Government of the Business .. By the Business
And FOR the Wealthy
Imagine for a moment you are on another planet. You’re watching some of the inhabitants trying to move some freight in a little vehicle with four wheels. Four square wheels.
It’s hopeless. They finally stop. Others show up and they all meet in a circle with a lot of gesturing and discussion. They settle on one suggestion: change the setup to three wheels. They do this and a few hours later, try again. Thus the struggle continues. The obvious stumbling block is that they are making a huge effort to improve the vehicle, but within the parameters of the failure.
Is that what we’re witnessing right now in Washington? The pure solution to this so-called “bailout” of the failed banks is to allow business to put up the billions, post the money and get busy. For years republicans have been preaching that the private sector can do all things better than the government. The market is magic, they tell us. It can solve all problems, if left alone. Their unwavering mantra has been “...Government is the problem.” OK – prove it. Get Exxon Mobile, Halliburton, Goldman Sachs and a lot of their other colleagues together, raise the money and PRIVATIZE THE BAILOUT. That group can easily raise this small amount of capital needed, to “save” the country. Hell, they’ve made more than that in a couple of their wars: Vietnam and now Iraq.
Part of their pitch to the American people to fund this charade is that in this Paulson caper the government money will be used to buy up all the troubled assets, at a rock bottom price of course. Then, they tell us they can sit on them for a bit until the economy returns to normal (thanks to the all-controlling market that republicans continue to pray to). Then they will simply sell these assets for a reasonable price, and not only get the bailout money back, but probably make a nice profit. Good – that’s what the republican party and the business community is about – maximizing profits.
This is so obviously not the answer to this mess, because these bankers are swimming in a pool of bad loans. When things were riding high, when risky dealing was the plan of the day (with no oversight) these bankers and their congressional cheerleaders made some obscene profits. But now that their risky business has them in this hole, they expect the American PEOPLE to provide the fix, the “bailout.” How do they just put this solution out there as gospel, expecting us to accept it as the only real solution? Isn’t that like the inhabitants of Mars with their square wheels? They slog blindly onward, not even considering an alternate solution, just continue to tweak endlessly on the wrong solution, which has proven so far to be deficient in success. The gutless opposition in Congress has so far done that for what, about $85 Billion?
If you recall, starting in October 2002 these same bit players said we needed to HURRY and grant a less-than-honest (brain-damaged?) president the authority to use force, as he saw fit. That’s what the vote was for: the authority, not a declaration of war. We all know how well that worked out. NOW, using WMD on us again, (Weapons of Money Distraction) we’re told again to HURRY UP – sign the instrument to save America from panic and chaos. This time the instrument stipulates the authority to use money in any way they see fit. Like last time, we’re not even allowed to question their decisions, or know anything about it. The chief stipulator this is time is a graduate of the very banking system that created the mess: Henry Paulson of Goldman Sachs. As if all this weren’t a big enough intellectual insult to us, the Paulson crowd - once they’re empowered by the signatures on their instrument – will hire the same bankers who caused the meltdown, to act as ”consultants” to clean it up! These consultants will lend us their expertise for a consulting fee, starting at $150K a week, on up, and some of these opportunists will ask for, and receive, a percentage of the gains. But it’s 7th grade logic that Wall Street's best and brightest are not exactly geniuses at asset or mortgage valuation; if they had, we wouldn't be where we are. So they are making sure they have it both ways – why must we (American people) constantly have to struggle under incompetence and lack of courage (lack of honesty?) with our representatives?
And the straw that should be breaking the camel’s back is the stipulation that we can’t object – as to who they hire, or what fees will be paid to them for services. It looks like they’re going to publish this turkey – at least that’s what the talking heads on television are saying. We’ll see. EVERY ONE of us should read EVERY WORD of it once it’s done, if they do it. It is found here:
financialservices.house.gov
After you know every word in it, you should find out how your own Senator
or Congressperson voted. In my personal case, where I live we have neither a Senator nor a Congressman, but you should know exactly how yours votes on this thing if it comes to that.
Pretty serious stuff, huh? The republicans - with their steamroller, Lee Atwater/Karl Rove playbook - just expect this kind of thing to pass and become law, and they want it done NOW. Senator Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, held up letters from over two hundred of the nation’s most knowledgeable economists, from Harvard University, Princeton University, Yale, University of Chicago, the Wharton school of Economics, etc. and their advice was an overwhelming warning: Do NOT pass this plan. It appears that some plan is needed, but DO NOT pass this turkey in its present form. Offer it to the private sector – that’s the only grownup view that will satisfy all of us, in my view.
All we have to do is behave like grownups in this matter. We force those who created the mess to clean it up. We should sternly resist and firmly reject this republican power play, this in-your-face, stiff arm, preposterous power grab unless it is drastically changed, which stipulates that we should allow them to continue to:
Privatize the profits, but socialize the losses.
Come on, guys, we’re smarter than that, aren’t we?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Sunday, August 3, 2008
You Can't Make Democracy Work
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK IN AMERICA, if …
We Are Perilously Close to Losing It
It’s become more obvious every day that we have taken our system, which is supposed to be Democracy, for granted. Remember, we’re just 200 years old – 232 to be exact – which is like a couple of weeks when compared to the established governments in Europe, even China. During that time we’ve had it pretty easy. It has been relatively simple to make this governmental experiment work. A few years after our forefathers crafted our government, the year 1800 came along. During the next fifty years we only had a war in - 1812 - which didn’t stress us too much.
Our Democracy showed its first signs of breaking during the 1860-1865 period, but thanks to a very mature minded leader, very fair, gifted and far reaching in his decisions, we got through that horrible Civil War. From that time to 1900, we had no stresses to tear at us. American manufacturers started to think independently of Europe, and started making things, highlighted by Thomas Edison’s light bulb in December 1879, and before that, his phonograph. The great movement to connect the Western United States to the Eastern United States also was in full force. Thus we arrived at 1900 with great thoughts of things like the automobile, harnessing electrical distribution, and in just a few years, the great invention of the airplane.
Remember, with a lot fewer states, there were fewer Congress persons and Senators. That meant fewer power grabs at our government than exist today, with 50 states.
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if you don’t have a fully functioning FREE PRESS to keep the legislators honest. The word Free in the title means the Press is by definition free of any censoring, free of any governmental or corporate control over what it publishes. The PRESS is how we have always kept excesses under control in America. But that was then, this is now.
There’s no debate on this matter: we do NOT have a Free Press in America in August 2008. The administration has stooped to sending “talking points” to its communication lackey, which presents a slanted view of the administration’s actions to the public. This administration uses FOX news, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, among others. This has been ongoing for years now. Bad enough, but when you realize that the rest of those in the Press don’t challenge such highly-slanted views, a lot of which are bold-faced lies, and demand proof then the picture gets clearer. We do NOT have a Free Press in America in August 2008, as long as certain entities have the capability to present a constant drumbeat of their one-sided viewpoints, all unsubstantiated, all unchallenged, with a tremendous forum ! The true method for arriving at this conclusion here is “…if the Press is not the solution, then it very likely is the problem.”
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if the representatives you elect in your District to represent your welfare in Washington, turn out to be more loyal to those who hand them money, than they are to you, who elected them. Those we send to Washington to represent us learned early on where the money is, and they coined the greatest euphemism in the history of language, Campaign Finance. This term is to hoodwink the information-deprived masses. It is, in actuality, a synonym for what can only be called legal bribery. It is legal because our representatives made it legal. The thinking they used was: “…since we have to become known to get re-elected, we can take money assistance from the public to help us buy television time and make campaign trips for speeches.” So they called it by the now famous euphemism Campaign Finance. And we, the public let them. We allowed them to take money from private interests, mostly corporations, and when it comes time to vote on a measure that those private interests want defeated, how do you think our representative will vote? If our representative votes for the bill, he would be stiff-arming the group that gave him money. Who would do that? Psychology 101 screams that answer !
Thus the concept of money, freely given and just as freely taken, with no taint of bribery allowed by the Free Press, or anyone in government, was perpetuated and perpetuated, until candidates for federal office rake in hundreds of millions of dollars to campaign. They routinely use half and save the other half for retirement. Who is protecting the rights of the citizens who will be affected by these laws that are passed out of the womb of money? Three things have to happen, and fairly rapidly.
· candidates for office can’t take money, or if they do, very little
· candidates campaign for six weeks, like in Britain – free television
· senators enjoy one re-election, congressmen two, then the country has to move on, and purify the legislative bodies
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if you find you have an Executive, called President in our Democracy, who is demonstrably working against the interests of the nation. This is manifested in any number of ways. If the Executive arrogantly refuses to even try to cooperate with other nations in any one of a number of relationships, from trade, to international relationships to climate change. If the Executive fills important government posts with inexperienced and incompetent cronies, who regularly commit blunders and serious mistakes in judgment, yes, even crimes, detrimental to the nation and a lot of people. If the Executive utilizes the Presidential device of signing statements too often. The signing statement is a statement that a President affixes to any law he sees he must pass, but he doesn’t like it. Thus he signs it into law, but the signing statement stipulates that he won’t obey it as law. Pretty clever, huh? If you have an Executive who commits more signing statements than all the other previous 42 Executives before him, did, by triple. If you have an Executive who brazenly increases the power of the Executive, and provides his own rationale for doing so, so that he can get away with such things as eavesdropping or snooping on the citizenry, or committing the nation to a misbegotten war without the Constitutionally-mandated requirement that only Congress can declare war.
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if you realize you have an elected Executive who has arguably lowered the standard of living of our citizens; lied constantly to the country on every matter; ruined the economy; very nearly ruined our Armed Forces; made our country look terrible in the eyes of the world; acted irresponsibly, especially lying in his reasons for invading another country; spent the nation into a recession and record debt, coupled with inflation; caused the deaths of three quarters of a million souls; every utterance from him is political in nature; works tirelessly to increase the wealth of corporations, to the detriment of the people’s welfare, who reached new low levels of approval, and your Congress won’t file impeachment against him. IT IS AT THIS POINT that whatever you call your form of government, it isn’t working. Since in our country it’s called Democracy, it’s 3rd grade logic that you need a Parliamentary system badly. If you had a Parliament, you could force a removal from Office, and have him out of there in a couple weeks, like they did in England with Tony Blair recently.
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if you are trying to get by with a deliberately uneducated populace A lack of curiosity about things, lack of some higher education, especially in philosophical thinking, or by using the genius of “…What if?” thinking, will lead to non-voting or not keeping abreast of all issues that affect the nation, from road and bridge repair, to laws which discriminate against some, and need to be changed; to total inability to see through and challenge the many euphemisms thrown at the populace by greedy corporations and individuals, to facilitate their theft of the assets of the people as a whole. Uninformed people are probably most of the reason for the dismal fact that over 60% of eligible voters in America simply don’t bother to vote. They utter statements created by their own uninformed colleagues, like “…I don’t vote, it just encourages them,” and “…I don’t vote, there’s no difference between the two of them.” Both of these childish analyses of such a serious matter are always delivered as a joke. Some joke !
Many writers of recent date have carefully pointed out the unhappy fact that huge portions of the populace are falling so far behind, the result is the dismantling of the nation as we have come to know it.
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if you sit on your hands when it comes to light (and without a functioning Free Press it took a hundred years or more !) that your elected representatives have created laws that allow them to continue to draw their salaries until their death regardless of how few years they serve in the Congress/Senate. Surprised? And if you sit on your hands when it comes to light that your elected representatives vote themselves more pay raises than is the norm in the country, while simultaneously refusing to raise the minimum wage for over TEN YEARS, that’s more damage to the country. That divides the country even more!
This effectively creates another class of people in America. Then, as if that isn’t bad enough, our representatives added a little addendum to the “money after they retire gambit.” They even draw their generous retirement if they have broken the laws so egregiously that they end up in PRISON – see Duke Cunningham, Dan Rostenkowski, James Traficante, and soon to be Ted Stevens of Alaska. It was reported recently that thanks to a formal challenge to this activity by a Freshman congress person, the Congress struck down a small portion of this perk for about two or three crimes, but retained the privilege for the felonies that Legislators would be most likely to commit.
You can’t make a democracy work with activity like that. Can you?
After viewing these impediments that prevent the concept of Democracy from being a vigorous, long-lived form of government, it appears that the most damaging of them all is the absence of a Free Press. The reader may differ, thinking one of the others is more troubling, but for my part, I notice all the time how legislators are getting away with murder, so to speak, by the lack of any accountability, occasioned by no one doing any questioning of them. Our present faux-news people are the worst in my lifetime, for “going along with the flow” - with one or two exceptions. You know who they are:
David Gregory of MSNBC – had a good start, but the longer he has stayed, the more he has knuckled under. One of his latest questions of Bush was: “How’s Barney doing, Mr. President?” (Barney is bush’s dog.) No longer deserves the title newsman.
Chris Mathews – when he asks a question, it’s really a speech. We once taped a question of his and counted – his “question” was just under three hundred words. A fop, who is so immersed in himself, he interrupts all answers two or three words into the answer. Not even close to being called a newsman.
Chris Wallace – Fox broadcasting. For a real newsman like Mike Wallace to have sired this one must be tough for Mike to take.
George Stephanopolous – see David Gregory.
Helen Thomas – the best of the best. In fact, so honest, so good, so incisive and so probing, the current President refuses to EVER call on her. Real democracy, huh? If a reporter asks probing questions, DO NOT CALL on him/her.
Charles Gibson – see David Gregory, without a good start
Katie Couric – out of her element
Joe Scarborough – see David Gregory only add much more ego and less intellect.
Rachel Maddow – rapidly becoming the new Helen Thomas. As good as it gets. Works on radio as well as television, and is showing real character and skill. A good one.
John Stuart – in actuality a comedian who does more news than a lot of so-called newsmen. Presents all the day’s sticking points as comedy, and as a result, covers most of the day’s news. Needless to say, very independent, and thus a very positive force in our society. He does not allow guests to intimidate him in any way, regardless of job title, Military rank, moneyed position, or any of those artificial signposts. Touches more nerve points in a half hour than could Wallace, Gregory, Scarboro in a day.
Steven Colbert – like John Stuart in most ways. He is a wonderful comedian who dissects all the day’s news in satire. Like Stuart, he covers all the news that a half hour will let him get to, and he does NOT allow anyone in office, or in a corporation to hoodwink, or intimidate him.
