penguin wearing sensible shoes? --- Just me? Okay, forget I mentioned it.)

But come on with this latest Islamic outrage thing. Give me a break Berka boys. So the Pope dissed Islam. And now Muslims demand that the man in the dress apologize -- personally and convincingly.

Well fine. I say the Pope should apologize -- right after every Mullah who has ever dissed Jews and/or Christians apologizes -- personally and convincingly.

First let's see what Pope Pompous VXI said that got the Muslim's knickers in such a twist. It was quote from the days when Pope's were in charge of most of western civilization – or “back in the The Day,” as the Vatican refers to the period.

The book the Pope quoted recounted a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian intellectual on fundamental truths of Christianity and Islam - and jihad, or holy war. |

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new," said the emperor, "and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

So there is. Pope Pompous VXI issued the religious eqivalent of a, “your prophet wore combat boots” zinger to Islam.

Now, let's see what Muslim religious leaders have been saying, since then and long before the Pope put his silk pumps in his mouth.

This from a Friday Sermon entitled, "We Must Educate our Children on the Love of Jihad," by Mullah, Sheik Al-Madhi:

".... Oh, you who love Allah... This [Muslim] nation has left the leadership of the human race to a handful of contemptible Jews and their assistants and was satisfied [with its position at] the tail of the convoy...""...Oh, you who love Allah, it is our duty to strive so that all our deeds will be [only] for the sake of Allah. Listen to the following precious story:"

"In one African country, a Muslim army was fighting against the Byzantine army. The number of the Byzantines was more than ten times the number of the Muslims... The Byzantine commander was Gregorius and his daughter was by his side. Gregorius' daughter said: 'My father, who are these, they are merely a handful, their number is small, no more than 15,000, who are they?' He answered her: 'These are the Arab horsemen.' She said: 'My father, give them to me as spoils.' And he had given her [their property's worth] as spoils, before the battle even took place. However, Allah wanted Gregorius killed in the battle and his daughter to be one of the captives."

"The commander of the Muslim army wanted to know who killed Gregorius, but nobody answered."

"This is how we should also act: Do, do, and do, but without talking."

"Allah knows what we do and there is no necessity for humans to know this as well. With such noble values, the [Muslim] nation shall win..." (More)

Hey, Tony Saprano couldn't have put it better. "You whack them, then you shut the f..k up about it. The boss knows what you did for him."

Want more? Easy. The Web is lousy these days with Islamic rants.

... the Qur'an instructs the followers of Muhammad to subjugate the world to his religion, and this includes, if necessary, the use of military conquest. This religious mandate has the direct and practical consequence of persecuting non-Muslims as well as Muslims who are independent intellectual thinkers. Therefore, it is fair and objective to present news articles when the news results from obedience to the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Very near the end of his life, Muhammad left his followers with this command,

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Sura At-Tawba 9:29 (Yusuf Ali's Translation)

قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ‭. سورة التوبة
٩‫:٢٩

In summary, Sura at-Tawba 9:29 is a call to Muslims to fight,

1. Atheists and polytheists who don't believe in Allah or the Last Day of Judgment.
2. All who don't follow the prohibitions set forth by Muhammad.
3. All non-Muslims who don't follow Muhammad's new religion,
4. People of the Book, meaning Jews and Christians, who are to be fought until they are,
A. Conquered
B. Pay the subjugation poll tax, Jizya
c. Feel subdued with the laws of the dhimmi.

Jihad is more than seeking to persuade others to accept the beliefs of Islam. Muslim believe the Qur'an teaches that Jihad includes military power. Of course, Jihad is a dangerous enterprise. The Qur'an urges them fight even though they may disliked it.

In addition, the Qur'an states that Muslims are superior to all of humanity. "Ye are the best of people." http://muhammadanism.org/News/default.htm#Jihad

And this, just yesterday from an al Qaeda linked militant group:

"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya," said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda, according to the Reuters news agency....We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen." (More)

What sweethearts. And this from a religion that says the Pope's statement caste them in an unfair light.

If you are trying to sort out this latest “the Muslim's are upset,” flap, here's the bottom lines:

1) Muslims are always upset. These guys wear their insecurities on their berka sleeves. For the rest of us it's like sharing the world with a billion neurotic Chihuahuas that bark and nip at our heels what ever we do and wherever we go. Fenced in by a repressive, anti-intellectual, primitive, misogynistic, unreconstructed faith, they a thousand years of stored up “issues," with everyone else. Push one of those buttons and they fly into a fit that would land them in a straight jacket if they tried it here. Anger management is a modern concept that -- among so many others -- passed them by. When you can't enjoy music, dancing, fancy clothing, an occassional snort or beer, and you gotta fast all day for a month each year, anger becomes the only approved way to cut loose and have a little "fun.".

2) Christians are the world's self-appointed hall monitors. They get up everyone else nose about being “saved.” There is one big difference between Christains and Muslims. When Muslims proselytize to “infidels,” they yell, scream, burn things in effigy and threaten the separating of heads from shoulders. Christians, on the other hand, smile as they deliver their message. They smile the smile of the lobotomized. And no matter how angry you get at them, the continue to smile -- that patronizing-you-poor-soul-I'm-going-to-pray-for-you smile. Which has even led me, at such moments, to wonder if their heads were removed from their shoulders, would that smile remain? (I suspect it would. And how infuriating would that be?)

Anyway, that's all that happened this week. Christianity's super hall monitor, Pope Pompous XVI, told Muslims that they were no good, and were no good right from the get go. He did this by qouting a 14th Christian Crusader who used the sword to spread Christianity to Holy Land. (But, it should be noted, the Pope smiled when he said it.)

The Muslims barked “foul!” They claimed the Pope had defamed their faith and their prophet. And they vowed to burn some churches and kill Christians to prove it.

What we have here is a spat between two of the three axis' of evil, Christianity and Islam. (The third member of the Axis of Evil, Judaism, just pulled up a chair and enjoyed watching the other two fight it out. )

I would love to see a study that tries to figure out how many humans died by violent means between 1000 AD and today in wars that were purely political and wars that were sparked by the clash of those three major methaphysical belief systems. I am willing to bet big money that the number of people who died for their faith -- or because of someone else's faith -- far out number those that died over purely political and/or territorial spats.

I find it deeply depressing that so much of what's wrong in the world today continues being driven by ancient superstitions, each of which believe in utter nonsense, contradicted by science and common sense. And, I'm even more depressed that political correctness dictates we must treat these spiritualist touble makers with kid gloves -- and provide them tax breaks to boot.

Religion -- it's gonna be the death of all of us someday. And as nations like Iran and Pakistan and Israel bulk up their arsenals with nukes, that day may be closer than any of us imagine.

C-R-A-Z-Y !


Oh hell, I know it's Saturday, and normally I don't bother you on weekends. But some days it's just unavoidable. And today's news makes it unavoidable.

Holy madhouse, Batman. Am I going crazy or is everyone else going crazy?

Day's like this make that more than rhetorical query.

Where to begin?

Moats. Let's talk moats. You know, those ditches around castles and villages that were all the rage a thousand years ago. Well, they're baaaaccck. Yep. Once the first line of defense for medieval castles the moat has now been embraced by the modern world's last remaining super power.

IRAQ: Iraqi officials plan to dig a series of trenches around Baghdad in the coming weeks to seal it off and control movement into and out of the city, The New York Times reported on Saturday... "We're going to build a trench around Baghdad" -- a distance measuring about 60 miles (97 km) -- "so we can control the exits and entrances so people will be searched properly," Brig.-Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf told the Times on Friday in an interview. (More)

So, the next time you hear a reporter ask a US official if things are getting better or worse in Iraq, don't waste a single neuron listening to his reply. All you need to know is that ...
they're building a moat around Baghdad

That's it.

And it raises more questions than just “how we doin' in Iraq?”

The US defense budget will approach half a trillion dollars this year, a goodly portion of which is being spent on high tech missile defense systems, stealth bombers, nuclear subs and such.

Pentagon Report:
U.S. Successfully Pursues the Global War on Terrorism

* The fiscal 2005 budget includes robust readiness and acquisition funding, important legislative authorities, and other essentials for winning the global war on terrorism.
* Readiness. The request funds the military’s training and readiness requirements and sustains prudent readiness standards, e.g., for flying hours. Ongoing initiatives include
* Improving metrics to evaluate force readiness, with emphasis on evaluating readiness relative to a full range of missions, not merely the traditional major regional contingency operation.
* Fleet Response Plan, adopted in fiscal 2004, expands in fiscal 2005 and will increase the availability of naval assets for duty worldwide. (MORE)


And yet, the best the Pentagon has to offer in Iraq is a moat.

I leave all the implications of that to you to sort out.


And since we are on the subject of institutional mental illness, now this:


Pope Offends Muslims

Afghanistan's Taliban on Saturday demanded Pope Benedict XVI to apologise for remarks linking Islam with violence, adding the comment showed the Christian West was waging war against Muslims..."We strongly condemn it," Mohammad Hanif, who regularly speaks to the media on behalf of the extremist insurgent group, said..."We also want the Pope to apologise before the Muslim Umma (nation)," he said...The remarks were "obviously part of a crusader war that the West, chiefly America and (President) Bush, is waging against Islam and Muslims," he said. (More)

That story SO dovetails with the moat story. It's as though we've all been dragged a thousand years back in time. On one hand we have the most technologically advanced military on earth building a moat to protect a city from invaders. On the other hand we have a European monarch denouncing Islam because of it's violent expansionist doctrine.

And, in response Muslims rushed into the streets and violently proved the point.

Fools to left of me, clowns to the right. Here I am, stuck in the middle with you.

It's getting to the point I'm afraid to turn the news on in the morning. Is it really global warming that we have to fear? Or could what really end mankind as we know it is that somehow we threw evolution into hyper-reverse?

