Thursday, January 25, 2007

January 16- 25, 2007

The GOP's
Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Scam

Traditional conservative, William F. Buckley was once asked how he would describe a “liberal.” He thought for moment, his snake-like tongue darting about just behind open lips, then spoke.

“A liberal is someone who over-waters their house plants.”

Ouch! That hurt. Because he was right. I knew exactly what he meant. Why would a liberal over-water a house plant? Because they were mean? No. Quite the opposite. They were just trying to help. Because liberals are nice people – sometimes too nice. Liberals have over-developed empathy glands. When a liberal tells you he or she “feels your pain,” they mean it -- even if at that particular moment you're not feeling it.

Now, before you jump all over me, I'm a liberal. (Well, a social liberal anyway, though I tend to be more conservative when it comes to things like balancing the federal checkbook.) But on social issues I'm right there – choice for women, equality for everyone and more than a little suspicious about what the domestic Axis of Evil -- corporate/political/media nexus – are up to.

But, just as conservatives always go too far with their proclivities, so too do liberals. And for both, that is always their downfall. We are coming to the end – whew! -- of a conservative cycle and just beginning the next liberal cycle. Be assured, it too will inevitably end in excess. But maybe we can avoid some obvious mistakes early on.

Which is why I am risking the ire of the liberal/progressive community to speak frankly about immigration reform. I know the war in Iraq is currently consuming almost all the available attention – and rightfully so. But there are other festering wounds on America's body-politic that require immediate attention, and one of the biggest is immigration.

But before I put the war aside for a moment, we should all remind ourselves that it took the Democrats were also on the wrong side of that issue – and for way too long. And, though they seem to have now gotten it right, it's too late. The damage is done, and it's irreversible. Simply put, Democrats were snookered, bamboozled and herded like sheep to the slaughter by conservatives on the war.

And now they are now being led to the slaughter again, by the same bunch, on immigration reform.

Yes the Neocons are at it again. On the war they played on Democrat's fear of being seen as sissies. This time Neocons are playing on liberal empathy for the very real plight of illegal immigrants from Mexico. But as laudable as that empathy is, it's a trap and Democrats have taken the bait – again.

By falling in step with the Bush administration's so-called “comprehensive immigration reform,” Democrats are driving a dagger into the hearts of working class Americans, particularly those struggling to survive at the bottom of the income scale. In other words, they are about to screw the very people they claim should vote Democrat because only Democrats will help them.

Four years ago the Neocons sold the Iraq war with a lie... that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now they are selling their version of “comprehensive immigration reform,” with another lie ... that immigrants, legal or otherwise, are simply taking jobs Americans won't do.

Well then how do you explain this story:

Wall Street Journal -- January 17, 2007

Immigration Raid Aids Blacks

After a wave of raids by federal immigration agents in Stillmore, Ga. on Labor Day weekend, a local chicken-processing company called Crider Inc. lost 75 percent of its mostly Hispanic 900-member work force. The crackdown threatened to cripple the economic anchor of this fading rural town.

But for local African-Americans, the dramatic appearance of federal agents presented an unexpected opportunity. Crider suddenly raised pay at the plant. An advertisement in the weekly Forest-Blade newspaper blared "Increased Wages" at Crider, starting at $7 to $9 an hour - more than a dollar above what the company had paid many immigrant workers. The company began offering free transportation from nearby towns and free rooms in a company-owned dormitory near to the plant. For the first time in years, local officials say, Crider aggressively sought workers from the area's state-funded employment office - a key avenue for low-skilled workers to find jobs. Of 400 candidates sent to Crider - most of them black - the plant hired about 200. (Full Story)

So, what happened there? This local Stillmore chicken processing plant had been perking right along for years paying illegals immigrants wages so low it made more sense for American workers right there in town to remain unemployed. But once those those illegals were gone, forcing the company to offer a reasonable wage, local (American) workers stampeded to get a job there. The job hadn't changed. It was the same, dirty, smelly, messy chicken gut-flinging work as before – the kind of work the company claimed “Americans won't do.”

All that changed at the Crider plant were the wages on offer.

And that's what it's all about boys and girls. The entire GOP “comprehensive immigration reform” scam is about wages – specifically keeping US wages low and company profit margins high.

Nevertheless there they are, our Democrats, parroting GOP demands for “comprehensive immigration reform.” Which, if passed would undercut American workers and gut what little is left of union power to negotiate wage and benefits with companies. (“What ya gonna do? You gonna strike? Go ahead, make our day.”)

Oh sharper than serpent's tooth are politicians capable of so casually ditching their tried and true friends of yore. Scroll back up and read that WSJ excerpt again.

Who got jobs once the illegals were herded out of Crider's factory?
Unemployed local African/Americans, mostly.

And where had all those worker been?
Cooling their heels at the Stillmore unemployment office waiting for a job that paid something approximating a livable wage.

And what happened when such jobs were offered?
They stormed the Crider plant to claim one of those jobs the company had claimed “Americans won't do.”

Now, isn't that precisely what Democrats say their party has been fighting for all these decades since the civil rights movement? I thought so. But here we have those same Democrats joining Republicans pushing for this thing they keep calling “comprehensive immigration reform.” Which, if enacted as currently envisioned, would not only put those 200 newly employed Stillmore, Georgia workers back on the unemployment line, but guaranteed that millions more like them remain unemployed.

I do have to amend an early statement. Attributing the Democrat's support for Bush's immigration policies to just empathy is giving them a bit too much credit. While empathy may be part of their motivation, realpolitik plays a big role as well. Democrat's figure Hispanics, as “people of color,” are their's by right. Never mind that the legislation backed by President Bush would screw millions of American citizens of color. The important thing for Democratic Party strategists is to say and do whatever it takes to make sure Hispanics don't vote Republican.

The trouble is that once again Republicans are playing chess and Democrats are playing checkers. While Democrats are simply trying to make their party attractive to Latino voters, Republicans are going for bigger game. Sure the GOP would like to attract Latino voters to their camp, and have had some luck doing so, especially in places like Florida and Texas. But they have a second, bigger and more significant goal: keeping American working class wages low for companies. And the best way to do that is to guarantee the surplus of cheap Mexican labor continues unabated.

And that's where American GOP policy dovetails nicely the needs of Mexicans. No, not the poor Mexicans risking their lives sneaking across the border. The GOP's real friends in Mexico are the handful of oligarch families and monopoly enterprises that have succeeded in rounding up the lion's share of Mexico's wealth for themselves. The porous US/Mexican border serves as a safety valve for those Mexican oligarchs, providing Mexico's poor a alternative to rebellion. Those oligarchs understand all to well that, the day that border is sealed is the first day of the revolution that will end their sweet deal.

All the above is why I have come to believe that liberal/progressives need to get their politically correct heads out of their butts on immigration reform – and fast. Fool them once, shame on the Neocons. Fool them again, shame on the Democrats. What a bunch of suckers! First Democrats let themselves be snookered into voting for the Iraq war and now they are on the verge of being snookered by the same Neocon con-men into voting for “comprehensive immigration reform.” Dems were afraid voting against war would make them look like a bunch of sissies. Now they are afraid that not backing the GOP's “comprehensive immigration reform,” would make them look like racists.

(Sometimes I'm forced to admire how Republicans maneuver Democrats into these kind of rhetorical traps. Think about it. Here are a bunch of lily-white Republicans seemingly embracing the La Raza position on immigration. What are the Democrats to do? If they oppose “comprehensive immigration reform,” they look like a bunch of flag waving, ethnocentric red necks. While Republicans, by backing their version of immigration reform look like --- well, like Democrats. Come on. Admit it. You have to give Neocon strategists a grudging wink for pulling that off.)