Keith Olbermann – the Gold standard. Asks very probing questions of all, especially those in an Administration. Sees through euphemisms, talking points, and hauls the worst before the bar of accountability in America. Nominates three every night as “The Worst Person in the World,” including the President of the country when it is justified as he did on August 1. Has accurately called the sitting President of the United States a liar a number of times, has pointed out his (the president’s) huge incompetence, has challenged the President’s often voiced statements, as reporters are supposed to do. Aren’t they? Thank God for Keith Olbermann.
One final thought: you can’t make Democracy work if you’re surrounded by thousands of individuals with power who don’t want it to work.
Bottom line: at August 1, 2008, we (Americans) are not making Democracy work. Ben Franklin warned us in 1789 it wasn’t going to be easy. He was right. Anybody have any ideas on where we should start?
faithfully, in the interest of the American people
see also swungnotes @daily kos.
We Are Perilously Close to Losing It
It’s become more obvious every day that we have taken our system, which is supposed to be Democracy, for granted. Remember, we’re just 200 years old – 232 to be exact – which is like a couple of weeks when compared to the established governments in Europe, even China. During that time we’ve had it pretty easy. It has been relatively simple to make this governmental experiment work. A few years after our forefathers crafted our government, the year 1800 came along. During the next fifty years we only had a war in - 1812 - which didn’t stress us too much.
Our Democracy showed its first signs of breaking during the 1860-1865 period, but thanks to a very mature minded leader, very fair, gifted and far reaching in his decisions, we got through that horrible Civil War. From that time to 1900, we had no stresses to tear at us. American manufacturers started to think independently of Europe, and started making things, highlighted by Thomas Edison’s light bulb in December 1879, and before that, his phonograph. The great movement to connect the Western United States to the Eastern United States also was in full force. Thus we arrived at 1900 with great thoughts of things like the automobile, harnessing electrical distribution, and in just a few years, the great invention of the airplane.
Remember, with a lot fewer states, there were fewer Congress persons and Senators. That meant fewer power grabs at our government than exist today, with 50 states.
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if you don’t have a fully functioning FREE PRESS to keep the legislators honest. The word Free in the title means the Press is by definition free of any censoring, free of any governmental or corporate control over what it publishes. The PRESS is how we have always kept excesses under control in America. But that was then, this is now.
There’s no debate on this matter: we do NOT have a Free Press in America in August 2008. The administration has stooped to sending “talking points” to its communication lackey, which presents a slanted view of the administration’s actions to the public. This administration uses FOX news, the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, among others. This has been ongoing for years now. Bad enough, but when you realize that the rest of those in the Press don’t challenge such highly-slanted views, a lot of which are bold-faced lies, and demand proof then the picture gets clearer. We do NOT have a Free Press in America in August 2008, as long as certain entities have the capability to present a constant drumbeat of their one-sided viewpoints, all unsubstantiated, all unchallenged, with a tremendous forum ! The true method for arriving at this conclusion here is “…if the Press is not the solution, then it very likely is the problem.”
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if the representatives you elect in your District to represent your welfare in Washington, turn out to be more loyal to those who hand them money, than they are to you, who elected them. Those we send to Washington to represent us learned early on where the money is, and they coined the greatest euphemism in the history of language, Campaign Finance. This term is to hoodwink the information-deprived masses. It is, in actuality, a synonym for what can only be called legal bribery. It is legal because our representatives made it legal. The thinking they used was: “…since we have to become known to get re-elected, we can take money assistance from the public to help us buy television time and make campaign trips for speeches.” So they called it by the now famous euphemism Campaign Finance. And we, the public let them. We allowed them to take money from private interests, mostly corporations, and when it comes time to vote on a measure that those private interests want defeated, how do you think our representative will vote? If our representative votes for the bill, he would be stiff-arming the group that gave him money. Who would do that? Psychology 101 screams that answer !
Thus the concept of money, freely given and just as freely taken, with no taint of bribery allowed by the Free Press, or anyone in government, was perpetuated and perpetuated, until candidates for federal office rake in hundreds of millions of dollars to campaign. They routinely use half and save the other half for retirement. Who is protecting the rights of the citizens who will be affected by these laws that are passed out of the womb of money? Three things have to happen, and fairly rapidly.
· candidates for office can’t take money, or if they do, very little
· candidates campaign for six weeks, like in Britain – free television
· senators enjoy one re-election, congressmen two, then the country has to move on, and purify the legislative bodies
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if you find you have an Executive, called President in our Democracy, who is demonstrably working against the interests of the nation. This is manifested in any number of ways. If the Executive arrogantly refuses to even try to cooperate with other nations in any one of a number of relationships, from trade, to international relationships to climate change. If the Executive fills important government posts with inexperienced and incompetent cronies, who regularly commit blunders and serious mistakes in judgment, yes, even crimes, detrimental to the nation and a lot of people. If the Executive utilizes the Presidential device of signing statements too often. The signing statement is a statement that a President affixes to any law he sees he must pass, but he doesn’t like it. Thus he signs it into law, but the signing statement stipulates that he won’t obey it as law. Pretty clever, huh? If you have an Executive who commits more signing statements than all the other previous 42 Executives before him, did, by triple. If you have an Executive who brazenly increases the power of the Executive, and provides his own rationale for doing so, so that he can get away with such things as eavesdropping or snooping on the citizenry, or committing the nation to a misbegotten war without the Constitutionally-mandated requirement that only Congress can declare war.
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if you realize you have an elected Executive who has arguably lowered the standard of living of our citizens; lied constantly to the country on every matter; ruined the economy; very nearly ruined our Armed Forces; made our country look terrible in the eyes of the world; acted irresponsibly, especially lying in his reasons for invading another country; spent the nation into a recession and record debt, coupled with inflation; caused the deaths of three quarters of a million souls; every utterance from him is political in nature; works tirelessly to increase the wealth of corporations, to the detriment of the people’s welfare, who reached new low levels of approval, and your Congress won’t file impeachment against him. IT IS AT THIS POINT that whatever you call your form of government, it isn’t working. Since in our country it’s called Democracy, it’s 3rd grade logic that you need a Parliamentary system badly. If you had a Parliament, you could force a removal from Office, and have him out of there in a couple weeks, like they did in England with Tony Blair recently.
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if you are trying to get by with a deliberately uneducated populace A lack of curiosity about things, lack of some higher education, especially in philosophical thinking, or by using the genius of “…What if?” thinking, will lead to non-voting or not keeping abreast of all issues that affect the nation, from road and bridge repair, to laws which discriminate against some, and need to be changed; to total inability to see through and challenge the many euphemisms thrown at the populace by greedy corporations and individuals, to facilitate their theft of the assets of the people as a whole. Uninformed people are probably most of the reason for the dismal fact that over 60% of eligible voters in America simply don’t bother to vote. They utter statements created by their own uninformed colleagues, like “…I don’t vote, it just encourages them,” and “…I don’t vote, there’s no difference between the two of them.” Both of these childish analyses of such a serious matter are always delivered as a joke. Some joke !
Many writers of recent date have carefully pointed out the unhappy fact that huge portions of the populace are falling so far behind, the result is the dismantling of the nation as we have come to know it.
YOU CAN’T MAKE DEMOCRACY WORK, if you sit on your hands when it comes to light (and without a functioning Free Press it took a hundred years or more !) that your elected representatives have created laws that allow them to continue to draw their salaries until their death regardless of how few years they serve in the Congress/Senate. Surprised? And if you sit on your hands when it comes to light that your elected representatives vote themselves more pay raises than is the norm in the country, while simultaneously refusing to raise the minimum wage for over TEN YEARS, that’s more damage to the country. That divides the country even more!
This effectively creates another class of people in America. Then, as if that isn’t bad enough, our representatives added a little addendum to the “money after they retire gambit.” They even draw their generous retirement if they have broken the laws so egregiously that they end up in PRISON – see Duke Cunningham, Dan Rostenkowski, James Traficante, and soon to be Ted Stevens of Alaska. It was reported recently that thanks to a formal challenge to this activity by a Freshman congress person, the Congress struck down a small portion of this perk for about two or three crimes, but retained the privilege for the felonies that Legislators would be most likely to commit.
You can’t make a democracy work with activity like that. Can you?
After viewing these impediments that prevent the concept of Democracy from being a vigorous, long-lived form of government, it appears that the most damaging of them all is the absence of a Free Press. The reader may differ, thinking one of the others is more troubling, but for my part, I notice all the time how legislators are getting away with murder, so to speak, by the lack of any accountability, occasioned by no one doing any questioning of them. Our present faux-news people are the worst in my lifetime, for “going along with the flow” - with one or two exceptions. You know who they are:
David Gregory of MSNBC – had a good start, but the longer he has stayed, the more he has knuckled under. One of his latest questions of Bush was: “How’s Barney doing, Mr. President?” (Barney is bush’s dog.) No longer deserves the title newsman.
Chris Mathews – when he asks a question, it’s really a speech. We once taped a question of his and counted – his “question” was just under three hundred words. A fop, who is so immersed in himself, he interrupts all answers two or three words into the answer. Not even close to being called a newsman.
Chris Wallace – Fox broadcasting. For a real newsman like Mike Wallace to have sired this one must be tough for Mike to take.
George Stephanopolous – see David Gregory.
Helen Thomas – the best of the best. In fact, so honest, so good, so incisive and so probing, the current President refuses to EVER call on her. Real democracy, huh? If a reporter asks probing questions, DO NOT CALL on him/her.
Charles Gibson – see David Gregory, without a good start
Katie Couric – out of her element
Joe Scarborough – see David Gregory only add much more ego and less intellect.
Rachel Maddow – rapidly becoming the new Helen Thomas. As good as it gets. Works on radio as well as television, and is showing real character and skill. A good one.
John Stuart – in actuality a comedian who does more news than a lot of so-called newsmen. Presents all the day’s sticking points as comedy, and as a result, covers most of the day’s news. Needless to say, very independent, and thus a very positive force in our society. He does not allow guests to intimidate him in any way, regardless of job title, Military rank, moneyed position, or any of those artificial signposts. Touches more nerve points in a half hour than could Wallace, Gregory, Scarboro in a day.
Steven Colbert – like John Stuart in most ways. He is a wonderful comedian who dissects all the day’s news in satire. Like Stuart, he covers all the news that a half hour will let him get to, and he does NOT allow anyone in office, or in a corporation to hoodwink, or intimidate him.
Keith Olbermann – the Gold standard. Asks very probing questions of all, especially those in an Administration. Sees through euphemisms, talking points, and hauls the worst before the bar of accountability in America. Nominates three every night as “The Worst Person in the World,” including the President of the country when it is justified as he did on August 1. Has accurately called the sitting President of the United States a liar a number of times, has pointed out his (the president’s) huge incompetence, has challenged the President’s often voiced statements, as reporters are supposed to do. Aren’t they? Thank God for Keith Olbermann.
One final thought: you can’t make Democracy work if you’re surrounded by thousands of individuals with power who don’t want it to work.
Bottom line: at August 1, 2008, we (Americans) are not making Democracy work. Ben Franklin warned us in 1789 it wasn’t going to be easy. He was right. Anybody have any ideas on where we should start?
faithfully, in the interest of the American people
see also swungnotes @daily kos.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
FRUITS OF HATE – RADIO TALKING HEADS
How Much responsibility do they bear when their talk leads to Mayhem?
Let’s be honest now. Let’s examine all the facts in the latest case of utter mayhem, in which two apparently superb human beings had to perish, and seven others were grievously hurt, on the altar of hate spewed by those who manage to have both brain anomalies and a National Forum. Think about that convergence for a moment – it’s becoming more and more national in scope. A hate meister with a national audience? Does that sound like America? Or what it used to be? I’m probably old enough to remember when such a thing wasn’t possible. And what does that say about the audience?
If an individual with a curious combination of seriously sick thoughts and a national forum, who is dangerously opinionated without having had the benefit of higher education coupled with research to justify his slanted opinions, is allowed to continue to spout an ongoing hatred of some amorphous group which doesn’t exist, and he continutes to refer to them with the worst condemnation imaginable, isn’t it reasonable to predict that sooner or later, some unstable listener might believe this hate program and take instant action to correct it? And when such an unstable one blames the amorphous group for his problems, and sets out to exact revenge from the closest persons he thinks are members of the group – what then?
Jim Adkisson did just that. Jim is 58 and lives in Powell, Tennessee. Jim calmly walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church in Knoxville on Sunday last. He removed a .12 gauge shotgun from a Guitar case and tried to shoot everyone, failed, but succeeded in killing two and wounding seven others. What? He killed two people and wounded seven - all strangers - while they were in a church? Can anyone just accept that and continue on to the next sentence without a heightened sense of outrage, and disbelief?
* Here’s how dangerous Jim was in his community. *
Neighbors said Adkisson was quiet and kept to himself. "He never went anywhere,” said Melissa Coker, a neighbor. “He never had anybody over. Just, it was really quiet. He rode a motorcycle and you know he would go out on the weekends on his motorcycle, but other than that, you never heard from him," Coker told WVLT-TV. Adkisson's landlord said she did not know him well enough to make any comments on his character but said he was a good tenant who paid his bills, according to CNN affiliate WBIR-TV.
Coker told The Associated Press that Adkisson had been a truck driver, but she didn't think he'd been working steadily in the past six months.
“Jim was quiet and kept to himself.” According to neighbors.
"He's just a really, really nice guy," Coker told the AP.
”You never heard anything from him.” Coker again
A really, really nice guy? He was really quiet. You never heard from him. A good tenant who always paid his bills?
So – what do we have here? Here’s what the reigning police officer in the county reported right after the killings:
"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement," Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen IV told reporters on Monday. It’s entirely safe to conjecture that Jim Adkisson didn’t hear the term liberal movement from his truck driving friends, or motorcycle riders. No sir. He heard that term from the radio, just like I did.
The liberal movement. What is that? It sounds as if Mr. Adkisson, in his anguish, truly believed there is a ‘movement,’ which is such a generalized term that it could mean anything from formal meetings to discuss philosophy, or action taken by an organized group, to paramilitary activity, to criminal activity, to political activity, to action taken by groups deliberately aimed at hurting him, personally, and/or people like him. There is, in actuality, no such thing in America as the liberal movement. If you want some education, ask ten people to define liberal for you. DO NOT accept a sound-byte, three word definition, insist on a full definition. Do not answer any questions. Just listen, do not comment on anything. I can guarantee you will get ten widely different definitions from the ten you ask.