Can you doubt for one second that the Pope's remarks will spark a whole new Christians v. Muslims/Muslims v. Christians wave worldwide? ("Yo profit was so stupid that...") Remember that flap over the Dutch cartoons? Well that was nothing compared to this. This one has legs... very, very, very old legs.

So, let's review: We have moats abuilding AND a religious nut in silk robes, who lives in a castle and rules unchallenged, poking a stick in the eye of the Judeao/Chrisitain world's arch enemy, Islam. On one side we have western nations filled with biblically lobotmized citzens, lining up and putting on bullet proof vests (armor.) On the other side we have an endless supply of Koranically lobotomized hordes eager to earn their heavenly bones by getting across the moat and killing the guys in armor.

Been there. Done that. And done that, and done that and done that. How many people do you figure have already died over that spat in the last 1500 years or so? Millions? At least.

But don't stop counting. Because, it appears neither side has changed, or learned a thing. They seem to have caught their breath and are ready to for another round.

Thanks for listening. I needed to get that off my chest. Now I must go. I've got a contractor coming over to give me a bid on a moat.


The Redeploy, Ploy


As I've said before... I've been here before. I clearly remember when “the light at the end of tunnel” arrived in Vietnam. That train was named “Tet,” and it heralded the end of that mistake of a war. Oh, the war rumbled on for a while longer, more of our kids died, but Tet was prelude to an inevitable withdrawal of US troops -- and not a moment too soon, I might add.

But remember, we didn't “cut and run.” We “withdrew after training and supplying the South Vietnam forces and turning responsibility for defending South Vietnam's over to them.”

That was our story 35 years ago, , and we're sticking to it.

Of course, the puppet South Vietnamese government we left behind crumbled in short order. And the guys we'd been killing -- and who killed over 60,000 US soldiers – got the keys to country, along with all the bases we built as well as hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military gear provided by US taxpayers.

I only mention that because it's mirrors precisely the process now underway in Iraq and Afghanistan. I didn't think it would happen this fast – and neither did the White House. I figured Bush and company would get out of Dodge before their un-winnable Democracy Crusade came up a cropper. That would have been sweet for then, since they would have then just blamed failure on their successors. However it doesn't appear they are going to make a clean getaway after all.

The end of Bush's disasterous Middle East adventure is at hand. The light at the end of the tunnel, just a faint flicker weeks ago, has roared upon the administration with frightening speed. Even the hardest hard-ass Neo-cons in the White House now understand they have a huge PR in making on their watch and on their hands. The best they can now hope for is to arrange some kind of orderly retreat they can spin as not retreat, but “redeployment.”

Which is why they are dusting off the Gerald Ford's 1974 “we didn't cut and run from Vietnam” spin.


But the spin will come later. Right now they have to worry that, at any time now, the Taliban in Afghanistan and/or the al Qaida forces in Ramadi Iraq, pull off spectacular attacks killing and wounding hundreds of US soldiers. Such an offensive would, once and for all, blow away the final vestiges of Bush's fiction of pending victory, not to mention making his “mission accomplished” bravado ring not just hollow, but dereliction.

How do I know the Bushies are readying a retreat? . Just read the news. In Iraq al Anbar province, Sunni territory, is now run almost entirely by al Qaida forces. Since Bush keeps telling us “we are fighting al Qaida over there so we don't have to fight them here,” you'd think US troops would be flooding al Anbar. But there's only 250 US troops there to police an area the size of Pennsylvania.

WASHINGTON - A new military intelligence report offers up the most pessimistic assessment yet of military prospects for al-Anbar province, the vast no-man's land in western Iraq that has seen some of the fiercest fighting of the war — from hard-hit Fallujah to the provincial capital Ramadi, which the U.S. military has never controlled....US commanders in Iraq say they know that the town of Ramadi in al Anbar has become al Qaida's headquarters in Iraq. Yet Ramadi has not been surrounded, bombed or otherwise molested by US forces.

Ask yourself why? The answer is clear. We have no intention of fighing al Qaida in Iraq. In fact, we about to stop fighting anyone in Iraq. We are going to let al Anbar go to the Sunni/al Qaida forces and, when asked why, the Bushies will spin it this way:

“We have always said that the US will stand down as soon as Iraqi troops stand up. They have stood up and we are leaving al Anbar to them to pacify.”

Meanwhile, until the Bushites can lay the groundwork for it's “we didn't cut and run” spin, a handful of US troops remain posted in Ramadi, where on average two are killed each week -- sacrifices to an illusion and future spin.

In Afghanistan things are both worse and better for the US. On one hand it is becoming harder with each passing day for White House spinners to claim things are getting better in Afghanistan. The Taliban have recaptured roughly half the country, for Christ sake.

BRUSSELS, Sept 12: President Pervez Musharraf has warned that Taliban have overtaken Al Qaeda as the region’s biggest threat to security. The Taliban were more dangerous because they had roots as a social movement and not simply an ideology, the president told the European Parliament’s foreign affairs committee here on Tuesday....“The centre of gravity of terrorism has shifted from Al Qaeda to Taliban,” he said. “It is a new element that has emerged, a more dangerous element because it has roots in the people. Al Qaeda did not have roots in the people,” he said.

On the other hand the US has successfully in suckering European NATO troops into relieving the US of sole responsibility for that festering sandpile. So administration spin on that mess will go something like this:

“We didn't cut and run from Afghanistan. We turned the job over to NATO.”

Then, when NATO is forced to leave, as the Russians were and we were before them, the Neo-cons will blame it on those “limp-wristed European surrender monkeys.”

But now, before the spin begins, is the time to see the situation for what they are. It's pre-retreat Vietnam all over again. Another wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, fought wrong, for the wrong reasons, resulting in quagmire. We know the next step -- retreat under a guise of victory.

The US is not “losing” the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we've lost. All we're waiting for now is for the morons who got us into those messes to figure out how to get out without revealing they failed. If that means a few thousand more US GI's have to die, it's a small price to pay – as far as this administration is concerned.

What will happen once we leave? During the Vietnam war we were repeatedly warned that if we “cut and ran,” all the dominoes would fall in sequence -- the entire Asian peninsula would go Commie.

It didn't. They did go on to kill one another enormous numbers, but they were determined to do that whether the US was there or not. US troops just gave them something more to shoot at. Today the only dominions tumbling in and around Vietnam are US businesses falling all over themselves to cut business deals with those “Commies” in Vietnam.

It took a couple of decades for things to settle down in southeast Asia, and it will take at least that long for things to settle down in Iraq and Afghanistan. By toppling Saddam the US set into motion the same process there that the collapse of the Soviet Union unleashed in Yugoslavia. Both were fictitious nations, both populated by mortal enemies only kept in check with a dictator's iron hand. And, when that hand released it's hold, both went about the business of settling thousand-year old scores.

Those forces are pretty much played out in the former Yugoslavia, but it took separating the waring parties and splitting the nation into autonomous ethic enclaves. That process has just begun in Iraq. It was inevitable and failing to recognize that early on is why so many American kids are dead today. Once we leave Iraq will spin apart into three pieces, Shiite, Sunni and Kurd. And yes, a whole lot of Iraqis will end up dead in the process. But they're already about that job and US troops are just something else to shoot at, again.

Afghanistan is a different matter. Afghanistan's problems are joined at the hip with Pakistan's problems. Ironic, huh? The only Muslim nation on earth armed with nuclear weapons, enmeshed in primitive Islamic fundamentalist/tribal rivalries. I have no idea how that is going to work out for those two nations, or the world. What I am sure of though is that western troops will not be the solution.

Besides, the real threat is not from the Taliban returning Afghanistan to the 12th century -- again. The real threat is that Pakistan will fall into chaos and Islamo-nuts will get their hands of those nukes. I am not suggesting we attack anyone else in that area but, since we were determined to attack someone post-9/11 we probably should have attacked Pakistan. We could have dismantled their nuclear programs, making it clear to countries like Iran that we are serious about non-proliferation. And we could have also deprived al Qaida and the Taliban the support of Pakistan's army and their sanctuaries in the remote tribal regions along the Afghan border.

Anyway, all that's water under the Bush. When some fool stirs up a hornet nest you get clear until they settle down. If I could pick an inscription for Gen. George Custer's tombstone it would be, "He stayed the course!"

I once felt some concern for the peoples of these trouble regions, especially Muslim women who are treated in ways that curdle the blood. But I'm so over that. Now I just want our troops out of there. Let the various feuding parties feud until one side or the other emerges the winner, then deal with the winner.

Oh, one more thing. When the Bush administration starts pulling troops out of Iraq before the 2008 elections, remember -- Only Democrats cut and run. Republicans "redeploy."


September 12, 2006
Sing it Again


We've all witnessed it, and it's a sad, sad sight. I'm talking about the singer who, at one point in his performing life beat the odds and had a song skyrocket to the top of the charts. One-time hits are almost always one of those odd, even annoying tunes that have lyrics that get stuck in your head and drive you nuts.

But that was it for the singer. He had no more hits. From there on it was a career stuck in the mud of mediocrity, shrinking respect, shrinking adoration, shrinking audiences, shrinking influence in his profession.

Often a one-hit artists can't let go when it's over. Instead he keeps singing his single hit, and sings it and sings it and sings it, egged on by a small clutch of groupies who loved him when he was on top and love him still.

“Sing it again, George,” they plead, “Sing it again. You know, the one about 9/11. I so love the part where you sing, 'they can run but can't hide.' And the part about how we will win and they will lose. Sing it again George.”

And so Boy George sang it again last night. His one-time hit. His only hit. He sang it again, as he always does, with the hope it would rekindle his only moment of fame. He sang it one more time, hoping as he always does that it might put him back on top once again.

The only trouble is the words of Boy George's old hit are now out of sync with reality:

“They” did run.
"They” did hide.
We have not found "them."
We have not “won”
And “they” have not lost.
In fact, in growing areas of Iraq and Afghanistan, they are actually winning.

