Tom's Thoughts

IN AN IDEAL WORLD:

2011-08-31T13:11:00.000-04:00

--Brussels sprouts would be fattening and carbs wouldn't .

--Sugar would strengthen tooth enamel.

--All political discourse would be intelligent exchanges of ideas based on facts and there would be no name-calling or slander.

--Semen would cure yeast infections.

--AIDS would cure leukemia.

--Higher education would be free.

--People of all faiths would understand the strengths and weaknesses in their own faith communities as well as those of others around them, and all would understand that people of all faiths are trying to get closer to God.

--Cars could run on water.

--Speed limits would be based on how fast people actually want to drive.

I'll try to think of more later.

On Blaming our Fellow Victims

2010-08-27T06:12:00.000-04:00

The latest incident is the attack on the cab driver because said cab driver was a Muslim.

I remember a Texas man killing a Sikh because he thought the man was a Muslim.

Between those two incidents of domestic terrorism (which is exactly what they were) the rhetoric has been rising against Muslims in America. The agitation over a Muslim-run community center two blocks from the former World Trade Center site, you know, out there where the OTB parlors and strip clubs are, where the deluded masses are calling the "Ground Zero Mosque," even though it is not at Ground Zero and it's not a mosque, is another manifestation of the evil spirit of our times. (For those, like me, who are unfamiliar with New York City culture and mindset, I have it on good authority from those who live there that two blocks there is like two miles anywhere else. The one time I visited, plus the years I lived three blocks from the worst drug-infested corner in Fayetteville, N. C., I can believe it.)

I remember when the Israeli forces attacked the humanitarian flotilla, and thought then of the time a friend of mine said, "The Germans had a problem called the Jews. Israel has a problem called the Palestinians."

Now, it seems, America has a problem called the Muslims. I see the same anti-Muslim prejudice coming out that manifested itself in Nazi Germany. It is a Satanic spirit infecting our times, causing us to forget everything America stands for, especially freedom of religion.

After all, we don't protest new Protestant churches in Oklahoma City because Timothy McVeigh was a Protestant. Yet we get all bent out of shape over Muslims in our country because the criminals who hijacked the four planes on 9/11 were Muslims. Both sets of criminals--the Oklahoma City bombers and the 9/11 hijackers were using violent means to protest America's system of government and commerce. Yet it is only the Muslims who get the brunt of our prejudice now.

Of course, part of it is the news media from which people get their information about what's going on. I keep reading and hearing about how the mainstream Muslim community doesn't condemn the violence of the lunatic fringe represented by al Qaeda. But I have read over and over about leaders of the mainstream Muslim denominations condemning the violent streak manifested by 9/11. I just haven't heard it from the American corporate media. I guess that's grist for another rant.

So the situation we have now is playing directly into the hands of those who would exploit our prejudices to advance themselves at the expense of the welfare of the American public. Just as the Nazis did in the 1930s, the same kind of people are stirring up Americans' anger against their fellow victims--illegal immigrants, Muslims, and whatever other unpopular minority they can come up with next--so they can distract us from the way they are profiting at our expense. We keep sucking up to the rich (as condemned by the Bible throughout) and blaming our fellow victims (which the Bible also condemns), while the big hogs keep fattening themselves with our help.

Maybe we deserve what we get if we decide to be that stupid.

N

2010-08-21T20:47:00.000-04:00

I want to declare, if I haven't already, that I am neither liberal nor conservative, but I am interested in facts--and the truth those facts lead to. So I care about what works, and what has been proven to work. If a program doesn't work, it should be discarded, and if it does it should be maintained, regardless of which party put it into place.

Now, it may appear that I'm going over the same territory over and over, but I keep hearing the same tired arguments and no good rebuttals.

So once again I'll talk about it.

If it has happened I wish someone would tell me when: When has there been a tax cut for the rich that wasn't followed by a recession, and when has there been an era of higher taxes on the rich that did not have prosperity?

In the Eisenhower era the top marginal tax rate was 90% or better, and so to avoid higher taxes industrialists put more money into their plants and people. As a result, there were plenty of jobs, and people prospered.

In the Johnson Administration there was an income surtax, and we paid for Vietnam escalation and balanced the budget. The minimum wage was $11 an hour, adjusted for inflation.

Nixon took the surtax off and we had a recession. Or two.

Reagan cut taxes for the rich and we had a recession. He signed the biggest tax increase in history and we had prosperity.

Bush cut taxes for the rich and we had the recession that brought Bill Clinton to the White House.

Clinton raised taxes on the richest 2% of society and we prospered.

Bush II cut taxes on the rich and we went into a recession from which we still haven't recovered, yet the Republicans want to make these tax cuts permanent. Can we not look at what works? Tax cuts don't.

Now for something completely different:

My T-shirt store is now open: zazzle.com/qoheleth

Enjoy.

On Getting Government Out of the Way (Reprise)

2010-06-24T09:20:00.001-04:00

You don't hear people asking for government to get out of the way much now that the Gulf of Mexico is becoming one big oil slick. Instead, they are running to government complaining, "Why haven't you fixed this yet?" This is actually a prime example of what happens when government gets out of the way.

