Spring…a time of growth, or regrowth if you will…

From our first footsteps as modern humans, our species has moved forward, stretching our potential as we improved our mortal condition, each new step taking thousands of years before its imprint could be seen. It took humanity about 190,000 years to move from the Stone Age to the first human civilizations. The modern era begans about 12,000 years ago and includes the present time. In those 12,000 years though, it is in the last few hundred, and especially in the last half century, that human kind has shown that it might be ready to make the next step forward. At least, I hope we are.

Consider for a minute the advances of humanity during the Stone Age, so called because of the technological breakthrough and refinement of making tools out of stone. These early folks also had crude language and social skills, but were largely hunter-gatherer, subsistance types. But their mastery of fire, and eventual knowledge about natural pharmacology and animal behavior, in addition to their other skills, proved that they had mastered most of what any creature needs to endure: they knew the “how” of living. By the end of the Stone Age, the advent of agriculture was the icing on the cake, and the launchpad from which human beings leaped towards the next big move forward, they “why” of living.

Enter the rise of civilization, both ancient and modern, for aside from the technology, the mechanics haven’t changed all that much. For about the last 12,000 years, population centers in Asia and India, today’s Middle East and Egypt, the Mediterranean, and the lower Americas spawned people of thought and enterprise. Some formed the political structures, other the religious teachings, while still others turned towards the arts or the natural sciences.
For the first six or seven thousand years, civilization was tribal in nature, for lack of a better term. But about six thousand years ago the first “states” arose in Egypt, the Middle East and Indus Valley. These early pre-nations developed complex religions and infused them into the political structure and general culture of their societies, and eventually gave rise to the geopolitical map we know today. Through religious teachings and political-social mandates, humanity had provided himself with an answer to the “why” of living, and has spent the last 2000 years fervently fighting about which version is the truth. But to our credit, we have also managed to increase our knowledge about the world and the universe and the subatomic universe that makes up all matter. We have gained insights into the depths of our world and the folds in our brains. On the whole however, humanity has not been able to reconcile the faith of religion with the precision of science. Especially when the tenets of the religion can’t stand up to the empirical evidence or the modern times. Still, our technological prowess continues to expand at exponential rates, outstripping the mores of traditional religion with it’s sheer speed and marvel and engendering an expectation of self-satisfaction or greed that drives change. That, and religion continue to be the prime drive for billions of people, but that very individual drive, or rather the manipulation of it, may be the thing keeping humanity from taking the next step in our species’ evolution- the “what” of living.

Some will say we already have the “what” of living, that our religious faiths tell us what we should do. From an individual perspective, I may say, “Great. Glad that works for you.” But that’s not really the “what” I mean. Consider the change that took place when homo sapiens transitioned from Stone Age to The Age of Civilization. If ever there was an apt use of the night and day metaphore this would be it. And the leap from a human species dominated by religion and greed to one committed to bettering the entire species as a whole would be as dramatic.

Mankind has some serious challenges in the not-so-distant future and how (or whether) we work together to solve these issues will define the future of our species- the “what” if you will. It took our species 190,000 years to move out of the caves and into the light. It was a slow move, but we had the time and we had a common goal- to move forward. We’ve spent the last 12,000 years moving away from each other and our natural world. We’ve still moved forward, but hardly in concert. And increasingly, it seems that our only common goal is to destroy each other while asserting a particular religious philosophy or exploiting a particular resource. It would be a shame to spend another 188,000 years doing that. And quite frankly, I doubt we have that much time left on the clock if we keep going like this.

It is time to put religious differences down. It is time to put cultural differences down. It is time to put national greed aside. It is time to end provocations of war and acts of terror, both physical and economic. It is time to take the next step. And the funny thing is, you don’t have to give up your beliefs or selfish desires. After all, we didn’t stop using fire did we? You only have to be willing to refuse to allow those things to stop human progress, whether that comes from spacial colonization or ecological rejuvenation.

I think humanity can take the next step. I think there is a minority out there who are ready to put that foot forward. I just wonder when the rest of the pack is going to jump on board.

No, I’m not talking about the WMD’s that were going to appear in a “mushroom cloud” if American failed to dethrone Saddam Hussein. I’m talking about the unified, democratic Iraq theory that is now driving America’s misguided military misadventure. But the two are cut from the same cloth. Just as there never were any significant amounts of chemical and biological weapons (outdated, nearly inert sarin gas or low grade anthrax remains for example) and no nuclear programs to be discovered in Iraq, there is no real historical or cultural justification for maintaining the arbitrary lines that mark that country on today’s maps.

The country we call Iraq was created by the French and British, carving up territory won from the Ottoman Empire after WWI. Without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds to the north, Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq . (Wikipedia) Prior to the creation of the present-day boundaries of Iraq, the various ethnic and cultural peoples did not consider themselves to be of one nation. Only under the iron fist of dictators and strongmen could Iraq exist as a political reality. Remove the tyrant and the facade melts away. Anyone with a few minutes and an ounce of perspective could have surmised as much before starting a war over there. We know our leaders thought long and hard on this whole Iraq mess. I guess it’s the ounce of perspective they lack.

When it comes to Iraq, Bush is like the kid in junior high school who learns that the girl he had a crush on didn’t like him back. But instead of getting on with life, he becomes a stalker, sending friends over with “do you like Gerogie” notes, and trying to get invited to the same parties. The difference here is that instead trying to get a seat next to the girl in the cafeteria, Bush is sending a generation of American’s into a hellhole of his choosing, as if to say, “If I can’t have you, nobody will.”