I have, however, personally heard that term Liberal Movement uttered by one Rush Limbaugh on the radio. I was told by friends at dinner that this chap is a raving lunatic, who masquerades as a comedian, but who spouts hatred on the radio toward any and all, but whose main reason for being appears to be a hatred of liberals, whatever they are, liberalism, whatever that is, and the liberal movement, whatever that is. I can’t vouch for all of Limbaugh’s broadcast statements, other than the ones I heard him make, and the time I saw a video of him doing his radio thing, when he shook his entire upper body while stating “…Liberals are the cause of all our problems …” I suppose he shook while saying this because he wanted to register his utmost hatred of these creatures, these hated liberals.
Just before the multiple murders, Jim Adkisson had received a letter from the state government telling him his food stamps were being reduced or eliminated, police said. Police Chief Owen offered this:
"He did express the frustration that the liberal movement was getting more jobs.” There’s that term again, liberal movement.
Adkisson's resume indicates he had worked in mechanical engineering, police said.
It’s now known that Adkisson chose the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church to wreak his “revenge on liberals” because of recent publicity about activities there that he considered liberal. It’s not known how he made that evaluation.
An indicator of how strong his hatred was for liberals was when he stated he expected to continue shooting people until the police arrived, and he fully expected to be killed by the responding police," Owen said.
OK – here’s the really interesting part. Jim Adkisson is losing his food stamps, and cannot get a job right now, so the food stamp loss is really serious. That's understandable. Upon losing his food stamps, in a rage he decides to retaliate against the ‘enemy’ who he has been led to believe took the food stamps, the liberals. Who told him the liberals were responsible for taking his food stamps? And what about the term liberal movement? Adkisson didn’t hear that phrase from his truck driver friends, or motorcycle enthusiasts. He heard it from Rush Limbaugh, just like I did.
But wait. A sense of maturity should have demanded that he examine this reasoning. If we accept the term ‘liberal’ as being a genuine group – which we do NOT – but we just examine the workings of state and Federal welfare groups, then we see right away that it was the liberal ones in government who created food stamps as assistance in the first place. So did Jim set out to kill some people with the same mindset as those who created the laws for food stamp assistance to those in need – himself?
How could he make this mistake? He must have been encouraged in it.
Well – and I found this information a day after I started this posting – when the police searched Adkisson’s home they found a book titled: “Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder” by Michael Savage, whose real name is Michael Weiner. (It’s not known why he hides his real name) Weiner is, like Limbaugh, a radio talker, and his most used word everyday, by far, is the word liberal. One can tell from the title of his book what the state of his mental competence is. His radio talk show has a national audience and ranks third in number of stations syndicated nationwide and third in nationwide audience behind Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Obviously Jim Adkisson must have been listening to Weiner on the radio in addition to buying his book.
Also found in the Adkisson apartment was a book by Sean Hannity, who is also a syndicated radio talker, and who also belongs to the group of liberal-haters. A book by Hannity – Deliver Us From Evil, Defeating Terrorism and Liberalism was also found in Adkisson’s home. Background on Sean Hannity shows he failed at construction work, flunked out of school, then failed as a bartender in California and gravitated to talk radio, and from there to hate radio, which apparently qualifies him to be an author, and to school others in behavior. He is apparently known among broadcasters as a “political polarizer.”
Thus we arrive at the Church on July 27 2008, with Jim Adkisson, who has been receiving food stamps from the liberal members of the legislature (Webster: liberal – fair, generous, giving) for assistance while out of work. That description is pure gold, because it is patently obvious that conservative groups don’t go around giving food stamps or raising minimum wage, or extending unemployment benefits, or any of those compassionate activities. Do they? Of course not. So unfortunately, Jim, who has been receiving food assistance by the thoughtful actions of liberal legislators, now finds his food stamps being cut off, so he loads a .12 gauge shotgun and goes out to kill those generous-minded liberals wherever he finds them.
There is a ton of evidence Adkisson has been listening to daytime radio, where the phrase liberal movement is used. You never hear the term liberal movement on network television, because it is such a transparent pejorative that they don’t use it. So this unfortunate person chose to strike out in a lethal rage against the group that had legislated his access to food stamps in the first place !!
Talk about confused. Or brain-washed. Or so distraught he couldn’t think straight.
He could have been exposed to Ann Coulter, as well, who is cut out of the same cloth
as Hannity, Weiner, Limbaugh et al, who says liberals should be beaten with baseball bats and tried for treason. Background on Limbaugh reveals that he had the same kind of failed early background as Hannity. According to his mother, he entered Southeast Missouri State College but dropped out after two semesters. His mother stated “he flunked everything,” even a ballroom dancing class. Thus the #1 Hate Talk meister in the world (Limbaugh) and the #2 Hate Talk meister in the word (Hannity) both flunked out of schooling, and were fired at jobs, which apparently qualified them to instruct radio listeners as to who they should hate or blame for their problems.
Then there’s Dick Morris who says liberals are "traitors" who should be decapitated.
Decapitated? A person who is a liberal – never, ever defined, just branded – should have his head cut off? Isn’t that over the line a great deal ???
Can anybody tell me the definition of a “liberal” that has gotten these cretins so worked up they want to kill them? I admit I don’t know what a liberal is. I know the Webster definition – and I wonder - really - if Hannity and Limbaugh and Weiner were caught up in a nationwide disaster such as a comet striking the country, and they had to stand in a food line in order to eat, if they would instruct the server “… be conservative with the amount of food you give me, don’t be liberal with it.” Does anyone think they would do that?
We all know Free Speech is not covered if you shout FIRE in a crowded, dark theater. Nor is it covered if you shout SHARK on a crowded beach. There have been one or two other additions to the prohibition of free speech lately, but to my knowledge, this particular kind of hate speech is still absolutely OK in America. It must be. There are several who practice it very (very) successfully, and apparently to large audiences.
Bottom line - a lot of us are forced to wonder how much responsibility the creators of the term liberal movement, followed by their fanciful, broadcasted definitions of why it is the foulest activity known to man, how much responsibility they should bear in the murders of these two lovely persons and the grievous injuries of the other seven. (One may actually still die.)
As for the rest of us, it's probably time we decided to follow a different path to stop the spread of this filthy hate talk, on talk radio. Expecting the media to rein it in, or the individuals themselves to give it a rest sure isn’t our best choice of action.
And – more painful – what about the next time this kind of thing surfaces?
Tip jar please. Thank you.
Faithfully, in the interest of the American people
See also swungnotes at dailykos
Let’s be honest now. Let’s examine all the facts in the latest case of utter mayhem, in which two apparently superb human beings had to perish, and seven others were grievously hurt, on the altar of hate spewed by those who manage to have both brain anomalies and a National Forum. Think about that convergence for a moment – it’s becoming more and more national in scope. A hate meister with a national audience? Does that sound like America? Or what it used to be? I’m probably old enough to remember when such a thing wasn’t possible. And what does that say about the audience?
If an individual with a curious combination of seriously sick thoughts and a national forum, who is dangerously opinionated without having had the benefit of higher education coupled with research to justify his slanted opinions, is allowed to continue to spout an ongoing hatred of some amorphous group which doesn’t exist, and he continutes to refer to them with the worst condemnation imaginable, isn’t it reasonable to predict that sooner or later, some unstable listener might believe this hate program and take instant action to correct it? And when such an unstable one blames the amorphous group for his problems, and sets out to exact revenge from the closest persons he thinks are members of the group – what then?
Jim Adkisson did just that. Jim is 58 and lives in Powell, Tennessee. Jim calmly walked into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church in Knoxville on Sunday last. He removed a .12 gauge shotgun from a Guitar case and tried to shoot everyone, failed, but succeeded in killing two and wounding seven others. What? He killed two people and wounded seven - all strangers - while they were in a church? Can anyone just accept that and continue on to the next sentence without a heightened sense of outrage, and disbelief?
* Here’s how dangerous Jim was in his community. *
Neighbors said Adkisson was quiet and kept to himself. "He never went anywhere,” said Melissa Coker, a neighbor. “He never had anybody over. Just, it was really quiet. He rode a motorcycle and you know he would go out on the weekends on his motorcycle, but other than that, you never heard from him," Coker told WVLT-TV. Adkisson's landlord said she did not know him well enough to make any comments on his character but said he was a good tenant who paid his bills, according to CNN affiliate WBIR-TV.
Coker told The Associated Press that Adkisson had been a truck driver, but she didn't think he'd been working steadily in the past six months.
“Jim was quiet and kept to himself.” According to neighbors.
"He's just a really, really nice guy," Coker told the AP.
”You never heard anything from him.” Coker again
A really, really nice guy? He was really quiet. You never heard from him. A good tenant who always paid his bills?
So – what do we have here? Here’s what the reigning police officer in the county reported right after the killings:
"It appears that what brought him to this horrible event was his lack of being able to obtain a job, his frustration over that, and his stated hatred for the liberal movement," Knoxville Police Chief Sterling Owen IV told reporters on Monday. It’s entirely safe to conjecture that Jim Adkisson didn’t hear the term liberal movement from his truck driving friends, or motorcycle riders. No sir. He heard that term from the radio, just like I did.
The liberal movement. What is that? It sounds as if Mr. Adkisson, in his anguish, truly believed there is a ‘movement,’ which is such a generalized term that it could mean anything from formal meetings to discuss philosophy, or action taken by an organized group, to paramilitary activity, to criminal activity, to political activity, to action taken by groups deliberately aimed at hurting him, personally, and/or people like him. There is, in actuality, no such thing in America as the liberal movement. If you want some education, ask ten people to define liberal for you. DO NOT accept a sound-byte, three word definition, insist on a full definition. Do not answer any questions. Just listen, do not comment on anything. I can guarantee you will get ten widely different definitions from the ten you ask.
I have, however, personally heard that term Liberal Movement uttered by one Rush Limbaugh on the radio. I was told by friends at dinner that this chap is a raving lunatic, who masquerades as a comedian, but who spouts hatred on the radio toward any and all, but whose main reason for being appears to be a hatred of liberals, whatever they are, liberalism, whatever that is, and the liberal movement, whatever that is. I can’t vouch for all of Limbaugh’s broadcast statements, other than the ones I heard him make, and the time I saw a video of him doing his radio thing, when he shook his entire upper body while stating “…Liberals are the cause of all our problems …” I suppose he shook while saying this because he wanted to register his utmost hatred of these creatures, these hated liberals.
Just before the multiple murders, Jim Adkisson had received a letter from the state government telling him his food stamps were being reduced or eliminated, police said. Police Chief Owen offered this:
"He did express the frustration that the liberal movement was getting more jobs.” There’s that term again, liberal movement.
Adkisson's resume indicates he had worked in mechanical engineering, police said.
It’s now known that Adkisson chose the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church to wreak his “revenge on liberals” because of recent publicity about activities there that he considered liberal. It’s not known how he made that evaluation.
An indicator of how strong his hatred was for liberals was when he stated he expected to continue shooting people until the police arrived, and he fully expected to be killed by the responding police," Owen said.
OK – here’s the really interesting part. Jim Adkisson is losing his food stamps, and cannot get a job right now, so the food stamp loss is really serious. That's understandable. Upon losing his food stamps, in a rage he decides to retaliate against the ‘enemy’ who he has been led to believe took the food stamps, the liberals. Who told him the liberals were responsible for taking his food stamps? And what about the term liberal movement? Adkisson didn’t hear that phrase from his truck driver friends, or motorcycle enthusiasts. He heard it from Rush Limbaugh, just like I did.
But wait. A sense of maturity should have demanded that he examine this reasoning. If we accept the term ‘liberal’ as being a genuine group – which we do NOT – but we just examine the workings of state and Federal welfare groups, then we see right away that it was the liberal ones in government who created food stamps as assistance in the first place. So did Jim set out to kill some people with the same mindset as those who created the laws for food stamp assistance to those in need – himself?
How could he make this mistake? He must have been encouraged in it.
Well – and I found this information a day after I started this posting – when the police searched Adkisson’s home they found a book titled: “Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder” by Michael Savage, whose real name is Michael Weiner. (It’s not known why he hides his real name) Weiner is, like Limbaugh, a radio talker, and his most used word everyday, by far, is the word liberal. One can tell from the title of his book what the state of his mental competence is. His radio talk show has a national audience and ranks third in number of stations syndicated nationwide and third in nationwide audience behind Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Obviously Jim Adkisson must have been listening to Weiner on the radio in addition to buying his book.
Also found in the Adkisson apartment was a book by Sean Hannity, who is also a syndicated radio talker, and who also belongs to the group of liberal-haters. A book by Hannity – Deliver Us From Evil, Defeating Terrorism and Liberalism was also found in Adkisson’s home. Background on Sean Hannity shows he failed at construction work, flunked out of school, then failed as a bartender in California and gravitated to talk radio, and from there to hate radio, which apparently qualifies him to be an author, and to school others in behavior. He is apparently known among broadcasters as a “political polarizer.”
Thus we arrive at the Church on July 27 2008, with Jim Adkisson, who has been receiving food stamps from the liberal members of the legislature (Webster: liberal – fair, generous, giving) for assistance while out of work. That description is pure gold, because it is patently obvious that conservative groups don’t go around giving food stamps or raising minimum wage, or extending unemployment benefits, or any of those compassionate activities. Do they? Of course not. So unfortunately, Jim, who has been receiving food assistance by the thoughtful actions of liberal legislators, now finds his food stamps being cut off, so he loads a .12 gauge shotgun and goes out to kill those generous-minded liberals wherever he finds them.
There is a ton of evidence Adkisson has been listening to daytime radio, where the phrase liberal movement is used. You never hear the term liberal movement on network television, because it is such a transparent pejorative that they don’t use it. So this unfortunate person chose to strike out in a lethal rage against the group that had legislated his access to food stamps in the first place !!
Talk about confused. Or brain-washed. Or so distraught he couldn’t think straight.
He could have been exposed to Ann Coulter, as well, who is cut out of the same cloth
as Hannity, Weiner, Limbaugh et al, who says liberals should be beaten with baseball bats and tried for treason. Background on Limbaugh reveals that he had the same kind of failed early background as Hannity. According to his mother, he entered Southeast Missouri State College but dropped out after two semesters. His mother stated “he flunked everything,” even a ballroom dancing class. Thus the #1 Hate Talk meister in the world (Limbaugh) and the #2 Hate Talk meister in the word (Hannity) both flunked out of schooling, and were fired at jobs, which apparently qualified them to instruct radio listeners as to who they should hate or blame for their problems.
Then there’s Dick Morris who says liberals are "traitors" who should be decapitated.
Decapitated? A person who is a liberal – never, ever defined, just branded – should have his head cut off? Isn’t that over the line a great deal ???
