July 16-July 26, 2006

July 25, 2006

Calling All Europeans


Sixty years ago the US helped Europe defeat fascism. Then we spent billions, through the the Marshall Plan, to put a devastated Europe back on its feet. After that we spent a few trillion bucks over the next half century protecting Europe from Soviet expansionism.

Sixty one years later, Europe is stronger than ever, socially and economically. Like Japan, postwar Europe was spared the lion's share of their own defense allowing them to pour resources into their own economies and to provide their citizens with better social services than most Americans can every dream of having. (Did someone say national health insurance?)

Today Europe is united, literally, and growing eastward. Muslim Turkey, already a member in (reasonably) good standing of NATO, is also in line for membership in the European Union. And, Germany, once the European neighborhood's resident bully, has become the continent's leading peacenik.

Why do I feel it necessary to mention all this?

Because, it's Europe's turn.

The West “won” the Cold War by stubbornly adhering to a strategy of containment. The rules of the game were clear and the lines not to be crossed, just as clear. The Soviet Union would not be preemptively attacked, but it would also not be allowed to expand.

That was a long war, not to mention a ridiculously expensive one, considering the two antagonists, Russia and the US, never fired a single shot or missile at one another.

Thanks largely to the policy of containment, Stalinist communist expansionism has been relegated to history books. And former Soviet satellites are involved in various degrees of social and economic development and self-discovery. Some have even been granted membership in NATO and others want to join. That outcome is my definition of a mission accomplished.

Which begs the question; if the policy of containment worked so well against the Soviet Union, a superpower, why haven't we tried it in the Middle East as way to similarly choke off the spread of radical Islam?

I believe it would work, and a lot better than what Bush has been up to. We should try containment to staunch the spread of radical Islam. But when I say “we” I am not talking about the US stepping up with another open commitment or open wallet. Nor am I talking about US troops setting up bases in the Middle East as we did in postwar Europe.

No. We've been there and done that, in spades. Now it's time for the folks we “done that” for, to do it for us.

What got me stewing about that this morning was a story in the paper saying that, while our European allies favored putting a multinational armed force into Lebanon, none of them were willing to contribute troops to such a force.

I guess that should not have surprised me. After all. it's just Europeans being Europeans. The modern history of the European continent is one of living in delusional, self serving denial right up the moment the sound jackboots are heard marching up the front steps. (The other day Newt Gingrich was on TV declaring that what's going on in the Middle East is nothing short of World War III. To which some wag emailed the program, “It's not a world war until France surrenders.”)

If you've read my previous posts, you know my feelings about radical Islam. I don't dismiss the rocky history between the west and Islam.... the Crusaders, the European colonialists, etc. etc. etc. And that that was followed by exploitation by western oil company carpetbaggers. And of course, there's the whole Israel/Palestinian, never-ending Jerry Springer show.

Yada, yada, yada. You know the whole “we're the real victims” drill as well as I do. We all know it. Everyone in the Middle East has gripe, many justified and just as many religious hallucination. After 60 years this enormous class of injured parties have finally convinced me that there can be no way to settle their cases to anyone's satisfaction. Their lists of grievances stretch back a thousands of years, with more counts added hourly.

Which brings me back to Europe. The world is currently seeking a solution to the current fighting in Lebanon. But that vision is dangerously narrow. Instead they need to broaden their notion of what the world currently faces -- and it's not just Jews v. Arabs or al Qaida v. The West. It's expansionist radical Islam. And while they are not (yet) armed with nuclear weapons, radical Islam poses no less a threat the world's democracies than Stalinist communism once did.

Having said that though, if Europe thinks the US will again shoulder the bulk of this new burden, they're seriously mistaken, for several reasons:

First, the Bush administration seemed to have forgotten the power of containment. Instead they figured we could scare the Arab nations straight by preemptively attacking one of them -- Iraq. That made about as much sense as if Richard Nixon had attacked Soviet Georgia to get Russian nukes out of there and to “free the poor Georgian people from Soviet oppression.” That never happened of course because, while Nixon was a crook and liar, he was not stupid. But, while Bush may not be a crook, he is both a liar and stupid.

Therefore, Bush and his neo-con sidekicks effectively pissed away any goodwill or credibility the US might have had when it comes to containing radical Islam or imposing discipline and order anywhere in Middle East.

Second, the US is broke – flat, up to our ass in debt, broke. We'll be lucky to get through the next decade without a crippling recession, or worse, a full-out depression. Washington can't even figure out how to fund Social Security just as Baby Boomers begin retiring. Or how to keep Medicare afloat even as aging Boomers joints, kidneys and other replaceable body parts just now begin wearing out. The US government currently has something just over $45 trillion in unfunded obligations.

So, can we spend a few trillion bucks containing the spread of radial Islam so Europeans can continue enjoying their lattes and croissants unmolested? Forgetaboutit.

NATO has been trying to redefine its mission now that the Soviet Union is no more. Well, hello, here it is. Step up to the plate, Europe. It's your turn to save democracy.

We're pooped.



Me,
Explaining
Me


Confused? More a few readers have emailed wondering just whose side I'm on. I seem to have created more than a little confusion with my two posts (below) regarding the mess in the Middle East. (The most recent mess.)

No, I haven't gone over to the dark side folks. I'm just trying to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain fall out.

Let me take another run at the subject and see if can clear up the confusion.

Iraq:
Yes, it was wrong for the US to attack Iraq. Iraq was the wrong country, attacked for all the wrong reasons, and now we are fighting there to attain the wrong ends. As I wrote over a year ago, Iraq is not a nation but three nations. All the killing and bombing we see there today is just the real Iraqs trying to escape the unnatural Dr. Frankenstein monster-nation cobbled together and forced upon them by the British a century ago.

Ask any cop and he/she will tell you that the most dangerous calls they go on are family disputes. That's what Bush has put our troops right in the middle of – the Mother of All Family Disputes. Iraq wants to become three countries. You can call them, Sunniland, Shiiteland and Kurdland and, sooner or later, they will.

We can't midwife those births. Saddam held the artificial Iraq together the same way Tito held the former Yugoslavia together, with brute force and savagery. Before we “liberated” Iraq only Sunnis were allowed to massacre Shiites. Now everyone gets to play. It's going to be very messy, but they are bound and determined to do it their way. We need to get the hell out of the way and let them get about it. Trying to tell these three tribes they should live peacefully together is a fool's errand. And we're those fools.

So, send most US home, move a strong contingent to Kuwait, then watch the fur fly.

Lebanon:
The Lebanese people need to decide if their country is going to be "Lebanon" or "Hezbollon."

If they want it to be Lebanon, then they need to drop the hammer on Hezbollah. If they can't do that alone they need to ask for help from other Arab countries. If they refuse, then NATO should step up to the plate and give the Lebanese whatever they need to cleanse these spoilers from their country.

But so far the Lebanese have chosen to try to be a little bit pregnant -- which of course is quite impossible. Either they are a sovereign nation with control within their own borders, or they're not a nation. And up to today Lebanon is not a nation.

Forty percent of Lebanese are Shiites, which complicates their views of Hezbollah. Israel is currently trying to focus the Lebanese attention on their country's lacking nationhood. The Lebanese can't have it both ways. Either they are a nation with a non-aggression policy towards it's neighbors, or it's a lawless country unable and/or unwilling to control a private army that hides behind its borders and uses its territory to attack Israel.

Everyone is up in arms about how the poor Lebanese are being punished for the actions of a few. Well, if the Lebanese don't want to get caught in the middle of future crossfires they have to cut bait and evict Hezbollah once and for all. If they don't Israel will, from time to time, have to cross the border and fumigate.

Until Lebanon get's it's nationhood act together, it's people will continue to suffer from the sins of commission of others, and their own sin of omission.

Iran and Syria:
NATO needs to treat these two perpetual trouble makers the same way it treated the old Soviet Union – containment backed up by a credible military deterrent. Everyone knows that the silly UN kabuki dance is not going to get Iran to stop trying to build nukes. Therefore NATO should meet in emergency session and emerge with a no nonsense set of “Don't Do That,” rules:

1)Tell Iran to stop enriching uranium within ten days or face a total air, sea and land blockade. Only food and medicines will be allowed into the country and nothing, including oil, gets out.

2)Let the Iranians know that NATO nations fully understand that Iran can strike back in a number of asymmetric ways, and that NATO nations are fully prepared suffer the consequences of any Iranian sponsored retaliation and will respond in a robust and disproportionate manner.

3)Likewise, NATO should put Syria on notice that if it is caught aiding Hezbollah or Hamas in attacks on anyone, Syria will be added to the blockade.

I know many readers shudder whenever I include the military in these matters, but come on, get real. If Iran, or its surrogates, like Hezbollah, get nukes, it's game over. For the first time since 1945 nuclear bombs will explode in cities. That's not neo-con scare mongering. It's common sense. If you want to play bet your life wagering that it will never come to that, fine. But you're betting my life along with yours, and I see the odds very differently.

So, Iran must not be allowed to get nukes.


This is the world we live in folks. It's an dangerous place run by an frightening collection of odd balls, psychopaths and morons. Frankly, I consider it a miracle our species has made it this far. But it's pure folly to delude ourselves that we can make it through the next fifty years by just holding hands and sing Kumbaya.

That's all I was saying.

Have a nice weekend.


July 19, 2006

The American Left's
"Sounding Like Bush”
Syndrome


The American left – of which I would like to consider myself a left of center member – has a problem sorting out how respond to the key challenge of our time – radical Islam.

Our parents faced a similar test in mid-1930s, and the first time around they failed that test. Rather than pulling the plug early on Germany's goose-march into fascism, Europeans and Americans blamed themselves.

Germany was, they misled themselves, just reacting to the humiliating and disproportionately punitive terms we imposed on them by the victors of World War I. All the Nazis were trying to do, they rationalized, was to regain Germany's' honor, rebuild it's civilian and military institutions and return itself as a member in good standing of the European community of nations.

It wasn't until half of Europe was in flames that our parents generation saw German fascism and Japanese aggression for what they were – a direct and unambiguous attack on everything they valued.