We begin the fifth year of American corporate warfare with over 3200 dead American soldiers, tens of thousands of seriously wounded veterans, hundreds of thousands of emotionally injured troops, millions of affected wives, husbands, and children, tens of millions of displaced Iraqi families (the use of Iraqi here is used in the current meaning to identify any number of ethnicities in the region formerly know as Iraq), and an entire region of the world in chaos. That’s a lot to pay for something that was never there to begin with. For something many pretended was there even though it never was. For the artificial construct that is Iraq.

Once the dictator fell, and once the people realized that the conquerors were just after the resources under the sand (that is, that for the American government Iraq represented a massive wealth transfer operation disguised as any number of changing rationale) and would not continue to rule with a strong hand, or with any hands at all, the long-buried but unforgotten ethnic enmity returned, and the reality on the ground today is at least as historically motivated as it is terrorist-driven or anti-occupationist in nature. In essence, the bloody chaos in Iraq is a violent reminder of what happens when imperialism carves up the world for itself.

The Iraq War can not be won by conventional military means wrought upon the people of Iraq by the American military. It did not work in Vietnam. It is not working now. You do not democratize a people by killing every other one of them and starving the rest of work, food, modern essentials and sanitation. Even if the vast majority of Iraqi citizens wanted to work with the American’s to restore their country, they would still be consumed by fighting amongst themselves for eventual internal control. Under the assumption that victory in Iraq must be measured by the establishment and continued viability of a single, unified, national democratic government, victory is all but impossible; defeat all but assured. No amount of American soldiers will change that reality. No amount of treasure. No amount of tears.

The Bush Administration’s insistance on maintaining the facade that Iraq is a unified nation and must remain so is likely a major contributor to the inability of elected Iraqi legislators to achieve any sort of progress. They do not want to be unified. They do not consider themselves as brother’s in arms. They are Kurds or Shia or Sunni. Then they are of their family group and town. Only after that might they consider themselves as Iraqi. The sectarian violence and relative peaceful Kurdish region separated in the north are testaments to that idea.

Often the neo-cons and other war supporters will claim that those who want the war to end have no ‘plan to stop the war.’ The truth is that they just aren’t (a)listening, (b) comprehending, (c)realistic or (d) any of the above. Stopping a war is actually pretty easy when you have a defined enemy. You call a formal truce, arrange a peace treaty meeting, make agreements, and cease armed hostility. It can’t be done overnight, but it certainly can be done.
When faced with an amorphous enemy or one who has no desire to make peace with you, you have no alternative but to fight until one side can fight no longer. Or until one side can be convinced to fight no longer.

In Iraq, we face both scenarios. If America were to accede to at least listening to ideas that Iraq divide into three autonomous regions such talks could lead to a drastic reduction in sectarian violence and reduce the elements of civil war that now engulf much of Iraq. There have been talks of a tripartite oil revenue commission to fairly distribute oil wealth from the former Iraq to the three new sovereign nations. Such talks could lead to the political solution that even our military leaders have said is the only realistic path to take. And frankly, it should make no difference to us (or the Bush Administration) if the end result is three friendly countries or even 2 friendly countries in the region instead of one. Unless of course, if by acceding to such a plan, or even to talks, it would irreversably let loose the grip Team Bush and their cut and run corporate buddies like Halliburton have of all that oil.

In addition to prompting a sectarian cease-fire, the possibility of ethnic autonomy could lead to a concerted effort by each group to help root out the real terrorists in their midsts so as to speed up their own path to their self-determined future. And with renewed effort, American’s could work with and train “Iraqi” units in each region to restore order, moderation, and modern living to the regions.

And for those terror groups with whom we must ‘fight to the end,’ at least we’d have the ability and the cooperation to actually disrupt and end their murderous reign over civilians and soldiers alike.

Unfortunately, it’s really the oil that the Bush-puppet has been in love with all along. All the way back to the first Iraqi invasion, when the fledgling neo-cons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and their dark little minions begat their foul plan for oil domination in the Middle East. And that’s why they’ve continued to come up with excuse after excuse to validate their horrific misadventure. And that’s why American troops will never leave Iraq so long as Bush is president and Cheney is still in line for the job. And frankly, I’m not all that confident in the Democrats ability to rectify the solution either.

Victory in Iraq means that Iraq no longer exists. But in it’s place could stand three new, strong, modern, and moderate nations that at the very least could be ambivalent towards the west and at the very most long lasting allies in a new middle east
.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

In a report released yesterday the Pentagon has admitted that at least some of the conflict occurring in Iraq can’t be described as anything other than “civil war.”

I guess somebody didn’t get the memo from the Bush Administration that you aren’t allowed to use the words “Iraq,” “Civil,” and “War” all in the same sentence.

“Some elements of the situation in Iraq are properly descriptive of a “civil war,” including the hardening of ethno-sectarian identities and mobilization, the changing character of the violence, and population displacements. Illegally armed groups are engaged in a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian and, politically motivated violence, using tactics that include indiscriminate bombing, murder, and indirect fire to intimidate people and stoke sectarian conflict.

Much of the present violence is focused on local issues …”

The report goes on to show a graph that lists who the key destabilizing elements in Iraq are and what their goals seem to be. In each of three cases, the main goal seems to be to get American and ‘coalition of the willing’ forces to leave the country. But that’s about where they part ways.