Can anybody tell me the definition of a “liberal” that has gotten these cretins so worked up they want to kill them? I admit I don’t know what a liberal is. I know the Webster definition – and I wonder - really - if Hannity and Limbaugh and Weiner were caught up in a nationwide disaster such as a comet striking the country, and they had to stand in a food line in order to eat, if they would instruct the server “… be conservative with the amount of food you give me, don’t be liberal with it.” Does anyone think they would do that?
We all know Free Speech is not covered if you shout FIRE in a crowded, dark theater. Nor is it covered if you shout SHARK on a crowded beach. There have been one or two other additions to the prohibition of free speech lately, but to my knowledge, this particular kind of hate speech is still absolutely OK in America. It must be. There are several who practice it very (very) successfully, and apparently to large audiences.
Bottom line - a lot of us are forced to wonder how much responsibility the creators of the term liberal movement, followed by their fanciful, broadcasted definitions of why it is the foulest activity known to man, how much responsibility they should bear in the murders of these two lovely persons and the grievous injuries of the other seven. (One may actually still die.)
As for the rest of us, it's probably time we decided to follow a different path to stop the spread of this filthy hate talk, on talk radio. Expecting the media to rein it in, or the individuals themselves to give it a rest sure isn’t our best choice of action.
And – more painful – what about the next time this kind of thing surfaces?
Tip jar please. Thank you.
Faithfully, in the interest of the American people
See also swungnotes at dailykos
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
FINALLY – IT’S ALL OUT IN THE OPEN !!!
We can all relax – the pressure’s finally off !! Thank God.
JUST THIS LAST WEEK, all those fears that Americans have been burdened with have been calmed, with the solutions provided. What a relief! I for one am totally relieved, and thankful that the government spokesmen have laid it all out. God, what took them so long ?
All the solutions to our worries were given to us by the powers-on-high. They happened in disparate locations, but they were all provided to us during the last week. You may have seen them, but in case you didn’t, here was our great savior talking:
FIRST, Torture.
Senator Lynsey Graham explained this subject so perfectly, that we can all stop worrying about whether it’s OK to torture prisoners that we’ve collected. When questioning an interviewee in the Senate Armed Services committee last week, Senator Graham pointed out that President Bill Clinton had made torturing LEGAL, thus the guards at Guantanomo have nothing to worry about. THANK GOD ! Isn’t that a relief?
I was beginning to think America was about to get a bad reputation, by torturing prisoners, but when Graham straightened everything out, we all felt OK about torture. Graham – thinking on a higher level, obviously - simply pointed out that after the ‘93 WTC bombing, President Clinton had made the statement that “…Osama bin Laden won’t get away with this. He will have a price on his head, and we will ultimately capture or kill him.”
THEREFORE, Graham said to the interviewee, “…You see? You have nothing to worry about. DEATH IS THE ULTIMATE FORM OF TORTURE, and it was officially OK’d in 1993 by a Democratic President of the United States.” Graham continued to push the interviewee, saying , “ … Well, isn’t that true? Isn’t death the ultimate form of torture? Thus, if institutional death is OK, so is torture. Right?”
The interviewee didn’t answer, but I sure felt better.
High Cost of Gasoline
The next day was really a good day. We all started relaxing about the high cost of gasoline, as it approached 4.50 a gallon. Senator McCain pointed out in an ad that, since Obama had voted against drilling in Anwar and offshore, that he (Obama) had defeated the measure to bring down gasoline prices – it being accepted by this time that drilling for oil would instantly lower the cost of gasoline. Right? Ask anyone you know in America that question. Something like 74% of Americans will say YES – new drilling will instantly lower gasoline prices. Keith Olbermann pointed out that 100% of knowledgeable oilmen agree that any impact on pump prices would take approximately 22 years to show up. But, ignoring that sour grapes talk, I am personally relieved and surprised. I didn’t know that Obama is the reason for high gasoline prices, so it’s better to find it out now.
Cost of Oil
The next day, about Wednesday evening, was when we learned that Congressman Dennis Kucinich is single-handedly responsible for the high cost of oil. Oil has spiked to $144.00 a barrel, and still rising, and now we see that it is a direct result of the Congressman’s Articles of Impeachment of bush. The explanation was that filing Articles of Impeachment shows that a large number of Americans want to get rid of this president, for crimes of all kinds. (Including the pre-meditated murder of the English language.) We learned that this message says to the Iranians, “Uh-oh, look out. The president will retaliate by bombing us, to take the focus off of his failures and lies and impeachment. Our best bet is to thwart that by raising the cost of oil.” Which they did. Ergo, Kucinich is the Democratic son-of-a-bitch who is responsible for oil at $144.00 a barrel.
Then on Wednesday, John McCain assured us that the price of oil had apparently peaked and receded. In a speech to about 15 people, McCain said “…So my friends, if we just begin drilling offshore, we can overcome the cost of $4 for a gallon of oil.” You can imagine how much that relieved me! (I didn’t know we bought oil in gallons, but since a high official said so, naturally I accept it.) Wow what a week !
Recession + inflation
Then about Friday, another huge pain was lifted off of us. You know, you have to admit, whenever you realize you can’t afford your normal monthly expenses; the cost of transportation; your mortgage payments etc; when food costs actually double right before your eyes, utilities more than double etc. etc. you have to admit those facts are scary as hell. Well, that’s why on Friday I had my best day in months. The McCain campaign spokesman, who is said to be some sort of genius at finances and/or economics, told us there is no recession, thus no slowdown, no financial bubble about to burst. He really took the pressure off of us when he said, in his official capacity, that fear of recession was all a dream – a mental aberration, and that we shouldn’t complain about it. (His words were some form of “…Shut the hell up about it.”) He added that there have never been more opportunities for Americans than there are now. God, was I relieved !!! It was explained that average people couldn’t possibly be smart enough to know that what people were calling ‘recession’ or inflation’ is actually just our imagination. All mental, he told us. It was a virtual recession, I think his words were, something like that. Wasn’t that great news?
When I told my son Eric that, he said “... Leveraging Money Always Overcomes” –at least I think he meant that, he said it in initials: LMAO.
But back to economics. There we were, a lot of us not being able to afford bread, and McCain’s gift to us, this graduate of the Marie Antoinette school of Economics, calmed all our worries! Just great!
In fact, I was more than relieved when Philip The Great added that we should realize that starvation is a form of evolution, and we should just shut up.
So there we were at weekend. It was a great week. Now 300 million of us can get in the car and go wherever, even if we don’t have to go. No more nervous feelings about the electricity bill, or food costs, or the cost of a gallon of oil.
Then McCain actually included some hope for the home front, when he departed momentarily from his constant drumbeat on the subject of War. He said he was equally committed to making great improvements in American infrastructure, for one thing. He started by saying it was time to tackle the obvious problems, and that the people needed to get back to work and stop whining. He finished by saying that he was a little put out by the people of Niagara, when he chided them with “…Why don’t the people of Niagara do something about it? Why does it keep happening?”
But wouldn’t you know it, at the end of this great wave of relief that had just swept over us, came a new fear. I guess we should know, life is always going to be about problems. This one surprised a lot of us, but now I know it’s real, and a big worry for us. (I thought to myself how thankful I am for my government keeping me in touch with all the worries I’m too isolated to know about !)
A hand-picked spokesman for our president, and by extension, for John McCain, warned us about Barack Obama’s trip to Europe and the fact that the Europeans really love and respect him. William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution – which I guess is a prestigious place where very intelligent people do our thinking for us – sounded a warning to America when he reported: “…
'There's such a thing as being too popular overseas, and that may create some misgivings here at home.”
I admit I’m just a normal person, so I couldn’t possibly think on that high a level. After all, this fellow is a senior, so he has years of experience in these matters. I have a neighbor who is a psychologist, but he wasn’t available to translate it for me. To show my ignorance – I didn’t go to a British University – I was struggling with what, exactly, is the danger to America if our closest allies actually, you know, don't hate us ??? but I don’t argue with those in the highest places. And I was right not to struggle too much with this subject, because on every news show for the next three days, all those newspeople who gather around in a group and explain what everything means, all talked at length on this subject. So I hope to God Senator Obama doesn’t get too popular over there. Heaven forbid if the people like him too much. I remember that guy’s words: 'There's such a thing as being too popular overseas, and that may create some misgivings here at home” so I will abide by them.
I do hope, though, even if he does get too popular, that Senator Obama doesn’t get caught in that rough military area on the border between Iraq and Pakistan, since McCain had warned us about it. I wasn’t sure about where that could be, cause I’m not good at Geography, but I know John McCain is right, cause he served in the Navy, therefore is an expert on foreign locations, even if his foreign relations suffer a bit, enough to get tossed in jail.
But my son Eric helped me out again. When I asked him about the dangerous military concentration of forces on the Iraq-Pakistan border, he just smiled and wrote down for me: “…Obvious Military Garrisons Require Our Forbearance.” I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant, cause he wrote “OMG – ROF.”
Faithfully, in the interest of the American people
See also swungnotes at DailyKos.
JUST THIS LAST WEEK, all those fears that Americans have been burdened with have been calmed, with the solutions provided. What a relief! I for one am totally relieved, and thankful that the government spokesmen have laid it all out. God, what took them so long ?
All the solutions to our worries were given to us by the powers-on-high. They happened in disparate locations, but they were all provided to us during the last week. You may have seen them, but in case you didn’t, here was our great savior talking:
FIRST, Torture.
Senator Lynsey Graham explained this subject so perfectly, that we can all stop worrying about whether it’s OK to torture prisoners that we’ve collected. When questioning an interviewee in the Senate Armed Services committee last week, Senator Graham pointed out that President Bill Clinton had made torturing LEGAL, thus the guards at Guantanomo have nothing to worry about. THANK GOD ! Isn’t that a relief?
I was beginning to think America was about to get a bad reputation, by torturing prisoners, but when Graham straightened everything out, we all felt OK about torture. Graham – thinking on a higher level, obviously - simply pointed out that after the ‘93 WTC bombing, President Clinton had made the statement that “…Osama bin Laden won’t get away with this. He will have a price on his head, and we will ultimately capture or kill him.”
THEREFORE, Graham said to the interviewee, “…You see? You have nothing to worry about. DEATH IS THE ULTIMATE FORM OF TORTURE, and it was officially OK’d in 1993 by a Democratic President of the United States.” Graham continued to push the interviewee, saying , “ … Well, isn’t that true? Isn’t death the ultimate form of torture? Thus, if institutional death is OK, so is torture. Right?”
The interviewee didn’t answer, but I sure felt better.
High Cost of Gasoline
The next day was really a good day. We all started relaxing about the high cost of gasoline, as it approached 4.50 a gallon. Senator McCain pointed out in an ad that, since Obama had voted against drilling in Anwar and offshore, that he (Obama) had defeated the measure to bring down gasoline prices – it being accepted by this time that drilling for oil would instantly lower the cost of gasoline. Right? Ask anyone you know in America that question. Something like 74% of Americans will say YES – new drilling will instantly lower gasoline prices. Keith Olbermann pointed out that 100% of knowledgeable oilmen agree that any impact on pump prices would take approximately 22 years to show up. But, ignoring that sour grapes talk, I am personally relieved and surprised. I didn’t know that Obama is the reason for high gasoline prices, so it’s better to find it out now.
Cost of Oil
The next day, about Wednesday evening, was when we learned that Congressman Dennis Kucinich is single-handedly responsible for the high cost of oil. Oil has spiked to $144.00 a barrel, and still rising, and now we see that it is a direct result of the Congressman’s Articles of Impeachment of bush. The explanation was that filing Articles of Impeachment shows that a large number of Americans want to get rid of this president, for crimes of all kinds. (Including the pre-meditated murder of the English language.) We learned that this message says to the Iranians, “Uh-oh, look out. The president will retaliate by bombing us, to take the focus off of his failures and lies and impeachment. Our best bet is to thwart that by raising the cost of oil.” Which they did. Ergo, Kucinich is the Democratic son-of-a-bitch who is responsible for oil at $144.00 a barrel.
Then on Wednesday, John McCain assured us that the price of oil had apparently peaked and receded. In a speech to about 15 people, McCain said “…So my friends, if we just begin drilling offshore, we can overcome the cost of $4 for a gallon of oil.” You can imagine how much that relieved me! (I didn’t know we bought oil in gallons, but since a high official said so, naturally I accept it.) Wow what a week !
Recession + inflation
Then about Friday, another huge pain was lifted off of us. You know, you have to admit, whenever you realize you can’t afford your normal monthly expenses; the cost of transportation; your mortgage payments etc; when food costs actually double right before your eyes, utilities more than double etc. etc. you have to admit those facts are scary as hell. Well, that’s why on Friday I had my best day in months. The McCain campaign spokesman, who is said to be some sort of genius at finances and/or economics, told us there is no recession, thus no slowdown, no financial bubble about to burst. He really took the pressure off of us when he said, in his official capacity, that fear of recession was all a dream – a mental aberration, and that we shouldn’t complain about it. (His words were some form of “…Shut the hell up about it.”) He added that there have never been more opportunities for Americans than there are now. God, was I relieved !!! It was explained that average people couldn’t possibly be smart enough to know that what people were calling ‘recession’ or inflation’ is actually just our imagination. All mental, he told us. It was a virtual recession, I think his words were, something like that. Wasn’t that great news?
When I told my son Eric that, he said “... Leveraging Money Always Overcomes” –at least I think he meant that, he said it in initials: LMAO.
But back to economics. There we were, a lot of us not being able to afford bread, and McCain’s gift to us, this graduate of the Marie Antoinette school of Economics, calmed all our worries! Just great!
In fact, I was more than relieved when Philip The Great added that we should realize that starvation is a form of evolution, and we should just shut up.
So there we were at weekend. It was a great week. Now 300 million of us can get in the car and go wherever, even if we don’t have to go. No more nervous feelings about the electricity bill, or food costs, or the cost of a gallon of oil.
Then McCain actually included some hope for the home front, when he departed momentarily from his constant drumbeat on the subject of War. He said he was equally committed to making great improvements in American infrastructure, for one thing. He started by saying it was time to tackle the obvious problems, and that the people needed to get back to work and stop whining. He finished by saying that he was a little put out by the people of Niagara, when he chided them with “…Why don’t the people of Niagara do something about it? Why does it keep happening?”
But wouldn’t you know it, at the end of this great wave of relief that had just swept over us, came a new fear. I guess we should know, life is always going to be about problems. This one surprised a lot of us, but now I know it’s real, and a big worry for us. (I thought to myself how thankful I am for my government keeping me in touch with all the worries I’m too isolated to know about !)