Talk about a tune going sour! From the first time Boy George belted out his patriotic hit to now, nearly 3000 American soldiers have been killed. Then there's the 138,000 Iraqi civilians killed as well. (Even Saddam would have been embarrassed by such an appalling kill rate.)

We know that Boy George can read the charts. He's gotta know that his tune fell off the bottom of those charts months ago. And it must be particularly grating to him that the central villain of his old hit tune, Osama bin Diddy, now has his own hit tune, “Death to America.” And, unlike Boy George's old hit, Osama's tune tops the charts in his part of the world. In fact it's so popular now that Osama records new versions on nearly a monthly basis now.

Nevertheless, Boy George belted out his old hit for one more time last night – unrequested. When has-been singers start performing their old hits unrequested you gotta know the end is near – or at least should be. Won't someone, sooner or later, just stride onto the stage, put his arm around the guy's should, tell him, "Come on George. It's over son," and lead him off in mid-tune? If Barry Goldwater were still alive and in office he'd do it. He did it once before when he broke the news to Richard Nixon that no one was listening any longer. That it was time to go.

Is there anyone in the GOP today who cares as much about our nation and democracy as Goldwater did almost 40 years ago? Someone who will go up to Boy George the next time he cues up music for his old hit, “You're Either With Us or Against Us,” and just pulls the plug?

Clearly the answer is no. Which means we have two more years of Boy George's faded ditty, which he will continue belting out unrequested, at inappropriate moments and with the volume too high.

Does he know almost no one is listening any longer? It's hard to say what Boy George actually “knows” because, like so many washed up stars, he's surrounded by hangers on, folks who benefited from their boys' one-time glory. So they buck him up, tell him he's still a star, still loved. He's been their meal ticket, their only meal ticket, and they are not about to let go -- because they have no place else to go.

Still it's clear that most who watched Boy George's performance last night know he's washed up. He can sing that old tune as often and as loud as he wants, and it's not going to reverse his fortunes or the fortunes of those around him.

In fact the next, and only standing ovation for Boy George will come the day the announcer proclaims:

“George has left the building.”


Interesting Site of the Day
http://www.global-mindshift.org/

Video of the Day
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/degraw/41501/

9/11
and
Drama Queen Americans

I've never been accused of being a sentimentalist. I”m a “move-on” kinda guy when it comes to bad things. I deal with the mess and move on. I don't dwell. Because, as my mother used to say when I had a scraped knee, “Stop picking at that or it will never heal.”

But we've become a nation that picks at things that never heal.

Which I suppose is why I'm so turned off by all this 5-year anniversary 9/11 coverage. I don't know about you but I moved on four years ago.

Is it just me, or have Americans become the Mothers of All Drama Queens?

It's not just 9/11 “remembrances.” If it were I could chalk it up as some kind of mass post traumatic stress syndrome. But we make a big deal out of just about anything nasty that happens these days. And we are raising an entire generation of kids now that think that every time something bad happens to them, near them or comes to their attention requires a trip to a “grief counselor.”

When kids see or hear about something out of the normal happening they look to the adults in their lives to know how they should feel about it. The bigger the deal the adults make about it, the bigger the deal the kids make about it.

How many of us lost someone in our class in an auto accident during high school? Most of us I would imagine. When that happened at my all-male Catholic high school there would be a Mass in the auditorium. Then the next day the good fathers didn't use the tragedy as an Oprah moment but but as a teaching tool. “Drive fast, drink and drive and you'll get your young butts killed, fellas. Got it? Now, turn to page 154 in your algebra text... and Mr. Pizzo, sit up straight and at least pretend you are paying attention...”

Half a century ago, when I was kid, no one bundled us off to grief counseling when tragedy struck near. Death is one of life's most enduring realities. None of us get out alive. And, not only adults die. Kids die too. When a classmate met an untimely end class went on. Life went on. And we tykes moved on with normal childhoods, unmolested by the “how-do-you-feel-about-that.” folks. No one clued us in that there was an “therapeutic” alternative to going back to playing dodge ball, running, laughing, living.

I'm not saying kids never need counseling. Victims of abuse, or who personally witness something even an adult would have trouble handling, certainly should be counseled. No, I'm talking about the kind of things that occur, have occurred and will occur a part and parcel of simply being human.

Which brings me back to 9/11. Was it awful? You bet. It was a crime – the premeditated murder on a scale not seen since Pol Pot and his troops lined up and shot as many as 3 million fellow Cambodians. Before that we had Satlin's murder of “tens of millions” of his own citizens. Hitler preceded Stalin and ... oh hell, we can stop right there because virtually every generation of humans have had their mass murderer(s).

On 9/11 about 3000 innocents were murdered on a single morning. It was televised live. That was new. But that was about all that was new about what happened on 9/11. The rest was “same old, same old,” for the human condition. Humans drop like flies. They are dropping as you read this for reasons that range from murder to mundane.

During 2001 more than twenty times as many Americans, 66,060, died in accidents of various kind. Most were not televised. But the victims of those accidents are just as dead as the 3000 that died on 9/11 and for no good reason either. Most of them also left grieving relatives behind asking why? Every death is a death in the family.

Which is why I ask the politically incorrect question: why are we re-traumatizing Americans with all-channel, 24/7 coverage of the 9/11 attacks? Wouldn't a wreath, two-minutes of silence and a few somber remarks have sufficed? Shouldn't we have moved passed all that angst and anger? Haven't most of us worked our way through the grieving process and moved on? Why did someone hit the rewind button and rekindle the flames from those psychic ashes?

After all, look where all those emotions got us back when they were still fresh. They got us entangled in a tar pit of a war in Iraq. They got nearly 3000 American soldiers killed on fool's errand. And today more Islamic lemmings want to blow us up than on 9/11.

I am not saying someone did not need to get whacked for what happened on 9/11. I am just saying that in the heat of tragedy we forgot the old adage that “revenge is a meal best served cold.” So why not let it cool? Why turn the heat back up under our baser instincts risking more rash decisions that just enlarge the crime and extend the pain?

Forget about it. We are less than two months from an election. If Karl Rove could have things his way, it would be just this way. He wouldn't change a thing. He's got George and Dick out on the hustings telling anyone with a camera or microphone that what happened on 9/11 could happen at any minute of any day again -- and, if voters want to make those odds even worse, go ahead, elect Democrats to Congress.

At the same time that's going on, the media is using airtime today re-traumatizing voters with wall-to-wall coverage of a five-year old news stories. Isn't there any other news going on today? Sure, but you wouldn't know it. (Maybe the cable news channels had placed too big a bet on the JonBenet story and when that fizzled they were stuck with dead air time to fill.)

Talk about doing the failed Bush administration a huge and timely favor. Imagine if this weren't the 5th anniversary and the administration itself were running ads showing footage of the 9/11 attacks. All hell would break loose as they were denounced for “politicizing 9/11.”

But now they get a free ride. All the failed Bushites have to do is hitch their pre-November “Fear and Smear” campaign wagon to CNN and MSNBC's saturation coverage of their 9/11 coverage. It's a marriage made in self-promotion hell. The administration gets to re-scare voters and the media gets to get its rocks off reminding viewers that they were there for them when news happens.

Which is why I am annoyed today. Annoyed, bothered, disgusted, dismayed and depressed. The media now serves up hours of “newsatainment,” and there appears no turning back. I don't know which came first, the drama queens or a drama queen-enabling media. But here we are and here we will apparently remain – drama hungry gawkers of the drama(s) dejur and wallowers in tragedies past.

I'm troubled. Is there a grief counselor in the house?

September 1-10, 2006

Vote for Nothing

A few years ago a wag out here in California changed his name to “Nobody,” and tried to get on the ballot with the slogan “Vote for Nobody For President.” It was your typical California guerrilla theater politics and it went nowhere, not that it was ever intended to go anywhere else.

But now we have an entire party adopting this tactic – Democrats. Only they changed the slogan to, “Vote for Nothing.”

That's because with the ranks of Bush/GOP-haters swelling by the hour, Democrats figure all they have do is to not die between now and November to win.

Unfortunately, they are probably right about that.

But should we allow it? I mean, if you vote for someone who stands for nothing, proposes nothing, takes unambiguous positions on nothing, isn't that just what you get?

I'm as sick and tired of this batch of Republican robber baron-bastard-turd blossom-liars as the next guy. And, I have to admit, there have been days when I would have preferred nothing to the something they were up to. But the nation and world is now is such a mess, is nothing what we really want?

Will nothing provide medical coverage to the 48 million Americans who don't currently have it? Or the 8 million American children who don't have it?

Will nothing reverse a tax system that has redistributed wealth upward, forcing government to pay its bills with money borrowed from China and Japan?

Will nothing deal with the federal debt, that will have doubled to $8.5 trillion, and grows by nearly $2 billion each and every day?

Will nothing get us out of Iraq and keep us out of Iran?

Will nothing keep Iran and North Korea from developing nukes?

Will nothing force us off our dependence on oil.. and not just foreign oil, but all oil?

Will nothing institute the painful steps that will be necessary to deal with global warming?

Will nothing secure our borders, regulate imported labor and punish companies that violate those regulations?

Will nothing get the minimum wage raise and indexed to inflation so workers at the bottom are never again left behind by economic forces beyond they control.

I doubt it. But that's what the Democrats are running on – nothing. They are likely to get away with in November 2006, but shame on us if we allow them to get away with it in November 2008.

Because a vote for nothing will get us precisely that.





September 6, 2006

"Time Out!"

We need a time out. Of course, since the next two years are election years, we are not about to get a time out. But if America ever needed a time out it needs one right now.

The questions we need to time out to sort out is the most important questions a nation and its people can ponder:

* Are we at war or not.
* And if we are at war, who with?
* And, if this is not a war, then precisely what/who threatens us?
* And how do we address that threat short of war?


