I DEBUNK RIGHT WING BS

Here are excerpts from two different posts at the forum of my local paper (my response follows the right-wing posts):

Post 1:

"The irrefutable fact remains: If Clinton takes OBL when he had the chance, then 9-11 doesn't happen. Then we don't go to Iraq."

Post 2:

".........and I do know this: without regard to a donkey or an elephant ---- radical Muslim extremists wish to kill us. They wish to kill us without regard to who gets mail at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They wish us obliterated from this universe. Anybody remember 9-11? I do. If they could do it again today and the next day and the next day and the next day, they would. I know we've not had another attack since then and we must take the fight to them, or they'll bring it over here."

My response

I posted the following at the forum:

They want to kill us for two reasons:

1) we kill them
2) we exploit them

If we stopped doing those things, voila, no terrorism.

Also, Manny had this to say: "The irrefutable fact remains: If Clinton takes OBL when he had the chance, then 9-11 doesn't happen. Then we don't go to Iraq."

This piece of fiction is easily refutable. Here's how:

1) Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, not Osama bin Laden, is considered the "mastermind of 9/11." If KSM hadn't had OBL, he could've worked with some other rich fundamentalist. 9/11 was KSM's idea.

2) Even the FBI doesn't think they have enough evidence to charge bin Laden with 9/11. Check out his wanted poster at the FBI's website.

3) Osama bin Laden was involved in the planning and financing of 9/11, but he didn't actually carry out the mission.

Therefore, we see that 9/11 was possible independent of bin Laden. Clinton could have personally beheaded bin Laden and 9/11 could have still happened.


The other part of Manny's assertion is more troublesome in that it assumes that because 9/11 happened, we had to invade Iraq. In fact, George W. Bush and the people he chose to serve in his administration wanted to topple Saddam Hussein long before 9/11.

-Rumsfeld was told by Richard Clarke that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, even though Rumsfeld made it clear that he wanted Clarke to tell him otherwise.

-We know from the Downing Street memos that "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. "

-However, Bush was saying publicly at the time that war was not inevitable and the inspectors would do their work and we'd work with the U.N. and so forth. And by this time, Bush had already been repeatedly told that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

-A new article in Playboy about Lockheed quotes then-deputy (and now current) national security advisor Stephen Hadley telling a Lockheed official in November 2002 that we were going to go to war but “they were going to war and were struggling with a rationale” and “still working out” a cause. If the Iraq war were really a necessity because of 9/11 in the minds of Bush and his national security people, they wouldn't have had to "work out a cause" or "struggle" with a rationale.

-Bush himself said in 2004 as all this was coming to light that "This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and al Qaeda."

So in no way, even by Bush's own admission, does 9/11 necessitate an attack on Iraq. In fact, Iraq was a distraction of resources from the hunt for bin Laden, who is now alive and well in Pakistan, and supposedly free as long as he is a "peaceful citizen." Because Bush didn't get bin Laden when he had the chance.

BUSH IS FULL OF IT

I decided to have some fun with his speech and pretend I'm Mike Malloy or Sam Seder and injecting commentary while playing a recording of this speech (I'm in italics):

Good evening and fuck you. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror - and our safety here at home. But mostly the safety of my failed presidency. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror. Because it makes perfect sense to fight a war against a tactic, don't it--heh, heh.


When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. Purple fingers, purple fingers! You remember those carefully staged propaganda photos, right? The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together - and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops. And continue to build our giant-ass embassy in Baghdad because we're never going to leave.

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq - particularly in Baghdad - overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause. And they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. That are totally different than our outrageous acts of murder--don'tcha know they're terrorists? They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam - the Golden Mosque of Samarra - in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran (that's who we're attacking next, by the way--heh, heh), formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today. That's right, I'm still not gonna call it a civil war--I make my own reality.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people - and it is unacceptable to me. Even though I'm the one responsible for it. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me. I'm a war criminal, what can I say?

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. No shit, Sherlock. A better idea would be to have a strategy to begin with. So my national security team, military commanders (that I just replaced because they didn't agree with me), and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. You know, ExxonMobil, BP, Shell--just uninterested, totally neutral outside elements. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group - a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. Fuck you Daddy--I'm a gooder President than you! I got two terms--so there! In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. Because if we don't maintain unfettered access to the oil, how will ExxonMobil continue to make record profits?

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region, and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. Kinda like the safe haven I allowed them to have in America. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. I never get tired of trying to link the Iraq war to 9/11. Never! Never! For the safety of our people (and for the wealth of our corporations), America must succeed in Iraq.

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves, and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it. Remember free fire zones? Turns out that wasn't such a bad idea. Sometimes you have to destroy a country in order to save it. Or somethin' like that--heh, heh.

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. I don't have time or energy to secure neighborhoods in both Iraq and America, so I think I'll just concentrate on securing neighborhoods in Iraq. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. They haven't been ordered to kill indiscriminately. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Let me explain the main elements of this effort: The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort - along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations - conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents. Because checkpoints and door-to-door midnight searches are so dearly loved by people around the world and make them so inclined to trust the people who are doing those things.

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence - and bring security to the people of Baghdad. We'll help the Iraqis carry out a campaign to kill more people, but we won't help with a campaign to rebuild New Orleans or the Gulf Coast. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them - five brigades - will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs. We're gonna get to kill more people and give more no-bid contracts to defense contractors! Oh, and spend more taxpayer money! And borrow more from China! It's gonna be awesome!

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous
operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier
operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists
and insurgents - but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers
returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas
that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian
interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods
that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and
American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods - and Prime
Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be
tolerated. Some people's gonna die!!! The gloves are coming off!!

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that
America's commitment is not open-ended. And by "not open-ended" I mean
"we're gonna stay forever because we are building this kickass embassy. We gotta get some use outta that thing!! If the Iraqi government does not follow
through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people - and
it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime
Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The
Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless
of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. I just said that for shits and giggles--everybody knows that American news organizations are too chickenshit to show images of death and suffering. Even when it's a bastard like Saddam Hussein! Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the
breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Like for
instance, making my oil buddies lotsa money! Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia
want to live together in peace - and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help
make reconciliation possible. Yes, that's right, my stupid plan to have more
people killed for no reason is going to resolve a religious argument that's been
raging for centuries! Because I create reality and am awesome!

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi
citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible
improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the
Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced. Notice I haven't said
"civil war" or "timetable." But I did use the word "mistake." Throw me a
frickin' bone!

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. But we can't leave then--because it won't be 2009. That's when I get to pass this bullshit off to some other asshole. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. Yeah, they'll share the 25% of profits that
will be left over after my oil buddies take the rest. Which is only right--we
did liberate their oil. I mean, their nation. Heh, heh. To show that it is
committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend 10
billion dollars of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects
that will create new jobs. Now I would never do communist bullshit like this
in America--but if these chumps wanna do it, whatever... To empower local
leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow
more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will
reform de-Baathification laws - and establish a fair process for considering
amendments to Iraq's constitution.

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it
works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq
Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army
units - and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division. We will
help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped Army - and we will accelerate
the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission
in Iraq. We have to build up an army that they can use to try to kick us out
with. Then we can have an excuse to stay there even longer to fight off the
Iraqi army we just trained. We will give our commanders and civilians
greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the
number of Provincial Reconstruction Teams. And we'll halve the
reconstruction teams here at home. These teams bring together military and
civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation,
strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And
Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to
ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has
helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured
al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control
of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down
Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire, and launching new attacks
on the United States at home and abroad.