A hand-picked spokesman for our president, and by extension, for John McCain, warned us about Barack Obama’s trip to Europe and the fact that the Europeans really love and respect him. William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution – which I guess is a prestigious place where very intelligent people do our thinking for us – sounded a warning to America when he reported: “…
'There's such a thing as being too popular overseas, and that may create some misgivings here at home.”
I admit I’m just a normal person, so I couldn’t possibly think on that high a level. After all, this fellow is a senior, so he has years of experience in these matters. I have a neighbor who is a psychologist, but he wasn’t available to translate it for me. To show my ignorance – I didn’t go to a British University – I was struggling with what, exactly, is the danger to America if our closest allies actually, you know, don't hate us ??? but I don’t argue with those in the highest places. And I was right not to struggle too much with this subject, because on every news show for the next three days, all those newspeople who gather around in a group and explain what everything means, all talked at length on this subject. So I hope to God Senator Obama doesn’t get too popular over there. Heaven forbid if the people like him too much. I remember that guy’s words: 'There's such a thing as being too popular overseas, and that may create some misgivings here at home” so I will abide by them.
I do hope, though, even if he does get too popular, that Senator Obama doesn’t get caught in that rough military area on the border between Iraq and Pakistan, since McCain had warned us about it. I wasn’t sure about where that could be, cause I’m not good at Geography, but I know John McCain is right, cause he served in the Navy, therefore is an expert on foreign locations, even if his foreign relations suffer a bit, enough to get tossed in jail.
But my son Eric helped me out again. When I asked him about the dangerous military concentration of forces on the Iraq-Pakistan border, he just smiled and wrote down for me: “…Obvious Military Garrisons Require Our Forbearance.” I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant, cause he wrote “OMG – ROF.”
Faithfully, in the interest of the American people
See also swungnotes at DailyKos.
Monday, June 23, 2008
COMMON SENSE
THE PEOPLE’S LOBBY
I’ve reported in other blogs about the practically unlimited usage of euphemisms by our government, and by the media in America. Our politicians learned a long time ago that if you couch your failures and faux pas’ in gentle terms, even if the gentler term isn’t an exact synonym for the harsher one, you can lessen the impact that negative news has on the people and critics. Especially if the normal term (not the euphemism) will get you in some kind of hot water ! The euphemism is one of the career politician’s most used self-defense mechanisms, and comes precipitately close to lying, and in most cases, is lying.
It’s Time for Common Sense in America. It’s time – well past time - for Americans to reject absolutely the present conditions that we find in Washington – regarding everything. Yes, everything. The FIRST one we need to do away with is the Conventional Wisdom that has been hammered into our heads by politicians, probably starting in 1789 – that a person or group or Corporation can buy the votes of our Congressional representatives with money, and it’s all perfectly normal, to create laws that advantage these buyers. It’s not bribery, it’s lobbying, the media calls it. And taking the money is not taking a bribe, it’s “campaign finance.”
They repeat endlessly – with a lot of help from the media - that money to representatives is just an example of Free Speech. If you fall for that, I feel sorry for your courage index. Once again, we have to marvel at the power of the euphemism to dumb down any opposition to their excesses.
Free Speech my fanny - Common Sense says it is bribery.
Campaign finance is easily the world’s #1 most successful euphemism. If Al Capone had been smarter, he would have simply got the word out to all the media of that time, that his execution of all the competing hoodlums was just his humanitarian exercise in population control and restoration of the gene pool.
NOW - with regard to your elected representative taking money from others, consider this simple scenario:
Your Congressman is on the Committee responsible for the environment. A bill is being considered that requires two manufacturing companies in your county to clean up their foul air discharge, and stop their discharge of pollutants into a holding pool, which has been shown to leak into the ground. A lobbyist for some PAC gives your Congressman $10,000 for “campaign finance” – which he takes. He (the lobbyist) gently and persuasively says to your Congressman, “I hope you will vote against the bill “because it threatens the life cycle of a lot of animals and it will cost a lot of people their jobs”… and of course he offers no concrete proof of this last statement, it is the Gold Standard of the Republic party when arguing any subject matter. The TRUTH is, his clients (the manufacturing companies) don’t want to spend the million and a half dollars to clean up.
So – summarizing:
You, and all the voters in your county who elected this person, absolutely need a YES vote on this bill. You need, and deserve clean air, and no toxic pollutants in the ground water. The lobbyist, with $10,000, wants a NO vote. You don’t have to ponder this very long to know how your representative is going to vote, do you?
OKAY. So, Common Sense tells us we need to change this. We need to either get the money out of politics, or be able to lobby our representatives on our OWN behalf and either cut out the competition, or be our own lobbyists.
AMERICANS, WE NEED TO HAVE A PEOPLES LOBBY
Passing the laws necessary to get PAC or Corporate money out of politics would be the golfing equivalent of a person shooting 18 holes-in-one, at least that’s what it appears to be at this date in history. These people are NOT going to pass a law that takes large amounts of money out of their hands, are they? Logic 101.
Ergo, since changing the existing conventional wisdom regarding lobbying money is wishful thinking, we need to employ Common Sense. We need to have a People’s Lobby. Howard Dean and Ron Paul and most notably Barack Obama have proven with no doubt that they can raise money on the Internet from people like me - $10 or $20 each - or more if we feel flush. Those small amounts, from millions of the very people who are most affected by the laws to be passed – this is Common Sense 101. (Isn’t it?) As the experiences of Messrs Dean, Paul, Obama, and Mme Clinton have shown recently, the American people will give, to finally have their needs considered, on all bills, instead of just being relegated to zero importance by the present methods.
THE NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL VOTER ARE VALUED AT LESS THAN ZERO BY CAREER POLS WHO ARE TAKING MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS.
That is the essence of Common Sense, proven for well over a century now.
It will require a good advertising program, to get the word out, a program that draws a stark distinction between Lobbyists with their bribe money determining the outcome of Congressional voting, and the PEOPLE’S WISHES BEING PROMOTED BY THEIR OWN LOBBYISTS. Think of it.
The Internet is perfect for this to succeed. The People’s Lobby (plusa.com) can describe in detail the upcoming votes, what is at stake, who the key Senator or Representative is, and ask the people via e-mail for input on how to lobby that person. One citizen, one vote – none of that elitist bullshit that the more you give, the more votes you have. Do you think we’d get much input from the people as a vote on minimum wage is coming up? Or outsourcing? Or HealthCare? Or the voting on a ridiculous trumped-up WAR, for God’s sake?
The People’s lobby contact person can then answer to the mailing list (all contributors) what the majority thinking on any bill seems to be, maybe ask for last minute arguments or positions, or additional reasoning, and be ready to present the “People’s Views” to the Representative. All in a day or so.
Following that, plusa can forward its findings, such as the majority of the people on the e-mail list firmly want a NO vote on H res 3414 for example, and - given that the people in the majority wanted, and needed, a NO vote, Congressman John Bigbucks voted YES – it will then be crystal clear that, at least on this one vote – Congressman Big Bucks takes the will of the people lightly. He will make this mistake probably once. Because after the Congressman goes through that exposure, for all to see, he will damn well be more forthright on the next vote. Plusa.com will trigger one million e-mails to that donkey’s e-mail box, all raising hell, and asking for, demanding an explanation.
Oh sure, there will be some who, when exposed to this idea, will instantly have a torrent of reasons why it won’t work, why it’s “Socialism” I suppose they will say, or it’s “unpatriotic,” I suppose; or why it’s Communism, or maybe even that most evil of all thought processes to the Republic mind, liberalism. Whatever the Republic party smear turns out to be, we will ignore it, for two reasons:
1. we don’t need the other party to form PLUSA, and 2. because even their worst opposition to it has been covered for a number of years now by a pretty fair thinker:
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." (Albert Einstein)
I happen to think it will be Americanism, and Lord knows we need a lot of that in our dealing with our government. This is just one of the examples of Common Sense that is so drastically needed right now. Probably the most important one but there are a lot of others. Consider that vital government-sponsored research into the promise of life-saving stem cells is stifled because the defect in the White House didn’t want to risk losing votes from religious kooks.
The People’s Lobby also could have monitored the steady rise of the cost of Oil when two oilmen entered the White House, which was $27.39 per barrel in the year 2000 - to its present rarified altitude of $134.00 per barrel. The People’s Lobby could have raised holy hell and started a great dialogue on this threatening subject, its reasons, and how to get it arrested as quickly as possible.
www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp - 128k -
AND – same thing for retail gasoline, the lifeblood of American business. In summer 2000 the price of gasoline was at $1.41 per gallon, contrasted with its meteoric rise to its present cost (June 2008) of $4.10 per gallon, and still rising.
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/summogas.html - 50k -
And, probably the most dangerous of all the cowboy’s thefts of our Society: The huge national surplus inherited from the decade of the 90s he very quickly turned into a staggering national debt of 7.6 trillion Dollars ! The lobbyists with their $10,000 checks to your Congressman or Senator were rabid in their promotion of all he was doing, especially the war.
Everyone will probably agree that it’s possible to analyze anything to death. So enough. It’s time for Common Sense to prevail. This is a plea for a simple return to a state of Common Sense, and the installation of a People’s Lobby so that we, the people, can finally compete on a level playing field with the big money guys from K street who are constantly whispering in the ears of our representatives. I, for one, am sick and tired of being a second rate human, a third class citizen, which is what we have become with respect to the law making in America. Isn’t it time we exerted our wills a bit, and demanded both honesty and oversight ?
I feel like a synchronized swimmer, when considering the daily attacks on our lives by the big money lobbyists. What this present Government’s conventional wisdom seems to be saying to us is: ‘ …If one synchronized swimmer drowns, the rest obviously have to drown too – they’re synchronized.”
Comments, analysis, evaluations, support definitely sought.
Enough, already.
Faithfully, in the interest of the American people
See also dailykos
I’ve reported in other blogs about the practically unlimited usage of euphemisms by our government, and by the media in America. Our politicians learned a long time ago that if you couch your failures and faux pas’ in gentle terms, even if the gentler term isn’t an exact synonym for the harsher one, you can lessen the impact that negative news has on the people and critics. Especially if the normal term (not the euphemism) will get you in some kind of hot water ! The euphemism is one of the career politician’s most used self-defense mechanisms, and comes precipitately close to lying, and in most cases, is lying.
It’s Time for Common Sense in America. It’s time – well past time - for Americans to reject absolutely the present conditions that we find in Washington – regarding everything. Yes, everything. The FIRST one we need to do away with is the Conventional Wisdom that has been hammered into our heads by politicians, probably starting in 1789 – that a person or group or Corporation can buy the votes of our Congressional representatives with money, and it’s all perfectly normal, to create laws that advantage these buyers. It’s not bribery, it’s lobbying, the media calls it. And taking the money is not taking a bribe, it’s “campaign finance.”
They repeat endlessly – with a lot of help from the media - that money to representatives is just an example of Free Speech. If you fall for that, I feel sorry for your courage index. Once again, we have to marvel at the power of the euphemism to dumb down any opposition to their excesses.
Free Speech my fanny - Common Sense says it is bribery.
Campaign finance is easily the world’s #1 most successful euphemism. If Al Capone had been smarter, he would have simply got the word out to all the media of that time, that his execution of all the competing hoodlums was just his humanitarian exercise in population control and restoration of the gene pool.
NOW - with regard to your elected representative taking money from others, consider this simple scenario:
Your Congressman is on the Committee responsible for the environment. A bill is being considered that requires two manufacturing companies in your county to clean up their foul air discharge, and stop their discharge of pollutants into a holding pool, which has been shown to leak into the ground. A lobbyist for some PAC gives your Congressman $10,000 for “campaign finance” – which he takes. He (the lobbyist) gently and persuasively says to your Congressman, “I hope you will vote against the bill “because it threatens the life cycle of a lot of animals and it will cost a lot of people their jobs”… and of course he offers no concrete proof of this last statement, it is the Gold Standard of the Republic party when arguing any subject matter. The TRUTH is, his clients (the manufacturing companies) don’t want to spend the million and a half dollars to clean up.
So – summarizing:
You, and all the voters in your county who elected this person, absolutely need a YES vote on this bill. You need, and deserve clean air, and no toxic pollutants in the ground water. The lobbyist, with $10,000, wants a NO vote. You don’t have to ponder this very long to know how your representative is going to vote, do you?
OKAY. So, Common Sense tells us we need to change this. We need to either get the money out of politics, or be able to lobby our representatives on our OWN behalf and either cut out the competition, or be our own lobbyists.
AMERICANS, WE NEED TO HAVE A PEOPLES LOBBY
Passing the laws necessary to get PAC or Corporate money out of politics would be the golfing equivalent of a person shooting 18 holes-in-one, at least that’s what it appears to be at this date in history. These people are NOT going to pass a law that takes large amounts of money out of their hands, are they? Logic 101.
Ergo, since changing the existing conventional wisdom regarding lobbying money is wishful thinking, we need to employ Common Sense. We need to have a People’s Lobby. Howard Dean and Ron Paul and most notably Barack Obama have proven with no doubt that they can raise money on the Internet from people like me - $10 or $20 each - or more if we feel flush. Those small amounts, from millions of the very people who are most affected by the laws to be passed – this is Common Sense 101. (Isn’t it?) As the experiences of Messrs Dean, Paul, Obama, and Mme Clinton have shown recently, the American people will give, to finally have their needs considered, on all bills, instead of just being relegated to zero importance by the present methods.
THE NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL VOTER ARE VALUED AT LESS THAN ZERO BY CAREER POLS WHO ARE TAKING MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS.
That is the essence of Common Sense, proven for well over a century now.
It will require a good advertising program, to get the word out, a program that draws a stark distinction between Lobbyists with their bribe money determining the outcome of Congressional voting, and the PEOPLE’S WISHES BEING PROMOTED BY THEIR OWN LOBBYISTS. Think of it.
The Internet is perfect for this to succeed. The People’s Lobby (plusa.com) can describe in detail the upcoming votes, what is at stake, who the key Senator or Representative is, and ask the people via e-mail for input on how to lobby that person. One citizen, one vote – none of that elitist bullshit that the more you give, the more votes you have. Do you think we’d get much input from the people as a vote on minimum wage is coming up? Or outsourcing? Or HealthCare? Or the voting on a ridiculous trumped-up WAR, for God’s sake?
The People’s lobby contact person can then answer to the mailing list (all contributors) what the majority thinking on any bill seems to be, maybe ask for last minute arguments or positions, or additional reasoning, and be ready to present the “People’s Views” to the Representative. All in a day or so.