America's left today is stuck where Western countries were in 1936. They view Muslim hostility, and growing violence, towards the west as entirely the west's own fault -- a reaction to centuries of western colonization and exploitation. Countries like Syria and Iran, and popular movements, like Hamas and Hezbollah, are not practicing terrorism, the the left contends, but are liberation movements. They are just fighting to return Muslims to their glory days, before westerners destroyed their once proud and advanced civilization.

Muslim anger towards the west, the left rationalizes -- like that of the Germans of the 1930's -- is little more than an understandable response to the humiliation the west has heaped on Muslims for six centuries.

Then there's the “Israel Problem.” The left doesn't quite know what to do when it comes to Israel – an advanced western democracy precariously nesting within the very heart of the Muslim world.

I understand the source of the left's knee-jerk hostility towards Israel. After all, the creation of modern Israel in the wake of WW II was a classic example of arrogant, colonial boundary drawing. Europeans and Americans used Israel's creation as a way to cleanse themselves of the well-earned guilt for doing nothing to stop the Nazis from snuffing out 6 million European Jews. The only trouble is those western nations took that guilt bath at someone else's expense. As the old saying goes, "never write a check someone else has to cover." That's just what the west did when it created Israel – wrote a check the Palestinian people had to cover.

I am not going to get in to a debate as to whether the creation of modern Israel was right or wrong, because such a debate now can yield neither side anything but more misery. Having that argument now is about as relevant as reopening the debate over whether American settlers had any right at all to shove indigenous Indians off their lands on onto reservations. As moral principle, of course they didn't. As a practical matter today, that bell can't be un-rung -- and the same goes for the whole creation of Israel business.

Which is why, when I hear American leftists arguing that Israel should just allow displaced Palestinians to return to their old lands in Israel, I am tempted to ask them where they live so I can find the Indian tribe that once lived there and invite them to move back. I am sure the big-hearted lefty wouldn't mind. It's just silly liberal clap trap.

Don't get me wrong. I am not giving the Israelis a free pass on their own misbehavior. They should have returned the West Bank territories to the rightful owners decades ago. Instead they took a page from Hitler's own expansionist play book by declaring that Israel needed the room to grow. The Nazis justified their land grabs by describing by claiming they needed "lebensraum" (living space.) Jewish settlers, aided and protected by the Israeli army, saw the capture of the West Bank as their chance to expand Israel's boundaries. When they were forced by international pressure to stop new settlements, they insisted on expanding existing one. Their rational – they needed to accommodate “natural growth,” in those settlements. In other words, they needed lebensraum.

When you start going down the wrong path things can only get worse. So, by occupying Arab populated lands the Israelis had unwittingly set the timer ticking on a demographic time bomb. With Arabs reproducing faster than Israelis they would soon have more political clout than Israelis. In response Israel began acting like another fascist regime, the old apartheid government of South Africa. The occupation is a cancer on Israeli society and psyche. It must end.

So, I fully understand, and even in some cases share, the lefts' condemnation of such Israeli misbehavior. Israel should answer for it's misdeeds, stop repeating them and make amends for them.

But double standards are always wrong be from the political left of the right.

Which brings me to the Arabs. To listen to the American left you'd think they were little more than innocent bystanders every time the shit hits the fan in the Middle East. And, that if the west would just leave them alone, stop supporting Israel and stop annoying them the Muslim nations of the region would stop annoying us. And, as for those frequent Arab-sponsored attacks on Israel -- as far as the left is concerned, Israel is just asking for it dressing like that.

That's the fundamentalist left's view of the conflict. (Yes, there is a fundamentalist left, just as there's a fundamentalist right. And they are just as inflexible and, more often than not, just as wrong.)

Without excusing Israel's own misbehavior, I don't see it that simplistically. There isn't a nation on earth that's perfect. Some are closer than others, but none of them have entirely clean hands. Having said that though western countries are demonstrably better places to live. The west, for all it lingering faults and foibles , is far more socially and institutionally advanced and enlightened. And, despite our occasional backsliding, western nations are light years ahead of the Muslim world when it comes to respecting and protecting individual freedoms and human rights -- Light years ahead. (I would venture to bet, big money, that westernized Israel, for all it's faults, remains the only country in that region any of these moralizing western lefties would dare try to live in. Because in any other Middle Eastern nation, such rabble rousers for freedom, truth and the American way would quickly learn they weren't in Kansas any more.)

This is especially true of what I call the “self-hating western female.” I am always left breathless when I hear liberal western women activists making excuses for the viscious and institutionalize misogynistism of Muslim nations and groups. I go back a long way with the women's liberation movement – back to those silly old, but quaint, bra burning days. Even then, as a horny young man, I could never get my head around the reason any society would treat half their members as though they had nothing more to offer than hot meals and babies. It was not just wrong, but a breathtaking waste of human capital.

Which is why today when I hear liberal women mealy-mouthing support for Islamic cultures that treat treat their women like chattel (and in many cases, like cattle) it leaves me muttering to myself... “what the f..............?!?!?!?!?!?!?” It makes me wish I could sentence these wester women a year in Death Valley wearing a full berka. They could call themselves the Sisterhood of Shame.

Here's another problem the American left suffers from. The left has allowed neo-cons to deny them valid arguments. Like male dogs that piss on bushes and lamp posts, neo-cons have claimed ownership of key policy positions. They have done so by tainting those arguments. If the Bush administration uses an argument to justify something that is clearly the wrong -- like attacking Iraq... from that day forward that argument becomes a no-go zone for liberals. It's rendered radio active. Nevermind that all or parts of the argument might be justified in other cases. If Bush used it, it must be wrong. Always wrong.

I call this the left's “fear of sounding like Bush syndrome." And these days, the left would rather be wrong, than to sound like Bush. (Remember the right's old 1950's “Better dead, than red syndrome." It's the same kind of mindset.)

And nowhere is this more true than when the left has to confront the growing threat of the worldwide Islamic terrorist movement. The Bushies lied and demagogued the issue of Islamic terrorism after 9/11 in order to scare Americans into relinquishing liberties and justify attacking Iraq. Therefore, to wit, it follows now that when a western leader or pundit warns of the growing danger of Islamo-fascism, such fears are just lies, exaggerations, pretexts. Islamic terrorism is just a neo-con boogie man.

Well, try and tell that train riders in Spain, Britain and now India. Try to tell that to Australian vacationers in Bali or Nigerian embassy employees. That boogie man turned out being too real.

And -- here's where it gets sticky again -- try to tell that to Sunni and Shiite civilians in Iraq who are nolonger being killed by American bombs, but by Muslim hit squads. (Which, the left is quick to reply, is still our fault. In this case the left has a point.. but only half a point. The other half they choose to ignore. Before we unseated Sunni leader Saddam, only Shiites were masqueraded at the hands the ruling Sunnis. Now they are free to massacrer one another. By toppling Saddam we freed all Muslim tribes in Iraq to be all they can be. And they are doing just that. They are using their new-found freedom to clean up their tribal regions. It's called ethnic cleansing and it's all the rage in Bush's liberated Iraq.)

Finally, since the Bushies snookered the world into using force when force was not justified, the left now can never suggest using military force for “fear of sounding like Bush.”

So, in an increasingly dangerous world, the left has been left without arguments or policy positions untainted by the right. Israel has be always wrong. The US is always wrong. The Muslims are always victims. Terrorism is not a threat but just the west's colonialist chickens coming home to roost.

Most of which is pure, unadulterated nonsense. And voters know it. Trading Bush bad policies for the left's no policies is not something voters either deserve, or will stand for. If the left is ever going lead America again it has to get a grip on reality. And that begins by embracing clear-eyed, coherent policies -- policies based on how thing are, not how we wish the were. We can begin by agreeing on some basic principles. But the left has it's orthodoxy and those of us who question it re savaged for “sounding like Bush.” Believe me, I am bracing myself for the onslaught this post will earn me.

But simply denying the that fundamentalist Islamic moverments worldwide pose a threat to the democracies of the west is the same as when the right denies global warming -- and just as dangerous.

For fear of "sounding like Bush, I say, the left needs to knock that shit off, and agree on some fundamental concepts:

1)Agree that, while Israel certainly has a right to exist, it must stop using Biblical title reports to justify grabbing lands that do not belong to them. And they need to get the hell out of the occupied territories. If the handful of large settlements bordering the Israel cannot be returned then Israel needs to give the Palestinians equal portions of Israeli real estate adjacent to either the West Bank or Gaza in return. No. They can't just keep those lands without paying for them.
2)Agree that, while it was unfair to displace Palestinians when Israel was created, what's done is done and cannot not be undone with creating more suffering and more trouble. But Israel and the western powers that wrote that check over 60 years ago now need to write a few more checks – this time to those displaced Palestinians.
3)Agree that fundamentalist Islamic (neo-fascist) movements offer no good solutions for the problems that face that region or the world, but are themselves a problem. That, be they Christian, Jewish or Islamic, all intolerant, non-inclusive, hate-based fundamentalist movements represent a cancer that civilized nations should oppose, through peaceful means if possible, but with military force when necessary.
4)Agree that there really are core western values worth fighting for and which must always be non-negotiable; the rule of law, separation of church and state, freedom of speech and equal treatment for all – and that means women in all cultures -- Islamics included.

So there. Let's all stop making excuses for bad behavior -- be it by America, Israel or Muslim countries. But please, don't make the same mistake we made in 70 years ago. Because some of the worst behavior the world has seen since the then now festers at the very heart of the Muslim world – not the west.

And those on the left who indulge themselves in blame-shifting and rationalizing that behavior do so at all our peril.


"Reforming"
the Middle East


Let's stop kidding ourselves. With the exception of Israel there isn't a single nation in the Middle East with the social/political maturity required to play in mankind's major league. The major league being, of course, the nations on earth which, to one extent or another, used the last thousand years to change, mature and develop.

Political correctness has led us into a deadly trap. Perpetrating the fiction that backward Arab Islamic cultures are ready to embrace modern democratic systems of governance has gotten at least 3000 American soldiers, and tens of thousands of Afghan and Iraqis killed over the last three years. And for what? We have nothing to show for it. Nothing but coffins.