One more time: Government got out of the way when it came to mine safety, and 29 more miners died in West Virginia this spring.

Government got out of the way of the banking and insurance industries and the economy collapsed as a result.

Government got out of the way of the Savings and Loan industry in the Reagan years and we taxpayers were on the hook for $200 billion.

Before that, the government got out of the way of the airline industry and we lost Eastern and Pan-Am, and flying is nowhere near the fun it used to be.

They complain about the "nanny state," but whenever the nanny lets them go they get into trouble and come running to the nanny to fix everything. The oil disaster in the Gulf is going to cost us taxpayers a bundle. The financial collapse has cost us untold tax dollars, both directly in bailouts and in lost taxes not collected from workers whose jobs have disappeared. The other times the government got out of the way cost us plenty, too.

"Free enterprise" is a contraction of "private enterprise" and "free competition." Government's role is as a regulator to make sure competition remains free, that everyone has an opportunity to compete fairly. Getting government out of the way has caused the playing field to tilt, competition to suffer as smaller companies are gobbled up by giant corporations that as a result become "too big to [be allowed to] fail."

We need leadership that can grasp this truth so prosperity and safety can be restored to our country.

On Getting Government Out of the Way

2010-05-20T23:38:00.000-04:00

The Tea Baggers and the general populace in this most Republican of districts keep saying things would be fine if we got government out of the way. How well does that work out here in the real world?

Government got out of the way of the airline industry, and flying has become an ordeal. We lost Eastern and Pan Am, and we lost airline meals. Yes, they were the butt of many jokes, but speaking from experience, they were better than the bags of pretzels we get now. We also get regular reports of whistles being blown on safety violations.

Government got out of the way of the Savings and Loan industry, and the taxpayers were on the hook for 200 billion dollars. It was during this scandal that I first heard the phrase, "too big to fail," which should actually be "too big to BE ALLOWED to fail."

Government got out of the way of the energy industry and Enron devastated California before imploding. Of course, evil always collapses under its own weight. Case in point: the former Soviet Union. Back to Enron, a lot of people got hurt in that.

Government got out of the way of the banking and insurance industries, and we wound up in the worst recession since the one brought on by the Reagan tax cuts. We are out a trillion dollars so far for that idiocy. Again, as in the S&L's, the profits are privatized and the risks are socialized. Taxpayers absorb the risk, while the fat cats pocket the profits.

Government got out of the way of mine safety, and last month another 29 miners died because of it. I don't want to be standing near either a government regulator or a mine owner on Judgment Day.

Now, government got out of the way of offshore drilling, and the Gulf of Mexico is about to become one big oil slick. BP didn't want to spend $500 thousand to install the safety equipment that would have prevented this spill, and now they are on the hook for $500 million so far in cleaning up the mess. That is, if they actually pay for it. If the Congressmen they own don't stick the American taxpayers with the bill again.

So tell me again how great it would be if government got out of the way?

Just wondering....

2010-02-25T11:39:00.000-05:00

--Why do drivers who consider the posted speed limit a gross exaggeration also consider the left lane the only place to drive?

--Why are Republicans so afraid of everything? The Clinton and Bush Administrations tried, convicted, and imprisoned over 300 terrorists on American soil, but now the Republicans are too afraid of letting the Obama Administration do the same. Why? Why can countries like Spain, Bermuda, and England do the same thing, but American Republicans are too afraid?

--Why are tax cuts the answer to everything? When have they ever worked to bring about anything good? When has there been a tax cut on the rich that wasn't followed by a recession? When has there been a tax increase on the rich that wasn't followed by prosperity?

--Why are budget deficits suddenly such a bad thing when all through the past decade people like Dick Cheney kept saying, "The Reagan Administration showed us that deficits don't matter"? Why do they matter now?

--Was it really World War II that brought about the end of the Great Depression? If so, where did that money come from? Wasn't it government spending? So why is it so wrong for government spending to do the Lord's work of helping the poor and needy, the widow and orphan, the way the Bible tells us to?

--Why are polls so important when they support one position--e.g. the Republicans pointing out how unpopular the Senate health care bill is--and totally ignored when it is not comfortable--e.g. how unpopular the Iraq War was and is (Dick Cheney's response: "So?") and how popular the public option on health care is (totally ignored by the Washington establishment--the first thing the Democrats negotiated away)?

--Why do I write such convoluted sentences (see above)?

On Privacy

2010-01-13T15:26:00.000-05:00

The following was posted on a web forum, with permission to copy. The forum started as "Sen. Obama, please get FISA right."

Confessions of a Presumed Terrorist

By Steve Russell

Too many years ago, I attended my 25th Not High School Reunion in Bristow, Oklahoma. Not high school because I am a sort of honorary Purple Pirate, having left high school in the 9th grade to join the service and save Saigon from the Viet Cong, who I was convinced would then take Sausalito and Sallisaw.

I saw the lady who had been the principal of Edison Elementary School, where I had gotten sent to the office so many times. She looked exactly as I remembered her from the fiftiesolder than dirt. I walked up and spoke to her:

"You probably don't remember me, but..."

"Hello, Stephen," she interrupted, "how is Wanda?"

That would be my mother, who this woman has also taught.