Following that, plusa can forward its findings, such as the majority of the people on the e-mail list firmly want a NO vote on H res 3414 for example, and - given that the people in the majority wanted, and needed, a NO vote, Congressman John Bigbucks voted YES – it will then be crystal clear that, at least on this one vote – Congressman Big Bucks takes the will of the people lightly. He will make this mistake probably once. Because after the Congressman goes through that exposure, for all to see, he will damn well be more forthright on the next vote. Plusa.com will trigger one million e-mails to that donkey’s e-mail box, all raising hell, and asking for, demanding an explanation.
Oh sure, there will be some who, when exposed to this idea, will instantly have a torrent of reasons why it won’t work, why it’s “Socialism” I suppose they will say, or it’s “unpatriotic,” I suppose; or why it’s Communism, or maybe even that most evil of all thought processes to the Republic mind, liberalism. Whatever the Republic party smear turns out to be, we will ignore it, for two reasons:
1. we don’t need the other party to form PLUSA, and 2. because even their worst opposition to it has been covered for a number of years now by a pretty fair thinker:
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." (Albert Einstein)
I happen to think it will be Americanism, and Lord knows we need a lot of that in our dealing with our government. This is just one of the examples of Common Sense that is so drastically needed right now. Probably the most important one but there are a lot of others. Consider that vital government-sponsored research into the promise of life-saving stem cells is stifled because the defect in the White House didn’t want to risk losing votes from religious kooks.
The People’s Lobby also could have monitored the steady rise of the cost of Oil when two oilmen entered the White House, which was $27.39 per barrel in the year 2000 - to its present rarified altitude of $134.00 per barrel. The People’s Lobby could have raised holy hell and started a great dialogue on this threatening subject, its reasons, and how to get it arrested as quickly as possible.
www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/Historical_Oil_Prices_Table.asp - 128k -
AND – same thing for retail gasoline, the lifeblood of American business. In summer 2000 the price of gasoline was at $1.41 per gallon, contrasted with its meteoric rise to its present cost (June 2008) of $4.10 per gallon, and still rising.
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/special/summogas.html - 50k -
And, probably the most dangerous of all the cowboy’s thefts of our Society: The huge national surplus inherited from the decade of the 90s he very quickly turned into a staggering national debt of 7.6 trillion Dollars ! The lobbyists with their $10,000 checks to your Congressman or Senator were rabid in their promotion of all he was doing, especially the war.
Everyone will probably agree that it’s possible to analyze anything to death. So enough. It’s time for Common Sense to prevail. This is a plea for a simple return to a state of Common Sense, and the installation of a People’s Lobby so that we, the people, can finally compete on a level playing field with the big money guys from K street who are constantly whispering in the ears of our representatives. I, for one, am sick and tired of being a second rate human, a third class citizen, which is what we have become with respect to the law making in America. Isn’t it time we exerted our wills a bit, and demanded both honesty and oversight ?
I feel like a synchronized swimmer, when considering the daily attacks on our lives by the big money lobbyists. What this present Government’s conventional wisdom seems to be saying to us is: ‘ …If one synchronized swimmer drowns, the rest obviously have to drown too – they’re synchronized.”
Comments, analysis, evaluations, support definitely sought.
Enough, already.
Faithfully, in the interest of the American people
See also dailykos
Sunday, June 1, 2008
WIN ELECTIONS BUT CAN'T GOVERN ?
Scott McClellan’s Revelations
LACK OF OVERSIGHT – A FATAL FLAW
With ex-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s recent about face, and the publication of his book “WHAT HAPPENED?” which describes a lot of his life in the bush White House for three years, the American population is finally able to draw a more reasonable breath. I use that metaphor, because, as Keith Olbermann alluded, most Americans simply didn’t believe the degree of the republican excesses since January of 2001. Most of us were just wishing he and his Administration would go away, collectively holding our breath.
It’s probably true that McClellan knows more incriminating truths that he didn’t include in the book, or in the interviews so far. Probably wise – the enemies he has now attracted don’t like to be exposed, and unlike the Democrats, with this crowd, nothing is off the table if you cross them. Nothing.
About once a week or more, I am moved by the scintillating intelligence of my son Eric, who recently characterized Republicans as: “…they can win elections, but can’t govern worth a damn, with their recessions, their wars, their financial excesses …” and then he immediately corrected himself on the win part of elections, since both recent elections, 2000 and 2004, are covered in corruption – one stolen outright, the other obviously stolen.
From the McClellan book:
Scott details the President himself admitting he declassified the NIE, which outed Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband’s book criticizing the Administration for its Niger claim, which claim was a bold-faced lie. Then he (the Pres.) acted as if it were all a surprise to him, and let the machinery of proof grind away, unsuccessfully, to determine who really did expose Ms. Plame-Wilson. In the end, W allowed Scooter Libby to take the fall, knowing all the time he was going to pardon Libby before leaving office.
One huge omission in the McClellan book was any mention whatever of the historically unprecedented excesses in the Power Grab of the Millennium, also known as the Patriot Act. It’s more than obvious that McClellan knew of the elements in Patriot, just a few of which are:
Remember, these are in effect NOW, as you read this !
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communications media. So much for the first Amendment.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations. Like Auschwitz?
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. What? Why is this relevant?
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms. Why is this relevant?
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. (Like prison work gangs? Why?)
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons ! “Let me see your papers.” (Gestapo)
And of course, one of the biggies:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to establish control over all wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money, plus control of all energy sources (electric, gas, coal, wind) in any undefined national emergency. This enslaves us. Totally.**************It also provides that when the President declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for 180 days.***********
And what does it take for these eventualities to occur? Well, this will shake you: if for example Al Qaeda flies a plane into LAX and kills a couple thousand people – a tragedy, but confined to LA - ONE MAN in America can declare that we are in (are you ready?) “A STATE OF EMERGENCY.”
Those are the magic words. At that instant, all of Patriot, a lot of which is much worse than the few examples I’ve included, goes into effect. Does this sound like the careful planning of a Democracy for an emergency? Another “Executive Order” confiscates all your guns, another totally guts habeas corpus, another silences Free Speech ! Sound like a Democracy?
According to John Dean – the White House lawyer who was involved during Watergate and who blew the whistle - this mess is Worse Than Watergate, the title of his book.
Now, a week or so after the appearance of the Mcclellan book, Congressman Wexler wants him to testify under oath. When McClellan was asked by Blitzer if he would, on television, he didn’t answer, so we’ll see. If Wexler, or John Conyers, or Carl Levin, or any of the Chairmen don’t absolutely require MCClellan to testify under oath, we can all drop our heads in humiliation.
McClellan admits he was a bit queasy about the things he told the Press Corps in the runup to the war, but was outvoted and intimidated by higher echelon staffers, (his phrase) so he “went along.” Caught up in the fever of the permanent campaign mode he broadcast statements that he personally didn’t believe, out of a misguided loyalty to Bush, who had snowed him with his “bipartisan” approach.
OK – everything McClellan told us up to this point was bad indeed. But this next one is so monstrous it’s hard for me to write it. How any individual could have this thought and then act on it is a mystery to me.
McClellan quotes Bush as saying – indicating – suggesting, whatever – his firmly held belief that Presidents are later considered great only if they were wartime presidents. Thus, one of his main reasons for war – with Iraq or any other country - was to support and in fact create and favorably enhance his legacy. So he set about to do all those things he did – all those deaths, all those lies, all that money squandered - to convince the UN, the Congress, the American people and the World, that the ONLY response to Saddam’s dangerous stance was a shooting war and invasion. Anything less was to invite nuclear holocaust on America’s soil. Rubbish !
So – let’s see – at the present count, over 650,000 souls have been wasted so that one failed businessman, one introverted egomaniac with money and connections could create a decent legacy of his time as President ????? Add to that the million others who have been grievously wounded. Add to that the families of all those who are grieving. Add to that the cost in treasure and international reputation suffered by America.
Anyone reading this who doesn’t want this creature tried for war crimes at The Haig is - I don’t know how to characterize such a person - you do it.
For the Alert:
Shift subjects now. Please recall my previous listing AMERICANS CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. That one simply pointed out the rapidly escalating truth that we can’t simultaneously maintain the American standard of living and allow speculation and profit-taking in the several elements that are necessary for human life. There is no debate on these statements:
· You cannot live without electricity
· You cannot live without insurance
· You cannot live without gasoline
· You cannot live without water
It’s almost beyond belief, but a few years ago we heard that a failed republican named Santorum floated a bill to privatize 911 Emergency calls. In other words, if you hadn’t paid your 911 bill for the month, and your Dad was having a heart attack, you couldn’t call 911. With the lock step mindset in the republican Congress at the time, I was actually surprised that it was voted down. Such is the thinking of this crowd.
WE HAVE TO SHOW THE COURAGE TO STAND UP TO CONGRESS – AND SENATE – ON THE SUBJECT OF DE-REGULATION. There is only one reason these people vote FOR de-regulation of any commodity – money.
Please see cftc.gov and see how speculation is allowed, even encouraged, in Oil and gas and electricity, the very building blocks of everyday human life. Michael Greenberger, Director of cftc (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) says he has strong doubts that Oil should be at the price it now commands. So with Oil prices well over $125 a barrel and gasoline at $4 and rising, it is getting clearer every single day that my warning in my previous blog was right on the mark. (Americans Can’t Have it Both Ways.)
The fact is staring us in the face. We can’t have it both ways. It’s only a matter of time until a continuation of this folly, on this scale, will result in an upheaval of major chaotic proportions. We can’t allow selfish speculation to force people to choose between gasoline and food. Or choose between electric power and food. Every sober, mature person knows that’s coming if we keep up this misguided activity. The best analogy I can make is that this crowd wants to privatize Fire Departments. That way, if they get a fire alarm, and the fire turns out to be in the poorest part of town, with not only black but unemployed people at the house, they just ignore it. The Fire Captain sees no ISS tag on the burning house – thus the inhabitants have no record of paying their ISS fee - thus don’t “qualify” for “Incendiary Suppression Services” -- and the Fire trucks leave. Just business, right?
THE INHUMAN COLLISION BETWEEN THE FAMILY’S NEED FOR AFFORDABLE ELECTRIC & GAS POWER AND THE SPECULATION THAT GENERATES PROFIT IN THOSE COMMODITIES HAS ARRIVED. IT ISN’T NEXT YEAR – IT’S HERE.
It’s now well known by even the most politically unaware among us, that money is what gets laws passed, not the will of the voter. Therefore, writing your Congressman has become a 1920s suggestion. If you and I and a million others in our state write our congressman and plead for regulation of electricity, for example, and simultaneously the industry errand boy (aka “lobbyist”) treats our congressman to a weekend in the Bahamas and at the end hands him a $10,000 check – who is the congressman going to vote for? This is logic 101 – isn’t it?
REGULATION IS NOT A CURSE WORD. IT IS NOT SOCIALISM. IT IS NOT “UNPATRIOTIC.” IT IS NOT A “LIBERAL CONSPIRACY.” THE PRIVATE SECTOR CANNOT OVERSEE INDUSTRIES BETTER THAN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, AND PIGS CAN’T FLY.
We MUST adopt the mantra ‘PROVE IT” on all of these and a zillion others that the automatons in Washington D C keep piling on us every day, with the immeasurable assistance of the media. Lack of oversight is the reason. Most thoughtful adults in my circle ask themselves: How could the Justice Department – the nation’s top cops – that group whose sole job is to protect the meek from the mighty; rescue the minority, the unconnected and the poor from outrages – how could a Justice Department worthy of the name possibly be so corrupt as it has been under Gonzales and Rove et al?
The answer is Oversight. Lack of it.
One way to arrest these steamrolling tactics by government, and it’s almost too late, is to apply the unyielding stance of PROVE IT to all the outrages perpetrated upon us by the republican machine, both in the past and of late. This won’t be something for the faint of heart. Democrats by definition are gentle, willing to mediate, congratulate, and generate agreement in order to effectuate solutions to issues. Not so the Rs. Dozens of them will immediately adopt a number of talking points that utilizes the same identical words, for effect. (Didn’t Scott McClellan admit that?) They will smear Democratic candidates, or anyone who has a forum who may oppose their attempts at total control. Therefore, faced with that situation, I believe that asking them to prove these things they spew out as truth will help us get to some sort of reconciliation sooner.
PLEASE be reminded of this: The average American apparently doesn’t have the time or the inclination to keep up with all the issues. Mr and Ms America have family matters that take up most of their time and attention. Only the very exceptional keep up with all the outrages by elected representatives, not to mention outrages by the representative who was NOT officially elected.
You are now, and have been, since the 1940s, totally controlled by your own language. This is not exciting news. Every real student of that history knows it. The most powerful tool they use is the euphemism, the hypnotic synonym, so our most powerful defense of it has to be – OK, PROVE IT.
Just think of this strategy for a moment, and place yourself in the shoes of the representative who’s trying to convince the populace of a falsehood, with skillful use of euphemisms. If you were that person trying to pass laws using lies, how would you handle these responses:?
“If we don’t kill Saddam, America is in danger.” PROVE IT
“Fight ‘em over there so we don’t have to over here.” PROVE IT
“Iraq has weapons of mass destruction aimed at U.S.” PROVE IT.
“If we pull out U.S. troops, there will be chaos.” PROVE IT.
“Iran represents a grave and gathering threat to the U.S.” PROVE IT.
“We know he’s reconstituted his nuclear program.” PROVE IT.
“Iraq tried to buy significant quantities of Uranium from Niger.” PROVE IT
“Iraq’s aluminum tubes are for nuclear weapons.” PROVE IT
“Saddam can reply with missiles in under 45 minutes.” PROVE IT
“Saddam has 3 Million doses of Botulinum toxin ready to spread.” PROVE IT
“When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” PROVE IT
“We (U.S. soldiers) will be treated as liberators.” PROVE IT
“Gasoline is high because of supply & demand.” PROVE IT
“Our enemies hate us because we’re free.” PROVE IT
And by the way, after we declare PROVE IT, we don’t let the subject be changed immediately to American Idol or the Playoffs – we repeat the question and again and again and force an answer. I know, we’re in a deep hole, but it takes a lot of digging to get out. Remember, we fiddled while the hole was being dug for us.