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders - and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. By which
I mean--we'll kill a lot more people. Oh, and probably throw a lot more under
the jail for life and torture them the entire time. Because they might be
terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe
haven in Afghanistan - and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity -
and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins
with addressing Iran and Syria. Sleep with one eye open, Ahmadinejad!
These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory
to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on
American troops. And that's why we should start the third war of my
presidency posthaste. Don't you think that cause is worth it? We will
disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from
Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced
weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and
protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment
of an additional carrier strike group to the region. That's for attacking
Iran--oh wait, I've said too much... We will expand intelligence sharing -
and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. Of which we have very few left. We will work with the governments of
Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will
work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the
region. That's the point I really wanted to make--when you think of Iran,
think of mushroom clouds. Iran=mushroom clouds. Fuck Iraq, let's bomb Iran.
It'll be awesome!

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for
Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in
Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists - (unlike say, Saudi Arabia
where 15 of the 9/11 hijackers came from)and a strategic threat to their
survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with
its neighbors - and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. Or else. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an
International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for
greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region
- to build support for Iraq, and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help
bring peace to the Middle East. Because I'm all about some peace--that's why
you gotta have more war!

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a
military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. I
usually like to wait for history's judgment, but I'll go ahead and jumpstart the
history nerds on this one. Hey, history assholes in 2057? The decisive
ideological struggle of our time is as follows: On one side are those who
believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the
innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. Guess which side I'm on? Heh, heh. In the long run, the most realistic
way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the
hateful ideology of the enemy - by advancing liberty across a troubled region. And by kicking much ass and taking their oil and their money. It is in
the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are
risking their lives to claim their freedom - and help them as they work to raise
up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East. Now, we're not gonna
do this shit in Darfur or anywhere else--those brave men and women standing up
for freedom can kiss my ass.

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of
ordinary people are sick of the violence, and want a future of peace and
opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know:
Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists -
or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?
The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young
democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous
importance to American security. And corporate profits--let's not forget
about those, heh heh. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in
Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and
violent. And I'm gonna do my part to make sure that happens. Even if
our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue
- and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. So don't come
crying to me when your mommy or daddy or whatever gets killed, OK? I told ya
they were gonna die. But I have no control over whether they go to war or not.
I'm just a regular guy like you, remember? The kinda guy you'd like to have a
beer with, remember? So when your husband gets killed, just remember that we'll
never have a beer together and I won't come to any funerals or anything, OK?
OK. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to
success. I believe that it will. But then again, you gotta remember that I'm
batshit insane.

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers
achieved. Because the war will never end and therefore neither will my
power. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. Ditto what I just said. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in
the Arab world - a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the
rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. I mean, that shit is for pussies if you ask me, but whatever...everybody's
always trying to say that ya gotta follow the Constitution and shit, and I'm
just like, yeah, whatever. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it
will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them - and it will
help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren. After all, Rome wasn't built in your lifetime, you know what I'm saying,
dickhead? Don't expect any results for a couple years at least--then I'm gone
and you guys can do whatever the fuck you want. Cause I'll be clearin' brush and
ridin' bikes. I can't fucking wait, dude!

Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. And I told the Democrats they could suck my dick. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States - and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad - or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered
these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse
of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on
an unimaginable scale. I mean, the killing so far used to be unimaginable,
but since it's happened now we can imagine it, you see what I mean?Such a
scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer,
and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at
this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we
can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress
on our new strategy. And they better not say shit about it. If members
have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change,
we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their
criticisms. I mean, there's no such thing as an honorable Democrat, but they
told me I had to say that. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And
all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be
more likely to succeed. Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman
and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group
that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror.
This group will meet regularly with me and my Administration, and it will help
strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to
increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the
Armed Forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to
mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas - where they can help
build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and
tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have
extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. And I am willing to extend their tours and cut their benefits and send them
into harm's way for my own insane political advantage. These young
Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary - and that
the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. I mean, like ending
slavery? That had nothing on this. They serve far from their families, who
make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner
table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty.
We mourn the loss of every fallen American - and we owe it to them to build a
future worthy of their sacrifice. So we have to send more of them to die.
Because the death of 3,000 won't be validated until at least that many more have
died. You see how it works? No? Well, I am batshit insane.

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice,
and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens
of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a Nation. And
throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our
faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will
set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail.
We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you and good night. Author of Liberty--that's code for God, ya
Christian wackos! Don't impeach me! Or I'll detain ya! Just kidding, heh heh. Or
am I?

CAPITALISM'S GANGSTERS

The following two posts of mine are in response to these posts--

"Russ,

I don't owe you or anyone else one damn thing. I am currently in military and most of us, and I mean over 95% agree with the mission. You're just an angry hippie. It's ok man, we're fighting for you too."

"Remember, peace through strength. Just look at what is happening in Somalia, and I'm not talking about the strike we just carried out either..."

--in this thread at the Hattiesburg American forum.


Left-Handed Leftist Post 1

Not only that, troops in Iraq are not fighting for Russ or me or any other regular citizens. They're fighting for Exxon, BP, Shell, etc. Didja see this--"Western companies may get 75% of Iraqi oil profits":

"Iraq's massive oil reserves may be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies - which could end up grabbing up to 75% of the beleagured nation's oil profits - under a law seen coming before the Iraqi parliament within days, the Independent reported on its Web site Monday."

War is a racket. So said General Butler, who at the time of his death was the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

If anything, this Iraq war is being used as an excuse to TAKE AWAY our freedoms. In the latest example, Bush just added a signing statement to a bill in which he claimed the right to open mail without a warrant.

I like the chant Cindy Sheehan and others shouted at the Democrats the other day "De-escalate, investigate--Troops home now!" Not one more American soldier should have to die or be wounded to protect George Bush's failed policies or to make money for corporations.

THAT'S what you call "supporting the troops," not calling for even more of them to be taken away from their newborns to kill or be killed so that Western oil companies--one of which recently had the highest quarterly profit of any corporation in the history of the world--can make even MORE money.

Left-Handed Leftist Post 2

Forget peace through strength. That's a load of malarkey that we've been sold for years. We were told all through the Cold War that we had to have all this firepower at the expense of everything else so we wouldn't be beaten by the Soviets.

Turns out the Soviet threat was greatly exaggerated and they collapsed under their own weight. But now we're stuck with the bill for the arms race and we still spend more than any other country on "defense".

We are the mightiest country on earth in terms of sheer firepower. So where's the peace?

As far as 95% of troops supporting the war, that's not true either. In February 2005, 72% wanted to come home by 2006. Then there was the recent Military Times Poll which showed that 42% of the troops don't support the President's Iraq policy compared with 35% who do support it.

The time for BS is over. We won the war but we're losing the occupation (and theoretically that shouldn't be possible). The American people have finally caught on to the fact that Bush lied about our reasons for going into Iraq and the "surge" will be his undoing.

GENE GENE THE CORPORATE-BEHEMOTH FIGHTING MACHINE

From today's Hattiesburg American:

"[Gene]Taylor wants a national all-perils insurance policy, federal oversight of the property insurance industry and repeal of its exemption from antitrust laws, which he said allowed the companies to consult each other when determining how they would handle Katrina claims."

I've always thought Taylor was good dude but acted too much like a Republican to call himself a Democrat. But this is some gutsy, populist stuff. Good for him--and us! It's about time the insurance industry was investigated.

I remember our State Farm insurance adjuster telling me that "you're not supposed to profit off of insurance," to which I added in my mind "yeah, but you sure do."

This is why Democratic control of Congress is a good thing. If you doubt that, ask yourself why Trent Lott didn't do this already when he was in the majority. Oh that's right, because insurance companies have been among Lott's biggest contributors. Taylor has taken money from insurance companies, but not as much.

Just sayin'...

MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE OVERWHELMINGLY FAVORED

I just looked at this link for my Haley Barbour/minimum wage post below. Here's what it says:

Americans Back Minimum Wage Increase
January 8, 2007
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Adults in the United States overwhelmingly support one of the first proposals of their new Congress, according to a poll by Ipsos-Public Affairs released by the Associated Press. 80 per cent of respondents favour an increase in the minimum wage.

The last time the U.S. Congress raised the minimum wage was 1997, when the rate was increased to $5.15 U.S. an hour. There are currently 16 American states that pay minimum wages that are higher than the federal rate.

Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have suggested gradually increasing the minimum wage to $7.25 U.S. an hour over the course of the next two years. Senate majority leader Harry Reid discussed the situation, saying, "If it takes adding small business tax cuts to have a minimum wage increase, then we’ll do that."

Polling Data

Do you favour or oppose an increase in the minimum wage?

Favour
80%

Oppose
18%

Not sure
2%



Source: Ipsos-Public Affairs / Associated Press
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,004 American adults, conducted from Dec. 19 to Dec. 21, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent.

It just makes sense

Those poll numbers are split more or less the way the wealth in the country is distributed--the far larger number of people who make and have less money favor a minimum wage increase while the far smaller number of people who make and have a whole lot of money oppose a minimum wage increase. Which just makes sense.

Could it be that Americans are finally beginning to see through the imperialistic, faux-patriotic, fake religious propaganda and speaking up for their interests as they exist in real time (as opposed to say, how their interests might be if they win the lottery or marry Paris Hilton or whatever)? I sure hope so...

BARBOUR AND MINIMUM WAGE (written Thursday, 1/4)

Haley Barbour opposes raising the minimum wage in Mississippi to $7.25/hour, which would be 40% higher than the current national rate of $5.15. His laughable argument against such an increase is that it would, according to an AP article, “drive jobs out of this state.”

Having not read Barbour’s actual statement on this issue, just a brief AP story, I don’t know this for sure, but I would imagine that the reason he thinks a minimum wage increase would drive jobs from Mississippi is because corporations and other employers are looking for places with cheap labor and would therefore be turned off by higher labor costs.

Why Haley is wrong

It is certainly true that corporations favor the lowest possible labor costs. So why aren’t all major corporations currently clamoring to get down to Mississippi? We not only offer low labor costs but also a “right to work” law. After all, as I pointed out in a post a few days ago, Mississippi ranks 49th in median household income–low wages are the norm in this state and people are mostly used to them, for better or worse.

In other words, it is absurd to argue that improving the wages of Mississippians will discourage corporate interests from setting up shop in the state, because corporations apparently aren’t interested in coming here under the current low-wage, right-to-work conditions. Why should Mississippians be kept in their current low-wage status when maintaining that status obviously isn’t acting as an incentive for corporations to move here? For that matter, why should that status be maintained even if corporations theoretically did want to move here? Mississippians have been poor long enough. Besides, isn’t the right-wing, cheap-labor conservative argument that minimum wage jobs are mostly held by teenage burger flippers anyway? If that’s true, what’s the difference if all the Wendys and McDonalds and Burger Kings close down and leave the state?

The difference, of course, is that a significant number of adults do work for minimum wage, and that many of the jobs that currently exist here and that would theoretically be brought here would be minimum wage positions. Barbour and the right-wingers know this but don’t want to admit it. Barbour wants to pretend that he would be doing Mississippians a favor by bringing in more jobs, but most jobs that would likely be brought in would be for minimum wage with minimal or no benefits. But if more corporations brought in even minimum wage jobs, Barbour could then argue that unemployment went down on his watch, even if the jobs that are created are not so-called “good jobs” that pay a living wage. After all, Barbour’s partner in crime George W. Bush called having three jobs “uniquely American.”

Raising the minimum wage will provide relief to a large number of Mississippians and will not punish corporations, who have no plans to come here anyway. And maybe one of the big reasons they don’t want to come here even with our current status quo of low wages is because of another statistic that I mentioned a few days ago: of all 50 states and the District of Columbia, Mississippi has the fewest number of high school graduates who are 25 and older. Knowing that, many corporations likely feel that a lot of Mississippians aren’t even competent enough to make change, much less to make some high-tech product.

On top of all of that, the new Democratic congressional majority that was sworn in today has already said that they’re going to raise the federal minimum wage to $7.25 over two years, the very policy Barbour despises, in the first 100 hours of their tenure. So Barbour’s objections not only reveal him to be a spiteful political hack who invariably sides with the rich and powerful, they are largely moot to begin with.

NOTHING CHANGES ON NEW YEAR'S DAY...

...like the fact that the situation in Iraq just keeps getting worse. Circumstances may be a little different--Saddam being hung, for instance--but what you can count on always staying the same is that Iraq will never get better and will always get worse.

Like for instance, the fact that we've now lost over 3,000 soldiers. That's different--yet exactly the same.

What a way to ring in the new year!

Why is 1938 always analogous?

I had a conversation with a family member recently and I asked him what he thought about a troop "surge" in Iraq. He said that we should either get out completely or nuke the place. I suggested that given those two options, we should leave.

He elaborated further and said that well, the situation is more complicated than that, that we might be able to fix our mess with more troops, etc. I pointed out that similar logic drove thousands to their deaths in Vietnam and we now agree that Vietnam wasn't worth the sacrifice.

Oh, but that wasn't the preferred analogy for this reciter of conventional wisdom. We can't just pull out and pretend that all is well and that pacification is complete. Isn't that what Chamberlain did at Munich--pretend that all was well?

It occurred to me during this conversation that even the lessons of history cannot dissuade people if they have their mind set on something. Oh, they will speak as though history has taught them even if there is a more recent and contradictory example. I just marvelled at the logic that always accepts Munich as analogous to every situation that we face, while Vietnam holds virtually no lessons for the present (except, as Bush averred recently, that we only lose if we leave).

It's official...and quite telling

Reading in a post about Robert Novak at Americablog, I learned that Novak had this to say about the GOP and an escalation of Iraq:

Even in Mississippi, the reddest of red states, where Bush's approval rating has just inched above 50 percent, Republicans see no public support for more troops.

It's official--Mississippi is the reddest of the red states. Now is that a good thing? I think not. Mississippi leads or nearly leads the country in almost everything bad and trails the country in everything good. For example:

-Mississippi is number 2 in infant mortality
-Mississippi is number 49 in median household income
-Mississippi was tied for 2nd place in number of citizens below the poverty level
-Mississippi is dead fucking last in number of people 25 and older who have completed high school

And so forth and so on. I think therefore that a strong argument can be made that being a "red state" is a bad thing. If you want your state to be poor and uneducated, then be a red state--that's the message that not many people in this state seem to get. Is that because they're poor and uneducated? Hmmm...just asking.

Happy New Year!

ARE WE EVEN YET?

The death toll of American soldiers in Iraq just surpassed the death toll of American civilians on 9/11 and to hear the right-wingers in these parts tell it, we're ruining Iraq to avenge 9/11.

Some vengeance--we've now lost more Americans in Iraq than we did on 9/11 and we've been waging what Bush called the "battle of Iraq" for longer than we were involved in WWII.

We're wasting both money and lives. And some Democrats are saying that they could be persuaded to go along with the proposed troop surge? How in God's name are we going to bring this ever-worsening nightmare to an end?

DVD PLAYERS AND CHINESE LABORS

Went to my parents' house for Christmas today and one of the first things we talked about was their seemingly malfunctioning Apex DVD player. My mother said she had gotten it 3 or so months ago for $35.

I took a look at it, power cycled it, tried to get it to read DVDs, etc.--all to no avail. My father asked whether one takes something like that to get fixed or just gets another one--knowing the answer, of course, is to simply get another player. He lamented that simply throwing out a machine like that to replace it just seemed like an "ugly American" thing to do.