We need a time out, because this administration has misused the fog of war to accentuate the fog of politics. That's left those of us out here wondering just what the hell is really going on. Even Richard Nixon didn't have as long or as flexible an enemies list as this administration. Five years after 9/11 you can now throw a dart at a world map and hit a country or region that's on the Bush's enemies list – or is about to be added. Neocons have already begun describing it as “World War III.”

But is it really that serious? If so then we need to put politics behind us and go to war – for real.

But against whom? Whose beaches should we storm? Whose cities should be carpet-bombed?

America has shown it can fight and win a war against a Japan or a Germany. But can we fight and win a war against “terrorists?” We need to have that discussion. Amazingly, we have not. We just went ahead and shipped a couple of hundred thousand of Johnnys and Janes thousands of miles from home, into strange and hostile lands, to engage and vanquish “terrorists.”

There was an ad running for Comcast's new video-email feature. It showed a close up of a guy on a webcam telling his father about his vacation. The guy's face was dotted by dozens of little bandages. After explaining that he had had a wonderful vacation the hapless fellow adds, “Oh and there was this hornet's nest ... and I stuck a stick in it .... you know, to see if there were any hornets in it. ... and there were.......”

Every time I see that ad I think of George W. Bush and his Iraq “vacation.”

Yes, there were hornets in that nest, George. And don't we need a time out to discuss the wisdom of your big stick strategy? (Unfortunately in this case it's American GI's sporting the bandages rather than the guy with the stick.)

Here's another question that needs a full and thorough examination during our time out. Are we at war with a real enemy of state or a bunch of nuts Jewish nuts, Christian nuts and Muslim nuts? Are they the real Axis of Evil?

This all began when a handful of Koranically lobotomized screwballs flew planes into the World Trade Center. Neocons quickly compared that attack with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that sparked the US entry into World War II. But did they pick the wrong analogy? Maybe it was more like the 1914 assassination in Sarajevo of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Bosnian radical Gavrilo Princip that sparked World War I?

We need a time out to fully discuss that question. Because if that's the case then we are going about this “war” all wrong. Was 9/11 an act of war, or a crime? Albeit, a massive crime, but a crime nonetheless. The Rev. Jim Jones killed of nearly a thousand Americans – was he an enemy of state or criminal? Did we declare war on fundamentalist Christian sects after the nut case Dravidian siege in Wacko?

So I ask, are we at war with a genuine enemy of state or are we simply threatened by a criminal cult, driven, not by a lust for loot, but for ephemeral eternal rewards? It's the pivotal question, and we should put a sock in all political name calling and demagoguery and find out -- don't ya think?

I am not arguing all is well. Clearly something dangerous is afoot in the world (as there always has been at any moment in human history) But is war? That I doubt.

First, whatever it is, I don't feel terribly threatened. If the US could withstand the full and unrestrained resources of Japan and Germany 60 years ago, I assume we can weather the occasional terrorist attack. (Notice I said “occasional” because that's the key to unlocking this question of “war or not war.” )

Because, be it terrorism or just life, stuff happens even in the best of times. Planes crash on their own. Hurricanes wipe out cities. Earthquakes shake up entire regions. Bird flu, AIDS, famines, droughts and pestilence kills more humans over time than wars and terrorist acts combined – by a long shot.

So, I believe that if the US puts the right military and law enforcement resources in place to secure the US mainland most terrorist attacks will either be discouraged or discovered before they can be carried out. Occasionally one will succeed. Stuff happens. That's unfortunate. But it's not war -- or grounds on which to launch one.

We can live with the occasional terrorist attack. What we can't live with is a view of a world filled with enemies, enemies that must be tracked down by the US military and engaged in battle. Because that's a baby-out-with-the-bath-water strategy. Sure our soldiers would find a few dozen or a few hundred “terrorists.” But in the process they will kill and piss off a lot of innocent folk turning them into the next crop of “enemies of America.” (It makes you wonder if the Bushies learned their PR skills at the Leona Helmsley Academy for Pissing People Off.)

As for Iran, I agree, they shouldn't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. No one else in the world should either, for that matter. The nuclear club is already too big and needs to get smaller, not larger. The law of averages dictates that the more folks who have nukes the more likely someone will eventually use one again, either on purpose or by accident.

But the way to stop Iran is the same way we stopped the spread of the Soviet Union – by containment, not war. Seal the little bastards off from world commerce. Render them virtual prisoners in their 12th century Islamic theme park nation until they cry “uncle” or their own people toss them out of power. (And yes, that means cutting off Iran's oil exports and higher gas prices for US consumers.)

I am not saying that the military has no role to play in this international law enforcement action, I just think deploying US troops to places like Iraq is bit like delivering live chickens directly to a wolf's den. All we accomplish is saving them the trouble and expense of flight to the US to win their Islamic nut case bones.

Instead I refer you to my “Don't Do That” defense policy. Nations like Iran and Syria possess an endless supply of folks willing to die for Allah. But valuable infrastructure is finite, is right out in the open and, if destroyed, needs to be replaced... and replaced.. and replaced. They hate that.

So I end as I began. Are we, or are we not, at war? If not, then maybe Democrats right to begin with, that that terrorism is a domestic and international law enforcement challenge -- not grounds for war. Recent law enforcement successes by Europeans suggest that is precisely the case.

If the Democrats regain control of the House in November I suggest the first thing they do is call a time out for hearings to explore that question – for the first time.



Baby Boomers
Where the Hell Art Thou?

'In this world of ours in other lands, there are some people, who, in times past, have lived and fought for freedom, and seem to have grown too weary to carry on the fight. They have sold their heritage of freedom for the illusion of a living. They have yielded their democracy."
(FDR 1936)



Memo to: Fellow Baby Boomers
From: Stephen Pizzo (1945 - clock's still ticking)

I fear my generation has lost it's groove. Maybe you remember the 60s and 70's with pride, I know I do. Man, did we know how raise hell for a good cause! But we seem to have lost that righeous fire in our (aging) guts, the fire that sent us by the millions into the streets in moral outrage nearly 40 years ago.


Maybe that's why you're not out there now -- you forgot. Yeah, I'm talking to you, you old Hippies, you old Yippies, you old Students for a Democratic Society, you old War Resister leaguers. Guess it wasn't moral outrage that drove us to the streets back in the 60's and 70's .. it was the draft. Now that we don't have a dog in the fight, there's no fight left in us either.

And, being that it's Labor Day and all, what about you 1960's-era labor activists? You got yourselves some fine wages and benefits back then. But where the hell are you now that we really need you? Oh, retired are you? Okay, what about your kids, and your grandkids? You got yours, but will they get theirs? Sure doesn't look they will. You had real power once, and you knew how to use it. Back "in the day" rank and file labor activists would have placed Wal-Mart under siege and, in a matter of weeks, had it's executives begging for negotiations.

Today you just shop there.

And where did all the you ACLU-types go? I recall a time when legal activists elbowed one another out of the way to file civil rights actions, get restraining orders for conscientious objectors and sued members of the sitting administration left and right for unconstitutional misbehavior. And, if that didn't work, they packed up their legal tablets and hit the street and staged sit-ins of the perps offices. Back in the day a lawyer without a righteous rap sheet wasn't much of a lawyer. So, what happened to you Baby Boom legal eagles? Did you score a fat share of tobacco settlement money, or a slip and fall personal injury suit and rationaize that you could both do good AND do well? I suppose so. And if so then getting yourself arrested on principle would indeed be a bad career move. Have I got that right?

Am I pissing you off? Well, I can talk to you like this because I am one of you. I marched in the streets for civil rights and to end an unjust war. I got gassed, knocked on the head and arrested. Then the war ended, the creep in the White House got sent back to LA with his crooked tail between his legs, and things settled down for a while. And so did I. Like most of you I got married, had kids and career. I did my time in a workplace cubicle, commuted for years in bumper to bumper traffic, flew coach, made money. I got mine and retired.

So, my old friends, here we are -- together once again. Whether in Berkeley, or New York or Ohio or San Francisco, blue state resident or red, we are again on the same track, facing the same challenges. The only difference is, back then we made a difference. Oh, marketers know our power, but that's about it. Once Washington knew it too -- knew it and felt it. Back in the day we could paralyze the Pentagon for days on end. We could blockade and close Selective Service offices around the country. Once, we were revolutionaries. Once we fought and won.

Today we are conspicuous only by our absence. Things are far worse than they were 40 years ago. The folks in the White House and Congress are far more dangerous -- and far more successful -- than Richard Nixon could ever have dreamed possible. Again young Americans are fighting and dying in an unjust war thousands of miles from home. Organized labor has been systematically and purposely gutted by a series of so-call "free trade" agreements -- and by corruption from within. American workers now earn less -- adjusted for inflation -- than they did back in the 1970's, and that trend continues downward. And large corporations have more power over our lives and politics today than at any time since before the 1920s.

So where the hell are we? Why aren't we back out in the streets? We like to think we're still young. We have even coined phrases like "60 is the new 40." Then we proceed to prove it by rock climbing, kyacking, hiking and driving Harleys to make ourselves look like Brando. So it can't be lack of physical vigor keeping us in check. Eighty million of us were born so, even allowing for general wear and tear, the Vietnam War, auto accidents and drugs, I figure there must at least 40 or 50-million of us still kicking around out here. Where the hell are we? Why aren't we in the streets again ... and not in the dozens, not in the hundreds or even thousands, but by the millions... again?

I think it's because, during all those years of "settling down," we lost that fire in our guts that got us off our asses back in the day. So, here's a re-light. Listen to or read this speech. Then let's see if the old saying is true, that "Just because there's snow on the roof doesn't mean the fire's out in the furnace."