FINALLY –
We’re at the mercy of spineless, sycophantic TV news commentators who bow down to their Corporate giant employers, and slant any and all news to suit the employer. Everyone knows that. Most recently, however, all male commentators must in all honesty, genuflect to three courageous females: Jessica Yellin, Katy Couric and Ashleigh Banfield. These three didn’t do much last week or so – all they did was to defy the status quo and announce for the record that their delivery of the news was directed, bent in favor of the employer, instead of just announcing the news itself, down and dirty. Katy Couric actually pointed out that, back when she was still with NBC at the outbreak of the lethality, she was told by those “upstairs” to go easy on war reporting, e.g more favorable language, or none when it would benefit the company. But the jelly-spined males in the news today (with one bright, notable exception) cling to Politically Correct euphemisms, which support the war effort and the Administrations pronouncements, such as The Surge, General Petraeus, Iran Is a threat, General Petraeus, Can’t Pull troops out, General Petraeus etc. ad nauseum. You know who they are: names like Mathews, Blitzer, Gregory, Russert, Brokaw, Williams, Gibson etc. Yuk.
It’s obvious - to engage in actual combat against an opposing army takes a lot of courage. Charging forward into rifle fire, machine gun fire, artillery explosions, mines, bombing etc is superhuman in fortitude, I’ll grant that. If they come at you with all those indices, that takes the courage of a Lion. But for us to knuckle under and whimper a surrender to middle-aged, out of shape, alcohol-bloated, overweight superego windbags, who happen to be in control of a microphone subsidized by corporations, who whirl you around and tie you up with your own language is, it seems to me, the very definition of cowardice.
We need to demand of them, in perpetuity, PROVE IT, so that we can get back to some controlled OVERSIGHT.
Faithfully, in the interest of the American people
Swungnotes.blogspot.com
LACK OF OVERSIGHT – A FATAL FLAW
With ex-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan’s recent about face, and the publication of his book “WHAT HAPPENED?” which describes a lot of his life in the bush White House for three years, the American population is finally able to draw a more reasonable breath. I use that metaphor, because, as Keith Olbermann alluded, most Americans simply didn’t believe the degree of the republican excesses since January of 2001. Most of us were just wishing he and his Administration would go away, collectively holding our breath.
It’s probably true that McClellan knows more incriminating truths that he didn’t include in the book, or in the interviews so far. Probably wise – the enemies he has now attracted don’t like to be exposed, and unlike the Democrats, with this crowd, nothing is off the table if you cross them. Nothing.
About once a week or more, I am moved by the scintillating intelligence of my son Eric, who recently characterized Republicans as: “…they can win elections, but can’t govern worth a damn, with their recessions, their wars, their financial excesses …” and then he immediately corrected himself on the win part of elections, since both recent elections, 2000 and 2004, are covered in corruption – one stolen outright, the other obviously stolen.
From the McClellan book:
Scott details the President himself admitting he declassified the NIE, which outed Valerie Plame in retaliation for her husband’s book criticizing the Administration for its Niger claim, which claim was a bold-faced lie. Then he (the Pres.) acted as if it were all a surprise to him, and let the machinery of proof grind away, unsuccessfully, to determine who really did expose Ms. Plame-Wilson. In the end, W allowed Scooter Libby to take the fall, knowing all the time he was going to pardon Libby before leaving office.
One huge omission in the McClellan book was any mention whatever of the historically unprecedented excesses in the Power Grab of the Millennium, also known as the Patriot Act. It’s more than obvious that McClellan knew of the elements in Patriot, just a few of which are:
Remember, these are in effect NOW, as you read this !
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communications media. So much for the first Amendment.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations. Like Auschwitz?
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals. What? Why is this relevant?
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms. Why is this relevant?
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision. (Like prison work gangs? Why?)
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons ! “Let me see your papers.” (Gestapo)
And of course, one of the biggies:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to establish control over all wages, salaries, credit, and the flow of money, plus control of all energy sources (electric, gas, coal, wind) in any undefined national emergency. This enslaves us. Totally.**************It also provides that when the President declares a state of emergency, Congress cannot review the action for 180 days.***********
And what does it take for these eventualities to occur? Well, this will shake you: if for example Al Qaeda flies a plane into LAX and kills a couple thousand people – a tragedy, but confined to LA - ONE MAN in America can declare that we are in (are you ready?) “A STATE OF EMERGENCY.”
Those are the magic words. At that instant, all of Patriot, a lot of which is much worse than the few examples I’ve included, goes into effect. Does this sound like the careful planning of a Democracy for an emergency? Another “Executive Order” confiscates all your guns, another totally guts habeas corpus, another silences Free Speech ! Sound like a Democracy?
According to John Dean – the White House lawyer who was involved during Watergate and who blew the whistle - this mess is Worse Than Watergate, the title of his book.
Now, a week or so after the appearance of the Mcclellan book, Congressman Wexler wants him to testify under oath. When McClellan was asked by Blitzer if he would, on television, he didn’t answer, so we’ll see. If Wexler, or John Conyers, or Carl Levin, or any of the Chairmen don’t absolutely require MCClellan to testify under oath, we can all drop our heads in humiliation.
McClellan admits he was a bit queasy about the things he told the Press Corps in the runup to the war, but was outvoted and intimidated by higher echelon staffers, (his phrase) so he “went along.” Caught up in the fever of the permanent campaign mode he broadcast statements that he personally didn’t believe, out of a misguided loyalty to Bush, who had snowed him with his “bipartisan” approach.
OK – everything McClellan told us up to this point was bad indeed. But this next one is so monstrous it’s hard for me to write it. How any individual could have this thought and then act on it is a mystery to me.
McClellan quotes Bush as saying – indicating – suggesting, whatever – his firmly held belief that Presidents are later considered great only if they were wartime presidents. Thus, one of his main reasons for war – with Iraq or any other country - was to support and in fact create and favorably enhance his legacy. So he set about to do all those things he did – all those deaths, all those lies, all that money squandered - to convince the UN, the Congress, the American people and the World, that the ONLY response to Saddam’s dangerous stance was a shooting war and invasion. Anything less was to invite nuclear holocaust on America’s soil. Rubbish !
So – let’s see – at the present count, over 650,000 souls have been wasted so that one failed businessman, one introverted egomaniac with money and connections could create a decent legacy of his time as President ????? Add to that the million others who have been grievously wounded. Add to that the families of all those who are grieving. Add to that the cost in treasure and international reputation suffered by America.
Anyone reading this who doesn’t want this creature tried for war crimes at The Haig is - I don’t know how to characterize such a person - you do it.
For the Alert:
Shift subjects now. Please recall my previous listing AMERICANS CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. That one simply pointed out the rapidly escalating truth that we can’t simultaneously maintain the American standard of living and allow speculation and profit-taking in the several elements that are necessary for human life. There is no debate on these statements:
· You cannot live without electricity
· You cannot live without insurance
· You cannot live without gasoline
· You cannot live without water
It’s almost beyond belief, but a few years ago we heard that a failed republican named Santorum floated a bill to privatize 911 Emergency calls. In other words, if you hadn’t paid your 911 bill for the month, and your Dad was having a heart attack, you couldn’t call 911. With the lock step mindset in the republican Congress at the time, I was actually surprised that it was voted down. Such is the thinking of this crowd.
WE HAVE TO SHOW THE COURAGE TO STAND UP TO CONGRESS – AND SENATE – ON THE SUBJECT OF DE-REGULATION. There is only one reason these people vote FOR de-regulation of any commodity – money.
Please see cftc.gov and see how speculation is allowed, even encouraged, in Oil and gas and electricity, the very building blocks of everyday human life. Michael Greenberger, Director of cftc (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) says he has strong doubts that Oil should be at the price it now commands. So with Oil prices well over $125 a barrel and gasoline at $4 and rising, it is getting clearer every single day that my warning in my previous blog was right on the mark. (Americans Can’t Have it Both Ways.)
The fact is staring us in the face. We can’t have it both ways. It’s only a matter of time until a continuation of this folly, on this scale, will result in an upheaval of major chaotic proportions. We can’t allow selfish speculation to force people to choose between gasoline and food. Or choose between electric power and food. Every sober, mature person knows that’s coming if we keep up this misguided activity. The best analogy I can make is that this crowd wants to privatize Fire Departments. That way, if they get a fire alarm, and the fire turns out to be in the poorest part of town, with not only black but unemployed people at the house, they just ignore it. The Fire Captain sees no ISS tag on the burning house – thus the inhabitants have no record of paying their ISS fee - thus don’t “qualify” for “Incendiary Suppression Services” -- and the Fire trucks leave. Just business, right?
THE INHUMAN COLLISION BETWEEN THE FAMILY’S NEED FOR AFFORDABLE ELECTRIC & GAS POWER AND THE SPECULATION THAT GENERATES PROFIT IN THOSE COMMODITIES HAS ARRIVED. IT ISN’T NEXT YEAR – IT’S HERE.
It’s now well known by even the most politically unaware among us, that money is what gets laws passed, not the will of the voter. Therefore, writing your Congressman has become a 1920s suggestion. If you and I and a million others in our state write our congressman and plead for regulation of electricity, for example, and simultaneously the industry errand boy (aka “lobbyist”) treats our congressman to a weekend in the Bahamas and at the end hands him a $10,000 check – who is the congressman going to vote for? This is logic 101 – isn’t it?
REGULATION IS NOT A CURSE WORD. IT IS NOT SOCIALISM. IT IS NOT “UNPATRIOTIC.” IT IS NOT A “LIBERAL CONSPIRACY.” THE PRIVATE SECTOR CANNOT OVERSEE INDUSTRIES BETTER THAN THE PUBLIC SECTOR, AND PIGS CAN’T FLY.
We MUST adopt the mantra ‘PROVE IT” on all of these and a zillion others that the automatons in Washington D C keep piling on us every day, with the immeasurable assistance of the media. Lack of oversight is the reason. Most thoughtful adults in my circle ask themselves: How could the Justice Department – the nation’s top cops – that group whose sole job is to protect the meek from the mighty; rescue the minority, the unconnected and the poor from outrages – how could a Justice Department worthy of the name possibly be so corrupt as it has been under Gonzales and Rove et al?
The answer is Oversight. Lack of it.
One way to arrest these steamrolling tactics by government, and it’s almost too late, is to apply the unyielding stance of PROVE IT to all the outrages perpetrated upon us by the republican machine, both in the past and of late. This won’t be something for the faint of heart. Democrats by definition are gentle, willing to mediate, congratulate, and generate agreement in order to effectuate solutions to issues. Not so the Rs. Dozens of them will immediately adopt a number of talking points that utilizes the same identical words, for effect. (Didn’t Scott McClellan admit that?) They will smear Democratic candidates, or anyone who has a forum who may oppose their attempts at total control. Therefore, faced with that situation, I believe that asking them to prove these things they spew out as truth will help us get to some sort of reconciliation sooner.
PLEASE be reminded of this: The average American apparently doesn’t have the time or the inclination to keep up with all the issues. Mr and Ms America have family matters that take up most of their time and attention. Only the very exceptional keep up with all the outrages by elected representatives, not to mention outrages by the representative who was NOT officially elected.
You are now, and have been, since the 1940s, totally controlled by your own language. This is not exciting news. Every real student of that history knows it. The most powerful tool they use is the euphemism, the hypnotic synonym, so our most powerful defense of it has to be – OK, PROVE IT.
Just think of this strategy for a moment, and place yourself in the shoes of the representative who’s trying to convince the populace of a falsehood, with skillful use of euphemisms. If you were that person trying to pass laws using lies, how would you handle these responses:?
“If we don’t kill Saddam, America is in danger.” PROVE IT
“Fight ‘em over there so we don’t have to over here.” PROVE IT
“Iraq has weapons of mass destruction aimed at U.S.” PROVE IT.
“If we pull out U.S. troops, there will be chaos.” PROVE IT.
“Iran represents a grave and gathering threat to the U.S.” PROVE IT.
“We know he’s reconstituted his nuclear program.” PROVE IT.
“Iraq tried to buy significant quantities of Uranium from Niger.” PROVE IT
“Iraq’s aluminum tubes are for nuclear weapons.” PROVE IT
“Saddam can reply with missiles in under 45 minutes.” PROVE IT
“Saddam has 3 Million doses of Botulinum toxin ready to spread.” PROVE IT
“When the President does it, that means it’s not illegal.” PROVE IT
“We (U.S. soldiers) will be treated as liberators.” PROVE IT
“Gasoline is high because of supply & demand.” PROVE IT
“Our enemies hate us because we’re free.” PROVE IT
And by the way, after we declare PROVE IT, we don’t let the subject be changed immediately to American Idol or the Playoffs – we repeat the question and again and again and force an answer. I know, we’re in a deep hole, but it takes a lot of digging to get out. Remember, we fiddled while the hole was being dug for us.
FINALLY –
We’re at the mercy of spineless, sycophantic TV news commentators who bow down to their Corporate giant employers, and slant any and all news to suit the employer. Everyone knows that. Most recently, however, all male commentators must in all honesty, genuflect to three courageous females: Jessica Yellin, Katy Couric and Ashleigh Banfield. These three didn’t do much last week or so – all they did was to defy the status quo and announce for the record that their delivery of the news was directed, bent in favor of the employer, instead of just announcing the news itself, down and dirty. Katy Couric actually pointed out that, back when she was still with NBC at the outbreak of the lethality, she was told by those “upstairs” to go easy on war reporting, e.g more favorable language, or none when it would benefit the company. But the jelly-spined males in the news today (with one bright, notable exception) cling to Politically Correct euphemisms, which support the war effort and the Administrations pronouncements, such as The Surge, General Petraeus, Iran Is a threat, General Petraeus, Can’t Pull troops out, General Petraeus etc. ad nauseum. You know who they are: names like Mathews, Blitzer, Gregory, Russert, Brokaw, Williams, Gibson etc. Yuk.
It’s obvious - to engage in actual combat against an opposing army takes a lot of courage. Charging forward into rifle fire, machine gun fire, artillery explosions, mines, bombing etc is superhuman in fortitude, I’ll grant that. If they come at you with all those indices, that takes the courage of a Lion. But for us to knuckle under and whimper a surrender to middle-aged, out of shape, alcohol-bloated, overweight superego windbags, who happen to be in control of a microphone subsidized by corporations, who whirl you around and tie you up with your own language is, it seems to me, the very definition of cowardice.
We need to demand of them, in perpetuity, PROVE IT, so that we can get back to some controlled OVERSIGHT.
Faithfully, in the interest of the American people
Swungnotes.blogspot.com
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
BRAZIL – THAT MUCH SMARTER THAN AMERICA?
BRAZIL – THAT MUCH SMARTER THAN AMERICA?
Since 1975 Brazil A+ and America F.
Why is Brazil so much smarter than America ?? The robustly intelligent who frequent KOS will be instantly curious and want to at least explore this premise.