While those pushing the current version of “comprehensive immigration reform,” would have us believe that this is a terribly complicated matter, it really isn't. Maybe that's all Democrats need, a simple alternative. Here it is:

Could the US government deploy a simple, online, browser-based, database employers could use to verify the Social Security numbers provided by their employees?

Yes.

Could Congress require the INS/ICE to hire enough workplace auditors to assure that any company with more than ten employees is audited at least once each year?

Could Congress pass legislation authorizing guest-workers that requires companies pay the same wages to guest workers as they would have to pay American workers – you know – the ones they say “don't want those jobs.”

Yes.

Could Congress craft a program for farmers that creates an orderly agricultural guest-worker program?

Yes.

Could Congress put real teeth in laws for employers caught repeatedly hiring illegal workers?

Yes.

Could illegals already living in the US eventually be “normalized?”

Yes – though a teeth-grinding grudging yes. But only after all the above is in place and operating smoothly. And once the fate of all future illegals is immediate deportation. Then, and only then, should those living in the US for at least five years be issued Green Cards. After that they can get in line behind those who followed the rules in the first place.

See. It's really not complicated. And we don't need no stinkin' fence either. All we need is some common sense thinking and common sense rules supported by common sense enforcement – primarily workplace enforcement.

But once again we're confronted by an issue with flabbergastingly enormous implications -- and a completely flummoxed liberal/progressive Democratic Party rushing towards the houseplants with pails of water.

Have a nice weekend, amigos y amigas.

January 16, 2007
New Lies Forward

Well it's a new year, and you know what that means; time to update the administration's list of stated reasons for it's war in Iraq -- why we are there, why we are/must “win,” and why the loss of American lives there is a “price worth paying.”

Whew! Just typing the above sentence exhausted me. I'm so tired from three-plus years of struggling with this administration's full frontal assault on our collective intelligence. Tired of trying to untangle their torqued logic, fractured facts and their Orwellian-ization of our language, our traditions, our laws, our Constitution.

But I must – we all must. Because that beast, now boxed into a canyon of it's own making, is more dangerous today than ever before. Though evermore transparent, their lies have become even bolder. And, even with years of disproved and discarded lies in their wake, far too many Americans – and even the media, seem prepared to once again give them the benefit of the doubt – when doubt itself should by now be the order of the day.

So climb into your haz-mat suits and join me one more time as we descend into the Bush administration's cesspool of excuses, misinformation, disinformation and downright lies.

2007 Syllabus of Iraq War Spinifcation

LIE #1: “When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation,"Bush said in a recent interview. "We thought that these elections would bring Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops. But in 2006, the opposite happened. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate,” The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains Iraqis had made. Al-Qaida terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's election posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis.  ”

Unmitigated hogwash. Bush's version of events airbrushes over the fact that, for at least a year and half before the Golden Mosque bombing, Shiite death squads had been targeting Sunni politicians and clerics for assassination. Blaming the start of sectarian violence in Iraq on the Golden Dome bombing is not the root of the insurgency that now has US troops caught in a crossfire, but an excuse, a smokescreen to obscure the utter and complete bankruptcy of this administration's Iraq adventure.

LIE #2: When asked during his 60-Minute's interview last Sunday if he felt he owed the Iraqi people an apology for botching the management of the war, Bush responded, ``Not at all. ``We liberated that country from a tyrant,'' Bush said. ``I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude.''

Seriously! Let's try the question another way, George. Say I came down to your Crawford ranch – uninvited -- with the self-appointed mission of ridding your ranch of rattle snakes. In the process I kill your horses, mow down your fences, burn down your barn, cut down the power poles to your home and accidentally killed half your neighbors in the process. Then, while I did kill some big rattlers, I seemed to have stirred up nests of the little buggers and now you have more snakes on the plain than ever before. When you suggest I leave, instead I announce I am bringing in more of exterminators, promising this time to finish the job. Would you be reassured? Would you be thankful? Or might you feel that I owe you an apology – not to mention a new horse?

Lie No. 3: Bush also claimed that, “if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America.''

That excuse reminds me of the tale of the kid who murders both his parents then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he's orphan. It was Bush's ill-advised invasion and bloody occupation of Iraq that recruited thousands of fresh anti-American jihadists throughout the Middle East. By any measure America is today on far more terrorist's hit lists than it was before 9/11. More of the same, which is what Bush is proposing, will produce – well, more of the same -- more terrorists, more danger for America. As they say down in Texas, “If ya keep doin' what you been doin' you're gonna keep getting' what ya got.”

What makes this lie so dangerous is that, in the hands of this administration, it's self-perpetuating. The more hostility Bush's bow-legged swagger creates towards America within the Middle East, the more Bush claims the need to fight it. This is what's called “turning a lemon into lemonade,”, “succeeding through failure.” By failing to secure America, this administration can continue to argue that America is in danger.

Lie No 4: In response to threats by Democrats to take a more active role in Iraq-war decision making, bush replied: ``You cannot run a war by committee,'' the vice president said of congressional input.

On really? You mean like the Dick Cheney's, “Office of Special Plans,” did?

Lie No. 5 Bush said: “Members of Congress have a right to express their views, and express them forcefully. But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success.”

Ah..... Earth to George, Earth to George, come in George. There is an alternative... it was called the Iraq Study Group Report, and you tossed it aside without so much as a “howdy do,” and proceeded to do just the opposite of what they suggested. And as for offering a plan that “has a better chance of success,” than yours – that sets the bar pretty low, considering that your plan has, by all accounts, has no chance of success.

Lie No 6: On the threat that Congress might cut off funding for his troop “surge,: Bush replied: ``I fully understand they could try to stop me,'' Bush said of the Democrat-run Congress. ``But I've made my decision, and we're going forward.''

Maybe I slept through civics class, but doesn't the Constitution give the Executive branch only one-third the power necessary to run the country's affairs? The other two-thirds is divided between Congress and the Judicial branches. If Bush really does thwart the will of Congress then he's broken the law, maybe even committed treason – and exposes himself to impeachment. Anyway, even it that were not so, just look where that. “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude has gotten us so far. (Oh, and look where it got a guy who felt the same way about having things his way -- Saddam.)

Lie No. 7: Bush said that, besides surging more troops into Baghdad, he would also send more Marines to Anbar province to fight al Qaeda, which has made the province a home base for it's operations in Iraq. “Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders, and protecting the local population.”

Here's pop quiz George:

Question: How many members of al Qaeda were in Iraq before you invaded four years ago?

Answer: One (1) – al Zaqarwi, and he was in hiding, not from the US, but from Saddam's secret police.

Question: How many al Qaeda fighters are now in Iraq?

Answer: Estimates run between 5000 and 10,000.

So, the next time you hear George use al Qaeda's presence in Anbar province as an excuse for more US troops, remind him that that fact is a self-inflicted wound. And now he's turning that mistake on its head to justify more of the same. Al Qaeda is there because George was kind enough to fly US targets in for them to practice on -- and now he's sending more.

Lie No. 8: Bush claimed on 60-minutes that this time, “This time America will hold the Iraqi government accountable to benchmarks...”

Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha.Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha. Gasp. Ha, ha, ha, ha, oh...my... ah... ha ha, ha.. gasp.. gasp... oh man, that's rich. Especially coming from an administration that hasn't held a single member of its own accountable for mistakes, blunders, lies.

Oh man..where's a bookie taking odds on that actually happening. I need to get some dough down on that one.

Lie No. 9: Bush claims the Iraqi “leaders,” really do “get it” this time. “Their leaders understand this, and they are stepping forward to do it. But they need our help..” Bush claimed.

Do they George? Have you considered this -- that they are just like you, that they “listen” the same way you “listen” to critics? I think so. I think they are exactly like you -- they are bad listeners – but good liars. What the Iraqi “leaders” really understand is that, for the first time in decades, their country, and it's considerable riches, are up for grabs. Which is why we have the Shia, Sunni and Kurds whacking away at it like a giant pinata.