I'm an urban Indian now, but those who grew up on reservations or in places like that little town in the Creek Nation will remember how everybody knew everybody's business. There was no way my one eighth blood quantum would allow me to play white boy if I was so inclined, and
no way to escape whatever I had coming for my numerous malfeasances. No place to run and no place to hide. Same thing when visiting relatives in the Cherokee Nation or over on the Osage Reservation. Just mentioning my name connected me in ways not avoidable.

Did "privacy" have any meaning, then? I've done a lot of thinking about that since I moved away and changed my name and gained briefly the possibility of being anonymous.

Yes, it did have some meaning. We may have known everybody's business but we had sense enough to stay out of it. We had bootleggers when Oklahoma was dry, and it's not like we didn't know who they were.

People more or less got away with extramarital affairs, and each little town had some ladies who would provide sex for money without ever walking the streets.

I said that I ditched school after the 9th grade. In fact, I did not really finish the 6th or the 8th grades, either. I was hiding in the Bristow Public Library most of the time. Did I think the librarian did not know me or my age? Not a chance. But I caused her no trouble and she caused me none and I got my education reading books by the shelf in no particular order while everybody else my age that was not working on a farm went to classes.

Where there is no privacy there is a strong live-and-let-live ethic. I hope the country remembers that as the legal privacies we have enjoyed crumble in the face of the so-called war on terror.

I used to run on and off commercial airliners at will because I had a wife working for Southwest and a daughter working for Delta. I flew everywhere. Now, it's a burden to set foot in an airport as a paying customer. I don't know if there really is "somebody with my name" on the secret terrorist watch list or the person is really me because I have criticized the government so often, but I cannot get advance boarding passes and I always get very special treatment when screened.

Now I hear that there will be "random' searches of bus and train passengers, who will be required to carry photo identification like airline passengers.

Starting next year, American citizens will be required to carry passports for day trips into Mexico or Canada. I wonder how this will affect those Indian nations that span the border, where the northerners have spelled out rights under the Jay Treaty and the southerners have
implied rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo? Indian nations, after all, antedate Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

I remember being asked to "state my citizenship" when returning from Mexico and answering "Cherokee Nation." That would probably get me a body cavity search today.

Just last month, I sold my house here in Indiana in anticipation of retiring and moving to be with my kids and grandkids. I had a sum of money that it seemed wise to park in an interest bearing account until I was able to put it down on a retirement house.

The Dutch Internet bank that owned my online brokerage account was advertising 3.5%, which is not too shabby these days. I spent a full week trying to identify myself well enough to comply with what the bank thought the USA-PATRIOT Act required. I went ballistic when they asked
me the birthday of my deceased wife, although my current wife was much calmer when they questioned her about the mother of her ex-husband from over ten years ago.

The final upshot was that they wanted a copy of my Social Security card, which is not something I remember carrying around ever. However, when I was moving the card turned up tucked in my passport, so I faxed it to the bank, circling the language on the card that said "not to be used
for identification" and scrawling an anti-USA PATRIOT rant on the copy.

I also copied my passport for them while I was at it, but they still denied me an account. I guess I was a terrorist for savings account purposes but not brokerage account purposes.

Then my wife noticed the bank that held the mortgage we had just paid off had an on line savings account with 3% interest. We spent another week trying to get past USA-PATRIOT with them. They were satisfied with our identities but not with our address. It seems we had just moved.

Well, yes. That's where we got the money we were trying to stash and they had the mortgage. So sorry, left hand does not talk to right hand, but you may reapply for an account in 30 days if you are at the same address.

Good grief! We wound up at the University of Texas Credit Union, where I have had an account since law school, at 2.8%. I was able to transfer the funds electronically from the Indiana University Credit Union in one day. I never liked banks, anyway.

There is something peculiarly impersonal about the modern lack of privacy. I remember when I was a traffic court judge intervening for an Indian who was born on the reservation and had no birth certificate and was being denied a driver's license. I don't think I could swing that
today, judge or not. I can't even put my money in a bank. We can't travel or work without subjecting ourselves to the panoptic vision of the government or our employers or both. I saw on TV the other day that some employers are requiring employees to have identifying chips
embedded in their skin like the ones we inject in our pets to help them come home. And we thought it was bad to have to pee in a jar while somebody watched?

The bottom line is that being watched in a personal manner did not bother me. Being watched in an impersonal manner does.

A Pox on Both Your Houses

2009-12-18T19:45:00.000-05:00

I've been listening to Hardball. Chris Matthews is clueless and a jerk on a lot of issues, but he has a few good points tonight.

He and somebody else I didn't recognize were arguing with Pat Buchanan about climate change. It seems that Pat and the other troglodytes, as Chris called them, want to keep our dollars flowing to the Arab sheiks so they can keep funding al Qaida. I'm going to keep pushing that point to all the deniers I encounter.

And here is St. John McCain blasting Al Franken for objecting to Holy Joe Lieberman continuing past his time. Well, Tweety remembered when McCain did the same thing a few years ago.

The Republican Party has been taken over by the lunatic fringe, with no program other than stopping anything and everything progressive from getting accomplished. This even extends to voting against the troops to whom they pay so much lip service. Just to hold up the HCR voting. That has to be the stupidest move yet, but being a roadblock is so much more important.