China

I mentioned something about the lasers inside the players, and my dad marvelled at the fact that the advanced technology in such a machine could be sold for such a cheap price. I suggested that such a situation was possible because of cheap overseas labor, with words to this effect: "Well, they're so cheap because they're made by Chinese workers who get 2 cents a day or something like that."

My father found that highly unlikely. He said that with all the capitalistic reforms that are being made in China, and the footage one sees in the news with Chinese cities being overrun with cars, Chinese workers are surely not being ripped off. He said that China will eventually go the way of Japan--start off making cheap crap and then become the world leader in manufactured goods at which time Chinese workers will be paid like kings.

How I handled it--not very well

I didn't vocalize my disagreement with everything he said for a couple reasons. One, I was full of food from my imperialistic, ugly American, completely commercialized and commodified holiday celebration and therefore somewhat addled and not looking for much of an intellectual give-and-take. Two, his citation of video footage of lots of cars on Chinese streets threw me off.

I mean, I know that Chinese workers work cheap. That's why everything comes from China--that's why Wal-Mart's biggest supplier is China, as it says in this article:

Nevertheless,...China is Wal-Mart's most important supplier in the world. The overseas procurement home office in Shenzhen, a city of South China's Guangdong Province, has played a key role in the firm's global purchasing business.

Wal-Mart shifted its overseas procurement centre from Hong Kong to Shenzhen in February 2002 to better serve the purchasing and exporting business.

"If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China's eighth-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada," Xu said.

So I just kinda let it go, disappointed in myself that I didn't speak up more because of a lack of confidence in my grasp of the facts. But I came home and Googled some stuff and found stories like the following about the state of Chinese labor:

China Labor Watch said the workers are forced to labor 11 hours a day, six days a week, with "total overtime of up to 70 hours a month." Chinese "law" says employees work a 40-hour week, with overtime limited to 36 hours a month. Workers at the plant, irrespective of reality, get 574 yuan or $72 a month.

Subsistence wages have fueled a staggering increase in Chinese toy imports, along with China's continued tricks to undervalue its currency.
Buffalo News 12/18/06 by William Turner

Here's another, from the AP:

MGA Entertainment Inc.'s Bratz dolls are made at a factory in southern China where workers are obliged to toil as many as 94 hours a week, labor rights advocates alleged in a report.

The report by U.S.-based China Labor Watch and the National Labor Committee details allegations of harsh working conditions, especially during peak delivery months, and of violations of Chinese laws that give workers the right to work-injury and health insurance.

And here's more on the Bratz and profit-over-people situation:

Workers are paid the equivalent of 17 US cents for each doll, the report said, while the dolls retail for $16 apiece or more in the US.

The report contains allegations similar to those aimed at many Chinese factories producing big brand products for export. They include forcing workers to stay on the job to meet quotas, required overtime exceeding the legal maximum of 36 hours a month, and the denial of paid sick leave and other benefits...

Last year the CLW reported on conditions inside the Huangwu No 2 Toy Factory in Dongguan City. The factory makes toys for Wal-Mart and, according to the CLW, there were few safety precautions for any of the workers, who are working up to 15 hours a day in peak season.

Some passed out from exhaustion after spraying 1,115 small toys per hour. That’s one toy every 3.23 seconds.

And then, in the same article, the CEO of Timberland shoes spells out the horrible, ultimately self-defeating situation:

Recently I interviewed Jeff Swartz, chief executive of Timberland, who has done more than most to ensure his Chinese contractors do not abuse their workers. Timberland strictly monitors its factories and will not allow workers to put in more than 60 hours a week.

In an ideal world, he said, he would not manufacture in China at all, but the low prices he can get there mean he can’t afford not to. The most he could hope for at the moment was to be “the good plantation owner,” he said.

I know better than to keep my mouth shut, but it's my dad--I don't want to fight with him. But I fear that most people feel like he does--that Wal-Mart is good for Americans and that the cheap laborers abroad are happy to have the work and the pittance they earn. He even said that he and my mother are a "Wal-Mart family."

Not blameless

I guess another reason I didn't speak up is that I'm not blameless. I shop at Wal-Mart. I like to get quality products for the least money possible. I don't know the way to rectify this lopsided situation that hurts the wages of both overseas and domestic workers. There has to be some sort of either legal or moral (or both) turning away from the "profit uber alles" mentality of both the corporation and the public. But I don't know how to make that happen.

But I do know that Chinese labor is cheap and not afforded the same (eroding) protections we supposedly have here. And saying so with confidence, even to my family which I love, is one infinitesimally tiny way to start changing perceptions. I guess...

THE SO-CALLED LONDON TERROR PLOT "BOMBS"

I figured that the "London terror plot" would unravel. Frankly, I thought it would happen sooner, but you can't win 'em all.

A judge in Pakistan threw out the terrorism charges against the supposed mastermind of the "plot." Now say what you will about Pakistan and justice, but they are our allies in the war on our freedom...I mean, the war on terror. Here's what went down (yeah, I'm a week late on this story):

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Dec. 13 — A judge threw out terrorism charges on Wednesday against Rashid Rauf, a Briton of Pakistani descent whom prosecutors depicted as a major figure in a plot to smuggle liquid explosives onto trans-Atlantic airliners and detonate the bombs in flight.

The ruling means there are now no terrorism charges against two people once accused of being linchpins of a major Al Qaeda bombing plot. The other is Tayib Rauf, Mr. Rauf’s younger brother, who was detained in Britain last August and soon set free without charge.

The problem for this guy Rauf is that once you get accused of something, the stigma tends to stay with you even if you've been proven innocent. Everyone has the question "Yeah, but why would they even go to the trouble of accusing him if he really didn't do anything?" in the back of their minds.


Terrorism is a problem Republicans do not want to solve

And this is true even if you're a veteran of the Navy, and white, and a U.S. citizen.
Just like Donald Vance was. He was a whistleblower who was thrown in detention in Iraq for being a whistleblower. That's not what they told him, of course--they told him he was a suspect because he was working in the same place as the people on whom he was blowing the whistle.

Anyway, my point is that the "war on terror" is a farce and these two incidents are further proof of that fact. But terrorism is a problem Republicans would like to be viewed as trying to solve but which in fact they do not want to solve.

So they find somebody, anybody, they can accuse of whatever they need them to be accused of, blare it in the press, then the reality gets whispered weeks, months, or years later. But the job has already been done--the stigma remains. The patsies have been used, the public has been fooled, the politicians have covered their asses, the press got a juicy story--and our freedoms are that much more in jeopardy.

If you doubt that, and/or think such things don't affect you directly, think back to when the story of the liquid bomb plot broke. Mothers were having to pour out breast milk, boarding was delayed for hours, the entire air travel system was in complete disarray. Airlines immediately banned liquids in planes but relaxed that restriction about a month afterward. The current guidelines are still pretty ridiculous. Especially when you consider the fact that the liquid bomb plot was either manufactured from whole cloth or was purposely blown way the hell out of all proportion to its significance. And that one of the main suspects has been cleared of those charges.

Feeling safer yet? Feeling freer?

The conventional wisdom now dictates that there was a liquid bomb plot against British airliners. And pundits and reporters continue to talk of that supposed incident as if that is absolute fact, despite the news that the charges against the mastermind were dropped. And that's how this war on our freedom, I mean, terror gets perpetuated.

Be skeptical and you'll probably be right.