And now we have new fighting between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah. Evidence that the West's approach to radical Islam is not only not working, but actually counter productive, abounds. The impotence of so-called moderate Arab states, Egypt and Jordan, in the face of the current crisis is a clue. The aiding and abetting by Iran and Syria of Islamo-fascist Hezbollah is another clue. Iran's stubborn refusal to stop it's march towards a nuclear bomb in the face of world condemnation, is another clue. Shiites murdering Sunnis and Sunnis murdering Shiites in Iraq, is another clue. And not just murdering them. That's not enough for these throwbacks. First they use an electric drill to drill holes through their hands which they then bolt together. Then they kill them.

When democracy is tried by one of these Arab countries, what do they do with it? They elect radical Islamo-fascists whose first actions are to subordinate civil law to fundamentalist Sharia rule. Women's rights? Forget about it. Back into your berka, bitch!


The West needs to take a timeout and completely rethink it's approach to what's become an out of control Muslim fundamentalist wildfire. Attempts to lure, cajole or drag these 12th century populations into the 21st century has only made matters worse.

The uncomfortable, politically incorrect fact is they are not able, they are not willing and they are not ready. Despite what George W. may think, democracy is not a state of nature but a state of mind. Arab nations are not there yet. Not even close.

But they are armed and dangerous. The social/political religious retardation of Arab nations poses a greater threat to the West than the Soviets ever did. The Soviets saw war with the West as something to be avoided. Fundamentalist Islam sees war with “infidels” of the West as not only inevitable, but the will of God.

The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a (nut)case in point. It's as if you woke up this morning to discovered that Rev. Jerry Falwell had been elected President of the United States and David Duke Vice President. Ahmadinejad is both ... a fundamentalist's fundamentalist and a rabid anti-semite.

You simply can't “deal” with such people. And, believe me, they have no interest in “dealing” with us either.

Forget about “bringing democracy to the Middle East.” What the Arab nations need more than lessons in democracy is a good dope slap from the rest of the world. They need to be sent to their rooms until it they can learn to behave – no biting, no scratching, no hitting, no name calling and learn to share.

Stop with the “Islam is a peaceful religion,” nonsense too. The Amish are a peaceful religion. The Quakers are a peaceful religion. Fundamentalist Islam is provably not a peaceful religion -- not even when it's on it's best behavior. Like fundamental Christianity and radical Zionists, fundamentalist Islam is exclusive, narrow minded, and hostile to those who refuse to share and adhere to their beliefs. Money is not the root of all evil, religious zealots are. History documents this beyond argument. And not since the Inquisition has the world seen self-righteous cruelty and aggressive religious zealotry the likes of radical Islam.

So, what to do about it?

First, stop trying to democratize Arab countries. We might as well be trying to modernize stone age Amazon tribes by air dropping them Dell laptops. It's just silly. No, it's worse than than silly -- it's dangerous, as we have seen in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine. Arab countries don't use democracy, they misuse it. Given the vote they elect the very fundamentalists the vote was supposed to marginalize. Instead democracy has legitimized them. (The law of unintended consequences – duh!)

Stop pretending these countries are even trying to become part of the modern world. Syria, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Palestine, Jordon, Egypt – have to choose. Stop pandering to the primitive Islamic forces within their own countries. Make hate speech a crime, then enforce it. Close Islamic schools that refuse to teach a benign and inclusive form of Islam. Arrest mullahs that preach hate and jihad from their pulpits. Lock up those who espouse jihad. Pull all Islamo-fascist cells up by the roots.

The Arab countries that refuse to do so and instead continue to harbor, finance or supply jihadists should be punished with militarily enforced embargoes -- land, sea and air. And, yes, that must include oil exports. No pain, no gain. International banking transactions with such countries would be restricted to payments for food and medicine only. Nothing else goes in or comes out.

Countries that still allow jihadists to launch attacks from their territories should be immediately punished with attacks on key infrastructure. These countries have shown time and again they care a lot more about their power plants, bridges, military bases and palaces than they do about the lives of their own people. So, rather than waste either our soldier's lives or theirs, hit infrastructure. And keep hitting it until they cry “uncle.” (See NFR "Don't Do That" defense policy)

What we have done in Iraq could not have been a bigger mistake. Putting Western troops on the ground in one of these Arab nations to an attempt to pacify it is like trying to cure a chicken killing dog by throwing chickens into it's pen. Arab nations have plenty of people and don't seem to mind sacrificing them for Allah – even using them as human smart bombs. That's their strength. The West needs to play to it's strength – technology – by using stand off weapons to pound the offending nation's expensive and hard to replace infrastructure.

But, to paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, it all begins by coming to terms with the enemy we are actually dealing with, rather than the enemy we wish we were dealing with. Trying to force feed democracy to these primitive Muslim dominated Arab societies is like taking a baseball bat to a hive of killer bees. And that's exactly what we've done in Iraq.

It's time admit that Islam, what ever it may have been, has now been taken over by folks with a lot more in common Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot than Abraham, Jesus or Mohammad.

And then act accordingly.

July 6 - July 14, 2006

Selected Responses to
Calling All Suckers Post


Steve, you wrote:

"The other way - the better way -- is for liberials to free themselves from the lodestone of political correctness -- to stop pretending the Wal-Mart-er demographic is worthy of an iota of respect.
Instead of trying to humor them, confront their lazy ignorance and their knee-jerk jingoism."

I have been doing this for awhile. The problem is that they are everywhere. Family, friends co-workers. I swear to God, the best analogy I can think of is the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." Remember at the end, when the girl comes out of the bushes and taps Donald Sutherland on the back? He turns and looks at her with those blank eyes and screams the alien scream. He has become one of them.

So, if you do this, prepare to live your life being told by these mouth breathers that you are just jealous, or that you are too stupid to understand whats really happening in the world. It is just a cycle. It is all gonna turn around. Gas will go down, the ice sheets will be back in a year or two, and interest rates are gonna fall.

These people are not sane in the way that we used to think of it. Honestly I believe that it is from 30 years of TV, talk radio, video games and mental sloth. I don't even bother to come in here and read
much anymore. Even on the Internet the pettiness and attention to worthless stories as you describe is rampant. Check out Salon and Huffpost. In order to get readers they pander to these retards. Honestly, I feel like finding a nice little cave somewhere to hide out and just "come and get me when its all over".

At present, my family is no longer speaking to me. I mean total extended family. I made a crack at a dinner after listening to these whiners complain about everything under the sun. My crack mainly was
this: We are a people that has everything. TV, computer, 2 or 3 SUV's in the driveway, nice homes, nice clothes, eat 3 squares a day, and all we do is bitch and lust after things that will make the neighbors
envious. Nothing is good enuff.

Bring up Iraq, oh god no! In addition to being a negative downer Laura, you are also depressing. Lets get back to the real stuff like the houses up on the hill that we can buy on our blue collar wages -- if they just get rid of the principal portion of our monthly payment. Then we can flip it in 5 years and get a better house, or get that Hummer. The young couple is building a house in a project where the density is like rats. They are coughing up 300,000 build this house from scratch on this ant hill because they "will never get just the right floor plan if they buy a 10 year old house." This couple has been married for 2 years and has brand new twin boys. No one talks about saving for their future, college education or even retirement planning. Nope, its all about impressing everyone else.

No one has any hobbies. No one wants any hobbies. No one can talk about anything except themselves. No one reads books. It is just pure greed and misery because it is never enough. Never.

One thing I do know. We do not want these people voting. Ever.

So, I just press on with my home remodel, do my artwork, garden and work in the yard and stay the hell away from the world. It is so depressing. Thanks for showing up once in a while to give me a little
hope that I am not a psycho.

Laura (AKA, AppleAnne)


Mr. Pizzo,
My wife recommended that I read your "Calling All Suckers" piece. I didn't want to, but I did.

I knew it would hurt.

Everytime I read one of your opinion pieces, I have to put a tin hat on because I KNOW that you're reading my mind. And when I point out your blog to coworkers, they all have to wear tin hats, too. We're not sure if you have secret journalistic prism powers or if our heads are bugged. You are articulating our doubts, our fears, our social fatigue, and our impotent rage at 'leaders' who confuse (mis)information with knowledge, force with power, religion with faith, and viciousness with honesty.

PLEASE STOP! Don't you understand? There's enough of us wearing these hats that we're visible from the space shuttle. It's a hell of a thing when you fear the attention of your government.

On the other hand, maybe you're right to continue. It helps to have the reasoned, well-sourced material you give us when we're pulled into those conversations that start with the media's or administration's latest attempt at misdirection "We gotta do something about this gay marriage thing? ...Can you believe that Barbara fired Star?"

Yeah, keep going. I look forward to coming home after an exciting day in IT and reading your blog. Somehow it leave me feeling less isolated, and relieves me of that doubt of my own judgment.

Those bastards reall ARE trying to kill us. Yossarian was right.

Thank you for your efforts. They aren't wasted.

Corially,
Tom P.




July 10, 2006

Calling All Suckers

To proceed from one truth to another, and connect distant propositions by regular consequences, is the great prerogative of man.
— Samuel Johnson: Rambler #158

Oh man, am I going to get in trouble for this post. But, damn it, someone needs come right out and just say it. So here goes.

We liberals are often accused of being elitists, that we look down on fellow Americans, those red-state folk who consider Wal-Mart the best thing to happen to America since Hostess Cup Cakes.

Well, it's time to come clearn. We do. We've tried not to, but they make it really hard. So it's time to come out of the closet. We do look down on them. But not for the reasons they think we look down on them. It's not because they prefer a night with Jerry Springer than live theater or because they can't tell the difference between Ripple and a good California Merlot or prefer a Big Mac with fries to a healthy salad.

No. The reason we look down on them has nothing to do with any of that kind of trivial stuff. We look down on them because they are natural born suckers. And, as such have aided and abetted in the the closest thing that we've seen to a constitutional coup in American history. Oh, and because they don't seem to care, in fact, like it.

We look down on them because, as a group, they know more about current NASCAR standings than they know -- or care to know -- about what's afoot within the top ranks of their own government. And, as we've learned at each election since 1994 – they vote.