The report does note that much of the violence (up to 80%) is centered in 4 of the country’s 18 provinces, and those provinces account for almost 40% of the total population. And it seems to verify the notion that while most Iraqi’s don’t want American troops in their country, they also aren’t supporting the violence that is growing around them.

“More than 80 percent of the population rejects violence against the government under any circumstance, and more than 90 percent rejects attacks against women and children,” the report states. “However, two-thirds of Iraqis express a sense that conditions for peace and stability are worsening, and the population is roughly split on whether the government is moving in the right direction to quell the violence.”

It’s going to be hard now for Cheney and Bush (and their chickenhawk pals and apologists) to keep pretending that America has some nobel mission in Iraq, or even a chance at having a voice in the future of the country, short of committing to an all out assault and forcing American-style democracy on a weary and unimpressed people.

American soldiers have no place in a foreign civil war, even if American policies ultimately are responsible for conditions that allowed that civil war to bloom. Bush’s new commanders have said there is no military solution in Iraq, only a political one. Bush’s ‘coalition of the willing’ has shrunk considerably, and the contributions of the remaining players are paltry to say the least. And now the Pentagon, heart and soul of the US Department of Defense (although we should really revert to calling it the War Department as the first presidents did, since that is how Bush has been using it) is saying Iraq is in civil war too.

I don’t buy the argument that we’ll be handing a victory to the enemy if we leave. In light of this report, I’d have to consider most Iraqi’s my enemy for that to be true. I don’t buy the argument that if America leaves we’ll be less safe either. Hell, the degradation of our military, our treasure, and our reputation due to our Iraqi involvement is what has made us less safe.

But since we have a chickenhawk administration and a new, Democrat congress more bent on rhetorical displeasure than on any real action to end the war, it looks like the American body count will continue to grow as our troops die in a conflict that no longer (if it ever did) concerns us.

(cross posted at Bring It On! )

(The last week or so has exposed even more the callousness and crookedness of the Bush Administration. From some of my posts over at Bring It On!…)

No ‘Plan B’ For Iraq If Surge Fails

In what has become typical Team Bush fashion, it turns out that there is no Plan B for Iraq if the president’s troop surge fails to deliver the results he seems to think they will. No matter that most of the rest of the world doesn’t think the surge has a snowballs chance in hell of changing conditions in Iraq, Bush and his jolly band of chickenhawks are so confident in Plan A (the Surge) that when asked by a group of governors last week during a meeting at the White House what the back-up plan was they were told by Marine General Peter Pace, “I’m a Marine and Marines don’t talk about failure. They talk about victory. Plan B is to make Plan A work.”

Plan B is to make Plan A work? Well, that’s sure comforting isn’t it? Does this mean that if the first surge of 21,000 combat troops doesn’t quell the violence that we’ll just send in another 21,000 ad infinitum until either all the Iraqi’s are dead or the US Treasury is bankrupted?

Not only did this administration never have a plan for Iraq in the first place, they still can’t seem to move their vision beyond Send in More Troops, despite the fact that sending in more troops hasn’t exactly turned hearts and minds towards American imposed democracy.

Mr. Bush- Plan A should have been to end the American presence in what is now an Iraqi Civil War. Plan B should be to help Iraq reconstruct once they have quelled their own violent tendencies and established a workable solution to what is now their own sectarian problem.
But it’s clear that the president has no desire to end the war in Iraq. While he’s busy recategorizing who belongs to his Axis of Evil club he has to keep up his ‘tough guy’ appearances somewhere.

As bad as the recent revelations are regarding what the Bush government means when it talks about supporting the troops, with Plan B for Iraq amounting to more of Plan A (i.e. keep on surging on), we can only expect things to worsen both for our troops abroad and for wounded vets who return home.

And sadly, the new Democratically controlled Congress is pussy-footing around the whole issue when they could take real steps to bring the troops home, restructure the real war against terrorism, and bring an end to the worst administration America has ever had to deal with.

Bush “Justice” Purge- Replace Crookbusters With Crooks

The ‘internets’ are all abuzz over the revelations coming out of the Congressional probe of the Bush DOJ firings of several US Attorneys. It seems that congresspersons, journalists, and citizens alike are shocked-just shocked, I tell you– to learn that the firings may indeed have been politically motivated to expel from the ranks of the DOJ those attorneys who actually decided that prosecuting corrupt public officials was a pretty good thing to do, even if those politicians were Republicans.

Excuse me for a minute while I roll my eyes. The shock of the revelations should be no such thing. This is how Team Bush runs ‘Merika, you know? In fact, when I first touched on this issue back in January, I said (about the firing of US Attorney Carol Lam of San Diego), “Perhaps the real reason Lam has been swept aside has more to do with the very public Cunningham prosecution that began to shine a light on who the Republican Party really is.” So the facts coming out that seem to support a political purge are no shock to me.

But this particular bit of news was, even though it probably shouldn’t have been either, knowing too well how Team Bush operates.

Apparently tossing crookbusters out of the DOJ ranks just isn’t pushing the purge far enough for the president. Now it seems that the old method of stocking federal agencies and departments with cronies has been elevated to a new level. In short, replace the crookbusters with crooks. That way, there is less chance that your own Justice Department will turn on one of your own. And with that handy little insertion into the Patriot Act that allows the AG to appoint “permanent-interim” attorneys without the need for congressional approval, putting crooked cronies into positions of power just got a whole lot easier.