2006 TOP 10

Kinda tired...don't wanna justify or defend these picks...here they are:

1. Ben Kweller/self-titled/Red Ink
2. Comets On Fire/Avatar/Sub Pop
3. Crystal Skulls/Outgoing Behavior/Suicide Squeeze
4. Destroyer/Destroyer's Rubies/Merge
5. Ian Love/self-titled/Limekiln
6. Michael Franti & Spearhead/Yell Fire/Anti
7. Nobody & Mystic Chords Of Memory/Tree Colored See/Mush
8. Neko Case/Fox Confessor Brings The Flood/Anti
9. Will Kimbrough/Americanitis/Emergent
10. Zombi/Surface To Air/Relapse

Top Songs

"Dear Mr. President" Pink
"Your Shopping Lists Are Poetry" Mint
"G'Dang Diggy" Common Market
"Priest's Knees" Destroyer
"Hallelujah Boys" Chip Taylor
"Rock Or Pop?" Some Girls
"Velvet Underground" Television Personalities
"Hands" Raconteurs
"Hard-On For War" Mudhoney
"Try Telling That To My Baby" Heavy Blinkers
"Less Polite" Will Kimbrough
"Long Distance Call" Phoenix
"Luther Vandross" Treasure Mammal
"No Child Of Mine" Truckstop Honeymoon
"Ruling Class" Loose Fur
"Penny On A Train Track" Ben Kweller
"Silverjacket Girl" David & The Citizens
"Slash From Guns 'n' Roses" I See Hawks In L.A.
"Underground Sun" Robyn Hitchcock & The Venus 3
"You Blanks" Portastatic
"Yell Fire" Michael Franti & Spearhead
"The Cosmic Door" Crystal Skulls
"John Saw That Number" Neko Case

YES, CENK--THERE IS A CONSPIRACY

Listening to the Young Turks this morning and they had a guest from the Nation who had just written an article for the magazine supposedly debunking the 9/11 truth movement.

However, as the conversation went on, Cenk Uygur said their talk was making him more convinced of 9/11 truth rather than less convinced. They were talking about "how could our government be so evil" and so forth and then the guy from the Nation said something rather ludicrous.

He said that scientists still have yet to figure out why WTC 7 collapsed in on itself. Oh, they know exactly why WTC 1 and 2 fell in 10 seconds each. But this Nation writer expects us to buy that the jury is still out on WTC 7? So-called scientists and 9/11 truth debunkers have every aspect of 9/11 down to a "T" but they just can't quite figure out why a building that wasn't hit by a plane collapsed neatly into itself even though Larry Silverstein is on videotape saying he gave orders to bring it down (though not in so many words).

The writer from the Nation compared the jury being out to the fact that no one figured out why the Challenger blew up in 1986 until a year or two later. Well, it's more than a couple of years after 9/11, we've had an official investigative commission, and they still don't know why WTC 7 fell? That's unacceptable. They don't want to admit why it fell, so that's why they're so loathe to even talk about it.

Cenk said that when you put everything together--the Iraq war, the pipelines, petrodollar warfare, no clear video of a plane hitting the Pentagon, etc.--you can almost come to no other conclusion but that someone's not telling the truth. And I hope he lets himself go more toward that conclusion and realizes that we don't have to be able to explain every inconsistency--like we don't have to explain what happened to the people in the plane that didn't hit the Pentagon. We just don't know what happened to them.

But we know the official story is not what actually happened.

IMPEACHMENT, PLEASE

Been thinking this over for a few days since I read where Aravosis said that "Markos is right" with a link to this:

Bowers throws fuel on a fire that was simmering down and lists his argument against impeachment. I'll add further fuel with one more argument --

We have one year to make our case for 2008 to the American people. We need to show not just that we deserve to hold on the Congress, but that we should be given the White House as well.

2008 won't work, since as an election year, all meaningful legislative work will grind to a halt and the press will be focused on the horse race (as will we). So 2007 is it.

We can spend 2007 either pushing impeachment (which isn't as popular as Zogby claims, see Bowers' piece), or we can use it educating the American people about what a Democratic government would look like -- passing meaningful legislation that would improve their lives like the minimum wage, health care reform, ethics reform, stem cell research funding, policies that help families and the middle class.

Impeachment does none of that.

In a perfect world, we could do all of the above. But we don't live in a perfect world. And the second we start impeachment proceedings, the media will focus on that. Heck WE'LL focus on that, and the Democratic legislative agenda will fade into the background, ignored. A perfect opportunity to brand the Democratic Party in a positive light will be forever squandered.

So what is more important, proving that we can govern and making the case for future Democratic majorities? Or a high-profile vendetta campaign against Bush? It really is just one or the other.

It's an easy call.

Don't worry about Bush and company. Congress will pursue its oversight duties. Waxman and Slaughter and Conyers and the rest of those guys aren't about to take the next two years off. People will be held accountable. Impeachment isn't the old path to accountability.

And Bush? He's going down as the nation's Worst President Ever. We don't need "impeachment" to make that case, Bush has done a great job of it all by himself.

What the Hell?

There are so many wrongheaded ideas in this post that it's hard to know where to begin.

1) First of all, I guess, the idea 2007 could be spent "educating the public about what a Democratic government would look like" is a farce. The public already knows what a Democratic government would look like, and that's why they kicked the Republicans' ass. The only people who need to be educated are the 30% that still say that Bush is doing a good job, and they are beyond hope, so they must be written off. There is nothing we can do to change their minds--in fact, in their minds, having Democratic control of anything is anathema and tantamount to impeachment anyway, so we might as well do it.

2) Markos rightly worries about what the media will make of the situation if impeachment were to go down. He writes here that the Democratic legislative agenda will be obscured. It seems to me, though, that that's how you get things done, as the Republicans have shown us--you distract with wars on Christmas and/or actual wars (our distraction would of course be impeachment instead of war).

3) He says "impeachment isn't the old [sic--I'm sure he meant "only"] path to accountability." That may be, if by "accountability" you mean "a slap on the wrist." Markos tells us not to worry, that Bush is already going down as the worst president in history, so the next two years can only dig a deeper hole for him.

The thing is, though, is that Bush's war in Iraq and his war on our freedom have to stop--the sooner the better. If Bush is still president for the next two years, neither of those wars will stop before he leaves office and they are likely to escalate.

Bush needs to be removed from office, and Cheney along with him. I don't know why it wouldn't be possible to have the hearings and trial in January-February 2007, and Bush and Cheney are in jail by March. Then it's over with--Bush and Cheney get their just desserts, the war is over, Democrats are in power, and the electoral coup that began in 2000 is finally and thankfully over.

That scenario would also be a good way to educate the public about what a Democratic government would be like--waste our blood and treasure on an unnecessary war and you pay the price for it.

There's more

If Bush isn't impeached, I can imagine the conservative taunts after 2008: "Why would anybody vote for Democrats--they're weak and spineless! They had the pistol of impeachment against Bush's head but couldn't bring themselves to pull the trigger--even though they said he was irresponsible, dangerous, and a threat to the country and the world! How can such wimps be trusted to fight al Qaeda?"

Or look at it this way: our soldiers in Iraq don't have two years for us to wait to take them out of harm's way. This fucker Bush has got to be reined in and made an example for the future.

I would feel completely different about this if it wasn't for the wars mentioned earlier. But this guy has abused our trust and the Constitution from the day he was (s)elected.

There are some other points I wanted to make, but they kind of vanished for now...I'll have to think about them some more and then update this post or something.

Here's one final thought, though. A lot of people thought there was no way that the Democrats could take back the Congress in 2006. Very few thought there could be a complete upset like there was. My point is, a Democratic takeover (of both houses of Congress, no less) seemed to be too much to hope for on Nov. 6. On Nov. 8, it was a reality.

I think it could be the same way with impeachment. Markos and Aravosis and others are hedging their bets, and not trusting in the people by thinking that they somehow couldn't handle impeachment and would be turned off by it and the Democrats. I think that the sweep of the elections ought to embolden our side and give us confidence. Right now, it seems to some that impeachment would be too politically costly--but what if it actually turned out to be politically beneficial, which is also a likely outcome.

Let's face it, the Republicans didn't take over and get us into this situation by being timid and hoping the press would be nice to them. And we should learn from that...