These Wal-Mart-ers prefer their information on the light side, hold the nuance. As they flip their TV remotes through a couple hundred channels of brain Novocaine, they occasionally cross paths with the news. And the news wants those glazed eyeballs. FOX and CNN now compete for the Wal-Mart-er demographic. Both networks know that Wal-Mart-ers suffer from notoriously short attention spans and that they hate stories that take more than 30 seconds to explain. But that they are particularly partial to animal stories and any footage showing some poor guy getting slammed in the crotch by an object moving at high speed.

CNN knows that if it's going reel in these mouth-breathers they must do so quickly, before they can relocate their remotes. Which explains why that, at a time when the seeds of civil war first sprouted in Iraq, and Iran began building nukes, and North Korea built more nukes, and 45 million American's, including many of these very viewers, could not afford health insurance, and the polar ice caps began to shrink, and genocide raged in Sudan, CNN served up near-nonstop coverage of ---- “BREAKING NEWS: The Run-a-Way Bride.”

In a recent editorial, scholar Robert Rapaport put it this way:

“Should we call it "The Cracker Factor?" Unless explained by CNN's presence in Atlanta, or the ghost of Scarlett O'Hara rampant, how do we account for this previous year's crop of overheated, overexposed, over-the-top stories about life-supported-spouses, kidnapped children, missing high-schoolers, run-amok lacrosse teams, and run-away brides, emanating from the American South? ... “ Wallowing in the coverage of this Confederate cornpone-ucopia has been enough of a slog. Worse, are the scoldings we Yankee/liberals seem destined to endure about our social, political, and moral shortcomings from such Southern scions as Senators Bill Frist and Saxby Chambliss, the Revs. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and former House Republican generalissimo's, Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich. It is enough to make an ex-New Englander conjure up the satanic despoiler himself; General William Tecumseh Sherman, for a second tromp through Georgia. (Full)

Rapaport gets it just right. Look no further than CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who named his daily news show, “The Situation Room.” When you name a daily show, “The Situation Room,” there damn well better be a friggin “situation” every day. Lacking stories any real news person would consider a “situation,” CNN pumps up whatever is happening at the moment, no matter how trivial, declaring it “situation” de jur.

All of which is perfectly fine as far as our Wal-Mart-er viewers are concerned. They prefer a trivial “situation,” to a news story that forces them to balance opposing views or challenges their low-brow opinion on how things oughta be. So it came to pass that a story about a goofy looking woman who deserted her boyfriend at the alter, became a ratings winner -- the nacho chip version of news. No upsetting pictures of starving childrent or global warming hand wringing. And definitely no booooooooorrrring footage of some Democrat alleging the President of the United States may be breaking the law or aiding and abetting in war crimes. (“In the old days, dang it, we knew what it meant for a President to break the law, like when Clinton lied about sex. Now that was something! Grunt, grunt.” )

Yes, we liberals look down on them, the Wal-Mart-ers, those zombie suckers. Because they not only don't know much, but don't care to. They are the great un-curious mass that elected one of their own kind to run our country. They are universally un-curious. Science and supertition homogenize in their brains. Most march dutifully off to church each Sunday's clutching a King James version of the Bible, yet show no curiosity why the God they claim is Perfection, required a royal editor. Or that since their bible is a “version,” -- says so right inside the cover -- a version of what? If there are other versions, what's that all about? Never mind. These folks like their religion the same way they like their politics – straight up, unmixed, uncomplicated, like beer. Anything that challenges their religious or social beliefs are, at best, just noise, unworthy of consideration and, at worst, seditious.

These people brush aside evidence that the neo-conservatives they elected to high office are less like their father's Republicans and a lot more a pack of neo-fascists. (And they definitely don't want to hear a history lecture on how ordinary Germans, working stiffs just like them, were suckered by Nazi Party seventy years ago. Because, the Wal-Mart-ers grunt, whatever the superficial similarities, it's not fascism when we do it.)

The Wal-Mart-ers have been quiet since they returned George W. Bush, et al to office in 2004. But the neo-cons have begun stirring up their sucker-brigades in preparation for the November mid-term election. I know because I've begun getting hate-emails from these knuckle-draggers:

Mr. Pizzo:
Did you know the Swift Boat people are genuine heroes, not phonies like Kerry and Murtha. But then real heroes make Liberals feel guilty about enjoying the protection of real men. I do know you Liberals NEVER WANT TO TO READ THE OPPOSITE POINT ..... You're so full of shit. You should be considered anti-American. You, like Murtha are quick to present the negative and now you, your kind, including Murtha are shown to be liers and full of shit.

(Most Wal-Mart-ers seem to suffer from a sticky ALL CAPS key. It's their way of grunting, virtually.)

Anyway they are baaaacckkkk -- the Wal-Mart-er voters. They've put down their remotes, rallied by the call of the wild neo-con. Called back into action for November. From radio talk shows, to the floor of Congress, to the White House, the sucker bait has been put out:

* “The liberals are burning your flag! Are you gonna let them get away with it?”
* “Boys are marrying other boys! Girls are marrying other girls. Is your child next?”
* “Your President took the guy the runs Japan to Graceland today! Whata guy -- A real guy... not like those two fairies in that gay cowboy movie!”
* “Fur-in-ers – maybe carrying dirty bombs! -- are flooding across our borders and the liberals want to take your gun away.”
* “The liberal media is undermining the war and aiding the terrorists.”


Sucker bait. And it's strong stuff apparently. Because it's able to make the Wal-Mart-ers vote against their own interests -- not once, but over and over again.


Memo
From: K. Rove

Subject: Calling all suckers.

We need you real Americans once again. Pay no attention to the fact that, since you put us in power, we've gutted the US industrial base, supplanted good paying skilled jobs with low-paying service jobs. Or that you, and everyone you know, are drowning in debt or that you may not be able to afford health insurance. Oh, and pay no mind to the pile of federal IOU's that has soared to stars over the past six years, it's not a problem. It's just paper. And even as record hurricanes, tornadoes and forest fires devastate whole regions, don't listen to those liberal global warming alarmists. They just want to raise your taxes.

Pay no attention to any of that stuff. Because none of that is more important than making sure the godless liberals do not gain control of Congress this November. So drop that remote. Cancel that trip to Wal-Mart. America (and God!) needs you to vote Republican this Fall. It's us against the tax raising, flag-burning, gay-marriage loving, god-hating liberals -- and their friends in the terrorist-loving media.

We know we can count on you.

Karl


Yeah, I know it's silly crap. But have no doubt about it -- it works -- every time. These suckers have the flattest learning curve in the history of mankind. If they were chickens they'd accept a dinner invitation from Col. Sanders.

So there. I got it off my chest. Call me culture snob if you must. But that's how I feel. I am sick and tired of trying to pretend that those folks... the Wal-Mart-ers.. actually have something valuable to teach us. Or, that while I may disagree with them on some things, the ideas that motivate them hold any moral equivalence with the actual challenges facing America and the world. Because they don't. Not even close. The issues that motivate the Wal-Mart-ers are simplistic, divisive sucker bait, set out for suckers who, time and time again, gobble it all down, even though there own lives get worse each time. Only a moron would fall the same scam so many times. There's simply no other way to interpret such behavior.

Still, as I said, there's a helluva lot of them out there, and Democrats have learned that these folks cannot be ignored. The GOP has perfected the care and feeding of this army of zombie suckers into an fine art. When summoned they march, stiff-legged, to Karl Rove's violin - every time.

So, it's time to start dealing with them. But how?

As I see it there's only two ways to deal with them this group. One way is to engage them, try to win them over to our side. That's what Hillary Clinton is trying to do with her silly-ass flag burning amendment. Instead of fighting the “vast rightwing conspiracy,” Hillary court it. Which is okay I guess if all you care about is getting caried into high office on the backs of morons.

The other way – the better way -- is for liberials to free themselves from the lodestone of political correctness -- to stop pretending the Wal-Mart-er demographic is worthy of an iota of respect. Instead of trying to humor them, confront their lazy ignorance and their knee-jerk jingoism. Question their own patriotism when they try to insert religious dogma into the secular political process, or make excuses for unconstitutional misbehavior by the executive branch. Six years ago excuses could be made for them. But now the damage those they put into power is so evident no future excuses can be made for them. They're like parents who continued to send their kids to slumber parties with Michael Jackson.

I'm tellin' ya, the time has come to crack heads, figuratively speaking, with these low-brow, ill-informed voters. Because democracy is not a state of nature but a state of mind. And as such, it requires just that – a mind – to be effective. It needs minds that think, question, examine and votes based on facts rather than mindless nonsense.

It's time liberals get past their reluctance to call a spade a spade when it comes to the GOP's army of ignoramus suckers. Because, as the last six years have shown with brutal clarity, these sucker voters, even more so than terrorists -- represent nothing less than a clear and present danger to our own democracy.




July 5, 2006

Duck and Cover Redux


I'm not reassured.

First they said it was six

No, belay that, it was just three.

Hold it. The first report was correct, it was six.

Nix that. It was five.

Okay, this time we've got it -- it was six after all.

Now it's seven.

The Russians and South Koreans say there were ten.


That was the – dare I call it the Chinese fire drill -- that unfolded at the White House on the day North Korea shot a baker's half-dozen missiles in our general direction. Foxy Tony Snow really earned his money that day, running back and forth between the White House press room and the White House situation room changing the number of missiles up, down, up, down and back up again all morning.

Hours after North Korea pushed the launch buttons, our US Commander-in-Chief still had only the foggiest idea what had been heading our way. Were they the big Taepodong Two intercontinental missles? Or were they shorter range Scuds? Or both? Or a combination of all the above? They clearly and demonstrably did not know, and didn't know for an unsettling amount of time.

The bottom line: had this been the real thing Hawaii might be missing an island this morning.

Of course the Pentagon was quick to reassure folks this morning that they were ready, willing and able to shoot down an incoming Korean missile, had it appeared heading our way. Which is of course utter nonsense -- and a barefaced lie.

The US Missile Defense System (AKA “Star Wars”) has been controversial since Ronald Reagan dreamed it up nearly a quarter century ago. I have neither the desire nor energy to re-argue the case(s) for and against such a system. But, in light of this week's happenings, I am forced to wonder what have they've done with my $500 billion spent on it so far?

By this time, and with all that money, our Commander in Chief, whose command is required before interceptor missiles can be launched, still had less information during this crisis than CNN had. Worse yet, CNN had better information.