I will continue to vote for the Democrats as a default position, but I can't support any of them enthusiastically.

The latest version of the Senate Health Care "Reform" bill is a big giveaway to the very insurance companies that have caused us so much trouble. First they give away the single payer plan right off the bat, even before they had to as a compromise. Instead, they compromised away the public option which the majority of the American people want.

All they have now is a mandate for everyone to buy health insurance in the same way as every driver in North Carolina has to buy car insurance. A big ripoff for those who can't afford to buy insurance, with no control over premiums. Oh, there are a few noises made about supplements for low-income folks, but Sen. Ben Nelson (D?-Grinch) is trying to cut them back, in addition to endangering the health for a multitude of middle-class women who, according to people like him, aren't adult enough to decide with whom they may share their bodies and their substances.

Where is your leadership, Obama? Oh, yeah. You're one of the sell-outs. I knew I didn't care for Obama, but by the time the North Carolina primary came around, he was the least objectionable choice left. Since he's been in office, he's continued the most objectionable of the Bush policies of rendition, preventive detention, shielding war criminals from prosecution, etc. Even before he took office, he sold us out on telecom immunity. Big disappointment, I must say, but the saddest thing is how much worse McCain would have been.

And it was Obama who led the sell-out to the insurance companies.

Two things: First, we need to raise hell. Taking to the streets doesn't do much good. The biggest anti-war demonstration in history went down right before the invasion of Iraq and got maybe one hundredth of the coverage that the Astroturf Tea Parties got this past summer. What counts is where it means something: in the voting booth. We need to support financially some real challengers to the DINOs, and then support them even more in the general elections. After all, our competition has Corporate America backing them. We need financing from the public, as a substitute for public financing, but that's a different topic.

Second, we need to hold our representatives' feet to the fire. Letters to Congress, letters to the editor, letters to friends. Letters on paper to the district offices of our Congresspeople and Senators are more effective than e-mails and on-line petitions. Let them know we're watching and keeping track.

But the main thing we need is a new party. I tried to stir up interest in re-forming the Whig party to fight the two Tory parties we have now, but that was only on this blog, and thus it never went anywhere. We need some real competition to the corporate-owned parties in Washington now.

As Leon Redbone sang, "I know it'll only happen/When I'm nappin'/ noddin' in reverie...."

More Hypocricy

2009-12-03T13:56:00.000-05:00

So I'm listening to the radio on the way home from work the other evening and there is some high-level Republican Senator saying we can't afford to spend trillions on a measure the American people don't want, what with the budget so badly out of balance and all.

So, was he talking about the Iraq War he so vigorously supported? No. He was talking about health care reform.

You know the health care reform proposals that are in front of the Senate now--the ones that will cost less than the Iraq War cost, will actually reduce the deficit according to the CBO, and that the majority of the American public is in favor of.

What a putz!

But then, that is the mindset inside the Beltway. Project onto the public at large what the opinion leaders inside Washington say, completely ignoring all facts to the contrary.

Thus you get the people who got us into the current financial crisis being the very ones pouring money to their colleagues who tore the economy down, in hope of repairing the damage they themselves caused.

Thus you get Obama's latest mistake: The Afghanistan surge.

What a complete bunch of putzes.

And yet, in California, where term limits have been imposed, and tax increases effectively eliminated, the government is completely unable to do anything effective.

So term limits aren't the answer.

No. It's getting big money out of the election system. We need public financing so the lawmakers won't be so beholden to those who finance their campaigns.

The trouble is that legislators draw safe district for incumbents, so I wind up in a district where a Republican doesn't have to campaign at all once the primaries are over to be elected to Congress. Others find themselves in solid Democratic districts, and the same old crowd keeps things running just the way it is.

If an independent commission could draw the legislative and congressional districts, and then if public financing could pay for the campaigns, maybe something positive and constructive could get done.

But I won't hold my breath.

What Is It with Pop-Ups?

2009-11-12T21:27:00.000-05:00

I can't go to certain sites without having to close off some pop-up advertisements which somehow have figured out how to get around the pop-up blockers. Why do we even need pop-up blockers? Why don't advertisers have more consideration?

Then there are the ads that are already on the page, which is fine, but when I accidentally move my cursor across them, they expand and cover what I'm trying to read, and I have to hunt around the edges for a spot to click on to close them. Sometimes that's hard to find.

Then there are the pop-behind ads. A flicker on the screen is all you see, but then when you close the page, you can't go to bed or open any other programs without having to close a NetFlix ad or an ad for a mortgage company.

What I want to know is why in the world any of these advertisers, NetFlix, The Economist, or any mortgage company think I would spend a penny of my money on what they're offering when they have pissed me off so much. I have thought about subscribing to NetFlix the way I subscribe to Booksfree.com, but the more of these ads I have to close out, the less I intend ever to spend a cent of my money with such people as these.

Why would anybody spend any money on companies that are so irritating in their advertising?

Three letters: WTF!?!?

On Taxes

2009-11-03T21:12:00.000-05:00

This may be rehashing previously-covered territory, but it nonetheless warrants airing lest it be forgotten.