AND YET MY MOTHER REFUSES TO GO TO A CITGO...

Read this story today from the AP wire:

"More American homes are getting discounted oil from Venezuela's state-owned oil company. The company's US subsidiary, Citgo, is expanding a program that's part of a promise by Venezuela's socialist leader to aid America's poor."

But the words of former Rep. Joseph Kennedy were what really brought it home for me:

"It is an unbelievable act of charity on the part of a major oil company," Kennedy said.
he told reporters he wrote to "every major American oil company and every member of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) and asked them, as they have had enormous price increases that have brought untold billions into their hands, to give up a little bit, just a little bit to help the poor. Every single company said no. Every single one except one, and that was Citgo.
"So it is important that when a major company reaches out and does something like this, that we should acknowledge and celebrate the kind of action they are taking."
"Exxon made $10 billion in a quarter, in three months out of the year they made $10 billion. And they say, when it comes to helping the poor, sorry, there is no money in the till."
What other oil company besides Citgo, Kennedy asked, would come to a poor neighborhood in Providence and talk about the plight of the poor? There is no other oil company in the world that I know of that talks about these issues, that cares about these issues and actually gives money to help with these issues."

Say what you want about Chavez, but he puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to helping the poor. Think of it--not a single American oil company would help its own customers. Every other OPEC nation, even the one led by Bush's boyfriends, declined to help out our citizens.

The only person willing to help was Hugo Chavez, a man who recently called our president "the devil." And yet those on the American right would demonize this man? And those on the American left try to distance themselves from him?

Is there anybody in a position of power in this country with any goddamn sense? If so, they sure aren't acting like it. Chavez deserves our admiration and our gratitude, not our scorn and derision.

Limbaugh and his cohort shouldn't be telling people to boycott Citgo, they should be boycotting Exxon and Shell...

HATE AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Reading Arthur Silber's take on the Newt Gingrich free speech fiasco...

Silber points out that we've been told that "they hate us because of our freedoms." Silber correctly points out that this is utter nonsense and that "they hate us because we kill them."

I have long argued that we need to bring the frightened sheep in this country to the realization of the true cause of terrorism, which is simply other nations' or peoples' grievances against us, whether real or perceived. The cause of terrorism is not jealousy or hatred of our "freedom."

But when the popular perception is that we must give up our freedoms so that terrorism will stop, we have people like Newt Gingrich and George Bush who will gladly sacrifice those freedoms. And they have done and will do so in vain, because their terrorizing of us won't stop until we stop our terrorizing of them.

Gingrich's remarks remind us that we have to make sure our fellow citizens understand why people would want to hurt us. Instead of trying to score political points with Christofascists and their sympathizers by expressing a desire to end free speech as we know it, Gingrich should be advocating the end of imperialistic impulses and our attempts to control the rest of the world to our benefit and the world's detriment.

If You Think About It

Because if you think about it, from the very beginning, the history of the United States is the history of oppression and overthrow, naked agression and plundering. All of which is cleverly done under the guise of being dedicated to freedom and equality.

Howard Zinn does a good rundown of this history in an interview with (shudder) Dennis Prager:

HZ: Well, probably more bad than good. We’ve done some good, of course; there’s no doubt about that. But we have done too many bad things in the world. You know, if you look at the way we have used our armed force throughout our history: first destroying the Indian communities of this continent and annihilating Indian tribes, then going into the Caribbean in the Spanish-American War, going to the Philippines, taking over other countries, not establishing democracy but in many cases establishing dictatorship, holding up dictatorships in Latin America and giving them arms, and you know, Vietnam, killing several million people for no good reason at all, certainly not for democracy or liberty, and continuing down to the present day with the War in Iraq—we’re not bringing democracy to Iraq, we’re not bringing security to Iraq, and we’re responsible for the deaths of very large numbers of people, I mean, 2500 Americans, tens of thousands of Iraqis....

Just sayin'...

WHY CAN'T THEY JUST COME OUT AND SAY IT?

And by "they" and "it" I mean, respectively, the neocon corporatists and the fact that they don't want Russia to trade oil in rubles. Just like they didn't like the fact that Iraq traded oil in euros (consequently invaded), and they don't want Iran to trade oil in euros (much talk of bombing or invasion).

This whole spy-poisoning story is debunked pretty well by Raimondo at Antiwar.com, and I want to quote him here, as he cites all the reasons (except the one above) why the "powers that be" want to mix it up with Russia:

"The attempt to portray the Russians as mad poisoners intent on assassinating their political opponents no matter where they try to find refuge is a powerful propagandistic theme that, although unsupported by any facts, winds its way through the media narrative on the wings of pure supposition. These people don't care about facts: it's all speculation, unsupported by evidence that passes the most perfunctory smell test...

Here is yet another link in the long chain of manufactured incidents meant to provoke a confrontation with Russia. An aggressive propaganda campaign aimed at the Russians has been in high gear for quite some time, and it appears to be reaching a crescendo with this Litvinenko nonsense...

U.S. intervention in Russia's internal affairs is deeply resented by most Russians, i.e., those not on the American payroll, but this matters little to the Russia-haters in our midst. Their message is not directed at the Russian people, who support Putin and his policies overwhelmingly: it is aimed at Western elites, who can be prodded into taking a harder line against those resurgent Russkies, flush with oil money and failing to toe the American line when it comes to Iran and Syria."

Achilles Heel of the U.S.

Our dependence on the dollar as the reserve currency of the world because the dollar is the international standard for oil purchases is our Achilles heel. All oil-producing countries--i.e., Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, etc.--have to do is set up their own oil bourses and exchange their precious natural resources for their own (or a non-U.S.) currency, and suddenly the U.S. is in a world of hurt--just look at the news today--"US fears spark dollar sell-off":

"The dollar suffered a steep sell-off this week amid expectations of a further slowdown in the US economy.

The greenback fell most sharply against the euro as the prospect of rising European interest rates contrasted with forecasts of easing US monetary policy...

'The current euro rally/dollar sell-off . . . is unlikely to end in the short term as the fundamentals and market flows are increasingly stacked up against the US currency,' said Ashraf Laidi, analyst at CMC Markets US."

The corporatists and the neocons would say that the answer to this problem is to "Bomb Iran" and to bring "peace and stability" (read as "death and domination") to the Middle East.

And speaking of oil and dollars, this AP story was a real shocker--"AP Analysis: Firms Crimping Oil Supplies." But the headline chosen by my local paper for the same story is, in my view, more accurate: "Study: Oil companies drive up gas prices."

And this is how they manipulate prices:

"Whatever the truth in Bakersfield, an Associated Press analysis suggests that big oil companies have been crimping supplies in subtler ways across the country for years. And tighter supplies tend to drive up prices.

The analysis, based on data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, indicates that the industry slacked off supplying oil and gasoline during the prolonged price boom between early 1999 and last summer, when prices began to fall."

They close down refineries or don't build new ones under the pretense that "market pressures" and "business judgments" are causing them to do so. Whether or not the companies' intentions are to manipulate prices (and you'd have to be a fool to believe otherwise), the effect is, as the story says, that "tighter supplies tend to drive up prices."

Oh, and another neat by-product of closing down refineries or only using existing ones no matter the volume of demand--when the huge profits from the supply "crimp" come rolling in, they're not reduced by having to pay for facilities that might allow the supply to increase to meet the demand and thereby reduce monstrous profits.

Good night and good show, jolly good show!

A DREAM COME TRUE

Heard about the Action DVR today on XM Radio...

I used to say that people could get along so much better if everyone had cameras mounted on their heads, recording every interaction and conversation. Not for spying purposes or anything devious, but so that confusion about the intricacies of human interaction could perhaps be resolved.