So, twenty years and $500 billion later here's what we have: If someone launches a missile attack with our address on it, we still cannot tell exactly how many missiles are heading our way or what kind of missiles they might be. All we know is something wicked our way comes – maybe.

If you inclined to find comfort in the Pentagon's post launch chest thumping, you just haven't been paying attention. Yes, it's true that President Bush has ordered a limited deployment of the first missile interceptors, based in California and Alaska. But be clear, those two Star Wars bases are to US missile defense what the Potemkin Village is to North Korea. All show, no go.

In the past six years of flight tests, here is what the Pentagon's missile-defense agency has demonstrated: A missile can hit another missile in mid-air as long as a) the operators know exactly where the target missile has come from and where it's going; b) the target missile is flying at a slower-than-normal speed; c) it's transmitting a special beam that exaggerates its radar signature, thus making it easier to track; d) only one target missile has been launched; and e) the "attack" happens in daylight.

(Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2097087)

The only way the Pentagon and their co-conspirator defense contractors can get these interceptors to hit a moving target is to cheat.

I don't know if missile defense is possible or just history's most expensive “duck and cover” public relations ruse. What is clear is that doing so is very, very, very hard. And finding out is going to continue being very, very, very expensive.

The Rand Corporation looked at the program and concluded:

Even under ideal circumstances and with the latest technologies, ballistic missile defense is exceedingly difficult. Destroying an (missile) RV in flight requires an end-to-end sequence of successful tasks: detecting and classifying the threat missile, predicting the threat trajectory, cueing sensors down the line, tracking the target, discriminating the target from clutter and countermeasures, acquiring the target for intercept, intercept, kill assessment, and repeating the sequence as required. A failure anywhere in this chain precludes successful intercept ... Countermeasures compound these challenges. (More)

Can you reconcile the above with what we saw and heard from the White House this week?

- Where was that “end-to-end sequence of successful tasks?” They detected launches, but couldn't tell how many.

- They knew they were missiles, but could not “classify the threat,” they had no idea where they going (trajectory,) but had to wait for confirmation that they had fallen harmlessly into the sea of Japan.

- And forget about “discriminating the target from clutter,” since everything was cluttered until hours after the smoke cleared.

So, what's my point? Am I against the US being protected from missile attacks? No. I could get behind a missile defense system, if it worked and if they could get it working before it's actually needed.

It just seems to me that this event raises only two possibilities”:

1) America has lost it's touch. We can't do remarkable and important things any longer.

2) Someone(s) needs to go to jail for stealing half a trillion bucks from US taxpayers, leaving us no more secure from nuclear attack than we were back in the 1950's when I and millions of other school kids were reassured we'd be safe from nuclear attack huddled under our wooded desks.

Come on folks. Admit it. What we saw this week is all you need to conclude that it's one or the other.

In Other News

Ken Lay is Dead?

July 5 (Bloomberg) -- Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay, who was convicted of the fraud that led to the collapse of his company, died today in Colorado. He was 64.

``Ken Lay passed away early this morning in Aspen,'' his spokeswoman Kelly Kimberly said in a statement. ``The Lays have a very large family with whom we need to communicate. Out of respect for them we are not releasing any more information at this time.'' (Full)
Okay. If true, my condolences to his family. But I want a few things checked first:

- A DNA test
- Passenger manesfests from US to the Bahamas flights for the last two days,
- And a search in Aspen area to determine if any homeless men are missing.

June 28 - July 4, 2006

June 28, 2006

A Press-ing Matter

I get so tired telling Democrats how they should respond to the latest Rovian tactic. But here we are again. Republican ditto-heads are out there parroting Karl's talking points and Democrats, not knowing whether to shit or go blind, are stumbling around with one eye closed, farting.

I am speaking of the GOP attack on the press, particularly the New York Times. I have to give Rovian devils their due. They really know how to organize a charge of the Spin Brigade. But they seem to be attacking with unusual vigor this time. What's up with that?

I'll tell you what's up with that. This administration has successfully neutered virtually every check and every balance on it's behavior, from Congress to the courts. And, until the Times blew the whistle on NSA wiretaps and, more recently, the collection of personal banking data, the administration believed it had also cowed the press as well.

Those disclosers by the Times, and other major print media, showed the press, while down, was not yet out. Despite the administrations success in using the Times Judy Miller as a propagandist for non-existent WMD, there was still life the Old Grey Lady after all -- a revelation that sent chills down the backs of White House shills far and wide.

That's why we are seeing such a furious counter attack by Republicans such as Peter King's demands that the Times be criminally prosecuted. The administration must scare the press back into it's spider hole. Unless they can intimidate the press back into the cowardly "fair and balanced" crouch it maintained over the previous six years, more dirty little secrets will be disclosed. Someone might even go to jail.. and this time it won't be a member of the press.

Now to the Democrats. Hello. Anyone in there? When one of these sleazy Republican accessories-after-the-fact attacks the press, remind them that the press wouldn't have to if Republicans were living up to their constitutional obligations. What's that? It's called “oversight.” You know, hold oversight hearings on matters of national importance.

You can be forgiven if you've forgotten about oversight, because it's been outta-sight for so long. The Bush administration doesn't want oversight. Hates it, in fact. And their obedient Ditto Heads in the House and Senate have dutifully obeyed.

Lawrence B. Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, said this fall that "the people's representatives over on the Hill in that other branch of government have truly abandoned their oversight responsibilities [on national security] and have let things atrophy to the point that if we don't do something about it, it's going to get even more dangerous than it already is." (Full)

What a difference from the mid-1990s, when the Republican-controlled House of Representative. Back then it seemed almost anything the Clinton White House did required an immediate congressional hearing. Like when they seemed to having nothing better to conduct hearings to get to the bottom of whether the Clinton administration was misusing the White House Christmas card list. They burned 140 hours of sworn testimony over that festering scandal.

But apparently the Bush administration has behaved flawlessly, because hearings on this administration's doings have been as rare as electricity in Iraq. I don't have the numbers for 2006 but between 2003 and 2005 the Republican-controlled House found time for just 12 hours of sworn testimony on subjects like alleged abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. ( Christmas card abuse, 140 hours of sworn testimony .. Prisoner abuse, 12 hours. I see. It's all about priorities.)

The House Government Reform Committee held just 37 oversight hearings of an investigative in nature during the last Congress. Compare that with the 135 such hearings held by the same committee in 1993-94, the last year the Democrats controlled the House.

Remember the Filegate flap? Republicans in congress were shocked.. outraged.. that the Clinton White House might of violated the law and privacy rights of Americans wanting to work for the administration by peeking into their FBI files. Republicans couldn't seem to hold enough hearings on that one. But now that we know – thanks only to the New York Times – that the Bush administration is conducting warrantless wiretaps and walking barefoot through private banking records, Republicans don't want oversight hearings, and instead, bashes the press when it picks up ball and runs it for them.

So, there you have it Dems – another fight-back strategy for combating the GOP wedgie machine. It's a gold-plated opportunity being handed to you dozens of times daily by the Karl Rove's army of walking tape loops. The very next time you see one of these Republicans huffing and puffing into a CNN mic, wait until they're done then remind the viewers that the press has been forced to step in and provide the very oversight the Republican-controlled congress has refused to conduct.

Oh, and you might also mention that this time we are talking about matters somewhat more serious than suspicions someone may be abusing the White House Christmas card list.


Now For Something Completely Different

Something quite extraordinary happened last week. The nation -- no – the world – bore witness to the first mental health test, conducted in public, of a legislative body.

The body of which I speak is the US Senate. Yesterday 100 Senators voluntarily -- even eagerly -- took this test.

And the results are in. Of the 100 Senators tested 66, two thirds of them, are F- - KING CRAZY!

I will call them the "Crazy-66" and they all voted to make burning an American flag a crime. (If you want to know who they are click here Print it out and take it into the voting booth with you this November -- unless of course you prefer your elected representatives on the crazy side.)

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with folks being crazy. But at least be consistently crazy. I want to alert the Crazy-66 that their vote, besides being certifiably crazy, contained a serious inconsistency.

Here it is; you bag of mixed nuts forgot to include protections for the American apple pie! (You know, as in “the flag, motherhood and apple pie?”) Only when all three are protected can Americans feel truly safe and well-served by Congress.

Since I have not read of anyone desecrating mothers, I assume they are safe, at least for now. But there's piles of evidence of rampant apple pie desecration.

- Millions of half-finished pieces of apple pie are unceremoniously scraped into trash bins at diners across the nation,
- Amateur cooks burn – yes BURN – embryonic apple pies by the tens of millions each year,
- Tons of ice cream are unceremoniously slopped atop slices of apple pie without so much as a howdy do.

But wait, it gets worse. (Cover your children's eyes now so they don't have to see this) – Those godless liberals in Hollywood have even shown actors having sex with warm apple pies.

It's enough to make a mad dog politician howl at a full November moon.

Don't get me wrong, the flag is fine. But nothing is more American than the apple pie. You guys -- the Crazy-6 -- ask yourselves this; do they eat apple pie in Iran? No! Do they eat apple pies in North Korea? They wish. Did Johnny Appleseed spread his seed in just the US of A? He sure did. And why? Because he was a real American, that's why.

Nevertheless the Crazy-67 left the apple pie exposed to daily abuse, neglect, disrespect – even rape!

Why didn't they extend protections the same protections they did to the US flag to the heavenly crumbly crust and sweet fruitiness of the American apple pie? Was it because, rather than baking an apple pie, Betsy Ross decided to sew that day? Or because the national anthem makes no mention rockets bursting in the air while revolutionary troops enjoyed piping hot slices of true blue American apple pie, "in the rockets red glare?"

Now that we know at least 66 members of the US Senate are crazy, I am certain they will take the apple pie's plight to their patriotic bosoms as well. I am sure, understanding as they do the solemn responsibility they have when amending the US Constitution, they will want to include constitutional protections for the American apple pie as well.