Read or listen here. And be reminded of what real leadership sounds like.

http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/diglibrary/prezspeeches/roosevelt/fdr_1936_0627.html (Text)

ftp://webstorage2.mcpa.virginia.edu/library/nara/fdr/audiovisual/speeches/fdr_1936_0627.mp3 (Audio)

(Selected exerpts from Frankliln Roosevelt's 1936 speech)

"Governments can err, Presidents do make mistakes, but the immortal Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted in different scales. Better the occasional faults of a Government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a Government frozen in the ice of its own indifference."

"In 1776 we sought freedom from the tyranny of a political autocracy-from the eighteenth century royalists who held special privileges from the crown. It was to perpetuate their privilege that they governed without the consent of the governed; that they denied the right of free assembly and free speech; that they restricted the worship of God; that they put the average man's property and the average man's life in pawn to the mercenaries of dynastic power; that they regimented the people."

"... out of this modern civilization economic royalists carved new dynasties. New kingdoms were built upon concentration of control over material things. Through new uses of corporations, banks and securities, new machinery of industry and agriculture, of labor and capital-all undreamed of by the fathers-the whole structure of modern life was impressed into this royal service. ....There was no place among this royalty for our many thousands of small business men and merchants who sought to make a worthy use of the American system of initiative and profit. They were no more free than the worker or the farmer. Even honest and progressive-minded men of wealth, aware of their obligation to their generation, could never know just where they fitted into this dynastic scheme of things....It was natural and perhaps human that the privileged princes of these new economic dynasties, thirsting for power, reached out for control over Government itself. They created a new despotism and wrapped it in the robes of legal sanction. In its service new mercenaries sought to regiment the people, their labor, and their property. And as a result the average man once more confronts the problem that faced the Minute Man.?





September 1, 2006

Weekend Edition


Have you just about given up any hope that a grassroots Democrat will emerge, one who is articulate, smart, honest and has balls?

Frankly I was very close to giving up on that dream. Then last week GW Bush addressed Veterans of Foreign wars in what he hoped was still righwing-friendly Salt Lake City, Utah. As usual he picked a friendly audience and he let tear against Americans who oppose his war in Iraq, accusing them of being closet fascist-appeasers. Normally the media and Dems let him get away with that kind of demagoguery.

But for once an opponent showed up in the opposite corner of the ring. Bush and his handlers had not counted on Salt Lake City's Democrat Mayor, Ross "Rocky" Anderson. And Anderson was in a fighting mood, landing punch after punch counter punch. Had this been a real fight Bush would in intensive care.

And, unlike the Michael Moores of the political left, Anderson can't be easily dismissed by GOP spinsters and swiftboaters as some kind of a nut. Because Rocky is the real deal:

Ross C. "Rocky" Anderson degree from (born 1951) is the current mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah. He was born in Logan and received a bachelor's degree in science from the University of Utah and a Juris DoctorGeorge Washington University. Although the office of mayor in Salt Lake City is nonpartisan, Anderson's personal party affiliation is Democratic, and much of his platform is that of a liberal Democrat. Anderson was first elected in 1999 and was reelected in 2003. (More)

Hell, he even looks normal.

Anyway, enough from me. Here's the bulk of Anderson's speech that day. (I trimmed it down a bit so you wouldn't bail out until the end. If you want to read the full speech there's a link to it on the Mayor's homepage here.)




Salt Lake City Mayor,
Ross "Rocky" Andersen

Salt Lake City, Utah
August 30, 2006


A patriot is a person who loves his or her country. Who among you loves your country so much that you have come here today to raise your voice out of deep concern for our nation - and our world?

And who among you loves your country so much that you insist that our nation's leaders tell us the truth?

So let's hear it: "Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth!" Because if we had had the truth, we wouldn't be here today.

Let no one deny we are patriots. We support our nation's troops. Let's hear it for our nation's troops! We have so many veterans here today.

A patriot does not tell people who are intensely concerned about their country to just sit down and be quiet; to refrain from speaking out in the name of politeness or for the sake of being a good host; to show slavish, blind obedience and deference to a dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating president.

That is not a patriot. Rather, that person is a sycophant. That person is a member of a frightening culture of obedience - a culture where falling in line with authority is more important than choosing what is right, even if it is not easy, safe, or popular. And, I suspect, that person is afraid -afraid we are right, afraid of the truth (even to the point of denying it), afraid he or she has put in with an oppressive, inhumane, regime that does not respect the laws and traditions of our country, and that history will rank as the worst presidency our nation has ever had to endure.

We are here today to insist that those who were elected to be our leaders must tell us the truth.

We are here today to insist that our news media live up to its sacred responsibility to ascertain and report the truth, that our news media live up to its sacred responsibility to ascertain and report the truth rather than acting like nothing more than a bulletin board for the lies and propaganda of a manipulative, dishonest federal government.

We have been getting just about everything but the truth on matters of life and death, on matters upon which our nation's reputation hinges, on matters that directly relate to our nation's most fundamental values, and on matters relating to the survival of our planet.

In the process, our nation has engaged in a tragic, unnecessary war, based upon categorically false justifications. More than a hundred thousand people have been killed - and many more have been seriously maimed, brain damaged, or rendered mentally ill. Our nation's reputation throughout much of the world has been destroyed. We have many more enemies bent on our destruction than before our invasion of Iraq. And the hatred toward us has grown to the point that it will take many years, perhaps generations, to overcome the loathing created by our unjustified, illegal invasion and occupation of a Muslim nation.

Our children and later generations will pay the price of the lies, the violence, the cruelty, the incompetence, and the inhumanity of the Bush administration and the lackey Congress that has so cowardly abrogated its responsibility and authority under our checks-and-balances system
of government.

We are here to say, "We will not stand for it any more. No more lies. No more pre-emptive, illegal war, based on false information. No more God-is-on-our-side religious nonsense to justify this immoral, illegal war. We are here to say most fundamentally, no more inhumanity in the name of our nation."

Let's raise our voices, and demand to the administration and our news media, "Give us the truth! Give us the truth! Give us the truth!"

Let's consider some of the most monstrous lies - lies that have led us, like a nation of sheep, to this tragic war.

Following September 11, 2001, the world knew that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for the horrific attacks on our country. Our long-time allies were sympathetic and supportive. But our president transformed that support into international disdain for the United States, choosing to illegally invade and occupy Iraq, rather than focus on and capture the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks.

Why invade and occupy Iraq when it was bin Laden and al Qaeda who attacked our country and still haven't been brought to justice? Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice represented to us, without qualification, that there were strong ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

In September, 2002, President Bush made the incredible and absolutely false claim that "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam."

President Bush represented to Congress, without any factual basis whatsoever, that Iraq planned, authorized, committed, or aided the 9/11
attacks.

Our President and Vice-President, along with an unquestioning news media, repeatedly led our nation to believe that there was a working relationship between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, a relationship that threatened the United States.

Not only has there never been any evidence of any involvement by Saddam or Iraq with the attacks on 9/11, but there has never been any evidence of any operational connection whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

The principal claim was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction - biological and chemical weapons - and was seeking to build up a nuclear weapons capability. As we now know, there was nothing - no evidence whatsoever - to support those false claims.

President Bush asserted Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase nuclear materials from an African nation and seeking to obtain aluminum tubes for the enrichment of uranium were challenged at the time by our own intelligence agency and by our own scientists, yet President Bush failed to tell us that!

Ten days, 10 days, before the invasion of Iraq, it was proven that the documents upon which President Bush's claim about Saddam Hussein trying to obtain uranium was based were forgeries. That was found 10 days before we invaded Iraq. However, President Bush did not disclose that to the American people. By that failure, he betrayed each of us, he betrayed our country, and he betrayed the cause of world peace.

Had the American people known we were being lied to - had President Bush informed us that the documents were forged and that he had no other basis for his claim - had our nation's media done its job, rather than slavishly repeating to us the lies being fed to it by the Bush administration - our nation very well may not have allowed the commencement of this outrageous, illegal, unjustified war.

What were we told about chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction? These claims were as baseless and fraudulent as the claims about nuclear weapons.

Of course, no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons were found. Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, appointed by the Bush administration, noted that Iraq did not have an ongoing chemical weapons program after 1991 - a conclusion remarkably similar to statements made by Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice just months before the 9/11 attacks - and before they sacrificed the truth in the service of promoting the Bush administration's case for war against Iraq.

On February 24, 2001, less than 7 months before 9/11, Colin Powell said that Saddam Hussein, and these were his words, "has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors," said Colin Powell, some seven months before 9/11.

In July 2001, two months before 9/11, Condoleezza Rice said, and these were her words: "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." She told us two months before
9/11.

It is astounding how they changed their claims after the President decided to make a case for the invasion and occupation of Iraq!

To think that we could be lied to by so many members of the Bush administration with such impunity is frightening - chilling. Yet these imperious, arrogant, dishonest people think we should continue to
just fall in line with them and continue to take them at their word after we have been lied to time after time after time by these people. What a tragedy, leading to greater tragedy. We are fed lie after lie, our media reinforces those lies, and we are a nation that has been led to a tragic, illegal, unprovoked war.

We are here today because of our values. We love our country. We cherish the freedoms and liberties of our country. We don't call those who speak out against our nation's leaders unpatriotic or un-American
or appeasers of fascists, as we heard from our nation's secretary of defense yesterday. We have good, wholesome family values. In our families, we teach honesty, we teach kindness and compassion toward
others, we teach that violence, if ever justified, must be an absolutely last resort. In our families, we teach that our nation's constitutional values are to be upheld, and that they are worth standing up, as we are here today, and fighting for.

Our family values promote respect and equal rights toward everyone, regardless of race, regardless of ethnic origin, and regardless of sexual orientation. In our families, we teach the value of hard work and competence - and we are left to wonder about a President who, after receiving an intelligence memo about the threat posed by al Qaeda, decides to continue his month-long vacation - just before the 9/11 attacks on our country.

As we demand the truth from others, let us also face the truth. Our government all too often has not cared at all about the human rights of people in other nations - and it doesn't really care about democracy, unless it leads to the election of those who will do our bidding.