Enter Timothy Griffen, top pick for the newly vacated US Attorney position for Eastern Arkansas. Griffen, an assistant to Karl Rove, was the major player in a scheme to defraud up to 70,000 voters of their voting rights during the 2004 election.

From the article:

Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin’s hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

 

In his article, Palast goes on to explain:

The Griffin scheme was sickly brilliant. We learned that the RNC sent first-class letters to new voters in minority precincts marked, “Do not forward.” Several sheets contained nothing but soldiers, other sheets, homeless shelters. Targets included the Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida and that city’s State Street Rescue Mission. Another target, Edward Waters College, a school for African-Americans.

If these voters were not currently at their home voting address, they were tagged as “suspect” and their registration wiped out or their ballot challenged and not counted. Of course, these ‘cages’ captured thousands of students, the homeless and those in the military though they are legitimate voters.We telephoned those on the hit list, including one Randall Prausa. His wife admitted he wasn’t living at his voting address: Randall was a soldier shipped overseas.
Randall and other soldiers like him who sent in absentee ballots, when challenged, would lose their vote. And they wouldn’t even know it.

And by the way, it’s not illegal for soldiers to vote from overseas — even if they’re Black.
But it is illegal to challenge voters en masse where race is an element in the targeting.

 

Department of Justice? I don’t think so.

I seem to remember from my history classes that there were other governments who engaged in political purges….we have a name for those kinds of governments don’t we?

As Troops Languish At Walter Reed, Bush Decides To Send USS Comfort On PR Mission

It turns out that President Bush really does approve of free health care, so long as you live in Central or South America and are not a wounded US combat veteran. Prefacing his upcoming visit to Latin America (where he plans on winning all the hearts and minds away from his third highest ranking arch-nemesis Hugo Chavez) with a speech on Monday, the Decider-in-Chief promised to send the USS Comfort down the coast this summer to deliver treatment to 85,000 people in 12 countries.
>
With wounded soldiers living in mold infested barracks and enduring 7AM inspections, all while trying to put together the pieces of their shattered bodies and minds and navigate the obstructionist bureaucracy that has become the military medical system, you’d think that maybe, just maybe, there might be another good use for a US Military hospital ship. Something a little better than heading south for a PR mission perhaps?

The USS Comfort has as it’s primary mission “to provide a mobile, flexible, and rapidly responsive afloat medical capability for acute medical and surgical care in support of amphibious task forces, Marine Corps, Army and Air Force elements, forward deployed Navy elements of the fleet and fleet activities located in areas where hostilities may be imminent.” Seems like Bush’s little escapade in Iraq fits into that criteria pretty well. And since we know the president isn’t planning any troop pull-out by June, perhaps we should send the ship there (or keep it there, whatever the case may be.)

Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for humanitarian missions. But folks…there’s a time and a place for everything. And when your stateside military hospitals are a shambles, understaffed, and expecting a continued flow of wounded patients, it makes sense to keep your resources at home. Not only that, we have a solemn duty to our fallen men and women to care for them to our best ability. It is only too clear that this administration has failed badly thus far. So why is the president making a bad problem worse by diverting more medical resources away from our troops? Is this what “support the troops” really means?

And don’t even get me started on the ‘free health care’ about face the president is pulling here. Why is it that free health care to foreign nations is a great idea for a PR junket but a lousy idea to even discuss here in America? If this isn’t a case of total cognitive dissonance then I don’t know what is.

Bush seems to be getting out of town at a good time- for him at least. With scandals breaking all around him, with the thin veneer of ‘compassionate conservatism’ wearing away to expose the rotten ideology for what it is, and with an American public (and even some –gasp-elected officials) increasingly calling for his impeachment, the president needs to get out of the harsh light of reality for a little while. That, and maybe he needs to clear some brush at Rancho Nuevo Bush in Paraguay.

The shame, it seems, never ends.

(articles originally posted at Bring It On!)

I’ve said it before– that President Bush’s zealous drive to ‘outsource’ as much of the federal government as possible to his corporate benefactors under the guise of ‘smaller, more efficient government’ is little more than a transfer of wealth from the masses to the few. Another tragic result of such massive outsourcing has been the loss of knowledgable and dedicated personnel from all of the governments agencies, leaving the American public with an understaffed, ill-equipped, and often incapable agency that is no longer able to fulfill it’s mission to the American people. In what becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, Bush has been able to claim that big government is ineffective while gutting the budgets and staff of those agencies to make sure he is right. And at the same time, a small number of bohemoth corporations assume responsibility for managing the same tasks once done by competant and often caring lifetime federal employees, at a higher cost and with little or no accountability.

We saw it from FEMA when Katrina hit. We see it in Iraq daily. Corporations securing no-bid contracts to provide services or support and then fleecing the payments while leaving the job undone or done so poorly a first grader would question the results.

So I guess it’s no surprise to find that outsourcing may well be behind the meltdown at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. In a recent article at Army Times, it turns out that an internal memo from late 2006 described in detail how the Army’s decision to “privatize support services at Walter Reed could put patient services at risk of mission failure.” In fact, the Army has been aggressively outsourcing all sorts of work, and specifically at Walter Reed since the year 2000. And the reason for that aggressive outsourcing is given as President Bush’s ‘competitive outsourcing’ initiative.