So I've taken the liberty of drafting a clause they can add to their flag burning amendment the next time around:


The American Apple Pie
Protection Act of 2006

WHEREAS the American apple pie and American flag have been inextricably intertwined throughout history, and

WHEREAS rather than balancing the budget or ending the war in Iraq, the US Senate instead used their time and political capital to debate and vote to amend the US constitution to make any act desecrating the American flag illegal, and

WHEREAS the American apple pie has been subjected to countless acts of desecration, and

WHEREAS a mid-term election looms this November, and there are at least 50 million voters who in two previous elections have proven themselves to be just as crazy as each of the Crazy-66, and

WHEREAS many Democrats seem to believe they must look butch on all things patriotic, no matter how anti-American and/or nonsensical they may be, and

WHEREAS Republicans have nothing to run on this November but mounting deficits and one of hell of mess in Iraq,

WHEREAS Hillary Clinton believes she must prove she has bigger testicles than her husband, and that she can blow and suck at the same time, and

WHEREAS 2500 American soldiers will no longer be able to enjoy a piece of piping hot American apple pie,

WHEREAS yellow cake turned out no substitute for good ole' American apple pie, and

WHEREAS the President of the United States has shown himself to be at least as crazy as the 66 senators who voted for the flag amendment, and

WHEREAS skyrocketing home heating costs may lead to more flags being burned as fuel and fewer American apple pies being baked, and

WHEREAS “an apple a day keeps the doctor away,” it's important the apple pie be preserved as a nutri-cutical for the 45 million Americans who can not afford to see a doctor, and

WHEREAS Hollywood's depiction of sex with apple pies may lend encouragement to the nascent Applophile movement NAMBLA (National Association of Males who Love Apple pies).

THEREFORE, to with, henceforth and with all the superficiality we can muster, we proclaim that the desecration of an American apple pie shall be punishable by a fine of $10,000 and up to six months in prison; and during such prison sentence apple pie desecraters shall be denied any apple pie or fruit cup containing apples; and upon release apple pie desecraters shall be required to register with local authorities as a convicted American apple pie desecrater. Local police shall also be required to post fliers at all bakeries and restaurants within their jurisdiction, warning that an American apple pie desecrater is living in the area.


There, now all our crazy bases are covered. The flag is safe, apple pies are safe. The country? Not so much.


Happy 4th of July eveyone.

June 20 - June 27, 2006

Forget An Inconvenient Truth
How About The Ugly Truth

"If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst."
-- Thomas Hardy


Here's something you won't read about anywhere but in obscure scientific journals and on bogs run by the kind of survivalists that make you happy you're unprepared and will therefore not have to share the planet with such folk, should they turn out to be right.

Nevertheless this unmentionable is IT -- the whole banana. Everything else bad, flows from it. It's the headwaters of bad -- war, energy shortages, pandemics, terrorism, global warming. Those things, as annoying, frightening and dangerous as they are, are not THE problem, but simply symptoms of THE problem. Whats THE problem? Since we are all in jeopardy, I will frame answer in the form of a question:

“What's the maximum carrying capacity of the earth?”

Any livestock feedlot operator knows exactly how many animals he can maintain at once. Above that number both the facility and animals begin to degrade. It's not just feeding them. More food can always be shipped in. The problem is that, within the confines of a finite facility, living conditions deteriorate once you exceed it's maximum carrying capacity. And once past that tipping point conditions deteriorate at an exponential rate from that point on.

Like it or not, we have something in common with those feedlot animals. We humans too are fenced into a finite space. Yet we keep adding more load every passing second. This week, for example, the US achieved a dubious milestone. There are now 300 million of us. How many more head can we add to our section of the world feedlot? No one is asking. Because, for some reason, population control has become a taboo subject, a sign of intolerance, xenophobic or selfishness when someone seriously poses the question. (Even the first group to try and address this crisis, Zero Population, had to change it's name to The Population Connection because the "zero" business upsetted the religious right in the West, African and Muslim nations.)

But the real reason no one wants to explore this question is that, instinctively, they know the truth they will discover is about as ugly as truth gets. Here it is:

There are currently about 6.6 billion humans on earth, eating, breathing, craping, farting and, increasingly, driving. New Zealand scientists at the Central Institute of Technology are among the few willing to do the numbers. They say the present global population is about 30% more than the earth's biological capacity can sustain at present standards of living. And they are being upbeat about it. I would say, they actually sugar coated this bitter pill.

Those who have dared to venture deeply into this matter have not come up with a single answer when asked to precisely set the sustainable carrying capacity of earth. That's because the answer depends on from what standard of living level one begins the calculation. (See table below) But they predict a range from half a billion to 6 billion, at current western standards of living. The lowest sustainable population levels assume everyone in the world has the kind of basics of a civilized society; good health, nutrition, prosperity, personal dignity and freedom. But note... this calculation (here) assumes a population for the US of something between 100 and 200 million. Here in the US we've already stumbled blindly past the maximum by a cool 100 million souls, and counting.

Despite growing warning signs that humans are already overtaxing earths life support systems, there are billions more on their way. Here's a look at various population maximums based on various standards of living:


Maximum Global Population Guesses
Each of these assumes that the current depletion of fossil fuel reserves has continued to completion. No fossil fuels are left, except possibly for a small stock, priced high, and used for limited durable uses such as new plastic production and for some pharmaceuticals.

1. Everyone at the current U.S. standard of living and with all the health, nutrition, personal dignity and freedom that most Americans currently enjoy [Pimentel, 1999]. 2 billion
2. Everyone at the same affluence level as in 1, but with few restrictions on commerce, pollution, land use, personal behavior (within current law), etc. Basically a libertarian, laissez faire economy, with only limited environmental restrictions. This points out that there is a population price to pay for the current American way of commerce. 0.5 billion
3. Everyone at the same affluence as indicated in 1, but with many and onerous restrictions on freedoms relative to behaviors leading to environmental degradation. In order to accommodate populationlevels greater than 2 billion, restrictions such as the following would have to be instituted: Massive recycling. Driving restrictions (gasolene rationing, fuel rationing even to mass transit systems). Restrictions on the transport of food (food transported no more than 100 miles for example to its point of retail sales). Prohibitions against cutting of trees on one's property. Limitations on the burning of fossil fuels in order to save these complex molecules for more valuable or durable uses, such as in the manufacture of plastics and pharmaceuticals. Limitations on the areas of open spaces that can be converted to renewable energy power plants, such as solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, and wind energy systems. This latter results from the need to preserve natural areas for atmospheric oxygen generation and food growing. Of course many rooftops can accept solar energy systems and this scenario basically assumes a nearly complete saturation of coverage of roof tops and covers over parking lots for solar energy production. 4 billion
4. Only people in the U.S. and Europe at current level of affluence. Everyone else at the current prosperity level of Mexico. 6 billion
5. Everyone in the world at Mexico's current prosperity level. 20 billion
6. Everyone in the world at the current "prosperity" level of Northwest Africa. 40 billion
(Source)





So, how's that stack up with actual population trends?

Not so good.




You can see that, even if the maximum population numbers in the table above are wildly pessimistic, we are still producing humans at a rate that is clearly unsustainable. The early proof of that pudding is already giving us camps.

So, while Al Gore's great film, An Inconvenient Truth, is laudable, and will bring both red and blue state voters into the green camp, it falls short. Gore's film, like most pro-environment pitches, steers well clear of the touchy matter of population. Oh sure, most of them speak of the social benefits of family planning and limiting the size of families. What no one is talking about, except in China, are programs capable of not just slowing population growth, but reversing it.

If governments can pass laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions, why is it so wrong to also enact programs designed to reduce the number of humans who, just by living, create pollution, exasperate food shortages, build on and/or erode tillable acreage?

And just being less consumptivc is not the answer. For example, the average US citizen, for example, requires about 9.7 hectares to provide resources and space for waste, 205% of what the country can provide. China, which has far more folks per square mile than the US, requires just 1.6 hectares for the average Chinese. Great you say. But that's still 201% of the country's capacity. India uses 0.8 hectares for the average Indian, or 210% of the country's capacity.

So, it's not just teaching folks to use less and be less wasteful. The number of booties on the ground matters much more than simply improving our stewardship of "Spaceship Earth."

If we really want to reverse global warming, and stop repeated famines, and make sure future generations have clean water to drink, the nations of the world need to initiate programs that lead to negative population growth for at least the next century. Then hold population growth to sustainble levels thereafter.

So far only China has taken this problem seriously, not because they wanted to, but because they had to. China is on the point of the population spear. And, thanks to it's one-child law and a peddle-to-the-metal family plainning programs, only China will have fewer people in 2050. Everyone else will have more. Lots more. (See here)

I remember a psychology class I took many decades ago. The professor showed a film of an experiment on the effects of over-crowding on white rats. They crammed more and more rats into a confined cage. First the rats get grouchy. Then they start getting on one another's nerves big time. Fights broke out over nothing. The end of the film showed dozens of the rats hanging from by their teeth from the top of the cage, in search of some semblance of privacy, safety and peace. That haunting image has stayed in my mind for 40 years.

The only difference today is that now I find myself understanding why those rats considered hanging by their teeth a reasonable alternative to what was happening around them.



June 20, 2006

Fill-er Up -
With Food

I'm not a scientist. I don't even play on television. I got a gentleman's “D” in high school physics and chemistry. So nothing I am about to say is based on good science. Okay?

Now, here's what's been bugging me.

I can't believe that the best way out of our dependence on oil
is by burning food in our cars instead.

I am speaking, of course, of the push that on for corn-based ethanol. I've been watching as the media parrots the ballyhoo being pumped out by the strange-bedfellows alliance made up of agri-business, the White House, energy companies and farm-state politicians. To believe the thrust of this PR blitz one would think that corn-based ethanol is the most beneficial thing to hit mankind since penicillin.

But every time I see one of those feel-good stories on the news, showing a huge truck dumping tons of golden corn into the hungry maul of a new ethanol plant, I wonder how that jives -- morally and practically -- with the images that too often precede them on the evening news.. the pictures of all those bony sub-Saharan babies covered with flies as they slowly starve.

That's what got me wondering the other night, as I watch an Archer Daniels "Growing Energy for Today & Tomorrow," ad. It made me wondered if there had ever been a civilization so decadent that it burned food for fuel while millions starved? Was that wrong of me? Well, if so, it's not my faul, it just popped into my head.