That's all the “leaders” of Iraq understand, George. Oh and they also understand that you're a sucker for a good line. So when they say they “need our help,” what they really mean is “we need you to hold-em while we hit-em.” What they really mean is, “don't pull out your troops until our tribe is in a strong enough position to 'deal with' the other two tribes." Sucker.

Lie No. 10: Failure in Iraq, would empower Iran, which poses a significant threat to world peace," Bush said in an interview aired on CBS's "60 Minutes.”

Too late amigo. Iran has watched your Keystone Cops operations next door in Iraq. And they watched as you snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Afghanistan. And they feel empowered by it all. And now the Iranians also know that, even when you're up against the wall, the best you can do is to scrape up an additional 21,500 troops. They know you've hollowed out America's once robust military, that our troops and reservists are exhausted by repeated deployments, that their gear is piled up in depots awaiting repair or replacement. If the Iranians were ever intimidated by US saber rattlings, they're so over it now, thanks entirely to you.

So, the next time you want to lecture someone on the dangers of “empowering Iran,” go stand in front of a mirror and give that lecture. Because you're clearly the one that needs to hear it.

Oh, and then there's that other boast you made -- warning Tehran that if any Iranians are caught in Iraq "we will deal with them." Ah yes, another “bring-em on,” taunt. The last time you tried that, they did...and still are bringing-em on. Sir, do you have a learning disability?

Lie No. 11: Dick Cheney chimed in on Fox News Sunday: "The threat that Iran represents is growing," Cheney said, in words reminiscent of how he once built a case against Saddam Hussein. "It's multidimensional, and it is, in fact, of concern to everybody in the region." Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, went further when he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the United States was resisting an Iranian effort "to basically establish hegemony" throughout the region.

Let's get this straight once and for all. Whether or not Iran becomes the dominant player in the Middle East is not going to be decided by the US, any more than Iran could determine if the US will continue being the dominant player in the western hemisphere. What US meddling can do though is to make Iran's radicals stronger, not weaker. As for Iran's march towards nuclear weapons, that's not going to change either. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Hell, even Pakistan, a nation where most of the population still lives in 14th century squalor, has nukes and missiles to deliver them.

So what does a nuclear-armed Iran really mean? When Iran gets nukes, all it gets is its own place in the circular firing squad made up of the other nuclear-armed nations, where there's only a single rule -- “one false move and everyone gets it.” It's a sobering reality. There's nothing quite like mutually assured destruction to make a fella think twice, and trice, and more.... before saying “Hey, you! Yeah, I'm talkin' to you. You wanna piece of this?”

Lie No. 12: In an interview before she left on her latest Mideast trip, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described what she called an "evolving" administration strategy to confront "destabilizing behavior" by Iran across the region.

And just what role does Ms. Rice believe the US itself has played in “destabilizing,” the region? What if Iran had, let's say, invaded and occupied Mexico? Might not the US, Canada and much of Central and South America consider such an act a tad threatening? Might they not try, in various ways, to throw monkey wrenches – to “destabilize” -- Iran's efforts to consolidate its hold on Mexico? Would we expect anything less? So why is the administration so “shocked” by Iran's meddling right next door in US-occupied Iraq? Isn't such meddling by Iran like a double “Duh?” Of course it is. But for this administration it's just another self-inflicted wound now being repurposed as justification for more of the same.

Lie No. 13: Bush told 60-Minutes that he got no particular satisfaction from seeing Saddam hang. ``I'm not a revengeful person,'' he said.

Give me a break! We know too much about the Bush family's propensity for vengeance against those they don't like -- or those they once liked but no longer like. Bush family vengeance is legendary.

Lie No. 14: Bush also claimed on "60-Minutes,"``I really am not the kind of guy that sits here and says, 'Oh gosh, I'm worried about my legacy.''

Liar. Protecting your legacy is precisely why you want to send more troops to Iraq -- to insure that the inevitable failure of your policies there does not occur during your term. That way you can claim it was your successor, and/or Congress that screwed up a perfectly good plan. In other words, you care so much about your legacy you are prepared to see more other America family's kids die to protect it. You might call that "prudent." -- I call it premeditated murder.

Ah, but this administration doesn't always lie. Occasionally they speak truth – even if inadvertently.

Truth No. 1: Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday on Fox News how the Iranians "sit astride the Straits of Hormuz" and its oil-shipping channels, how they support Hamas and Hezbollah.

Yes, Dick, it always been about oil, hasn't it? All that blather about WMD and democracy was window dressing. It's always been about oil, Iraq's oil -- Iran's oil, Saudi Oil. That's why the blood of American kids is soaking into the sands of the Middle East. Sure Hamas and Hezbollah are destructive termites, but they're not our termites and they are not chewing away at our house. They chew away at social and financial structures of the Middle East, and only the folks in those countries can exterminate them. And eventually they will have to do just that if they ever want to join the rest of us living in the 21st century.

Furthermore, if, six years ago, this administration had not actively undermined alternative energy research, had not nixed higher millage standards for cars and trucks, and had not shot down the greenhouse gas limits linked to burning oil products... we'd be in a stronger position today to tell the folks of the Middle East – including Hamas and Hezbollah, to go pound sand.

Truth No. 2: The president told 60-Minutes that he watch only part of the Internet-aired video of the execution of Saddam Hussein, which showed some Iraqis taunting Saddam as he stood with a noose around his neck on the gallows. But that he could not watch the final moment, of Saddam plummeting through the trapdoor to his death.

Interesting. You never saw combat yourself, George, or the gore that inevitably follows from war. Yet you have sent thousands of American kids off to war in Iraq to have arms and legs blown off, and say you sleep like baby every night. But you didn't have the stomach to watch the execution of the man you went to war to dethrone. You could not watch even that relatively antiseptic bit of killing. Some warrior President you are. You're admission of this was a rare exposure of your true self. You Sir, are a sissy.

Truth No. 3: In his weekly radio address Saturday, President Bush stated that, “Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people.”

Duh.

One Flew Over
the ....
White House?

The time has come to ask the question:

Can it be that our president is not just wrong, not just stubborn, not just acting on sinister but purposeful motives, but mad as a hatter – in the clinical sense? Is the President of the United States of America, mentally ill?

Ever since Bush's speech Wednesday night I've listened carefully as media analysts and members Congress try to make sense out of what Bush proposed. For Congress the effort comes about four years late. But rather than being relieved to hear them finally asking tough questions, I was left scratching my head. It occurred to me everyone was trying to make sense out something that was demonstrably “sense-less.” Not senseless in just the policy, strategic or moral sense, but senseless as in “insane.” (Hell, Bush not only was saying crazy things Wednesday night, but he even "looked" crazy.)

That thought left me wondering if maybe I was the one that was insane. I mean the implications of that, if true, were terrifying. After all, it's one thing to have guy in the Oval Office who's a crook -- we've been there, done that, and survived. But it's quite another matter to have a certifiable lunatic in that position at a time of war. (Just ask the Germans.)

To find out if there could possibly be a shred of proof for my suspicions I turned off the TV and went online and spent the day searching through the latest psychology papers and texts.

Terms like "crazy" and "insane" are not only loaded, but imprecise. The first thing I needed to do was to narrow it down to a particular, clinically defined, pathology. It turned out that was not an easy matter, because Bush seems to have claims on more than one piece of crazyland real estate. The best I could do was narrow it down to a few leading candidates.

I'll leave you to decide if you think the mental disorders described below define the George W. Bush you've come to know over the past six years. (Words in RED are the characteristics I think apply.)