And guess who has the deal to ‘handle’ Walter Reed? A little company called IAP Worldwide Services, run by former senior Halliburton official Al Neffgen. They scooped up a five-year contract that started in january 2006. Since then, they’ve managed to cut the ranks of federal employees at WRAMC from around 300 to only 60 by early February 2007. Since then, those 60 federal employees have been replaced by 50 IAP workers. And it seems as though they weren’t even the lowest bidder initially. An initial employee bid came in $7 million less than IAP, so the bidding process was recalculated to favor IAP.

Tell me again about how you support the troops Mr. President?

By the way- remember the whole Katrina debacle? IAP is the same company that couldn’t figure out how to deliver ice to the Gulf Coast after the hurricane did it’s damage. Clearly with a proven track record like that, they should be top of the list for any government contracts, especially one so important as caring for wounded veterans.

It’s not about the soldiers people. It’s not about democracy or rule of law. It’s not even about compassion. It’s just about the money- getting it from all of us and giving it to a few of the boys from Club Bush.

We may have to redefine what “Bush League Politics” really means.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

President Bush presented his 2008 budget recently, and the numbers don’t lie- to pay for his massive tax cuts for the wealthy and his ongoing war on whomever he considers a terrorist this week, Bush proposed cuts to programs that actually help the poor, needy, disabled and America’s veterans. How’s that for compassionate conservatism?

In the President’s own message (accompanying the official budget), Bush says, “This Budget reflects our highest priorities while reducing the deficit and achieving a balanced budget by 2012. I am confident that this approach will help make our country more secure and more prosperous.”

We can only surmise then that for Bush, helping the richest .2% get even richer on the backs of the middle class and the poor is our highest priority. And his deficit reduction plan is ludicrous to expect so long as he keeps funding wars off the books and through ’emergency spending.’ The only people who will gecome “more secure and prosperous” are the corporate oligarchs to whom he owes his political legacy.

Bush wants to permanently extend the repeal of the Estate Tax he pushed through in 2003, an act that would reduce the federal kitty by over $440 billion in the next decade. (Of course, in politics nothing is ‘permanent’ but a decade of tax free hand-me-downs is the next best thing.) Longer term projections show that a permanent repeal would cost the Treasury up to $1 trillion by 2021.

So what cuts does Bush propose to offset these tax losses- money not being paid by the richest of the rich? Who are the winners and who are the losers in the Bush Budget? A little compare and contrast helps illustrate the picture for us( these figures are projected over the next decade):

The Walton family (owners of the world’s largest retailer) would receive an estate tax break of $32.7 billion.
The Bush budget cuts Medicaid by $28 billion over the same 10 year span.

Winner: Walton Family
Loser: Every American family who has medical co-pays or buys prescriptions. (And this will be on top of the 10-year, $28.3 billion cuts to Medicaid passed by the Republican Congress last year.)

The heirs to the Mars Candy Bar fortune would receive a tax break of about $11.7 billion.
The Bush budget cuts over $3 billion from the VA budget over the next five years.

Winner: Mars candy heirs
Loser: Every wounded veteran alive today.
The Cox family, heirs to the Cox Cable fortune will gain $9.7 billion by the permanent repeal of the estate tax.

The Bush budget cuts $1.5 billion from education. I guess the rhetoric about No Child Left Behind is just that- rhetoric.

Winner: Cox family
Loser: Kids and local school districts who are buried under an avalanche of federal mandates that continue to be underfunded.

The Nordstrom family rakes in over $825 million with the tax break.
The Bush budget wants to eliminate one of the country’s most successful anti-poverty programs, the Community Services Block Grant program. The ‘savings’ amounts to $630 million. The fact that this program provides dervices and aid to over 15 million of the lowest income people in the country is apparently not part of the compassionate conservatism practiced by Bush.

Winner: Nordstrom family
Loser: 15 million of the poorest Americans

The Ernest Gallo family (makers of cheaep wine) can expect to pass down an extra $468 million dollars from tax breaks.
The Bush budget wants to cut $420 million from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, that quaint little federal safety net that keeps 5.4 million senior citizens and low-income families from freezing in the winter time.

Winner: Nordstrom family
Loser: 5.4 million needy seniors and families.

Former Exxon Mobile CEO Lee Raymond and his family will keep a larger portion of that ludicrous retirement package, saving $164 million due to the permanent repeal of the estate tax.
The Bush budget wants to eliminate the Commodity Supplemental Food Program. This is a program that provides food for poor seniors, and low-income children and mothers. The price tag is…$164 million.

Winner: Raymond family.
Loser: The poor, the hungry, the huddled masses.

And these are just some examples to think about. Bush wants to give as much money back to the wealthiest of all Americans and balance those loses on the rest of us, including all those military men and women he keeps saying he supports. That is absolutely disgusting.
It is up to Congress to put a stop to this massive wealth transfer scheme. It’s been going on too long under Bush already. We know what Bush’s priorities are, and they have nothing to do with the welfare of American citizens. Not even the wake-up call in November can open his eyes. And forget about opening his heart. Bush hasn’t got one.

Regular readers know that I write on another blog, Bring It On! I post there several times a week, usually on more topical issues or on events that don’t lend themselves to a longer posts.
In addition to my posts, there are several other talented, regular contributor’s who post with regularity and a number of diarists who share their thoughts. It is truly a group blog, and even though it has a decided progressive/liberal slant, many commenters and diarists are of a conservative bend. I encourage you to pay a visit. For now, here are a few of my recent posts from Bring It On!