Taxes are the dues we pay for living in a functioning society. True, there is "waste fraud, and abuse," as every politician who wants to cut the budget is quick to point out. But given the alternatives, we are better off being taxed than living in anarchy.

Warren Buffett, the second-richest man in the world, points out that he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secretary does. What kind of sense does that make? He's right about class warfare: It is going on and his class is winning.

Our taxes pay our politicians' salaries and those of their staff members so that they can run our government effectively. Whether they succeed is a question of whose party is in power. Our taxes keep our roads maintained, our water processed, our air breathable, our airwaves free for us to use to listen to the telephone and radio and to watch videos on our hand-held computers. The airwaves were regulated for television until they decided to go digital, and even then, the taxes we pay keep the current system regulated so that we can get the programs we want (that is, our choice of what is offered to us). On and on.

So, when taxes are raised, we get prosperity. I challenge anyone to name a tax increase that wasn't followed by prosperity, or a tax cut for the rich that was not immediately followed by a recession.

Looking back over my lifetime, I remember times of prosperity fueled by the taxpayer-funded GI Bill in the 1950s. During that time tariffs were much higher than now, and we had a strong industrial base to our economy. We had a cotton mill or two in every small town in Rutherford County when I was growing up there, and people made a reasonable living working in them.

Now we have "free trade" and low tariffs, and the only residents of the furniture factories here in Caldwell County, to quote Carl Sandburg: "[A]re...the rats...and the lizards."

Back then the top marginal tax rate (which started at $200.000 a year) was 90%, and everyone prospered. Kennedy cut taxes, and the economy stalled. Inflation followed as Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam. Still, Johnson put a surtax on income taxes and the budget was balanced for 1968.

Reagan cut taxes, and a recession followed. The next year he signed the largest tax increase in history, and Republicans are still bragging about the prosperity that followed. Clinton came in and raised taxes on the richest one per cent, and Democrats are still bragging about the prosperity that followed.

And now to health care: I would rather pay an extra $50 in taxes so my grandson can have a nurse on his hospital floor at midnight than the extra $100 dollars that I'm currently paying in health care premiums so some CEO can have maid service on his yacht.

Okay, so once I proposed a Maximum Wage--a one hundred per cent tax on every dollar of compensation over $5 million a year. I proposed that income at that level earned from entrepreneurial endeavors be taxed at normal rates. I still feel that way, but I am ready to reduce the Maximum Wage tax to 90% the way it was in the Eisenhower era. More prosperity for all would follow, and the government could start climbing out of the huge national debt hole we're in. Especially if we close the Cayman Island loophole.

Some Thoughts From Chesterton

2009-10-27T16:59:00.000-04:00

I have just finished reading G. K. Chesterton's 1905 book, Heretics, and I must say it is fascinating how things are still the same way they were a century ago.

He spends a lot of time refuting thinkers, philosophers, and writers of the turn of the last century--including Bernard Shaw and H. G. Wells. But he also makes some observations about societies and countries that are just as relevant today. For example, in the chapter, "The Fallacy of the Young Nation," he has this to say:

It may be said with rough accuracy that there are three stages in the life of a strong people. First, it is a small power, and fights small powers. Then it is a great power and fights great powers. Then it is a great power and fights small powers, but pretends that they are great powers, in order to rekindle the ashes of its ancient emotion and vanity. After that, the next step is to become a small power itself. England exhibited this symptom of decadence very badly in the war with the Transvaal; but America exhibited it worse in the war with Spain. There was exhibited more sharply and absurdly than anywhere else the ironic contrast between the very careless choice of a strong line and the very careful choice of a weak enemy.

Does that not sound like America a hundred years later? We went from fighting the Axis Powers in WWII to fighting North Korea to fighting North Vietnam to fighting Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In fighting these small powers there was a strong patriotic fervor whipped up against an overhyped enemy, followed by either a swift defeat of a non-threat (Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War), or a stalemate (Korea), or a quagmire (Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan). And now the same sabers are rattling against another non-threatening nation: Iran. When will we ever learn?

Back to Chesterton: In his "Concluding Remarks," he talks about bigotry. Observe this:

Bigotry may be roughly defined as the anger of men who have no opinions. It is the resistance offered to definite ideas by that vague bulk of people whose ideas are indefinite to excess. Bigotry may be called the appalling frenzy of the indifferent. This frenzy of the indifferent is in truth a terrible thing; it has made all monstrous and widely pervading persecutions. In this degree it was not the people who cared who ever persecuted; the people who cared were not sufficiently numerous. It was the people who did not care who filled the world with fire and oppression. It was the hands of the indifferent who lit the faggots; it was the hands of the indifferent that turned the rack.

Great ideas, huh? People who are indifferent are the ones who unthinkingly support the fanatics who carry out wars and persecutions. It is the ignorant indifferent who fuel the hatred the fanatics are building now against Iran. It is the ignorant indifferent who put George W. Bush into the White House, and are letting Barack Obama get away with continuing the worst of Bush's policies.

People, if anyone is reading this, we have got to take action. We have to let the voices of thinking, caring people be heard. We elected Obama and a Democratic Congress. Now we have to keep the pressure on to make them live up to what we elected them for.

Selah.