Disorder: Narcissistic Personality:
A form of pathological narcissistic personality disorder characterized by extreme focus on oneself, and is a maladaptive, rigid, and persistent condition that may cause significant distress and functional impairment. A person suffering from NPD displays:

a grandiose sense of self-importance
is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance
believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
requires excessive admiration
strong sense of entitlement
takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
lacks empathy
is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
an arrogant affect.

Disorder: Delusional:
A delusion is commonly defined as a fixed false belief and is used in everyday language to describe a belief that is either false, fanciful or derived from deception. In psychiatry, the definition is necessarily more precise and implies that the belief is pathological (the result of an illness or illness process.) Delusions typically occur in the context of neurological or mental illness. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.

Diagnosis criteria include:

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

Disorder: Paranoid Personality:
A psychiatric diagnosis that denotes a personality disorder with paranoid features. It is characterized by an exaggerated sensitivity to rejection, resentfulness, distrust, as well as the inclination to distort experienced events. Neutral and friendly actions of others are often misinterpreted as being hostile or contemptuous. Unfounded suspicions regarding the sexual loyalty of partners and loyalty in general as well as the belief that one’s rights are not being recognized is stubbornly and argumentatively insisted upon. Such individuals can possess an excessive self-assurance and a tendency toward an exaggerated self-reference. The use of the term paranoia in this context implies the presence of ongoing, unbased suspiciousness and distrust of people.... A pervasive distrust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack

Disorder: Antisocial Personality:

Is a psychiatric diagnosis recognizable by the disordered individual's impulsive behavior, disregard for social norms, and indifference to the rights and feelings of others. Central to understanding individuals diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder, is that they appear to experience a limited range of human emotions. This can explain their lack of empathy for the suffering of others, since they cannot experience the emotion associated with either empathy or suffering. Risk-seeking behavior and substance abuse may be attempts to escape feeling empty or emotionally void. The rage exhibited by psychopaths and the anxiety associated with certain types of antisocial personality disorder may represent the limit of emotion experienced, or there may be physiological responses without analogy to emotion experienced by others.

So mix and match or pick one. But any and all the above make more sense to me, and explain Bush's decision to escalate and expand the war in Iraq better than anything I've read or heard to date. There is a real possibility, I believe, that we have a clinically insane man sitting in the Oval Office. And, that there are people around him that know it and are using it to further the neocon agenda in the Middle East.

If any of this is true we are in for more trouble -- a lot more trouble. Because, all the clinical blather aside, crazy is, as crazy does.

Monday, January 22, 2007

January 16 - January 21, 2007

The GOP's
Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Scam

January 16, 2007
New Lies Forward

2007 Syllabus of Iraq War Spinifcation

Lie No. 3: Bush also claimed that, “if we do not succeed in Iraq, we will leave behind a Middle East which will endanger America.''

On really? You mean like the Dick Cheney's, “Office of Special Plans,” did?

Lie No. 8: Bush claimed on 60-minutes that this time, “This time America will hold the Iraqi government accountable to benchmarks...”

Lie No. 9: Bush claims the Iraqi “leaders,” really do “get it” this time. “Their leaders understand this, and they are stepping forward to do it. But they need our help..” Bush claimed.

Lie No. 10: Failure in Iraq, would empower Iran, which poses a significant threat to world peace," Bush said in an interview aired on CBS's "60 Minutes.”

Lie No. 13: Bush told 60-Minutes that he got no particular satisfaction from seeing Saddam hang. ``I'm not a revengeful person,'' he said.

Give me a break! We know too much about the Bush family's propensity for vengeance against those they don't like -- or those they once liked but no longer like. Bush family vengeance is legendary.

Lie No. 14: Bush also claimed on "60-Minutes,"``I really am not the kind of guy that sits here and says, 'Oh gosh, I'm worried about my legacy.''

Truth No. 3: In his weekly radio address Saturday, President Bush stated that, “Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people.”

Duh.

One Flew Over
the ....
White House?

The time has come to ask the question:

a grandiose sense of self-importance
is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance
believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by other special people
requires excessive admiration
strong sense of entitlement
takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
lacks empathy
is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
an arrogant affect.

Diagnosis criteria include:

certainty (held with absolute conviction)
incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack

Disorder: Antisocial Personality:

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

January 1 - January 15, 2007

January 8, 2007

Fine Mess You Got Us Into This Time

At the moment all the focus is on what George W. Bush is going to do about the mess he's made of Iraq. But the larger question, looming just over the near horizon, is what we're all going to do about the dark forces Bush's policies in the region have leashed. Middle East politics is not for the faint of heart and certainly not for the faint of mind. Bush can be now safely be counted a member of the ladder. The region is a minefield of historical Pandora's boxes filled with over a thousand years worth of gripes, complaints, insults, offenses- real and imagined – and title reports written on stone, parchment, paper and computers -- none of which agree with the others, but all of which claim ownership to the same pieces of blood-soaked sand.

Bush's reckless policies in Iraq kicked open dozens of those Pandora boxes releasing demons that will, over the years ahead, try to force their own long-stifled, but never forgotten, claims and agendas. And if you think Iraq is a mess, just wait. While things in Iraq have reached a high-boil, below are just some of the other pots now simmering on the back burners, working their own way towards full boil.

Iran:
Oil: A senior Iranian officer warned just yesterday that if the West continues to threaten Iran's economy over its nuclear program, Tehran will discontinue the flow of oil via the Strait of Hormuz. Something just over 40% of the world's oil is transferred through those straits. Which explains why the Pentagon has just positioned two aircraft carriers supported by large carrier groups, just outside the straits. Okay. But Iran is armed with new state-of-the-art Russian “Sunburn” anti-ship missiles. These supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, have been called "the most lethal missile in the world today." The Sunburn has a talent that makes it particularly useful against carrier groups. It's on-board computer can distinguish between support ships and carriers, and can be programed to ignore decoys and other ships and make a bee-line to the take out the carrier. It only takes one Sunburn missile to sink an entire carrier. Imagine that! This is a set up for a Gulf of Tonkin -- times 1000.

Nuclear Weapons: Bush attacked Iraq on the pretext it was developing nuclear weapons, but didn't lay a glove on North Korea which already had nukes and was building more. By so doing Bush taught Iran a valuable lesson: “Hurry up!” And that's precisely what they're doing, and precisely why the Iranians refuse to pause their deadly R&D to talk about it. Iran figures that once it has an handful of nuclear weapons mounted on their new long-range missiles, no one, including Israel, would to dare take a swing at them. Then they'll talk -- if they feel like it.

Finally, George W. accomplished what previous Iranian governments could not – he got rid of Saddam's Sunni-dominated Iraq and replaced it with an Iran-friendly Shiite government. Over the next few months Iraq will slowly settle into an orbit around Iran. Which, ironically brings us full circle. Once under Iran's wing, Iraq will really have access to weapons of mass destruction - Iran's.

Israel:
Over the weekend London papers reported that Israel has been training a special unit to attack Iran's underground nuclear facilities with nuclear-tipped bunker busting bombs. Because Israel understands that once Iran has nukes Israel's clout and deterrent value as the region's sole nuclear power would be weakened, even nullified. So the clock is ticking. Israel's intelligence service estimates Iran will have a functioning nuke sometime between now and early 2009 -- and the Israelis are not likely to let that happen -- without at least trying to stop it. And to stop would require the first use of nuclear weapons in over 60-years. The fall out – physical and political – from such an attack, while incalculable, can't be good.

Syria:
As the US gives up on trying to bring Iraq's Sunnis into the political process, throwing US weight behind the Shiite-dominated Iraqi government, Syria will be watching. Syria is 74% Sunni, and will not stand by idly while Shiite's slaughter their Iraqi cousins. Nor will Syria allow it's eastern regions to become one giant Iraqi-Sunni refugee camp. Instead Syria will supply arms, money and fighters to Iraqi-Sunni insurgents.