Lying Republicans And Their Lying Lies

The debate is over in the House. The resolution opposing the president’s ‘New & Improved Surge Plan’ has passed, with several Republican lawmakers crossing the aisle to join with Democrats in voicing the opinion of their constituents, a majority of whom oppose the Iraq War and the Bush Surge Plan.

In practical terms, this changes very little. It was a non-binding resolution. But it did force each member of congress to state their position vis-a-vis the surge and the war in general. I listened to Republican after Republican take the floor and proclaim that passage of the resolution would send a message of defeat to our enemies and a show of no confidence to our troops. Both of those statements are false, but they are opinions and as such can’t be classified as lies. (Call them delusions, sure, but lies requires a little more proof.)

But one statement repeated in various forms by various congress critters, clearly exposes a lie that republicans have been pushing on the American public since this war began, namely, that if American soldiers leave Iraq, the enemy will follow us home.

Really? They will? And just how in the hell can they do that, since the Republican President, his Republican administration, and 6 years of a Republican controlled congress have done everything possible to make America safe from repeated attacks? We’re told time and again by the president that keeping the homeland safe is job number one, that he’s doing everything possible to protect us at home. If that is true, there really is no threat from terrorists who would “follow us home.”

So the claims coming from the congress idiots are lies. Or the statements from the president et. al. have been lies. Either way, the republicans are lying. But they can’t have it both ways.
If the terrorists can simply pack up and ‘follow us home’ then the president’s (and the Republican party’s) efforts to ‘keep America safe’ over the last 6 years have either been non-existant (port security), just for show (airport shoe screening) or completely incompetant (border security). But if all those things are actually in place and effectively working, then the terrorists simply can’t get into the country.

So which is it republicans? Have you done your job and tightened up our home security or have you just practiced your rhetorical fearmongering skills these last few years?

Racist Rove Reveals Republican Reality

From The National Review, a decidedly conservative magazine:

According to a congressman’s wife who attended a Republican women’s luncheon yesterday, Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president’s amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.” (emphasis added)

Gee Karl, that’s real good of you to finally expose the truth behind compassionate conservatism.It seems like the party of Lincoln has really devolved quite a bit. I doubt that if Lincoln were running for office today he would even get past the vetting teams, because by golly, he actually had to work as a youth.

Excuse me for being offended, but I thought that in America we were an egalitarian society, where all honest work was similarly valued, if not in monetary compensation then at least in principal. I thought that the ‘new conservative agenda’ valued hard work and character building. I thought they stood for ‘the common man.” Guess what Herr Karl? The common man’s kids do make beds, and wash dishes, and clean up after others. Yet somehow, all that isn’t good enough for your kid? Guess we better get some more brown people to clean up after your lily-white ass, eh Karl?

When I was a teenager, getting a part time job in a restaurant or on a farm or in a grocery store or a hotel or mowing lawns was looked upon as good experience, character building experience, as a valuable part of moving towards adulthood. My family wasn’t rich by any means, but even my friends who were fairly well off had part time jobs of the kind that the Bush Administration now claims “American’s aren’t willing to do.”

But now we hear from the asses mouth himself the driving force behind the Bush Administration’s desire for more and less regulated immigration.

Again, from the article:
“This is why the president’s “willing worker/willing employer” immigration extravaganza is morally wrong — it’s not just that it will cost taxpayers untold billions, or that it will beggar our own blue-collar workers, or that it will compromise security, or that it will further dissolve our sovereignty. It would do all that, of course, but most importantly it would change the very nature of our society for the worse, creating whole occupations deemed to be unfit for respectable Americans, for which little brown people have to be imported from abroad. In other words, mass immigration, even now, is moving us toward an unequal, master-servant society.”

I don’t think I could have said it any better myself. If this country really needs immigrant labor, then fine. Develop and stick to laws to make it happen. But if the whole push for more immigration is so that Karl’s kid (and presumably the kids of all the neo-conservative/conservative/Republican jackholes) doesn’t have to wait a table or pick a strawberry, then it’s time to shut the borders up until we have 100% employment of Americans, including (especially) the young people who will one day lead this country. As we have tragically seen, kids who never have to work don’t really make good leaders. And they make incredibly poor presidents and presidential advisors.

More Republican Racism

In the second time in as many weeks, a major Republican policy maker has exposed the racist underpinnings of the Bush Administration regarding immigrants who come to America.
On Feb. 8th, Karl Rove addressed a group of Republican women at a luncheon wherein he described the rationale behind the president’s open-borders proposal by saying, “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.”

Follow that with a statement made by Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff speaking to reporters while visiting in Mexico last Friday where he tries to explain the goals of US immigration policy:
“Every time a Border Patrol officer is transporting a load of future housekeepers and landscapers to someplace to be returned, he’s not looking
for drug dealers or drug loads,” Chertoff said.

So, according to Rove and now Chertoff, and by extension presumably the president, vice-president, their republican allies in Congress and their supporters across the nation, immigrants, and especially those whose skin is brown, are needed to create a servile caste of new citizens. Apparently, according to the Republican party, immigrants, and especially non-white immigrants, are only capable of menial labor oriented tasks like picking crops, washing dishes, changing diapers and cleaning rooms. And further, those who are not coming for low skill labor jobs are either drug dealers or drug lords.