Brazil is one of the largest Democracies in the world. It operates the same way as the United States, as a republic. Brazil’s 190 million residents now enjoy the very comfortable position of being OPEC-Free, or energy-independent. (Notice how US politicians mouth that phrase as a distant, unachievable dream … ?) Brazilians couldn’t care less what the Saudi Sheiks do with their oil production decisions: increase drilling or decrease? Brazilians don’t care. Imported oil previously accounted for more than 70% of the country's oil needs, but Brazil became energy independent in 2006.
It has been simultaneously humorous and shocking to see the difference in maturity in Brazilian officialdom since 1973 and their counterparts in the United States. The noun is used here to include the Government and the very progressive, mature and long-term- disposed companies in Brazil. Those forward-thinking people stared an enormous crisis in the face, realized what had to be done, weathered the storm and have been working to get free of any repeat of it ever since then. The crisis was of course the OPEC-generated oil crisis in 1973. You remember. You had to cue up in a line at gas stations, and after sometimes a 30-minute or longer wait, “inched” your way forward, only to see a hand-painted sign reading NO MORE GAS when you finally got there. Remember?
Everyone in Sao Paulo and Rio and all Brazilian cities had to do the same thing. So herein a stark distinction between the actions of two vastly different societies in the aftermath of those difficult days. I’ll leave it to the Psychological community to explain the goals of the two countries based on their actions in this crisis. One thing is certain: decision makers in the two countries showed vastly different concern for the populace, and vastly different priorities.
BRAZIL – one of the largest democracies in the world
USA - one of the largest democracies in the world
BRAZIL – In 1973, faced with worldwide oil deficits
USA - In 1973, faced with worldwide oil deficits
BRAZIL - Immediately began its ethanol program for automobiles
USA - Ignored all suggestions for ethanol…OPEC’s biggest customer
BRAZIL - First produced ethanol from sugarcane
USA - First produced ethanol from corn
BRAZIL - There is no shortage of sugar. Food-versus-fuel is not a discussion
USA - Big concerns, political protests that food for fuel threatens food supply
BRAZIL - The Brazilian government provided three important initial drivers for the ethanol industry to be born alive:
· guaranteed purchases by the state-owned oil company Petrobras,
· low-interest loans for agro-industrial ethanol firms
· fixed gasoline and ethanol prices where hydrous ethanol sold for 59% of the government-set gasoline price at the pump.
· these pump-primers made ethanol competitive yet unsubsidized
USA - Smears of “socialism” prevented any of this in the USA.
BRAZIL – Enjoying record sugar crops, and record production of Ethanol from sugar, which is 8 times more energy efficient to produce than ethanol derived from corn
USA - Continues to produce ethanol from corn, which produces much less ethanol per acre than sugar does, cuts into food supplies, & does not reduce greenhouse gases
BRAZIL - The ethanol program provided nearly 700,000 jobs in 2003
USA - No record of any job production from corn ethanol
BRAZIL - is the world's largest exporter of ethanol and is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy. Is the biofuel industry leader.
USA - - Still a halting, argument-ridden exercise in America
BRAZIL - Continuous research and testing being done to improve ethanol. Approximately $50 million has recently been allocated for research and projects focused on advancing ethanol from sugarcane in São Paulo.[18]
USA - Many American scientists engaged in the study of how to make rifle bullets “more lethal.” Goal is how to enter the human body, then explode horizontally. (From The Military Channel on Satellite.)
BRAZIL - Continues to offer ethanol study and technology to the world
USA - Continues to block Brazilian ethanol while boosting production of ethanol made from corn
BRAZIL - Offers ethanol to all countries, at rates less than gasoline or oil, and especially free of OPEC control.
USA - A 54 cent-per-gallon tax blocks most Brazilian ethanol from reaching U.S. consumers. (Have you scolded your Senator about this yet? Vote him/her out !)
Getting rid of such tariffs, Brazilian producers agree, would give the world what it needs - cheap, clean and environmentally friendly alternative fuel. Ending the tax would ignite Brazil's ethanol industry and turn the country into a major biofuel exporter, said Jose Goldemberg, one of the founders of Brazil's national ethanol program.
"It doesn't make much sense to produce ethanol from corn," Goldemberg said. "What the United States needs to do if it wants to solve its energy problems is very simple. It needs to import ethanol from Brazil."
BRAZIL - Now produces millions of cars, most enjoying 40+ miles per gallon
USA - “There is an untapped oil field in America, in Detroit,” says Amy Jaffe, Director of Energy Independence. “Just one mile per gallon improvement in its cars would yield 350,000 barrels a day for use.”
BRAZIL - 30-year old ethanol fuel program uses modern equipment and cheap sugar cane as feedstock. Brazilian research has utilized the waste products of the cane to process heat and power, which results in not only a very competitive price, but a high energy balance - which is math talk for saying that as a result, sugar-cane ethanol produces 8 units of energy for every 1 unit of fossil fuels invested in its production, while the ratio for the stubborn US corn ethanol is 1.3 to 1. (Brazil A+ - America F)
USA - During this same period, the USA produces the “bunker-buster bomb,” a new take on bombs – it penetrates the ground 30 feet before exploding, and development costs were said to come in “under budget:” - $30 million dollars.
USA - US critics have made the most noise about the possible effects of ethanol production on Brazil's fragile rainforests and other ecosystems, criticisms that Brazilian producers call absurd.
BRAZIL - "Sugar is not growing in the forest," said Marcos Jank, president of the country's biggest sugar industry group UNICA. "You don't destroy forest to grow sugar. You actually produce a carbon credit and not a carbon deficit."
Okay, okay. Enough already. I just thought it might be interesting to draw a distinction between the United States of George W Bush and a relatively undistinguished country in South America. Personally, a slavish devotion to OPEC and the very real burden of $4 a gallon gasoline, soon to be $5, soon to be $6, and the transparent reasons the corporate talking heads give for those outrages is wearing really thin. Supply and demand has absolutely nothing to do with these prices. But “identify the problem and solve it” most assuredly does. Brazil is a nation of identifiers and solvers, apparently, not “deciders.”
Does Dick Cheney really expect us to believe him, that the laws of supply and demand simply don’t apply to Brazil?
I really wanted to write a blog to inform, like the thing I did on The Patriot Act, but in doing so, a grim realization hit me. It would be simple for the oilmen in the White House to solve America’s gasoline problem. They could just have Fox news repeat a million times a day that Brazil is working on the final stages of a nuclear weapon. If they can produce fuel from sugar cane, the world is confident they can enrich uranium. Then he could invade Brazil, smash the buildings and the people, but leave the sugar cane fields intact, and voila’ – plenty of fuel. Look how well that has worked in Iraq.
Ramping up US ethanol production from sugar cane would take us a considerable amount of time, granted, to get it off the ground and operating. But there is a way we can have very inexpensive ethanol from Brazil in a heartbeat: install some real people in Washington, ignore the pressure from the oil companies lobby, and remove the 54c a gallon tax on ethanol from Brazil.
But, of course, that won’t happen, will it ?
You wanta read one of the nicest sentences I came across in researching Brazil? How good is this one:
Brazilian foreign policy has generally reflected multilateralism, peaceful dispute settlement, and nonintervention in the affairs of other countries.”
Faithfully, in the interests of the American People
See also daily kos.
swungnotes at blogspot.com
Since 1975 Brazil A+ and America F.
Why is Brazil so much smarter than America ?? The robustly intelligent who frequent KOS will be instantly curious and want to at least explore this premise.
Brazil is one of the largest Democracies in the world. It operates the same way as the United States, as a republic. Brazil’s 190 million residents now enjoy the very comfortable position of being OPEC-Free, or energy-independent. (Notice how US politicians mouth that phrase as a distant, unachievable dream … ?) Brazilians couldn’t care less what the Saudi Sheiks do with their oil production decisions: increase drilling or decrease? Brazilians don’t care. Imported oil previously accounted for more than 70% of the country's oil needs, but Brazil became energy independent in 2006.
It has been simultaneously humorous and shocking to see the difference in maturity in Brazilian officialdom since 1973 and their counterparts in the United States. The noun is used here to include the Government and the very progressive, mature and long-term- disposed companies in Brazil. Those forward-thinking people stared an enormous crisis in the face, realized what had to be done, weathered the storm and have been working to get free of any repeat of it ever since then. The crisis was of course the OPEC-generated oil crisis in 1973. You remember. You had to cue up in a line at gas stations, and after sometimes a 30-minute or longer wait, “inched” your way forward, only to see a hand-painted sign reading NO MORE GAS when you finally got there. Remember?
Everyone in Sao Paulo and Rio and all Brazilian cities had to do the same thing. So herein a stark distinction between the actions of two vastly different societies in the aftermath of those difficult days. I’ll leave it to the Psychological community to explain the goals of the two countries based on their actions in this crisis. One thing is certain: decision makers in the two countries showed vastly different concern for the populace, and vastly different priorities.
BRAZIL – one of the largest democracies in the world
USA - one of the largest democracies in the world
BRAZIL – In 1973, faced with worldwide oil deficits
USA - In 1973, faced with worldwide oil deficits
BRAZIL - Immediately began its ethanol program for automobiles
USA - Ignored all suggestions for ethanol…OPEC’s biggest customer
BRAZIL - First produced ethanol from sugarcane
USA - First produced ethanol from corn
BRAZIL - There is no shortage of sugar. Food-versus-fuel is not a discussion
USA - Big concerns, political protests that food for fuel threatens food supply
BRAZIL - The Brazilian government provided three important initial drivers for the ethanol industry to be born alive:
· guaranteed purchases by the state-owned oil company Petrobras,
· low-interest loans for agro-industrial ethanol firms
· fixed gasoline and ethanol prices where hydrous ethanol sold for 59% of the government-set gasoline price at the pump.
· these pump-primers made ethanol competitive yet unsubsidized
USA - Smears of “socialism” prevented any of this in the USA.
BRAZIL – Enjoying record sugar crops, and record production of Ethanol from sugar, which is 8 times more energy efficient to produce than ethanol derived from corn
USA - Continues to produce ethanol from corn, which produces much less ethanol per acre than sugar does, cuts into food supplies, & does not reduce greenhouse gases
BRAZIL - The ethanol program provided nearly 700,000 jobs in 2003
USA - No record of any job production from corn ethanol
BRAZIL - is the world's largest exporter of ethanol and is considered to have the world's first sustainable biofuels economy. Is the biofuel industry leader.
USA - - Still a halting, argument-ridden exercise in America
BRAZIL - Continuous research and testing being done to improve ethanol. Approximately $50 million has recently been allocated for research and projects focused on advancing ethanol from sugarcane in São Paulo.[18]
USA - Many American scientists engaged in the study of how to make rifle bullets “more lethal.” Goal is how to enter the human body, then explode horizontally. (From The Military Channel on Satellite.)
BRAZIL - Continues to offer ethanol study and technology to the world
USA - Continues to block Brazilian ethanol while boosting production of ethanol made from corn
BRAZIL - Offers ethanol to all countries, at rates less than gasoline or oil, and especially free of OPEC control.
USA - A 54 cent-per-gallon tax blocks most Brazilian ethanol from reaching U.S. consumers. (Have you scolded your Senator about this yet? Vote him/her out !)
Getting rid of such tariffs, Brazilian producers agree, would give the world what it needs - cheap, clean and environmentally friendly alternative fuel. Ending the tax would ignite Brazil's ethanol industry and turn the country into a major biofuel exporter, said Jose Goldemberg, one of the founders of Brazil's national ethanol program.
"It doesn't make much sense to produce ethanol from corn," Goldemberg said. "What the United States needs to do if it wants to solve its energy problems is very simple. It needs to import ethanol from Brazil."
BRAZIL - Now produces millions of cars, most enjoying 40+ miles per gallon
USA - “There is an untapped oil field in America, in Detroit,” says Amy Jaffe, Director of Energy Independence. “Just one mile per gallon improvement in its cars would yield 350,000 barrels a day for use.”
BRAZIL - 30-year old ethanol fuel program uses modern equipment and cheap sugar cane as feedstock. Brazilian research has utilized the waste products of the cane to process heat and power, which results in not only a very competitive price, but a high energy balance - which is math talk for saying that as a result, sugar-cane ethanol produces 8 units of energy for every 1 unit of fossil fuels invested in its production, while the ratio for the stubborn US corn ethanol is 1.3 to 1. (Brazil A+ - America F)
USA - During this same period, the USA produces the “bunker-buster bomb,” a new take on bombs – it penetrates the ground 30 feet before exploding, and development costs were said to come in “under budget:” - $30 million dollars.
USA - US critics have made the most noise about the possible effects of ethanol production on Brazil's fragile rainforests and other ecosystems, criticisms that Brazilian producers call absurd.
BRAZIL - "Sugar is not growing in the forest," said Marcos Jank, president of the country's biggest sugar industry group UNICA. "You don't destroy forest to grow sugar. You actually produce a carbon credit and not a carbon deficit."
Okay, okay. Enough already. I just thought it might be interesting to draw a distinction between the United States of George W Bush and a relatively undistinguished country in South America. Personally, a slavish devotion to OPEC and the very real burden of $4 a gallon gasoline, soon to be $5, soon to be $6, and the transparent reasons the corporate talking heads give for those outrages is wearing really thin. Supply and demand has absolutely nothing to do with these prices. But “identify the problem and solve it” most assuredly does. Brazil is a nation of identifiers and solvers, apparently, not “deciders.”
Does Dick Cheney really expect us to believe him, that the laws of supply and demand simply don’t apply to Brazil?
I really wanted to write a blog to inform, like the thing I did on The Patriot Act, but in doing so, a grim realization hit me. It would be simple for the oilmen in the White House to solve America’s gasoline problem. They could just have Fox news repeat a million times a day that Brazil is working on the final stages of a nuclear weapon. If they can produce fuel from sugar cane, the world is confident they can enrich uranium. Then he could invade Brazil, smash the buildings and the people, but leave the sugar cane fields intact, and voila’ – plenty of fuel. Look how well that has worked in Iraq.
Ramping up US ethanol production from sugar cane would take us a considerable amount of time, granted, to get it off the ground and operating. But there is a way we can have very inexpensive ethanol from Brazil in a heartbeat: install some real people in Washington, ignore the pressure from the oil companies lobby, and remove the 54c a gallon tax on ethanol from Brazil.
But, of course, that won’t happen, will it ?
You wanta read one of the nicest sentences I came across in researching Brazil? How good is this one:
Brazilian foreign policy has generally reflected multilateralism, peaceful dispute settlement, and nonintervention in the affairs of other countries.”
Faithfully, in the interests of the American People
See also daily kos.
swungnotes at blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)