Perhaps those in the United States government who (prior to 9/11) aided and abetted Saddam Hussein to further US business interests, while he was gassing the Kurds, should be sharing his courtroom dock as he is now being tried for crimes against humanity.

No more lies, no more hiding of the truth - we can stand the truth - no more wars that more than triple the value of stock in Dick Cheney's prior employer, Halliburton - and which, as of last September, has increased the value of the Halliburton CEO's stock by $78 million.

We are patriots. We are deeply concerned. And we demand change, now.

No more lies from Condoleezza Rice about whether she and President Bush were advised before 9/11 of the possibility of planes being flown into buildings by terrorists. No more.

No more gross incompetence in the office of the Secretary of Defense.

No more torture of human beings.

No more disregard of the basic human rights enshrined in the Geneva Convention.

No more kidnapping of people and sending them off to secret prisons in nations where they will be tortured.

No more unconstitutional wiretapping of Americans.

No more proposed amendments to the United States Constitution that would, for the first time in our nation's history, limit fundamental rights and liberties for entire classes of people simply on the basis of sexual orientation.

No more federal land giveaways to developers.

No more increases in mercury emissions from old, dirty, dangerous coalburning power plants.

No more backroom deals that deprive protection for millions of acres of wild lands in our nation.

No more attacks on immigrants who work so hard to build better lives in this nation.

No more inaction by Congress on fixing our hypocritical and inconsistent immigration laws and practices.

No more reliance on fiction rather than the science of global warming.

No more manipulation of our media with false propaganda.

No more disastrous cuts in funding for those most in need.

No more federal cuts in community policing and local law enforcement grant programs for our cities.

No more inaction on stopping the tragic genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan.

No more of the Patriot Acts.

No more killing.

No more supposedly pre-emptive wars.

No more contempt for our long-time allies around the world.

No more dependence on foreign oil.

No more failure to impose increased fuel efficiency standards for automobiles manufactured in this country.

No more energy policies developed in secret meetings between Dick Cheney and his energy company cronies.

No more excuses for failing to aggressively cut global warming pollutant emissions.

No more tragically incompetent federal responses to natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

No more tax cuts for the wealthiest, while the middle class and those who are economically disadvantaged continue to struggle more and more each year.

No more reckless spending and massive tax cuts, resulting in historic deficits and historic accumulated national debt.

No more purchasing of elections by the wealthiest corporations and individuals in our country.

No more phony, ineffective, inhumane so-called war on drugs.

No more failure to pass an increase in the minimum wage.

No more silence by the American people.

If we can do this in Salt Lake City, we can do this throughout the entire country, and the world is going to hear us.

This is a new day. We will not be silent. We will continue to raise our voices. We will bring others with us. We will grow and grow, regardless of political party - unified in our insistence upon the truth, upon
peace-making, upon more humane treatment of our brothers and sisters around the world.

We will be ever cognizant of our moral responsibility to speak up in the face of wrongdoing, and to work as we can for a better, safer, more just community, nation, and world.

So we won't let down. We won't be quiet. We will continue to resist the lies, the deception, the outrages of the Bush administration and this complacent, complicit, go-along Congress. We will insist that peace be pursued, and that, as a nation, we help those in need. We must break the cycle of hatred, of intolerance, of exploitation. We must pursue peace as vigorously as the Bush administration has pursued war. It's up to every single one of us to do our part.

Let us keep in mind the injunction by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

(Pizzo dropping: If this guy can get elected to public office is Salt Lake Friggin' City, Utah, what's that say to national Democrats? You know... the ones like Hillary et al, who continue mincing their words and testing different "messages," to voters. I want 100 more Rocky Andersons to stand up and purge the rot and dead wood out of the DNC -- then do the same in DC.)



Thinking Outside the Box
Again

Any one who's read my blog for long knows my take on things tend toward the eclectic, (or as George W. Bush pronounces it – “ec-a-lective.”) Which can mean one of two things; I am wrong, or I am just able to see truth, even if it comes out the mouths of folks I don't like.

While I would prefer to belief it's the latter, the laws of probability dictate that it's likely 50/50.

Which brings me this.

As the old sayng goes, even a broken clock is 100% correct twice a day. Which is why I think we need to admit that the character currently running Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hit the nail right on the head the other day with his criticism of the United Nations:

“The Iranian president criticized the decision-making process of the U.N. Security Council and challenged the power of the five permanent Security Council members -- among them the U.S. and Britain. "The U.S. and Britain are using such a privilege as if they were the owners of the world. How many years should they enjoy this privilege?" he asked. " (More)

I'm not one of those “blame America firsters,” that the Bushites like to blame whenever anyone criticizes their actions. But don't you agree the little Iranian guy was right?

Isn't it time for the UN haters on the right and the UN-lovers on the left to agree that the UN, as it is currently constituted, is nothing more than a freeze-frame of the post WW-II geopolitical pecking order? And that the UN Security Council – which really rules the roost – is the world's power structure, circa 1945, preserved in amber?

If we had set out to create an ineffective institution we could not have done better than UN.

First you put the Kings of the Hill DeJur' in charge assuring that nothing gets approved unless all of them agree.

Then you invite every other nation on earth to become members of a mash-pit called the General Assembly, where they can pontificate until the cows come home, but have no power whatsoever.

Then you set up shop in the richest city on earth, where ambassadors from around the world can spend their country's money living big in return for pretending they are making a difference.

Too harsh? You think? Well, let's see:

* Genocide in Sudan... how long's that been going on? And it still is going on.
* Hey, and how about those UN “peacekeepers” in southern Lebanon ... they were a big help, huh?
* And, can we ever forget the Iraq Oil for Food scam!!? Momma mia, that was beaut.

Right wingers fear the UN because they see it as a step towards one-world government. Ha! Fat chance.

Left wingers are critical of the UN because it is powerless when the US is in the wrong – you know, like sending Colin Powell up there with a pack of lies then attacking Iraq without so much as a howdy do to ya. Well, whatya expect. When the US, France, Great Britain, Russia and China created the UN back in 1945 they divvied up the earth to suit them and made damn sure no one could re-divvy it up anytime soon.

To make sure the Peanut Gallery (AKA: the rest of the world) didn't feel left out, they created the “Gestalt Assembly,” a place where the other nations on earth could engage in all the diplomatic puffery that goes along with being “ambassadors,”and letting them strut around with the real movers and shakers – but denying them the right or power to do any shaking themselves.

Needless to say, relegated to seats in the powerless General Assembly, nations have seen the main use for the UN as a place to send sycophants to reward them for their loyal services, a place of chauffeured limos and catered diners, free booze and even freer women, where they never have to say they're sorry (to a judge) or pay a parking ticket.

The UN is worse than an anachronism – it's a fraud. And it's been a fraud since the day it was created. Hell, it wasn't the UN that coordinated, financed and rebuilt western Europe after WW-II, it was the US Marshall Plan.

The only time the UN did anything bold was by accident, when Russia was asleep at the switch and let the Security Council approve the “police action” that became the Korean War.

On June 27th 1950, America called on the United Nations to use force to get the North Koreans out as they had ignored the Security Council’s resolution of June 25th. This was also voted for and once again the Russians could not use their veto as they were still boycotting the United Nations. (More)

That was it. Since then no member of the Security Council has dared miss a vote and, consequently, nothing of consequence has happened since.

Need more?

Who was it that finally stopped the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia? The UN? Nope. The US and NATO finally had to step in and stop it. Who stopped the genocide in Rawanda? The UN? No. Nope.

So, as Iran and the UN lock horns over nukes it's a good time to ask what good can come of it. The UN will not impose real sanctions against Iran. The US will try to impose it's own sanctions, but with oil scarce and in high demand, George will find few takers for his “shun Iran” plan.

That leaves the nations of the world with precisely the same choices they faced before the UN was created; to either capitulate to the misbehavior of other nations, or go to war against them. Some choice!

But despair not, I have a plan. As Bill Clinton would put it, “Don't end it, mend it.” The UN needs some industrial strength mending, and though they won't like my plan, here it is:

1)Relocate the UN to Ely, Nevada.

2)Every member will be required to wear a Century 21 Realtor's style sports coat, with UN logo and his/her name tag during all official duties.

3)Each ambassador will receive a coupon book each year containing 52, 50% off coupons redeemable at the “All you can eat buffet” at the Hotel Nevada and Gambling Hall.

4)The Security Council would be eliminated and replaced with the Council for Making Sure Citizens of Earth Don't End Up Choking to Death on Their Own Waste. (better known as the CMSCEDEUCDTOW.)

5)New UN house rules would include:
1.Ambassadors would be banned from eating at any restaurant or diner during unresolved famines. (This ban includes Chinese and pizza delivery)
2.Ambassadors would be confined to their offices, rooms and meeting halls during unresolved genocides.
3.Ambassadors of nations that violate UN resolutions will be required to turn in any unused Hotel Nevada and Gambling Hall coupons and relinquish their pass keys to the hotel pool and exercise room, neither of which they get back until they can prove their nation is in full compliance.
4.The UN limo service would be replaced by a fleet of mini-vans driven by chatty volunteers from the Ely Chapter of the Daughters of Rebecca.
5.Ambassadorial staff for each nation will be limited to one secretary and one sycophant/gofer/assistant.

That should about do it. I understand it's not a prefect plan but, be honest, could it really make things worse? I don't think so.

Okay, so I jest.. well about everything except moving the UN to some place with fewer distractions and creature comforts than the Big Apple. At least in Ely ambassadors would have to choose between work and another scrumptious trip down the all-you-can-eat buffet at the Hotel Nevada.


Must Read
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

August 25-31, 2006

Thinking Outside the Box
Again

Any one who's read my blog for long knows my take on things tend toward the eclectic, (or as George W. Bush pronounces it – “ec-a-lective.”) Which can mean one of two things; I am wrong, or I am just able to see truth, even if it comes out the mouths of folks I don't like.