Another classic example of ‘compassionate conservatism’ at work here folks. What year is it again?

Welcome To Tal-Abama!

A law that seems to have come straight from the Taliban is one step closer to becoming a reality in Alabama, this time thanks to a Democrat.

A federal Court of Appeals recently upheld a 1998 Alabama law that was the underpinning of an anti-obscenity law pushed on the people by state Senator Tom Butler, a Democrat. Butler’s law would ban the sale of any device whose main purpose is to stimulate human genitalia- in other words, Butler wants to ban dildos, vibrators, or any other mechanical sexual aid. (the law also includes provisions banning nude dancing and regulation of where adult businesses can operate.)

Since when did personal pleasure seeking become ‘a legitimate state interest’? Is there a state of vibrator injuries in Alabama that are bankrupting the public health system? Are dildo-brandishing burglar’s unleashing havoc in the streats? Or does this guy just have some serious control issues to contend with? Did mommy not treat him right? Does his wife get more stimulation from her battery operated boyfriend than he can provide?

By the way…the anti-obscenity law does exempt condom sales and virility drugs and other sexual devices that have a ‘legitimate medical, scientific, or educational value.’

I bet Alabama doctors are going to be writing a lot of vibrator prescriptions if this law is acted upon.

Thanks for stopping by.

Thanks to Senator “Bridge To Nowhere” Ted Stevens, the above message may be required to be placed prominently on the first page or any subsequent pages on any website, including blogs or any other ‘social networking’ site that might contain sexual material.

It’s all included in S.49, called the Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act, aka DOPA Jr. (DOPA was the Deleting Online Predators Act that died in the Senate last session.) While protecting children from online predators is a good and noble goal, this is a bill that goes too far, for not only does it attempt to crack down on internet child pornography (the good part) it also launches a frontal assault on the online community that has emerged in the form of personal websites, chat rooms, even contributer based information sites like Wikipedia.

At issue is Title II of the proposed act which would prohibit schools and public libraries from accessing commercial social networking sites unless used for educational purposes with adult supervision. The law would prevent any school or library receiving federal funding for internet subsidies from allowing ‘social networking’ sites to be accessed from school computers. Such a law would almost certainly require schools to increase their computer filtering capabilities, essentially locking classroom teachers out of any online educational sites that are determined to fall under the ‘social networking’ definition. A definition so broad that it could include just about anything.

Under the bill, a commission (of unelected individuals) would use this criteria to determine whether a website would be defined as a ‘social networking’ site:

-is offered by a commercial entity;
-permits registered users to create an on-line profile that includes detailed personal information;
-permits registered users to create an on-line journal and share such a journal with other users;
-elicits highly-personalized information from users; and
-enables communication among users.

Buh-bye Wikipedia. Buh-bye online publishing sites. Buh-bye search engines. Think I’m kidding? Here’s a comment from reader Vickey on the PBS article (2nd link in this post):

“In our district the blocking and restrictions have already arrived. This is the message our district puts out as we search on the computers and reach a restricted site:Web based email is not filtered for content and may contain as attachments, inappropriate images or other undesirable content. Search Engines Major search engines (MSN, Yahoo!, Ask, Dogpile, AltaVista, etc…) often cache or proxy inappropriate material, they also link to inappropriate sites. We do not block Google, feel free to use Google to search the internet. Unknown Sites These fall under the “better safe than sorry” category. Streaming Media With the exception of purposed “education” sites, streaming media (audio and video) is blocked for two reasons, inappropriate content and severe bandwidth limitations Social Networking Unmoderated social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook are blocked because there is no “responsible” party involved in what content is displayed Lyrics, Music, Poetry, etc… Sites that offer content for free are typically in violation of the intellectual property holder’s copright, and as such need to be blocked.”

So far, the bill is in the early stages, so we don’t need to get too worked up quite yet. But we do need to watch and see where this goes. Anything deemed ‘for the children’ can gain popularity, especially in the run up to presidential elections.

But is this really about protecting children or about regulating and limiting the effectiveness of the online community? After all, the world of ‘social interactive’ websites has been very vocal in protecting free speech as well as highlighting the excesses, abuses, and mistakes of the government and their corporate benefactors.

This bill can do nothing to prevent child pornography on the internet- much of it comes from abroad. It will do nothing to prevent predators from gaining access to children either. It will not regulate private schools that don’t take federal funds for internet programs, leaving wealthier districts (and by caveat, wealthier families and children) with an advantage to access information and educational materials. And by extending the law into public libraries, places widely used by adults and children, this law would unnecessarily limit access to information and social networking by adults too.

There ia a better way to protect children than to decrease their exposure to information. It’s called parental guidance.

And there are better ways to eliminate child predators. They’re called law enforcement and stiff prison terms.

Of course, if the goal is to silence free speech and stifle the flow of information between people, this bill looks great!

(cross posted at Bring It On!)

First, let me say that the title to this post is imperfect, but it’s the best I could do. Clearly, not all ‘conservatives’ decry the fact that the Earth’s climate is changing, or that it is because of human activity that those changes are occurring. Further, ‘global warming’ is somewhat imprecise, as the climate changes make some areas warmer and others cooler. Be that as it may, this post is addressed to our environmentally right of center acquaintances, those folks who either don’t believe in the science, don’t think it’s a big issue, or plain don’t give a damn.