This will not amuse Iran, which has had an unnatural marriage of convenience with Syria thanks to Lebanese tribal politics. Both Iran and Syria oppose Lebanon's current western-leaning government. Both would like to see it fall. But that's where the mutuality ends. Syria sees Lebanon the same way Iraq saw Kuwait – as a historical hunk of Syria. On the other hand Iran sees Lebanon as the capstone of an emerging Shia crescent, extending east-northwest across the Middle East and controlled from Tehran.

To further it's goals Iran has been funding and arming Shiite-Hezbollah in Lebanon. And to further it's goal of destabilizing the current anti-Syrian government in Lebanon, Syria has been allowing Iran to use Syria as a trans-shipment point for money and arms to Hezbollah's fighters in Lebanon. Syria's hope is that Hezbollah will cause so much trouble in Lebanon that the Lebanese people will beg for Syrian troops to return order to the country. Iran hopes Hezbollah will simply take over Lebanon thereby adding it to Iran's charm bracelet, right next to it's newest trinket -- Iraq.

Once Hezbollah has Lebanon in the bag, Iran will have a new assignment for them -- destabilize the Syria. The Assad regime is, by most accounts, weak and, while majority Sunni, Syria would find it hard to resist a well-financed campaign by disciplined, battle hardened Hezbollah fighters. And it's the prospect of just that, Iran's proxy army, Hezbollah, in control of Syrian territory, that makes Israel so unwilling to returning the Golan Heights to Syrian control. Israel isn't worried about being attacked by Assad's Syria, but by a Hezbollah/Iranian Syria -- a Syria under the influence of nuclear-armed friends in Iran.

Turkey:
While all this mayhem is going on to their south, Iraqi Kurds will be busy too. First they will drive any remaining Sunnis and Shiites out of oil-rich Iraqi-Kurdistan. Then, with their own source of revenue from oil, the ambitious and competent Kurds will be on a roll. Iraqi-Kurdistan is already the only part of Iraq that's functioning like a normal society. Once Kurds get the Shiite bureaucrats in Baghdad out of their hair they will consolidate their hold, declare their independence and press the west for recognition – which they probably will deserve, and would get.

But it won't end there. Turkey has been fighting with Kurdish PKK separatists for decades and an independent Kurdistan right next door will send the Turks into a mouth-foaming fit. Iran won't like it either. Because both Iran and Turkey have Kurds living in the regions that will boarder this new Kurdistan. And both Turkish and Iranian Kurds will begin demanding that their respective regions be allowed to join the new Kurdistan. This dynamic would produce a new marriage of convenience, this time between Turkey and Iran, both determined to destabilize new Kurdistan. The goal of the Turks would be to put an end, once and for all, to the Kurdish separatists, Iran's goal would be that plus the return northern oil fields to Iraq's new Shia owners. Of course the Kurds will not go quietly – not the Kurds in new Kurdistan, nor the Kurds in Turkey or Iran. Turkey's actions will further threaten that country's bid to join the EU, providing fuel for Turkey's own Islamic militant movement.

UPDATE:

TURKEY MAY TAKE UNPREDICTABLE MOVES

Yerkir
08.01.2007 16:42

YEREVAN (YERKIR) - In 2007, the Near East will still be in the
limelight of the world policy, since it's the very place where the
interests of the West with the United States at the head contact
with the Islamic world split into Shiism and Sunnism, director of
the Institute of Oriental Studies at the RA Academy of Sciences,
Dr Ruben Safrastyan told a reporter. In his opinion, the U.S. may
lose control over Iraq thus boosting the possibility of large-scale
armed collision between sunnits and shiits supported by Saudi Arabia
and Iran respectively.

On the other hand, further escalation of conflicting zones in Palestine
and Lebanon, struck by bloody battles last year, is also possible.

Tension over the Iranian nuclear program is predictable as well. "We do
not rule out that the U.S. may deal a blow on Iran's nuclear facilities
and this will be the worst scenario pregnant with catastrophic
consequences," Safrastyan said adding that the domestic situation
in Turkey that tends to involve the army in politics may lead to
unpredictable moves taken by the state in the region, specifically
in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"All this gives to understand that the U.S. program on
"democratization" and "stabilization" in the Near East so much
advertised by the Bush administration has actually failed," he
underscored.

Saudi Arabia:
The Saudis are Sunnis – Wahhabi-Sunnis. (You could say that Wahhabi Muslims are Muslims in the same way LDS Mormons are Christians.) The Saudis are very worried by Iran's plans for a Shia crescent surrounding and isolating them. Therefore, any where that Shia/Sunni conflicts break out around them, the super-rich Saudis will become financiers of Sunni resistance and terror. That in turn will make Saudi Arabia's oil facilities target No. 1 for Shia fighters. That in turn would put the west's supplies of Saudi oil at risk. Should major disruptions occur -- and with that much trouble going on around them it's hard to imagine they won't be -- the US and NATO would have to step in to protect Saudi pumping, pipeline, storage, refining and port facilities. Of course the introduction of "Crusader" troops on Saudi terroritory, home to Mecca, would only further infuriate and mobilize fundamentalist Muslims.

Egypt & Jordan:
The only other Arab nations in the region besides Lebanon that want to be part of the 21st, rather than the 12th, century, will find themselves right in the middle of the Shiite/Sunni crossfire. The Muslim Brotherhood - Egypt's version of Hezbollah -- is already making trouble. And the relatively enlightened leader of Jordan, King Abullah, willl find himself under attack from those in the region that see him as an America/Israeli patsy. Any serious destablization of either Egypt or Jordan would serve only to put already edgy Israelies more on so. And and edgy Israeli is a dangerous Israeli.

Palestine:
The only net winners in all this, besides of course the Iranians, may be the Palestinians. With so much real trouble brewing all around them, Israelis would likely be forced to release their grip on the Palestinians and most of the West Bank. They would have to do so first to free up military resources to confront the real threats around them. And second, in the hopes that giving the Palestinians most of what want they will reduce Arab resistance to Israel and undermine Hamas. Finally, getting the Palestinian issue behind them would, Israel would hope, gain them support from European nations and, more importantly, military alliances.

Europe:
As all hell breaks loose throughout the Middle East, Europe's Muslim refugees will surge. These refugees will flee to Europe in search of safe refuge, not in for “freedom,” or because of a thirst for western-style “democracy.” Muslim refugees will arrive in Paris, London, Brussels and Berlin with all the tribal baggage and religious self-righteous nonsense that fueled the violence back home. This will spark the same kind of debate in Europe about border security and immigration reform as we are having here in the US -- only with much greater urgency and passion. That will spark street riots throughout Western Europe as Muslim immigrants demand Europeans change their laws to respect Islamic religious doctrine and “rights.” When non-Muslim Europeans say no, conditions will be perfect for jihadist organizers, resulting in the same kind of terrorism in European cities that drove the refugees from their own countries in the first place. (One thing you can always predict about religious fundamentalists, and that's that they always crap in their own mess kits eventually.)

The USA:
Bush will try his surge idea, and it might even meet one of the goals – to bring some degree of law and order to Baghdad. This is what I call the “Fantasy Island Strategy.” If successful Baghdad will become like Kabul in Afghanistan, an island of relative peace surrounded by boiling seas of violence. The calm in Baghdad would create a face-saving pretext for US withdrawal. That would leave Iraq firmly in the hands of Iran-supported Shiites. And, unlike US forces, the Shiites will have no qualms about doing what ever it takes to “pacify” Sunni insurgents.

Meanwhile, back in the USA, even the interest-only payments due on the half a trillion dollars Bush borrowed to fight the war in Iraq will begin pinching domestic spending. And the cost of the war won't end there. It's estimated the cost of caring from veterans seriously wounded Iraq War veterans for the rest of their maimed lives, will run the ultimate tab well past a trillion dollars.