2009-09-25T09:41:00.000-04:00

The JUSTICE Act is working its way through Congress now, so maybe there is hope for the country after all.

This act rolls back some of the Unconstitutional provisions of the PATRIOT Act. I am not familiar with its contents, but anything that moves us closer to compliance with the Constitution is a good thing.

After all, the Constitution has served us well through all these 222 years, and it should continue on into the future the same way.

North Carolina wouldn't ratify the Constitution until there was assurance of a Bill of Rights, but now many of the politicians from this state don't like the Bill of Rights all that much. Only the Second Amendment. It appears, speaking glibly, that Democrats don't like the Second and Tenth Amendments, and that Republicans don't like the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth.

I think it's time we all re-read the Constitution and all its amendments.

The Obama Administration needs to be reminded of the contents of the Constitution, and the high officials of the Bush Administration need to be prosecuted for the war crimes they committed in violation of it.

But the whole country needs to be educated on what the Constitution really says. Civics should be a required class for every student in elementary, high school, and college.

More on Health Care

2009-09-14T20:05:00.000-04:00

I was wondering: How much money is the health care industry pouring into Congress to maintain the status quo? We have a lot to overcome.

I want to ask everyone who says anything against President Obama, or in favor of our current "best in the world" health care system what facts they have to back up their assertions. I have facts to back up my criticism of the Obama Administration, but they are grist for another blog post.

As to health care, I'm disappointed at how readily Obama seems to be willing to give up the public option. We need that to keep the insurance industry honest. After all, the most efficient health care delivery and financing systems in the country are those run by the government. The VA is one of the best--at least it was till the Republicans tried to gut it. The members of Congress get excellent health care at our expense--i.e., socialized medicine. Also, Medicare and Medicaid have lower overhead than any private insurance company in America. Those are my facts to back up my assertion.

Now, as for those who oppose a public option, who don't want the government competing with private enterprise, are they going to oppose school vouchers? That is government competing with the private sector.

How about those opposed to the government getting into the health care business? Are those who are veterans going to go to private hospitals and boycott the VA? Are the others going to pledge to refuse to sign up for Medicare when they become eligible? Afer all, the arguments against the health care plans working their ways through Congress are word for word exactly the same arguments that Ronald Reagan and others used to oppose Medicare.

A digression: I opposed Medicare until I was assigned the Affirmitive side when I was on the high school debate team. If I recall the wording exactly, it was "Resolved: That the government should provide medical care for elderly people through the Social Security System." My research for having to argue in favor of it convinced me that it was a good idea. Now that my parents have been recipients of its benefits, I am more convinced than ever that it is a good thing.

Now, for those who believe the government can't do anything as well as the private sector can, do you boycott the Post Office and send all your letters and packages via UPS or FedEx? Do you go to a private hospital when you need medical care rather than the county hospital? Do you send your children to privage schools or home school them? (Actually, that's what the mind controllers of the Republican Party want them to do.) Do you hire a private security firm rather than the socialized law enforcement establishments of the Sheriff's Office or the Police Department?

Finally, it has been asked before, but I want to ask it again: If socialized medicine is so bad why don't the Republicans in Congress introduce legislation eliminating military hospitals and force all armed forces personnel to buy private insurance?

Okay, now that we have dealt with the childish ridiculousness, can we PLEASE have a rational debate about the best way to provide health care for the American population?

I'm concerned

2009-09-07T19:15:00.000-04:00

I'm concerned about a friend. His wife has stage 4 cancer, and he's staying out of work to take care of her and see to her treatments.

I put them on our church's prayer list. At least I tried to. I'll try again in a little bit.

Meanwhile, I can't help reflect on his Republican ideology coming back to bite him. His party strove mightily against the Family and Medical Leave Act, and I'm sure he was in there with them. Now he is taking advantage of it.

He has joined in the Republican chorus condemning lawyers, but now he and his wife have a good malpractice case. I wonder if he still believes the same thing about lawyers.

He has the company health insurance. I wonder if he still opposes a publicly-financed option that might serve his family's needs better.

I won't go on in this manner, because it's too serious, and they are seriously in need of our prayers. If anyone is reading this, please remember my friends in your prayers.

The Whole Bill of Rights

2009-08-09T14:57:00.000-04:00

I believe in the entire Bill of Rights, unlike those on the right who want to do away with the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and those on the left who want to do away with the Second and Tenth.

I once read a column (in Playboy, by the way) that said the author was a member of both the ACLU and the NRA. The reason was that he believed in both the First AND Second Amendments.

I'm the same way. Today, though I want to concentrate on only the Second Amendment.

As my son, along with both sets of grandparents, sat around taking turns holding my new grandson I mentioned that the other grandfather said he would teach little Hayden how to turn a wrench. I said that my son would teach him how to hit a ball and throw a ball, and that I would teach him how to shoot pictures and shoot a gun.

We all agreed that this last would be some long years into the future. When he is old enough. But I also told them that when I was a child my grandfather had a pistol hanging in his open closet door. I was curious about that pistol, and I wanted to hold it and examine it, maybe even shoot it. BUT all us grandchildren knew it was not to be touched. It was not a toy. It was a dangerous weapon. We would stick with our BB guns (OUTSIDE), and leave the big guns to the big people.