KNOCK, KNOCK…TIME TO WAKE THE FUCK UP!

For those of you who missed the news last week, an international body of scientists issued a report that determined for the first time that global warming is no longer a question, but a certainty and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950. That’s pretty damn clear to just about everyone who isn’t heavily vested in the fossil fuel business, heavy logging industry, mining industry, or corporate ranching. (Hell, these folks know it too, they just fall into the ‘don’t give a damn category.) The question isn’t now what is happening, but rather what to do about it. And their answers aren’t easy or pretty. Or cheap.

One would think that if presented with an equation such as this- change nothing and risk certain environmental breakdown and possibly species extinction or change as much as possible to ensure a hospitable planet for your progeny- the answer would be a no brainer. But the people who actually have the power to move our societies in the right direction, the direction that moves towards mitigating and reversing the damage we’ve done, are also the people who are most resistant to doing so. They are the people controlling billions upon billions of dollars that could be thrown at this problem but they hold tight the purse strings, because they are too invested in the status quo, too content to bring in every last dime from their obsolete technologies while they ignore the consequences of them. They are the people whispering into the ears of lawmakers and filling their campaign chests to assure that nothing too drastic takes place too quickly. They are putting their own personal wealth and comfort above that of the entire human population. (I bet these same bastards get real pissy about second hand smoke though.)

Sadly, if the projections regarding our degrading climate are even partially right, the changes in just the next 40 years will be significant, including everything from severe droughts to excessive flooding. Polar ice melts and higher sea levels. But there’s more to the picture than just having to duke it out with Mother Nature. The cataclysmic changes brought on by severe, but localized and faily short weather problems will be traumatic to say the least, but it is the endemic, longer-term climate changes that will wreak the most havoc on humanity.

Humans are creatures of habit, but also a creature of our environment. For tens of thousands of years, our species has evolved under fairly static environmental conditions. We have adapted to a variety of climes, to be sure, and even adapted to multi-year weather shifts. But by and large, our climate has not varied significantly. Our social systems, our governmental systems, even our religious systems to a degree, have been created around particular geographic and environmental locations. To some extent, who we are is based on where we are. So what happens when where you are changes so dramatically that who you are is no longer applicable?
Consider the drought in Indonesia in the late 1990’s. Lasting over a decade, this drought did more than just starve people and animals of drinking water. It led to social unrest, famine, and strife that toppled an entire government. I wonder how those folks at the top of that social food chain ended up? I wonder how their money helped them? Did they flee and set up shop somewhere else? The Indonesian drought is just one example of how an entire social system can fall due to harsh environmental conditions in one place.

Now imagine that kind of drought spanning half the globe, or more specifically, the great ‘bread basket’ regions of the globe. Think our country would stay afloat and intact very long if we not only couldn’t feed half the world, but couldn’t feed ourselves either?

Sure, we’re not Indonesia…we’re more civilized here in the Western World, right? Try living for a few days without water and see how civilized you feel.

At the other end of the spectrum will be the flooding. Half of the population of this country is clustered along the coastlines. What will rising ocean levels do to the economy if those places are lost? Think our country will stay civil if that occurs? Think we’ll still be a ‘super-power’ then?
The science says that we are at a point where it will get worse than it is now regardless of what we do. For some, that is enough to throw up their hands and say, “Screw it. I won’t be here anyway when the shit really gets bad.” It’s amazing how little regard these people have for their children and grandchildren. Real bastards, right?

The science also says that we can take steps to lessen the damage and hasten a reversal. We can’t fix it for ourselves maybe, but likely we can fix it for the next generation or the one after that. But only if we begin now.

This goes beyond filling our recycle bins at the curbside. It goes beyond carpooling to work. These are individual efforts, and they do help. But the will not be enough. We need to pressure government and business to quit dicking around now. The future is here, and quite frankly, their money will be useless in a lawless world filled with brutish humans fighting for a drop of water or a raft to stay afloat.

I’m not worried so much about the ability of mankind to adapt to climate change. Humans are very adaptable creatures. But I am worried about society being able to adapt. And the longer we wait to start changing, the worse we will be for it.

Along with bringing out new technologies rapidly, we need to plan for contingencies like flooding metropolises or waterless regions. We need a plan on all fronts, and we need it yesterday. It seems that the average person gets all this. It’s the ‘leadership’ that is in denial.

Conservatives and corporatists have only one choice if they want to cling to their mighty empires of wealth and power (or even imagined wealth and power)- join the fight today. For as society dies due to climate change, so does your power and money. Think of it as an investment in your own future, and as a gamble you can’t afford not to take.

(Oh- and for the naysayers still afloat-yes, global climate has shifted over the Earth’s 4 billion years. It is natural too. But not like this, not this fast. Could the sun play a part? Maybe, but again, not this drastic, not this fast. What about when the dino’s died? That was a weather shift too, right? So climate is out of man’s control! Sure, super-volcano or asteroid or too many farting dino’s. So what? That was then, this is now. We made the mess, we need to clean it up.)

So there it is- what is the future of mankind in light of this new scientific report? Will we slowly fade ourselves away or will we vigorously fight to fix our fuck-ups?

Or maybe Bush will just declare War on Iran, spark WWIII, light up the nukes, and we’ll be extinct before any of this nasty weather stuff comes up.

(originally posted at Bring It On! )