That bill will come due at the very moment millions of Baby Boomers – this one included -- retire and show up at the Social Security to collect what's due them. There are 78 million Boomers, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, making up more than 25 percent of the population. An estimated 7,918 Boomers will turn 62 each day in 2008 – or 330 an hour. The SS trust fund balance will peak in 2009 and then begin to drop precipitously. By 2014 it will have declined by $60 billion--more than half its peak value. A few years later the system will begin paying out more than it takes in.

This, at a time when GW Bush doubled the national debt, for about $4 trillion to over $8 trillion by slashing taxes and starting a couple of wars on the financed with IOUs. Inflation, stagflation and devaluation of the dollar will whack Americans upside the head at some point when those IOUs come home to roost. (Devaluaton has already begun.)

I only mention all this because everyone seems to be talking about how Iraq will be George W. Bush's legacy, and that's just plain wrong. Iraq will be part of George W. Bush's legacy, but only part. The rest of his legacy will play out in the years and decades after Bush leaves office. Because, when he invaded Iraq he didn't free the Iraqi people, as he likes to now claim. He freed a thousand years of ethnic/religious/tribal demons. And while these demons may not be the Horsemen of the Apocalypse, it'll sure feel like they are.

January 4, 2007

White House Chess

The Washington media spent the holidays trying to guess what the President's new plan for Iraq might be. Meanwhile in the back rooms of the White House Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff, Josh Bolten were doing what any world-class chess player does when facing defeat -- plot a series of aggressive moves to throw their opponent off balance in the hopes of regaining the initiative.

How do I know this? Well, since God only talks to Rev. Pat Robertson – and, when He can't get through to Pat, George W. Bush – I didn't get it from Him. No it came to me in this news flash late yesterday:

Washington, D.C. - As President Bush prepares a new statement and stance on the war in Iraq, his cabinet is once again in the midst of transition. In the latest change, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte will resign to become deputy secretary of state, according to a government official....The shift, while seemingly abrupt, will allow Negroponte to return to his former career path as a diplomat. Negroponte will serve under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

It was that last line that gives away the strategy. “Negroponte will serve under Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.”

Never! Negroponte quits as head of one of the most important and powerful posts in government, a job that puts him face to face with the President of the United States every morning, of everyday of the week, to accept a position as Rice's assistant?

Fat chance.

So what's up? Here's what I think is up -- and if I were Bush I would be itching to get on with the game.

Move 1: Announce what the administration knows will be a very unpopular decision to send more troops to Iraq.

Move 2: Let the Democrat-controlled Congress throw a fit and hold hearings the administration knows will stir up additional opposition and shake loose new damning information on the administrations march to war and mismanagement of that war.

Move 3: Just when all the above is hitting the fan, Dick Cheney announces he is retiring from office early due to “health concerns," and because he does not want to be "a distraction" when he is called to testify in purjury trial of his former No. 2. Scooter Libby.

Move 4: The next day Bush announces he will nominate Condoleezza Rice to replace Cheney.

Move 5: At the same time Bush announces he is nominating Negroponte to replace Rice as Secretary of State.

The above series of moves makes political sense on so many levels that I consider it inevitable. Think about it:

For Cheney: By all reports, Cheney has been sidelined within the administration. No longer being a major player – actually the major player -- is so NOT Dick Cheney. If he can't run the show, he's not interested. Also, leaving before the end of Bush's final term would put some daylight between Cheney and the shoddy Bush legacy -- not a lot of daylight, but a lot more than if Cheney stays until January 2009.

For Bush: Appointing the first woman and the first African American to the vice presidency, Bush knows, would put him in the history books for something besides the mess his war has made out of the Middle East. By appointing Rice VP he would lock in for all history his place as the first US President to have a female and black as his No. 2 -- an historical “two-fer.”

For Rice: As an academic by vocation Rice knows better than Bush how historians rank the achievements – and failures -- of public figures. If appointed VP she would no longer go down in history as simply the White House National Security Advisor who signed off on Bush's fictional Iraqi WMD. Instead her bio would lead with the fact that she became America's first woman and first black to hold this high office. So, whether Rice leaves government service in 2009, or decides to run for President, departing as a sitting Vice President would be a personal, professional, poilitical and financial asset of immeasurable value.

For Negroponte: This man is the quintessential Machiavellian. His entire career juggling international hot potatoes working his way towards one day becoming Secretary of State:

Ambassador to Honduras (1981 - 1985)
Ambassador to the UN (2001 - 2004)
Ambassador to Iraq (2004 - 2005)

And, at this point in his long career he sure as hell isn't interested in serving as anyone's No. 2. Negroponte's appointment as the first Director of National Intelligence was an aberration in a career otherwise entirely dedicated to diplomacy. Being appointed Secretary of State would be his crowning moment. Though he'd hold the job for just two years, it promises to be a very eventful two years. And, when he leaves office, for the rest of his life, and even in death, he will be “Mr. Secretary.”

But wait – there's more. There are the huge macro-political benefits that would accrue to the administration from this series of chess moves.

First, when the public turns against an administration, as it has against this one, there's nothing like a high-profile personnel shake up to kindle hope – false or otherwise.
Cheney's departure would be met by an enormous sigh of relief by all but a handful of die-hard neocons and brain-dead Red State voters.
Negorponte's long career as a diplomat would also be a relief since, for the first time since Bush took office an actually diplomat is in charge at State – a guy who knows how to wheel and deal with other wheeler-dealers – a guy who, instead of shooting first and talking later, actually prefers to talk first.
The appointment of Rice to VP would give the GOP bragging rights in 2008, inevitably sapping some number of African American and women voters away from Democrats to the GOP.
Finally, Cheney's history of heart trouble may have been a risk worth taking when an untimely departure had Dennis Hassert two heart beats away from the Presidency, but not now that it's Democrat Nancy Pelosi. A VP with a good ticker is now a must.

Now let's look back at Move 1, because it's the key to all that would follow.

An audio tape of Lyndon Johnson speaking to aides in the Oval Office in early 1966 has Johnson admitting that the Vietnam war was unwinnable and that he'd love to figure how to get out. But, he quickly added that there would be no American military defeat on his watch.

A look at the casualties on the day of that early 1966 conversation is instructive; the US had lost just a over 3000 troops in Vietnam. But, instead of ending a war he knew could not be won, Johnson “surged.” (Actually they used the right term in those days, “escalation.”)

In that same conversation Johnson worried out loud that, "if Congress knew what I know, they'd cut off funding," for the war.

By the end of 1966 killed in action casualties were over 5000. The next year over 14,000 more died. Ten years after that conversaton 57,000 additional US soldiers were dead, and it was left to Gerald Ford to accept reality and bring all remaining US troops home.

Bush, like Johnson, now knows he can't “win” in Iraq. But, like Johnson, Bush is ready to sacrifice more American soldiers to insure history does not record a US military defeat on his watch. Which is why, like Johnson and then Nixon after him -- Bush will buy time by escalating – (or a “surging,” as he prefers to call it.)

Lyndon Johnson was in his first elected term and could have run for reelection. Instead he decided to bail out and leave the mess in Vietnam to his successors. Bush, in his second term, can't run again any that makes his task a bit more dicy than Johnson's. Bush needs to buy time -- 24 months to be precise -- in order to pass the burn onto his successor.

But simply escalating by sending more troops won't guarantee him that extra time. Congress is no longer in GOP hands, so there are uncertainties. Bush knows he is going to be under intense political fire to get out of Iraq before he leaves office. And, as a former fighter jet pilot, Bush knows how to divert fire by dispensing chaff. And what better chaff than tossing Dick Cheney to waiting sharks, annoiting Condoleezza Rice Vice President and putting Negroponte, a career diplomat and consummate inside player, at the helm of State.