For instance, I find that when I'm in an argument with someone and my heart rate is up and my adrenaline is flowing, I sometimes have a hard time keeping straight the exact words of my opponent. Then I will say something like--"well, you said x, y, and z." My opponent will protest, "I never said that; I said a, b, and c."

Now, what I said my opponent said usually gets the gist of what they said, but not the exact words, and that's what the opponent protests. I always thought that if I had been able to record my every interaction, I could simply rewind to the point where my opponent made his/her statement, and either prove them wrong, or remind myself of exactly what was said.

A life-recording camera would also be useful in those instances where one gets admonished for not doing something that a friend insists he/she told you to do. You could rewind to the earlier point (that day or even weeks ago) where the friend says you were told to do whatever it was, and either prove them (or yourself) wrong.

My point is, I always thought that recording one's interactions with even friends and family would keep everyone honest, cut way down on misunderstandings, and generally improve relationships (provided everyone agreed to use their recordings in an open and honest way).

And now that day is here...but I can't yet afford the Action DVR. I never thought that such a system would be feasible, let alone available in my lifetime.

WHY TERRORISM EXISTS

From Charley Reese, as good an explanation as any of why "terrorism" exists, whether the Christofascist superpatriots want to admit it or not:

"Terrorism is a product of politics and of injustice, real or perceived. Since human beings have no choice but to act on their perceptions, whether the injustice is real or perceived doesn't matter. An injustice will stick in a man's craw more painfully and longer than poverty or unemployment."

"They" don't hate us because of Islam.

"They" don't hate us because of freedom.

They hate us because we're imperialists and they're the latest people we've tried to subjugate. End of story. If we stop our imperialism and stop trying to subjugate people for the sake of exploiting their resources with little or no benefit to "them," terrorism will decline and end much sooner than later.

Just a thought...

BOMB IRAN?

Of the three options, I like the last one the best and always have:

"The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense officials.

Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said."

And people are now openly saying in national newspapers that we should bomb Iran?

You should read the words "bomb Iran" as "kill innocent people." This kind of bullshit is despicable--I spit on this vile, disgusting hatemongering. Bombing doesn't stop terrorism--bombing is terrorism.

And the only thing Iran has done to provoke our corporate masters is to threaten to diversify their currency holdings (and I hate linking to WorldNet, but ya gotta do whatcha gotta do), shifting more toward the euro. Hmmm...didn't another Middle Eastern country that has "I-R-A" as the first three letters of its name do something with euros before we decided to kill their innocent people in an illegal, immoral war of aggression?

William Clark has been on this for a while now, and it wouldn't hurt to read his words again:

"In 2005-2006, The Tehran government has a developed a plan to begin competing with New York's NYMEX and London's IPE with respect to international oil trades - using a euro-denominated international oil-trading mechanism. This means that without some form of US intervention, the euro is going to establish a firm foothold in the international oil trade. Given U.S. debt levels and the stated neoconservative project for U.S. global domination, Tehran's objective constitutes an obvious encroachment on U.S. dollar supremacy in the international oil market."

We don't hold all the cards, you see. In fact, as we spend more and more on our stupid, unnecessary, indefensible war in Iraq, we get deeper and deeper in debt and consequently more and more susceptible to the kinds of things Clark is talking about.

Way to go, neocons!

Why War Fails

Don't forget, not only is war a racket, but it doesn't even work:

"The history of wars fought since the end of World War II reveals the futility of large-scale violence. The United States and the Soviet Union, despite their enormous firepower, were unable to defeat resistance movements in small, weak nations. Even though the United States dropped more bombs in the Vietnam War than in all of World War II, it was still forced to withdraw. The Soviet Union, trying for a decade to conquer Afghanistan, in a war that caused a million deaths, became bogged down and also finally withdrew.

Even the supposed triumphs of great military powers turn out to be elusive. After attacking and invading Afghanistan, President Bush boasted that the Taliban were defeated. But five years later, Afghanistan is rife with violence, and the Taliban are active in much of the country. Last May, there were riots in Kabul, after a runaway American military truck killed five Afghans. When U.S. soldiers fired into the crowd, four more people were killed."

War is terrorism, and terrorism is big business, and big business is only concerned with profit, not people's lives.

Good night.

MONSTERS THAT EAT BABIES

“Don’t go in there! There’s monsters in there that eat babies!”

That’s what a mother said to her approximately one and a half year old son today to get him to stay in the waiting room. She clapped her hand over her mouth and looked around to see if any of the other kids heard her say it. My son seemed oblivious to it, as did the few other kids that were in there.

The kid turned around and came crying back to his mother. It occurred to me that maybe parenting like that is a big part of the reason some people are so susceptible to manipulation by fear. And not fear of something real, even. Fear of something made-up.

Using fear to produce obedience--they start 'em young down here, I guess...

WHAT I WANT FROM THE DEMOCRATS...

...but probably won't get:

1. Impeachment-To not impeach this president and vice-president is to excuse the behavior in which they've engaged since even before 9/11. It is to excuse it for this president as well as for future presidents.

2. Withdrawal from Iraq-Should've never invaded that country in the first place.

3. Economic Populism-tax fairness, help for the poor, ending the middle class squeeze, and so forth

4. End to illegal NSA wiretapping-which may have begun before 9/11 and is too terrible a power for any one person to have

5. Repeal of anti-civil liberties legislation-specifically, the Patriot Act and especially the abhorrent Military Commissions Act.


The only way the Democrats will not succeed for the next two years is if they fail to hold the Bush administration accountable for the horrendous policies they've pursued while in power. That's the only way the Democrats can lose power--by pledging not to impeach, not getting out of Iraq, not ending the warrantless wiretapping, not reversing the tax cuts, not reining in corporate power, not creating disincentives for outsourcing, etc.

If there were ever going to be a time to do all of these things, it's now. These are not partisan proposals--they are pro-American, pro-freedom, pro-humanity policies. We must strike while the iron is hot. We can't dance around the issues and try to please a deluded minority of the country that still loves Rush Limbaugh and Bush.

BOYS AND GIRLS, THE SECRET WORDS FOR THE NEXT 2 YEARS ARE...

"under oath."

Get Bush and Cheney and the rest of 'em and put 'em under oath--about Iraq, 9/11, Katrina, profiteering, etc. Holy shit I can't wait...

NOT TO BE TOO PARTISAN, BUT...

The Democrats win the Senate! I can't believe it!

Rumsfeld's gone, the public hates the Iraq war, and the Democrats are in complete control of Congress!

Hot damn!

My only regret is that it took so long for a majority of the population to figure out what was going on. I mean, for fuck's sake, we've been barrelling down the road to fascism at breakneck speed, seemingly cheered on by a majority of the public. We've come so close to losing our democracy, even just in the last couple of months, not to mention the last five years.

But hellfire and damnation, even a late victory is still a victory!

Get rid of the Military Commissions Act! Please! Dismantle the NSA wiretapping program! Investigate 9/11!

Although with the Dems now in power, I feel slightly less apprehensive about speaking my mind on this blog and I don't think I'll worry quite as much about being carted off to a FEMA prison camp in the middle of the night just for being the left-handed leftist...

PARTISAN ONLY TO THE CONSTITUTION--PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY

A few things leapt out at me through the day:

1) Bush told a questioner at a press conference that he’d only said Rumsfeld and Cheney would stay because he was trying to get the reporter to go on to another question

and

2) Novak said in an email today (hat tip AmericaBlog) that

a) “the real fault lies with the GOP's Washington establishment, which played its hand at Republican governance so disastrously that by Election Day Republicans could hardly get a cab ride anywhere in middle America;”

b) “the private reaction by Republicans was anger at President Bush and his political team”

and

3) Rush Limbaugh (hat tip Jim Derych at HuffPo) admits to supporting people–“carrying their water”–when he didn’t want to and didn’t believe in them

These things all reveal one of the main problems with politics today, especially as played by Republicans and conservatives. They’re only concerned with “their side” winning and will say anything, even if it’s contrary to their beliefs and feelings to see to it that power is maintained.