If the ethanol folks have their way and Detroit starts cranking out E85 cars by the millions, how are you going to feel when you have to buy one. How will you feel filling up your car with food-juice during the day and then watching starving children on the evening news as some horse's ass in Washington pontificates about how the world needs to do something about that? How will you feel?

Besides snatching surplus corn from the world's starving, the more corn turne into fuel the less of the stuff that will be available for domestic food use, animal feeds, breakfast cereals, nachos, etc. Prices will go up for anything with corn in it. It's basic economics -- supply and demand. Who will suffer most? American families and the working poor, of course. The price of breakfast cereal,. for example, is already high. Just wait until we start pumping it into SUV's instead of our kids. Are you a meat-eater? That meat grew on corn, so get ready for steak-sticker shock.

Yes, we do need to get away from petroleum-based fuels as soon as possible, for both national security and pressing environmental reasons. But again I am forced to ask the question; is burning food the right or moral way to do that?


Corn-holed - again?
Besides that, my reporter's gut tells me we about to be collectively screwed again by the usual suspects. You know who they are. Energy companies have invested trillions of dollars into fuel processing and distribution infrastructure. It's only good for one thing -- making and moving flammable liquids to market. Suddenly their traditional raw material – oil – has become a wasting asset. They needed another flammable liquid suited to their existing storage and distribution infrastructure, and they needed it fast.

Ethanol is it.

A friend in desperate need, can be a friend indeed to another friend in desperate need. And Big Energy found a very needy friend in middle America -- agri-business. Farmers had watched with growing alarm as one federal farm (welfare) subsidy after another disappeared. Farmers, once a political sacred cow, had lost most of its political clout over the past few decades.

Ah, agri-business has gotten its groove back -- by becoming America's very own Saudi Arabia. And who could better show them how to do that than Big Energy companies who were ready, willing and able to help farmers turn their food crops into fuel.

Man, do those energy companies and farm groups know how to build a buzz. "Go Yellow" campaigns, complete with tee-shirts, pro-environment seminars and ads, family farmers whined (again) about the imminent demise of the family farm.

Almost overnight, voting against farmer bordered on voting for terrorists, for dependence on foreign oil and for global warming. Being a farmer growing corn is now a patriotic endeavor.

Not only has ethanol revived the image of corporate farmers. Big energy benefits as well, as they try to use their support for “cleaning burning ethanol” to burnish corporate images that were heading into the shitter right behind Big Tobacco companies.

So what am I trying to say? Nothing scientific, that's for sure. I've read some research materials for and against ethanol. But I still have no idea if corn-based ethanol is better for the environment than oil-based fuels or not. Hell, I'm not even sure if the damn stuff doesn't use as much energy to make as it can produce when you burn it in your car.

I will leave such conclusions to those who got C's and above in science class. But I am pretty damn sure that burning food as a replacement for oil is not a solution the world can live with – literally. It simply does not make sense to me -- on any level.

Nevertheless the ethanol from corn juggernaut is on a roll, and it's going to be tough to stop.

The United States fuel ethanol industry is based largely on corn. As of 2005, its capacity is 15 billion liters annually. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 requires U.S. fuel ethanol production to increase to 28 billion liters (7.5 billion gallons) by 2012. In the United States, ethanol is most commonly blended with gasoline as a blend of up to 10% ethanol, known as E10 and nicknamed "gasohol". This blend is widely sold throughout the U.S. Midwest, which contains the nation's chief corn-growing centers. (Wikipedia)

This is not the first time America has faced a fuel crisis. During World War II gasoline was scarce and innovation sparked a number of unique solutions. For example, I bought a farm in the Midwest back in the 1970s and among the tractors I got with the deal was a 1943 John Deer "all-fuel" tractor. If you poured a liquid into it's tank that burned the damn thing would run on it. It had a big fly wheel on the side you turned by hand to get it started and the weight of that wheel turning kept the tractor running even if the fuel you put in it did not burn very well. The war only lasted four years of so, and as soon as regular old gasoline and diesel were readily available again that kind of "out of the box" innovation stopped. But you know, I bet that little green tractor is still running today, 63 years later. I only wish I stilled owned it.

I have long advocated a Manhattan Project II... a government funded, ten-year, all out program to produce clean, renewable energy. Who knows what our energy picture would be like today if gasoline had remained scarce after WWII? We were certainly heading in some interesting directions at the time. So what we need now is a sustained push, harnessing the best minds in science and engineering until we come up with set of solutions that fit both earth and mankind's needs.

Instead what we have is a solution being shoved down our throats by two groups, Big Energy and Big Agriculture, that are looking after their interests solely.

Ethanol is not the issue, but what we make it of sure as hell is the issue. Corn is not the only way to make ethanol. It's just the most convenient and profitable raw material. And it's politically convenient as well.

So far those with the vested interest are getting what the want. Farm states have their political clout back, energy companies have their replacement for oil and can claim they've "gone green." Politicians have new pork for their barrels, the White House can claim it's doing something to wean us off foreign oil, auto makers get another couple of decades out of their old internal combustion engines.

When American's burn food for fuel it seems everyone wins ...

Well, not everyone.




Cut & Run Liberals


I want to be perfectly clear about this. We liberals really do want to cut and run.

I admit it. We are cut and run liberials, just as Karl Rove alleges. More than that, I am proud of it and encourage more Americans to join us.

We are liberal/progressives and, damn it, we want to cut and run:

We want to cut and run from the borrow and spend, borrow and spend economics of the GOP that have piled an additional $4 trillion in debt onto our children, grand children and great grand children.

We want to cut and run from the unholy alliance between the GOP and energy companies that have left us at the mercy of a bunch of medieval Islamic tribal leaders who run their own countries like feudal states and treat their own people -- especially their women -- worse than Americans treat farm animals.

We want to cut and run from a national health care system designed by and for giant health care and pharmaceutical interests, that enriches a few while leaving 45 million Americans without affordable health insurance.

We want to cut and run from a government which, over the past six years, has become not only increasingly closed to public scrutiny and accountability, but overtly hostile and suspicious of citizens who insist on either.

We want to cut an run from a style of governance that not only plays on fear and petty prejudices, but cultivates and exploits them for cheap political gain. The cynical, dishonest purposeful pitting of majority populations against minority groups on the grounds that they don't share “American values,” and then later deny responsibility for the entirely predictable destructive consequences of those tactics.

We want to cut and run from policies that view science and scientists as adversaries whose findings must sometimes be suppressed, while embracing, even endorsing, religious dogmas that have no basis in fact whatsoever.

We want to cut and run from GOP economic polices that have handed the already wealthy a couple of trillion dollars in tax cuts while leaving working Americans payroll tax virtually untouched.

We want to cut and run from GOP economics that argue – with a straight face – that the minimum wage of $5.15 an hour should not be raised to a still unlivable $7.25 an hour because doing so would “hurt low wage workers.”

We want to cut and run from policies that scoff at mandating substantially higher fuel millage standards, even as the fossil fuels run out and the effects of global warming become more apparent with each passing day.

We want to cut and run from policies that justify turning “the land of the free and home of the brave,” into place where none of us can any longer feel sure that the government isn't listening to our private phone calls, reading our emails or isn't keeping an eye on us from a pole-mounted camera on the corner.

We want to cut and run from an administration that wraps inconvenient truths in the opaque blanket of national security while justifying selective disclosure of classified information for purely political reasons -- such as the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, and the now discredited disclosures that Iraq had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger.

We want to cut and run from policies that allow religious extremists to determine what medical procedures or family planning medications women will be allowed access to.

We want to cut and run from policies that allow our government to decide which American citizens will be allowed to enter into legally recognized committed relationships, and which will be banned by law from doing so.

We want to cut and run from policies that encourage counseling and treatment for Americans suffering from alcohol addiction, but incarceration for those suffering drug addiction.

We want to cut and run from cynically selective policies that treat some dictators as friends of America and others as enemies requiring a deadly dose of regime change.

We want to cut and run from policies that are increasingly militarizing entirely domestic matters, such as internal terrorist threats, border control and domestic law enforcement, particularly the gathering of intelligence on political groups and movements.

We want to cut and run from policies that allow industries government is supposed to regulate for the public good, to write the very rules under which they will be regulated.

Do we want to cut and run from Iraq? I wish the hell we could. But that fat is already in the fire. Liberals understand we can't cut and run from Iraq. But whose fault is it that we're stuck there now? Not ours, that's for sure. We would like to see US troops leave Iraq as soon as possible -- but not in a way that would make matters worse for ordinary Iraqis than our invasion already has.

In the meantime we are not about to let the very neocons that got us into that mess shift the blame onto liberials who oppose the war. You guys started it and that dead chicken is hung around your necks, not ours. So, Karl, stop the blame-shifting and wear it like man.

But Karl is right when he calls us "cut and run liberals." As you can see the list of things we do want to cut and run from is a long one.

We are cut and run liberals. And proud of it.

June 7 - June 19, 2006

June 17, 2006

Bold

"Boldness be my friend!"
Shakespeare

If you are like me you just get weary listening to the weaselly crap both Republicans and Democrats peddle daily to us in the hopes something they say will “resonate.” with one demographic or another.

I was listening the Hillary Clinton's tortured logic earlier this week as she tried to explain to Democrat activists that she was against what Bush is doing in Iraq, but is also against setting a date for withdrawal. But what's she “for.”

Hell if I know – or at this point, care any longer.

So I was moping around this morning, feeling lower than the axles of tricked out low-rider, when it occurred to me that I am probably not alone... not by long shot. What I want more than anything else these days is for someone – I don't even care which party they are in – just someone, to take genuine bold action. Bold. Not parsed to the nth degree. Not Bermuda-triangulated to cognitive oblivion. But bold. The kind of stuff that makes you shoot coffee through your nose when you read it in your morning paper, bold.

So I cooked up a wish list of bold positions that I want to see in my paper in the coming weeks and months. I don't care what order they arrive. I'll take any one of the following announcements on any day.


Health Care: Acknowledging that only a single-payer health insurance system can be both profitable and cover everyone, Congress passes America's first national universal health insurance system. The new entity would be a public/private partnership run by the private sector but regulated and underwritten by government, much the same way Freddie Mac ad Fannie Mae serve the residential marketplace as GSE's “Government Sponsored Entities.” (Minus, of course, the fat-cat abuse recently discovered at those two GSE's.