All this is just a guess, mind you. But keep a keen eye on the players on the board, because checkmate is still avoidable. The strategy begins with that first move – pushing more pawns – US soldiers – into harms way. Then sacrificing the Queen to relief pressure on the King. Finally moving the Rook into a blocking position.

In chess it's called “Castling” And it's all about protecting the King when all else has failed.

In this administration it's called, the politics of distraction. And it's worked remarkably well for them up to this point.

This just in

Bush quietly authorizes opening of Americans' mail

WASHINGTON - President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the New York Daily News has learned.The president asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.

(Full Story)

January 1, 2007
HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Predictions for 2007

The War: Jenna & Barbara Bush will not be part of their dad's troop surge. Ditto for any member of the Cheney clan.

The War: With polls showing support for the war in Iraq down to a paltry 11%, Democrats will decide it's almost safe to openly oppose it too.

The War: Iraqi Shiites, aligned with Iran, win the civil war. Iraq's Sunnis get to learn what it was like to be a Shiite when Sunnies ran Iraq. The Kurds go their own whey. (Sorry...)

Religion: Evangelical congregations will enact new rules requiring their ministers to wear GPS tracking devices when not within clear sight or in the pulpit.

Religion: The Pope will issue an encyclical ordering that, henceforth, altar boys must be at least 18-years of age.

Religion: Mel Gibson releases a new documentary entitled, “Jews: Can't live with them, can't have an apocalypse without them.”

New Arrivals: Lynn Cheney will claim that the grandchild born to the her lesbian daughter is only the second immaculate conception in human history.

Immigration: Real reform? Forget about it.

Career Changes: Donald Rumsfeld, encouraged by the fawning chuckles from the Pentagon press corp over the years, launches a career in stand up, appearing at the Comedy Club filling the gap left by Michael Richards.

Genocide: The United Nations announces that it would love to help those being slaughtered in Sudan, but can't because it's like REALLY dangerous there right now. Besides, no one has figured out how to wring bribes out of dirt-poor Sudanese refugees.

Hillary Clinton: After John Edwards and Barak Obama defeat her in the primaries, Hillary blames “a vast, male-dominated, left-wing conspiracy and pens a new book entitled, “Testosterone: The Real WMD?”

Bill Clinton: It takes nearly a year for Bill to realize Hillary had divorced him. He finds out only after discovering the divorce papers stuffed under his living room sofa by his former National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger.

Donald Trump and Rosie O'Donnell: Are named defendants in a class action brought by “Everyone else.” The court orders The Donald and Rosie to, “Immediately, and without further delay, shut the f—k up,” and enjoins the pair from “speaking on radio or appearing on television for the rest of their unnatural lives.” Attorneys for plaintiff's announced the court's decision in a brief statement: “Ladies and gentlemen, our long national nightmare is finally over.”

Michael (AKA, Kramer) Richards: Discloses that DNA tests confirm he is a direct decedent of “Eve.” (the name given to the fossilized remains found in South Africa of the oldest recorded humanoid. “This means I am part n----- myself. I feel your pain, man.” Richards said, raising his fist in the traditional black power salute. “I always said I was a Hebe,” Richards added. “But I had no idea I was a member of the lost tribe – an African Hebe. ---- Hey guys -- don't tell Mel, okay?”

New Year Resolutions

I'm convinced that not a single person on earth has ever, or will ever, actually keep a New Years resolution. New Years resolutions serve the same function as confession does for Catholics -- to confession – to cleanse our consciences and make ourselves feel that we really are the kind of persons we'd like to believe we are -- but of course are highly unlikely ever to become.

So this year I will pass on making any resolutions about how I will reform my reprobate ways in the coming year. Instead I want to catch up responding to emails I just discovered had been filtered to “Junk” by my ever-helpful email program:

To: Mr. Opupoo, Former Minister of The Bank of Nigeria.
Subject: $80 million urgent good help pleaze

Out of Office Reply. I will be out until January 5. I will respond to your message as soon as I get back.

Sincerely,
FBI Special Agent Stefano Pizrato

To: Danial McMannus, Phd, DDS, DVM, OBGYM
Subject: Size matters

Thank you so much for your kind offer to help me with “my embarrassing problem.” But I don't suffer from any “embarrassing problems.”

First, at 61, I've reached a point in life where nothing embarrasses me any more. Also, I have ask, just why would “enhancing” the size of that particular part of me improve someone's life in the first place? Wouldn't it be better if you developed a drug that would increase the size of people's brains instead? After all, the world is over-populated, so the standard issue gear appears to be doing the job, and then some, and is in no need of further "enhancement." Instead what's clearly lacking is collective I.Q. When you come up with a pill that enhances human brains, give me a call, I'll be your first sales rep.

To: Classmates.com
Subject: Reconnect with high school friends.

You're kidding, right? For anyone that grew up to become a normal, well-balanced adult, high school memories are the last thing we'd care to revisit. If Human Rights Watch ever studied what high school does to a kid's self esteem they would declare high schools a violation of the Geneva Convention -- which, among other things, clearly prohibits "degrading treatment and humiliation of captives."

There are, of course, a tiny minority of Americans for whom high school represented the social/emotional/self esteem high-water mark of their lives. You know, the lead cheerleaders, the football team quarterbacks, the prom queens and kings and, of course, the class whore. They were the “in-crowd,” during high school. But that was it for them. Within a week of graduation they tumbled right off a cliff into a pit of obscurity and quiet desperation.

I only attended one high school reunion, my 25th, and found this to be true. For four years, between 1960 and 1964, they were the most admired, the most feared, the most pursued members of the the student body. They were stars, surrounded by a constellation of sycophants and adoring fans. Twenty five years later they were fat, and/or bald, divorced, remarried, divorced again and stuck in jobs a lab monkey could perform just a well, maybe better.

So, classmates.com, why would I want to pay you to reconnect me with those people? They didn't like me back then, and I don't like them now. When I was in school with them they wouldn't give me the time of day. Now they just want to sit at my reunion table, name tag and all, blubbering over a glass cheap wine about how their ex-wife (husband, kids, parents, inlaws and/or the law) took them to the cleaners and ruined their life.

So, please take me off your email list, will ya? Every time I get one of your emails intrusive visions of jocks in varsity sweaters swagger through my mind.

Thanks
Steve

To: Comcast Cable
Subject: Telephone Service Offer

Let me get this straight. You guys want to provide my telephone service now too? "Voice over Internet Protocol," – yes I am familiar with it. But why should I consider switching to Comcast for my phone service? I am already being over-charged by AT&T and Cingular. Why let you in on that money too?

Oh sure, I see your low teaser rate for phone service. But you guys always promise you'll save me money, but never have. You promised me big savings when I switched from Dish Network to Comcast cable and, for three months I did save money. Then the truth sunk in; your teaser rate was just the KY jelly to get me ready for the screwing you're administering to me now. Today my combined Comcast bill for the cable TV and Internet services has soared to $156.00 a month. And I just read you're fixing to nail me with another rate increase.

So, no way Jose on your VOIP phone service. I'm sticking with my current over-priced phone services. Since either way I get screwed, I want to spread the joy around a bit.

Oh, one more thing. Stop calling me on my traditional phone and cell lines trying to get me to switch to your phone service because your sevice “is better.” Better than what? You seem to reach me on my current phones every night around dinner time. All that proves is that my existing phone services are working just fine -- maybe too well.

Sincerely Yours, Comcastically screwed
Steve

To: Internet Hall Monitors
      Subject: Your criticism(s)

I did not realize that writing a blog was an open invitation to that small but annoying breed of anal retentive that, during our grammar school years, we knew as “hall monitors.” They are the Dudley Dorights of life. The little Ms. Prim and Propers, who shamelessly ratted on the rest of us, admonished us for slamming our locker doors, ordered us not to run in the hall and invariably raised their clean little hands at 2:59 PM every Friday to remind the teacher she'd forgotten to assign homework for the weekend.