While I would prefer to belief it's the latter, the laws of probability dictate that it's likely 50/50.

Which brings me this.

As the old sayng goes, even a broken clock is 100% correct twice a day. Which is why I think we need to admit that the character currently running Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hit the nail right on the head the other day with his criticism of the United Nations:

“The Iranian president criticized the decision-making process of the U.N. Security Council and challenged the power of the five permanent Security Council members -- among them the U.S. and Britain. "The U.S. and Britain are using such a privilege as if they were the owners of the world. How many years should they enjoy this privilege?" he asked. " (More)

I'm not one of those “blame America firsters,” that the Bushites like to blame whenever anyone criticizes their actions. But don't you agree the little Iranian guy was right?

Isn't it time for the UN haters on the right and the UN-lovers on the left to agree that the UN, as it is currently constituted, is nothing more than a freeze-frame of the post WW-II geopolitical pecking order? And that the UN Security Council – which really rules the roost – is the world's power structure, circa 1945, preserved in amber?

If we had set out to create an ineffective institution we could not have done better than UN.

First you put the Kings of the Hill DeJur' in charge assuring that nothing gets approved unless all of them agree.

Then you invite every other nation on earth to become members of a mash-pit called the General Assembly, where they can pontificate until the cows come home, but have no power whatsoever.

Then you set up shop in the richest city on earth, where ambassadors from around the world can spend their country's money living big in return for pretending they are making a difference.

Too harsh? You think? Well, let's see:

* Genocide in Sudan... how long's that been going on? And it still is going on.
* Hey, and how about those UN “peacekeepers” in southern Lebanon ... they were a big help, huh?
* And, can we ever forget the Iraq Oil for Food scam!!? Momma mia, that was beaut.

Right wingers fear the UN because they see it as a step towards one-world government. Ha! Fat chance.

Left wingers are critical of the UN because it is powerless when the US is in the wrong – you know, like sending Colin Powell up there with a pack of lies then attacking Iraq without so much as a howdy do to ya. Well, whatya expect. When the US, France, Great Britain, Russia and China created the UN back in 1945 they divvied up the earth to suit them and made damn sure no one could re-divvy it up anytime soon.

To make sure the Peanut Gallery (AKA: the rest of the world) didn't feel left out, they created the “Gestalt Assembly,” a place where the other nations on earth could engage in all the diplomatic puffery that goes along with being “ambassadors,”and letting them strut around with the real movers and shakers – but denying them the right or power to do any shaking themselves.

Needless to say, relegated to seats in the powerless General Assembly, nations have seen the main use for the UN as a place to send sycophants to reward them for their loyal services, a place of chauffeured limos and catered diners, free booze and even freer women, where they never have to say they're sorry (to a judge) or pay a parking ticket.

The UN is worse than an anachronism – it's a fraud. And it's been a fraud since the day it was created. Hell, it wasn't the UN that coordinated, financed and rebuilt western Europe after WW-II, it was the US Marshall Plan.

The only time the UN did anything bold was by accident, when Russia was asleep at the switch and let the Security Council approve the “police action” that became the Korean War.

On June 27th 1950, America called on the United Nations to use force to get the North Koreans out as they had ignored the Security Council’s resolution of June 25th. This was also voted for and once again the Russians could not use their veto as they were still boycotting the United Nations. (More)

That was it. Since then no member of the Security Council has dared miss a vote and, consequently, nothing of consequence has happened since.

Need more?

Who was it that finally stopped the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia? The UN? Nope. The US and NATO finally had to step in and stop it. Who stopped the genocide in Rawanda? The UN? No. Nope.

So, as Iran and the UN lock horns over nukes it's a good time to ask what good can come of it. The UN will not impose real sanctions against Iran. The US will try to impose it's own sanctions, but with oil scarce and in high demand, George will find few takers for his “shun Iran” plan.

That leaves the nations of the world with precisely the same choices they faced before the UN was created; to either capitulate to the misbehavior of other nations, or go to war against them. Some choice!

But despair not, I have a plan. As Bill Clinton would put it, “Don't end it, mend it.” The UN needs some industrial strength mending, and though they won't like my plan, here it is:

1)Relocate the UN to Ely, Nevada.

2)Every member will be required to wear a Century 21 Realtor's style sports coat, with UN logo and his/her name tag during all official duties.

3)Each ambassador will receive a coupon book each year containing 52, 50% off coupons redeemable at the “All you can eat buffet” at the Hotel Nevada and Gambling Hall.

4)The Security Council would be eliminated and replaced with the Council for Making Sure Citizens of Earth Don't End Up Choking to Death on Their Own Waste. (better known as the CMSCEDEUCDTOW.)

5)New UN house rules would include:
1.Ambassadors would be banned from eating at any restaurant or diner during unresolved famines. (This ban includes Chinese and pizza delivery)
2.Ambassadors would be confined to their offices, rooms and meeting halls during unresolved genocides.
3.Ambassadors of nations that violate UN resolutions will be required to turn in any unused Hotel Nevada and Gambling Hall coupons and relinquish their pass keys to the hotel pool and exercise room, neither of which they get back until they can prove their nation is in full compliance.
4.The UN limo service would be replaced by a fleet of mini-vans driven by chatty volunteers from the Ely Chapter of the Daughters of Rebecca.
5.Ambassadorial staff for each nation will be limited to one secretary and one sycophant/gofer/assistant.

That should about do it. I understand it's not a prefect plan but, be honest, could it really make things worse? I don't think so.

Okay, so I jest.. well about everything except moving the UN to some place with fewer distractions and creature comforts than the Big Apple. At least in Ely ambassadors would have to choose between work and another scrumptious trip down the all-you-can-eat buffet at the Hotel Nevada.


Must Read
http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/



August 28, 2006

Memo: To Democrats
From: The Rest of Us

Hi. Just us again. Look, we just got done reading a story in this morning's New York Times, and have a few questions.

First here's the gist of the story, in case you missed it.

Real Wages Fail to Match Rise in Productivity

With the economy beginning to slow, the current expansion has a chance to become the first sustained period of economic growth since World War II that fails to offer a prolonged increase in real wages for most workers.

The median hourly wage for American workers has declined 2 percent since 2003, after factoring in inflation. The drop has been especially notable, economists say, because productivity — the amount that an average worker produces in an hour and the basic wellspring of a nation’s living standards — has risen steadily over the same period.

As a result, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation’s gross domestic product since the government began recording the data in 1947, while corporate profits have climbed to their highest share since the 1960’s. UBS, the investment bank, recently described the current period as “the golden era of profitability.” (Full Story)

Our question is simple. We – the rest of us – have been screwed blue and tattooed too, not once, but twice by the GOP's crackpot “trickle down economics,” scam.

The first time we were reamed by this scam was by the Reaganites during the 1980s. You Democrats might remember because a lot of you were there then You guys stood around hemming and hawing as that bunch of Trickle Down Taliban slashed taxes, pumped contracts to defense contractors and deregulated the savings and loan industry. And you stood there with your thumbs up your butts during eight years of looting and shooting that left the rest of us a $160 billion S&L bailout tab to pay, left us with enormous budget deficits and created a hostile and emboldened Iran. (Sound familiar?)

Been there, done that before, right guys? It was a real mess, for sure. So we kinda figured Democrats would never let it happen again. Boy, were we wrong! The first thing the Bushites did when they got into office was dust off that old, blood and red ink-stained copy of Reagan's supply side scam, lube it and shove straight up our collective posterior orifices -- again.

And there you Democrats were, milling around, hemming and hawing and doing nothing helpful as the Trickle Down Taliban had their way with us -- again.

Frankly I don't know who we should be madder at, them or you guys. I mean, hell, at the end of the day this is really just your generic “do bears shit in the woods,” tale, isn't it? You knew what they were up to. You'd seen the Trickle Down Scam before and should have known it when you saw its second coming. How could not? It wasn't as though you weren't warned by those of us who did see it coming. (My 2002 SF Chronicle piece)

So, just how did you Democrats let this happen to the rest of us -- again?

Here's another way to put look at the problem: First figure out how much all those bomb-throwing Islamic terrorists have actually cost the average American over the past five years. Now figure out how many hundreds of billions of dollars the Trickle Down GOP scam has sucked out our wallets during the same period -- in lower wages, off-shored jobs, stolen pensions, skyrocketing fuel and heating costs and environmental degradation? More I bet. More by a long, long, long, long, long, long shot, I bet.

Which begs the question: who do average Americans really need protection from most? I'm all for securing the US mainland from folks who want to shoot or bomb us, but that's a law enforcement problem which can and should be dealt with accordingly – as the British recently showed.

But what about the enemies within? - within our wallets - within our health care system - within our pharmaceutical industry - within our energy industry? The rest of us are under siege from them, and so far no one is returning fire. I guess my question boils down to this;

Can Democrats defend the rest of us from our domestic enemies?

So far you haven't In fact, in too many cases you've chosen to be collaborators. Democrats in Congress played the Vichy French government during WWII to the Bushites occupation. The term “quislings” has rolled from my lips too often of late as I listen to Democrats trying to explain why they voted for the Bush tax cuts for the already rich.

But hey, what can the rest of us do? After nearly seven years of this GOP Trickle-down reign of economic terror, we are left with little choice but give you Democrats yet another chance. But don't misinterpret our votes as anything but an act of desperation. We know America can't possibly survived another eight years of GOP ("Grand Old Pillagers.")

So we'll bite our lips and put you Democrats back in charge of at least one house of Congress this November – maybe both. But please understand, we don't like you, we certainly don't respect you, we know we can't trust you, and we will be watching what you do like hawks.

Even if give you Democrats control we worry you won't know what to do, or have the guts to do it. For starters we've heard no coherent economic policy out of you guys. Why is that? Because we can only assume you've had your asses handed to you so many times by a well-fund GOP that you decided that since you can't beat-em you might as well join-em.