My son and I both want my grandson to understand that a gun is not a toy, and that if another kid comes along carrying one and saying, "Look what I found!" that Hayden will know not to go near it, and to tell an adult right away.

Too many on the right practically worship guns and use them to express their deathly fear of the "bad" people out there. Too many on the left have an unhealthy fear of guns themselves, and thus prevent their children from knowing what to do in the presence of one.

If children were taught what do do in the presence of guns, what guns are, and how to handle themselves with and around firearms, then there would be fewer casualties when idiots like the Pittsburgh killer use guns as a means of compensating for some real or perceived inadequacy.

As Crosby, Stills, and Nash sang, "Teach your children well."

On Competition

2009-08-05T19:17:00.000-04:00

Why is it, I have asked over and over, that those who are so eager for the government to compete with private enterprise through school vouchers are so deathly AFRAID of the government competing with private enterprise in the field of health care?

After all, isn't competition the American way? Look at UPS and FedEx. They have been quite successful in competing with the U.S. Postal Service.

But then again, maybe competition isn't the American way. Look at the oil companies. Big oil companies--Texaco, Shell, Amoco, Mobil--have been bought out by bigger oil companies--Exxon, BP. And big banks have been bought out by bigger banks. NCNB bought out some other banks and became NationsBank, then bought out BankAmerica and became Bank of America. Northwestern Bank was bought out by First Union, which then bought out Wachovia and changed its own name to Wachovia, because First Union had such a bad reputation among its customers. Now that Wachovia has been bought out by Wells Fargo.

And so it goes.

So mergers and acquisitions seem to be the business model of American companies rather than competition. Big Microsoft couldn't let WordPerfect have the field to itself; it had to come out with MS Word. There were perfectly good spreadsheet programs available, but they had to make Excel the industry standard. Now that Google has metastisized to the point it has Microsoft has to come out with Bing to compete with them. They are also trying to buy Yahoo, which was the big dog for a while.

As I have also said, "too big to fail" is a phrase we are too familiar with, but it raises the question: How do we keep companies from growing to the point where they are too big to fail?

Teddy Roosevelt, where are you now that we need you?

Where's my America?

2009-07-30T10:01:00.000-04:00

Glenn Greenwald has another good one today about the Bush/Obama Administration and their efforts to keep secret their torture regime. I wish I could grab Mr. Obama by the lapels and scream, "Hey, Bud. This is what we voted AGAINST!"

First off, Ronald Reagan signed the treaty outlawing torture and requiring anyone with knowledge of same to arrest and detain the offenders. Instead, the Bush Administration tortured at will, usually to desperately find some means to justify their illegal, immoral, and unnecessary war against Iraq, the biggest Arab enemy to those who attacked us on 9/11.

Obama ran against this sort of crap in 2008 and won a landslide of electoral votes. Now he is trying to avoid at all costs holding anyone in the present or previous regime accountable for their actions defying United States and international law.

They are even continuing the Bushevik threats to cut off intelligence information to Britain if they don't keep quiet our torture history. Of course, their being complicit in it is an embarrassment to them, so they willingly comply. But does the Obama Administration really intend to place British citizens at risk for terrorist attacks if they have the temerity to disclose what they know about the law-breaking of the people the Obama folks DEFEATED at the polls last fall? Why? Are they continuing the practices they campaigned against? Wouldn't be the only thing they continued after campaigning against it. But that's grist for other rants.

I want to ask Mr. Obama, if I get to speak to him at a "town hall" or other such event: "Sir, is it true that you want to open the people of Britain to terrorist attacks if they disclose illegal activities of your predecessor?

"Yes, I understand that you want to look forward, not back. So does that mean we will shut down the court system and let all the defendants go so we can expend our efforts on looking forward and preventing crimes from happening in the future? In your words: 'look forward not back'?

"No? So then this is a country of men and not laws. The law doesn't apply to Republican Administration officials, then. We have completely undone the American Revolution and have gone back to the Divine Right of Kings. Only in this case, it's divine right of the Executive branch to hold themselves above the law with no accountability whatsoever. Is that it, sir?

"Sir, anyone who argues your position on this affair is beneath contempt. Good day, sir."

Wish I could confront him like this.

On Competition

2009-07-22T10:39:00.000-04:00

Why is it that those who scream the loudest about wanting the public schools to compete with private enterprise through the voucher program also scream the loudest about NOT letting the government compete with private enterprise when it comes to health insurance?

So if the free market is more efficient than the government and can do everything better, then what are they afraid of? After all, haven't FedEx and UPS done well in competition with the U. S. Postal System?

And the argument that having to compete with the private sector will force improvements onto the educational offerings of the public school system--doesn't that apply equally to the health care system?

As I said, what are they afraid of?

Could it be that the private sector will have to stop hiring overpaid bean counters to keep from having to pay claims? After all, government bureaucrats won't have that incentive, so they will be inclined to pay the claims that come across their desks in the same way that the VA works.
Thus, the CEOs won't be able to feather their nests at our expense as easily as they did in the past.

Yeah, if it works for the public schools, why not for health care.

What are they really afraid of?

And Furthermore...