Today they ... (and you know who you are,) have moved past simple anal retentiveness to full-blown Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD.) Deprived of school hallways to police they now scour blogs, not seeking useful and illuminating content, but in search of bad grammar, misspellings and punctuation fauxpas.  When an error is found, they shoot off an email, virtually dripping with condescension, pointing out the mistake and rubbing the offender's nose in the proper  spelling/punctuation/usage/syntax.

(The only thing I remember from English class was a teacher's advice on the use of comma's -- “When in doubt, leave it out.” Well, I'm always in doubt. Now that's what I call useful information!)

Anyway, as a serial offender, I would like to begin 2007 by addressing the concerns of these hall monitors who have contacted over the past couple of years about the literary minefield which is – and shall remain -- my blog:

 Bite me. 

Sinseriously
Stve

To: All Flavors of the Devout
Subject: Butt out.

I have a deal for religious fundamentalists out there who keep emailing to warn that I'm on the path to Hell. I know. And I'm alright with that, so you should be too. I am not hurting anyone else so what's the issue? I just don't share your superstition of choice. I also don't believe in astrology, but astrologist's don't bug me about it. And that's the way it should be.

I've asked you to leave the rest of us alone. Still, you persist. You show up at my door, uninvited. You mess with my government, our laws, our courts, our schools, even our doctors.

So I have a deal to offer you in the coming year.

Your side of the deal:

Worship as you please, at your home, your mosque, church, synagogue or temple -- and leave the rest of us alone to live as we wish.

Our side of the deal:

In return for leaving the rest of us alone, we won't revoke your church's free-ride federal and state tax-exemptions.

How's that for a win/win situation?

Your move.

Saint Stephen of The Bleeding Heart
(My liver and pancreas are probably in rough shape as well.)

Happy New Year everyone. At least we can hope.
Steve

Just Say NO
To a Troop Surge

Enough. Enough, enough, enough! Enough with the spin and re-spin. Enough with slandering those who question this abortion of a war. And enough with the war itself. The time to put a stop to this madness was long ago. But we didn't. Instead we allowed a clutch of half-mad fundamentalists unleash a bloody, unless, un-winnable war that's killed maybe hundreds of thousands. A war that has become an insatiable black hole that sucks in more lives every day.

Now the President, and his shrinking circle of fellow travelers, want to send up to 35,000 additional US troops into that black hole. He will also ask Congress for a couple of hundred billion more dollars (we don't have) to pay for two more years of war.

Enough! We should have said enough, meant it, and forced it long ago. But today is all we have, and today is a far better day than tomorrow, to say it, “enough already!”

To Democrats, like Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, I say, get with it or get the hell out of the way. You've hidden behind your triangulated, mealy-mouthed, obfuscated, do-nothing, take-no-risks, non-positions for too long. And, to our shame, we have allowed you to get away with it. Enough of that too.

The time has come for Democrats to do something for change, to stand for something, for a change. We are onto your dodge, you excuses, which can be summarized something like this:

“Sure I voted to give the President permission to attack Iraq. But I did so only to give him negotiating power. I didn't think he would really do it. And I sure didn't vote for the kind of incompetence we've seen in conducting the war.”

Oh, how tidy. How minced. How nauseatingly weaselly. That vote was four years ago. Where the hell have you been since? That vote was 2951 dead US GI's ago. Since Democrats and Republicans in congress has voted over $350 billion in funding to facilitate that deadly incompetence. So shut up with that crap, Hillary. You and Democrats like you, have your own penance to do, your own crow to choke down, your own shame to shoulder. And the best way to begin is to learn how to say, “enough!”

That's what voters said in November, “enough!” Our vote putting Democrats back in control of Congress, was not a vote for anything. It was a vote against this war. It was not a vote for “Hillary for President,” it was a vote against the current occupant of that office.

The time has come for those of you elected to congress last November to act. The day you raise your hands and are sworn into office this January the very first thing you must do – Nancy Pelosi – is to say "enough!" You need to stop this war, stop it dead in its bloody tracks. And, no, Nancy, that can't wait 100 hours until you raise in the minimum wage. In fact, we can wait for every item on your first 100 hours to-do list, Ms. Pelosi. What we can't wait one day longer for is for congress to say, “enough” to this war. No more continuing resolutions. No additional funds for a “surge” of troops to Iraq. Enough! The only money the administration should get for Iraq is just enough to pay for a safe and orderly extraction of US troops out of Mad Max Iraq.

Below is a chart every member of congress should have stapled to their forehead until they get it. It shows that, when it comes to fighting an indigenous insurgency, sending more troops is simply feeding the beast. As you can see in January 1965 Lyndon Johnson was at precisely the same juncture as George W. Bush finds himself today. The US had 180,000 troops fighting Communist Viet Cong insurgents in Vietnam, and we were losing. Johnson's choices, like Bush's now, were limited; withdraw or add troops. To Johnson, Texan like Bush, withdrawal meant defeat and he was not about to stand for that on his watch. So he added troops – a lot of troops – another 360,000 troops. (See chart below.)

We all know how that turned out. Still, even to this day, die-hard right-wingers will tell you that we didn't lose that war, but forfeited it. That politicians in Washington “tied the hands of our military.”

Excuse me. Tied whose hands? We had B-52's carpet bombing North Vietnam, air tankers defoliating thousands of square miles of rain forest, free-fire zones in which anything that moved, man, woman, child or water buffalo, was shot dead, entire villages were napalmed. I'd hate to see what those right-wingers consider “unhindered” warfare.

I only mention that because that's what we will hear from those now in favor of sending more troops to Iraq. They will argue that we have not fought in Iraq as though it was a real war, and that's precisely what we must do now. And, that if we do send more troops, we can still “succeed.”

Hello. Earth to morons. Vietnam is a smaller country than Iraq -- 325,360 sq km compared to Iraq's 432,162 sq km. We poured over half a million troops into that smaller country -- far more troops than we could muster today -- and we still couldn't gain the upper hand over those insurgents. Nevertheless we are about to be asked by this an administration -- an administration with a unbroken record of failure -- to give them one more crack at it. They want us to accept the unlikely premise that, if we just let them increase US troop strength in Iraq to something around 165,000, we could still “succeed.”

Do the math. Vietnam, 325,360 sq km/560,000 US troops - and we lost. Iraq, 100,000 sq km bigger, 165,000 US troops -- and they say we can "succeed." What nonsense. Utter, nonsense. Deadly nonsense.

So, members of congress, “enough,” okay? It's arrived -- the time to put a end to the madness now – right now. Not two years from now, not four months from now, not 100 hours from now. But now. We want it stopped and stopped immediately.

Clue to Harry Reid: Harry, Harry, Harry. After all that's happened, and with all that's happening, what were you thinking last Sunday when you said on Face The Nation, “Yes, I could support a surge, if it's for a short period....” Harry, when we hear you say things like that, at this point, we want to just reach right through our TV screens and give you the mother of all dope slaps. Jeezus man. Talk about a flat learning curve. What were you thinking?

As I wrote a few weeks ago, the ball in Congress' court now. It's simple and you in congress will no longer be able to sidestep it. "He who pays the piper calls the tune.” Congress pays the piper. And what additional proof does congress need that this piper is mad as a hatter?

Which is why we demand begin the new year by calling an entirely new, and long overdue, tune. “Enough!” No more. Not one more dime. Not one more bullet. Not one more US soldier. Not one more life of an American's precious son, daughter, mother or father for Iraqis who can't kill one another fast enough, or with enough brutality.

Oh, one more thing. If you in congress fail us – again --- we will remember when we see your name on the ballot in less than two years. Last November we told you what we wanted with our vote. Stop the madness now, or come November '08 it'll to you we say, “basta!”

News For Real