Illegal Immigration: Forget the fence. Congress increases funding and staffing for a national network of workplace immigration auditors. Businesses are provided on-line tools inorder to verify citizenship, much like the national database gun shops are now required to use before selling someone a firearm. Business with more than 100 employees will have their employment records audited without notice at least once a year. Penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants will be enforced with a vengeance and violators listed on a publicly on the Web.

National Energy Policy: Congress funds “Manhattan Project II” – a crash 10-year program to replace oil and coal with renewable, sustainable, non-polluting energy sources The Manhattan II Project would be funded by a 50 cent tax on all gas and oil products, except for those used for home heating.

Campaign Reform: Since the Supreme Court has ruled that money in politics is equal to free speech, Congress passes a constitutional amendment requiring that all national campaigns for House, Senate and Presidential be funded solely from special, federal campaign fund. The money in this fund would come from a small surtax on all individual, businesses and corporations and the money distributed in equal amounts to any candidate that gathers at least 10% of primary votes.

Lobbying Reform: Congress passes a total prohibition of all forms of lobbyist-provided gratuities, including trips on private planes at below-market ticket prices. Any “fact finding” trips sponsored by interest groups must first be approved by the House and Senate ethics committees and listed on a public website at least 30-days before departure to allow for public comment and/or protest.

Open Government: Congress passes an open government law modeled after California's Brown Act, requiring that all the publics' business be conducted in public, excluding only matters involving personnel, national security and Supreme Court deliberations. (Under such a law Cheney's energy task force meetings would have been illegal.)

Budgeting: Congress passes a balanced budget amendment requiring that the nation's annual budgets be in balance, except in time on congressionally approved war or formally declared national emergency.

Taxes: Congress repeals the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% of earners and shifts those savings to individuals earning under $30,000 a year (couples earning under $60,000.) For wage earners these tax savings would be reflected as a cut in their payroll tax.

A Livable Wage: Congress mandates an increase in the minimum wage to $10 an hour -- and (this time) indexes the minimum wage to inflation so it will never again fall behind.

National Security: Congress formally adopts News For Real's “Don't Do That” national defense strategy.

Iraq: Congress ties further funding for the war in Iraq to a blueprint that requires the President to begin to disentangle the US from it's presence in that country. The plan begins with a six month deadline to move all US troops to Iraq's borders to provide border security, air and logistical support for the emerging Iraqi security force. Six months later US troops must begin an orderly withdrawal from Iraq with all troops out of that country by the end of 2007.


Want More Bold Moves ?

General Motors: The company announces that the “GM” brand will no longer stand for General Motors, but for “Green Machines.” In 2008 model year GM will begin a company-wide transition away from the internal combustion engine. Until better technologies are mature GM will begin by producing only hybrid non-commercial vehicles. Ultimately the company's announced goal is to, within a decade, be the first auto company to offer a full fleet of fuel-cell/electric powered vehicles.

Iran: Congress announces it will refuse to support any Iraq-style preemptive military action on Iran and instead sends the White House a copy of the “Don't Do That” strategy.

Venezuela: Butt out.

Cuba: Butt in -- but in a nice way for a change. Lift the travel ban and embargo.

Mexico: The President announces that we must stop pretending that Mexico is anything but what it is -- a nearly dysfunctional, feudal nation on our border. A country run by a clique of elite crooks who exploit and oppress their own people, export their labor surpluses and welfare costs to the US, while looting the Mexican treasury and their country's natural resources. And that henceforth we will treat Mexico and it's leaders accordingly.

Gitmo: Close it. Transfer the prisoners to a maximum security prison in the US and begin a 90-day review of each case, after which each prisoner must be either formally charged, provided a lawyer and tried, or released immediately and returned to their home country. Those that can make a case that they would be harmed if forced to return to their home countries could apply for temporary residence in the US and would have their petitions heard within 60 days of release.


As I said above, any one of those things would be rare shaft of sunlight into what has become a very gloomy and dispiriting picture of America's leadership. If all of those bold moves came to pass it really would finally be “morning in America.” Politicians misread Americans. We are not only ready for bold ideas, but starved for them. We don't lack bold ideas, what we lack are bold leaders.

Which why none of the above will come to pass, and why it is likely to instead remain 'mourning in America,” at least for the foreseeable future.

"Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. Begin it now."
J.W.Von Goethe

June 7, 2006
Congressional Castration


Am I missing something? I mean, I wasn't exactly an "A" student in civics class, but I do clearly recall that the way the US Constitution was written – and remains unamended – is that Congress passes bills, the President either signs them into law or vetoes them. If he signs a bill it becomes a law that the President/executive branch is tehn constitutionally required to enforce.

Am I wrong about that? Did I miss passage of a constitutional amendment that changed the balance of power established by our founders?

If not, then the President of the United States has broken the law, not just once, but hundreds of times.

That's how many times this guy has signed bills into law and then, after the camera left signed a separate document he calls “a signing statement,” that, in effect, says “Just kidding. Now, here's which parts of that bill I just signed I will enforce and which parts a I won't enforce.”

Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements, in fact he wrote the book on the subject: By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action. Two years ago Cooper wrote that George W. Bush had issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

That was number has now passed 750.

The White House claims all this is constitutionally kosher. But how can it be? Would someone explain to me how these noxious signing statements are any different from the line item veto, that the US Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional?

If you read one of Bush's signing statements they read very much like a line item veto, “yes to this part of the bill, no to this part, “ etc. Sure looks like a duck to me.

For those of you unfamiliar with a Bush signing statement here's a short example. Bush signed this little gem right after signing the USA Patriot Act “Improvement and Reauthorization Act,” earlier this year. President hailed that bill in a pre-signing statement for the cameras. What he didn't mention was the little piece of paper under that bill that he would sign once everyone left the room. Here it is:

President's Signing Statement on H.R. 199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005"

Today signed into law H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005," and then S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006." The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug meth-amphetamine that is ruining too many lives.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 9, 2006.

“Shall construe?” Who the hell gives a fig how the president “construes” something he about to sign? Surely not the US Constitution. And most certainly the courts don't care. I've read a lot of Supreme Court cases where the “intent of Congress,” in passing a bill was central to the case. But I have never heard of a case in which the “intent of the President” in signing a bill was given a centella of regard. Because it doesn't matter, constitutionally. If the court sees that a President signed a bill, rather than vetoing it, they consider it prima facia evidence of only one thing – that the president intended to sign the bill into law. And not some of it, but all of it.

(Besides, when it comes to "construing,"the meaning of laws, isn't that the job of the third branch or government, the courts? Is Bush claiming that right now as well? Our newly self-minted Construer in Chief-Justice?)

Therefore, can any party of the first, second, third or millionth part, explain to me why not a single member of Congress is yet to drag this White House into court over this clear and present attack on the constitutions' separation of powers?

After all, established law (stare decisis) is on the side of the angles in this matter. We've been here before, and not that long ago either. The Supreme Court settled this matter with a clear and unambiguous decision in 1998. The Court it ruled against a law congress passed that granted the president the power to pick and chose which budget items he will or will not enforce, the line item veto. The Court struck it down and told both Congress and the president that, if they wanted to rearrange the constitutional balances of power, the only constitutionally legal way is with a constitutional amendment.

“U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York.” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in a concurrence of the opinion of the Court, objected to the argument that the Act did not violate principles of the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty, stating that the "undeniable effects" of the Act were to "enhance the President's power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another." (More)

Bush's signing statements are an even more egregious constitutional insult than the line item veto. At least the line item veto was granted to the president by congress. This time congress wasn't even asked. Bush simply claimed this power for himself. And, as least so far, has he's gotten away with it.

So, I ask again, why has no member of congress filed suit? You would think that they would at least be offended. Besides being unconstitutional, Bush signing statements are also condescending. They might as well be worded like this:

To: Congress
From: The President of the United States

To Whom it May Concern:
I have read you bill noted above and, I signed it in front of the TV cameras with you around me smiling jackals. Because I understand you need to show your constituents back home that you really are doing something up here after all.

But I didn't like some of the parts of the bill you gave me. But rather than embarrass you with a veto or -- God forbid! -- provide you an opportunity to embarrass me with veto override, I will simply ignore the parts of this bill I don't like.

So, for your records, here is my marked up copy of your bill. For your convenience I drew a little happy face :-) next to the sections I will enforce, and a little frowny face :-( next to the sections I intend to ignore.

Now, y'all all have a nice day.
George W. Bush :-)


This administration has usurped plenty of congressional power over the last six years as well as chipping away at the third “co-equal” branch of government, the courts. But Bush's signing statements, which treat congressional legislation like boxes of See's candy, is the most blatant, obnoxious and dangerous coup of them all.

“These signing statements are to Bush and Cheney's presidency what steroids were to Arnold Schwarzenegger's body building. Like Schwarzenegger with his steroids, Bush does not deny using his signing statements; does not like talking about using them; and believes that they add muscle. But like steroids, signing statements ultimately lead to serious trouble.”

(John W. Dean, Former White House Counsel under Nixon)

Where's congress today? Well, the Senate is voting on an ammendent to the constition -- to protect us from the scourge of same-sex marriages.

Where are key Democrats?

Hey, Hillary, tell us if you will, which poses the greatest threat to the American way of life -- flag burning or presidential signing statements? Hmmm? Tough one huh?

Hello members of congress! Is anyone home any longer? Did you all forget that the Supreme Court is just across the street? Hell, you could pitch a briefcase full of Bush's signing statements and hit the goddamn place.

Shouldn't you be storming the steps of the Supreme Court, frothing at the mouth, lawyers in tow, demanding the court's immediate and urgent attention to this attack on the legislative branches' constitutional power?

Shouldn't you be? After all, didn't each of you take the oath pledging to “obey and protect the US Constitution?”

Or did you have your own little signing statement tucked into your pocket when took that oath? Maybe you signed later. You know, “just kidding.” That would explain it. That's about the only thing that would explain it.

I look forward more and more with each passing day to the first Tuesday of November. Because on that day I'm going into the voting booth loaded for bear -- encumbant bear.

Shame on you. You are beneath contempt.

All of you.