When the cops asked Willie Sutton why he kept robbing banks Sutton stated the obvious, “Because that's where the money is.” In today's electoral machine the money - the real money -- is not found to be found in the wallets of the rest of us – especially these days. No, the real money is up there – at the top of the economic pyramid – where instead of “trickling down,” as promised, it gets doled out to collaborators.

Sorry this memo has gone so long, but that NYTimes story really pushed my buttons. I'll wrap it up.

Since you Democrats can't seem to articulate any coherent defense to GOP's wildly lucrative Trickle Down scam, let me offer you one.

I call it Trickle UP Economics. It goes like this:

1)Don't cut the taxes of people who already have more money than they know what to do with. Instead cut the taxes of wage earners, because they will spend every extra dollar you leave in their pay checks.
2)As workers spend that money it creates demand for goods and services
3)As demand for goods and services grows, employment expands,
4)As employment expands still more workers get paychecks with more money in them, which they spend in near-real time, creating still more demand.
5)An so it goes and goes and goes in a self-sustaining cycle as the money eventually trickles UP to the top in the form of corporate profits generated consumer demand for their products and services.

DUH!

Got it?

Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter
The Rest of Us

PS: Oh, and by the way – this WILL BE your last chance before we look elsewhere for new progressive leaders – and maybe even a new party.


Video Of the Day
Right HERE


Why Your Next President
Will Be a Republican

Democrats are making a serious mistake – again. They are making two assumptions. First, that enough people now hate George W. Bush & Co. that the GOP will lose big this November and. Second, that the GOP will lose even bigger in November 2008's presidential race.

They are probably right on their first assumption, but way wrong on their second. Here's why.

For all kinds of reasons voting for members of congress is a party thing, and right now the public has had it right up to here with the Republican party. So Dems are likely to coast to significant gains in both the House and Senate. Not because voters like what Dems stand for because, who knows what the hell they stand for, but by default.

Voters also want to break the one-party hold the GOP has on Congress, which turned the dogs of commerce loose on average Americans while leaving them to root through the leavings for scraps.

But a presidential contest is a one-on-one affair in which party affiliation is secondary to personal qualities. Americans don't want just any Democrat or any Republican. They want a leader, someone they like and someone they trust. And after the Bush reign, trustworthiness will rank up there at the top of voter's wish list.

Keeping that in mind, who will Democrats put up in '08?

It increasingly appears that the Hillary Clinton Moonies have triangulated their gal right into the corner pocket. Never underestimate the Cult of Hillary. They are too smart by half and too cute by another half. They are political termites, invisibly but relentlessly undermining their party's power structure and pecking order. By the time you realize what they've been up to, it's too late.

And it may now be too late. Hillary looks like she'll be the Dem's choice for the top slot in '08. Call it the Democrat Party's version of Fatal Attraction – because that's precisely what it is.

And who will Hillary tap as her running mate? Retired Army General, Wesley Clark.

Which is why the Republican's will field as their ticket John McCain and Rudolf Guiliani.

Handicapping such a race is pretty easy.

McCain v. Hillary – forget about it. The more you see and hear Hillary Clinton the less you like her. She wears on people. Not because she's a woman, but because she's so transparently a conniver. Even as she answers a question, you can see the wheels turning behind those expressionless eyes. As the words roll off her lips, she weighs every possible political gain and loss of each individual nuance. It's an impressive mental feat. IBM's chess playing computer, Big Blue, wouldn't have a prayer against Hillary.

McCain, on the other hand, while just as big a conniver, pulls it off better. It's hard not to like McCain, even when you suspect he's jerking you around. Besides, Hillary was never a prisoner of war.... a prisoner of marriage, maybe... but not a prisoner of war. And the worst torture Hillary ever endured was the haunting image of hubby Bill's cigar humidor, Monica.

So, in a head to head race, McCain wins – hands down.

Ditto goes for the VP choices.

Wesley Clark is a nice enough guy, and Hillary would pick him for her running mate to give the Democrat ticket it's own tough-on-terrorism image. But, frankly, Clark never inspired me as a tough guy. He comes across more like a Mr. Rogers kinda guy or the principal of a small town junior high.

Guliani, on the other hand,won his tough-guy bones on 9/11 – rightly or wrongly. And the only reason he would not be on the top of the GOP ticket is because he's too liberal on issues like a woman's right to choose and gay marriage. GOP social conservatives would not likely vote for a presidential candidate with such “moral lapses” but would bite their lips and vote for him as No. 2 – especially if it meant throwing cold water on the “Wicket Witch.”

So there you have it, two years before it happens... the 2008 presidential finalists. McCain/Guliani v. Clinton/Wesley.

Which is why I predict our next president will be another Republican.

Hey, don't blame me. But do give Howard Dean a call. Because, while time is running short, he still has time to pull the emergency-stop cord on the Hillary Express.




How to Fix Everyone's Wagon

You know what I'd do if I had my own air force? I'd bomb the living crap out of Iran's oil fields.

Wait... hold on.. before you delete me from your address book let me explain how doing so would fix almost everything.

1)A nuclear-armed anybody is a bad thing. But a nuclear-armed Iran would change the status quo from one in which the likelihood nukes will be used in our lifetimes would move from an unlikely possibility to a near certain probability.
2)Virtually all Islamic terrorism is funded with oil revenues from the western oil addicts.
3)Hezbollah and Hamas are almost entirely funded by Iran's excess oil revenue
4)The skyrocketing price for crude oil has provided Iran with a checkbook that cannot be denied. They can buy virtually any nuclear technology they need, along with the best diplomatic blockers money can buy at the UN.
5)Global warming is on a tear, largely because of all the oil and oil byproducts we burn.

Okay, so you wake up tomorrow morning, turn on the TV and discover the Pizzo Air Force leveled Iran's oil terminals and refineries overnight. What happens?

1)The price of oil goes through the roof.
2)Iran retaliates by closing shipping traffic through the Straits of Hormuz by sinkin a couple of tankers and threatening to sink any that try to pass that way. Lloyds of London refuses to insure any shipping in that region.
3)The price of oil climbs again, as do prices at the pump.
4)The US taps the strategic oil reserve. The cost of gasoline and diesel are capped. Gas ration coupons are required and each registered auto limited to 25 gallons a week – about two tank fulls for the average auto. (A lively secondary market for unneeded gas coupons will blossom on eBay.)

Instead of an all out shooting war, Iran and the West would then be locked in a war of attrition. And Iran would blink first. Why? Because, while oil shortages would cause major disruptions in western economies, it would cripple Iran. Iran's entire economy is oil. The West, by comparison, has a diversified economic base that, while slowed to a crawl by lack of oil, will at least crawl along. Cut off Iran's oil revenue and Iran whithers like plant denied water.

At the very time Iran is whithering the West's entrepreneurial nature would flower once cheap oil no longer defeats alternative energy innovations. Even the political rhetoric would shift away from the post-911 nonsense of declaring war against nebulous “terrorism,” to declaring our independence from the oil that funds terrorism. (If you really want to kill someone you don't kick them in the shins, you cut their throat. Our action in Iraq, for example, is an exercise in shin-kicking. Cutting off the flood of oil revenue to the region is going for the the throat.)

Bush was right (for once) when he admitted that we are addicted to oil. But, like any addict, we will only take the cure after we hit rock bottom. Bombing the crap out of Iran's oil fields and terminals would be the quickest way there.

And just look a the benefits:
1)Iran's financial horn of plenty would dry up in weeks. The high-pressure flow of dollars would stop ,and shortly thereafter so too would the millions of dollars Iran sends to Hezbollah and Hamas to make trouble with.
2)Bombing Iran's oil fields would be less costly in human lives than trying to find and bomb Iran's widely dispersed nuclear facilities – and create less environmental damage as well. (It's a lot easier to clean up oil spills than radiation.)
3)Nuclear weapons programs are a horrifically expensive hobby for any country – and far too expensive for a nation that just lost it's sole source of revenue.
4)The West, as well as China and India, would have to immediately stop burning oil like there's no tomorrow, conserving and cutting CO2 emissions so much, so fast that it would the Kyoto Treaty's emission restrictions look like they were written by Exxon.
5)As the West weaned itself off oil the backward nations of the Arab world would face two choices: modernize and liberalize or go back to herding sheep and goats. Either choice would be just fine with us because we no longer have a reason to give a fig about how they choose to live.
6)Finally, it would force the mankind to find cleaner, sustainable energy sources that will never again leave us hostage to hostile, socially and religiously backward folks, whose only claim to fame is they happen to squat over large pools of oil.

This idea is really nothing new coming from me. I outlined the basic premise months ago in my “Don't Do That” national defense policy. ( Oh and bring the troops home from Iraq too, because there'd be nothing there we will need any longer either. Let Iran have Iraq, if they have the taxi fare to get there once they can't sell oil.)

Of course the only way my plan will work is if the West is ready to go cold turkey on it's oil addiction. We will have to some day anyhow. Either we do it now, or we do it later. If we do it now we get to choose the timing. We get to go through our oil withdrawals before Iran has nukes with which they could deliver the ovens of extermination directly to the Jews in Israel – which they would in a heartbeat.

Or we can diddle around some more. We can quit shooting oil anytime we want – right? We'll just wait a bit longer, shoot up a few hundred billion barrels more Middle Eastern oil, foul a few thousand miles more coastline around the world, and who need glaciers anyway? We can kick the habit another day.

But what about a nuclear-armed Iran? An Iran with long range missiles, developed and paid for with money from America's gas pumpers? Is that really as scary as a couple of years of oil withdrawal pain?

I don't know. But I am sure about this much -- one way or the other, we're about to find out.




Stephen P. Pizzo
http://www.stephen.pizzo.com
Email me at: stephen(at)pizzo.com