And that has been the problem with our country the last few years–people can’t or won’t admit they’re wrong even when it’s obvious to themselves and everyone else that they are. That’s why we’ve been in Iraq so long–Bush feels it’s weak and lowly to admit he made a mistake and that maybe he’s changed his mind, so he bears down and says “by God we’re gonna stay so I look strong” even though that really means he’ weak and he’s weakening the country, and he ended up fucking up his party’s hold on power.

And that’s what ends up happening when you won’t admit to the truth–the truth smacks you upside the head.

Side-ism

So we have to somehow convince people that really we’re all on the same side–the Constitution’s side,say, or the side of common decency. This my-side’s-better-than-your-side bullshit is not only juvenile, it’s deadly and dangerous. We have to be able to admit when we’re wrong and those of us who were right should not throw “told you so” like stones.

And I realize that what I’m calling “side-ism” is merely a cutesy word for “partisanism.” And that a lot of people, like LarryG in the comments, will argue that the country shouldn’t go too far left or too far right. I think that idea is a good one, especially if one thinks of the “center” as “the Constitution” and/or the founding principles of our country.

It’s like the whole thing about obedience–we shouldn’t be taught blind obedience to authority or lack of authority. The only thing we should maintain blind obedience to is morality and conscience. Similarly, in an ideal situation, Americans would only maintain blind obedience to the Constitution and our founding principles, not to the so-called left or the so-called right.

And if and when we ever get to that place, it would be nice if all Americans would display that obedience to the Constitution in public pronouncements as well as in private conversations and musings.

VOTING SITCH

Even though I'm still elated about the Democratic (big and little d) victory last night, I think it needs to be said that we have to fix our voting system. The issues raised by Black Box Voting and the "Hacking Democracy" documentary still need to be addressed.

Private companies managing the most important element of our democracy--i.e., the franchise--is unacceptable. If nothing else, Diebold and the other companies must be forced to allow their proprietary software to be open to vigorous scrutiny by the people who are paying good money to use it.

Because '08 will be here before we know it, and we can't have the kinds of things that happened this time happening then--or any time. Not that I think we lucked out this time. We obviously overwhelmed any diabolical scheme about vote rigging with sheer numbers. But until we make election days national holidays, we can't always count on overwhelming numbers. But we should always be able to count on the reliability of the vote-taking and especially the vote-counting.

I should point out, though, that my voting experinece on a Diebold touch screen machine (with paper trail!) couldn't have gone more smoothly--no glitches, no flipping, no discrepancies between onscreen display and printout. But still...

RUMSFELD--GOOD RIDDANCE!!

Bush just said that he and Rumsfeld agreed that Rumsfeld should step down. I thought Bush said just the other day that Rumsfeld and Cheney would stay until 2009. Whoops! I guess the American people whooping your ass'll do that to ya...

And it looks like the Dems will also take the Senate, thanks to Tester being declared the winner...

Will wonders never cease? Will Cheney please retire next so that when we impeach Bush we won't have to have a Cheney presidency?

WOW! WOW! WOW!

I'm so happy yet flabbergasted...

The Democrats take the House, and probably the Senate as well? This is the best news for America in some time!! Maybe we can now get to the bottom of some of the questions that Bush and company have refused to answer.

But at the same time, the Democrats in their current incarnation are not "the answer." They are still too compromised by lobbyists and still too timid about getting out of Iraq. It may be that the high hopes that those of us on the left have about impeachment and withdrawal from Iraq and investigations and convictions of high officials and what not will be dashed.

But at least with the Democrats getting an obvious mandate and a sweeping victory, we're in a much better position for that kind of thing to happen than we were at this time yesterday. And the public has obviously caught on to the Bush/Rove/Cheney ruse of the ol' smear and fear.

So I'll take a wait-and-see approach regarding the chastening of the Bushies, but at least we can be assured that Social Security will remain, well, secure and that the minimum wage will be raised and so forth. If we could get rid of the Military Commissions Act, have a real investigation of 9/11, get out of Iraq, and impeach the rat bastards--well, that'd be awesome but I don't wanna ask for too much...

Let today be a day of celebration!!!

NEW BALANCE?

Of power, that is? It's beginning to look like we may get our wish--finally, a check on the Bush adminstration.

As I was watching TV, looking at msnbc.com, etc., this thought occurred to me--before they off Saddam, could somebody let him say whether or not he had any links to al Qaida or whether he had any nuclear weapons? Wouldn't he be honest about it now that he has nothing left to lose? Just a thought...

FINGERS CROSSED!

Oh please oh please oh please oh please...the Dems have got to win!

Let us note that most polls, even those of Fox News, show that the Dems are on the upswing and expected to take back control of either (if not both) houses of Congress.

So when the elections are stolen by the black boxes, we will know that the will of the people has been subverted. Gotta vote, to be sure, but also gotta be sure that the votes are counted accurately...

There's a lot I want to get to, but my son's been sick for a few days now and everything's hectic. Since he's been sick, he's laid on the couch watching a lot of TV and we enjoy watching "Avatar: The Last Airbender." I always thought it was stupid before, but now I think it's completely awesome.

Come to think of it, if I think I'll really hate something without even giving it a fair try, that likely means that I'll actually be really into it once I give the thing in question a good try. Kind of like when people get way into gay-bashing, a la Ted Haggard--they're gay themselves.

And I just wanted to say--thank you, Mike Jones. As a friend of mine said this morning, I hope a rich celebrity with a big gay fanbase is helping you with whatever legal hassles the 'Pubes may try to throw your way (Barb? Liza? Brad Pitt?)...

WHO SAYS NO ONE KNEW IRAQ DIDN'T HAVE WMD?

Janeane Garofalo knew, and she also predicted the mess we'd make for ourselves if we invaded and told Fox News that back in February 2003:

SNOW: Do you think he is eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction?

GAROFALO: Yes, I think lots of people are eager to obtain weapons of mass destruction. But there's no evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction. There's been no evidence of him testing nuclear weapons.

We have people that are in our face with nuclear weapons. We've got Iran and North Korea. We've got a problem with Pakistan. You know, I don't know what to say about that.

There's a whole lot of people that are going nuclear. And I think that Saddam Hussein is actually, with the evidence, the least able to use nuclear weapons and the least obvious offender in that area at this moment....


SNOW: I'm happy I've been able to get you so passionate about this.

GAROFALO: You've gotten me all flumoxed.

But I also resent Rick -- you know, Senator Santorum's assertions that this won't be particularly costly or lengthy. This is going to be economically devastating for us.

And also, the assertion that inaction breeds terrorist strikes, that is ridiculous. Action in Iraq will make us decidedly less safer.

I didn't find this own my own, of course--her former radio partner Sam Seder pointed this out on his show two days ago. And he made an excellent point, i.e., how come an actress/comedienne can have this much prescience and this much knowledge about foreign affairs and the PNAC guys and the rest of the dirty neocons couldn't?

Ah, but there's the rub--of course they knew what Janeane knew. Their idea was to get in there, somehow, some way. And now they argue that we can never leave, because we have to help fix what we broke. That was their point--just get our foot in the door--that's all we need for hegemony, for profit, for power.

The neocons knew all of what Janeane knew, but they didn't care...they wanted that money. Because war is a racket!

How She Knew

Here's Janeane on how she was able to figure out that the neocons were lying (from the same link as above):

GAROFALO: What are you -- I know as much for a fact as you guys know for a fact. I know as much as anybody who has access to information on the Internet, a library, satellite dish, international news.