2009-07-17T00:16:00.000-04:00

Continuing with the previous post, I submit that if they want to talk about people from other countries coming here for health care they can't get at home (at least not as soon as they want), then we can talk about Americans going abroad for health care they can't afford at home.

There are hospitals in Bangkok, Bangalore, etc. set up to cater to Americans who can fly over there and have their bypasses, knee replacements, or whatever, for a small fraction of what it costs over here, even taking air fare into account. Do they get inferior care because it is out of our country? Not at all. It is world-class in terms of both equipment and the training of physicians and staff. So, as one article (Fast Company dot com, April, 2008) says, it's a question of credit card vs. bankruptcy.

Now, if attracting people from abroad to receive health care is a measure, then ours isn't the "best in the world," is it?

So tell me again: What makes our system of health care the "best in the world"?

'Best in the World"?

2009-07-15T22:31:00.000-04:00

So they keep harping on how the United States has the "Best health care system in the world." So where is the data to back up that assertion?

The only thing I have heard is some anecdotal evidence of some people from other countries coming here to have medical procedures done that they can't get at home, at least not in a timely manner. So is that it? Those few, usually wealthy, people?

What about the rest of us? What about the almost fifty million United States citizens who don't have insurance, thus dragging down the system for the rest of us. Those who don't have insurance tend to put treatment off until they have to go to the emergency room. Thus you have up to a five-hour wait, while you're bleeding, in pain, etc. You don't have those waits in the civilized countries that have real health care. So the five-hour ER waits make this the "best in the world"?

What about access to doctors? The civilized countries that have complete health care for all have more doctors per thousand people. I guess if they don't have to worry about maximizing their earning power via gouging insurance companies for fees, then they don't have to gravitate to expensive specialties. So, maybe that's why they call ours the "best in the world:" more expensive specialists. So they might have a few more weeks to wait for specialized treatment in England or Canada. Is that worse than the extra five hour ER waits here?

They don't have those long waits for treatment, surgery, etc. in France, Germany, Italy, Japan. They have a different system, but they still spend half the money on health care that we do, and they live longer.

That brings up the next question: Is it death rates? Our death rates are higher at every age group. That means we have shorter life spans than the other civilized countries that have universal health care. Does dying earlier make ours the "best in the world"?

They spend half what we spend on health care, yet they have coverage for everyone, and longer life spans. Ours is the most expensive health care in the world. Does that inefficiency make ours the "best in the world"?

It's the most inefficient in the world, that we can say with confidence. When will we catch up?

I want to be healthier.

Let's see what we can learn from the rest of the world.

Enough Already!

2009-07-10T10:21:00.001-04:00

Ten years ago Princess Diana died, and from the hoo-raw surrounding the event, you would think it was Mother Teresa that had died.

Oh, that's right, Mother Teresa DID die at the same time. But you would never know it from the media coverage going on at the time. It was All Diana All the Time.

I hoped never to experience another media circus like that again, but now that Michael Jackson is dead, the media circus is Princess Di times ten!

For three solid weeks I have had Michael Jackson crammed down my throat. It has gotten to the point that if I never hear the name again, it will be just fine. NPR, and event the BBC were in on it, for crying out loud.

Now, I don't hate Mr. Jackson. I rather enjoy some of his music, especially from the Jackson 5ive years. Even when one of his "grown-up" songs comes on the radio, I don't change the channel.

But this hagiography is ridiculous. The man had a troubled life, and lived it on the front pages of the tabloids. I didn't try to seek out any information about him, but you couldn't avoid it.

Now, you can't avoid mention of his death and his funeral. Last I heard they hadn't even buried the poor body yet, because they were so busy milking this thing for all it's worth.

Can I get a break from this without cutting myself off from radio and TV altogether?

Happy Fourth!

2009-07-04T17:03:00.000-04:00

Two hundred thirty-three years ago today, a bunch of liberals (the DFHs of their day) took action against the oppresive government that would have preferred they sit down and let the Administration (the Crown) do what was best for keeping the colonies safe.

The Limbaughs, Hannitys, and O'Reillys of the day were arguing for loyalty--the divine right of kings.

Let us remember their spirit and keep the current Administration's feet to the fire. No more letting them get away with Bush policies of torture, spying on Americans, and bailing out fat cats.

Speak up, and keep the Revolution alive.

On Men with Power

2009-06-30T11:25:00.000-04:00

Others are pointing out the hypocrisy of those who scream loudest about "family values" being the ones caught with their pants down in the presence of paramours, prostitutes, etc. I won't pile on about that, although it is something to contemplate.

I will note that research shows that those who scream loudest about other people's sexuality are those who are least secure in their own. It seems the same thing happens with sexual fidelity and "sanctity of marriage." The louder they shout about it, the more we need to watch their personal behavior. In fact, it would surprise me not at all to see Fred Phelps caught up in the same kind of scandal that exposed Ted Haggard.

But one thing I notice is that This behavior seems to be a function of too much power. It happened with King David in the Bible (II Samuel 11 & 12). When a man gets into a position of power, no one is there to stop him when he wants something. Personal ambition drives a man to achieve a position of power, then he is surrounded by sycophants bowing to his every whim. He forgets that moral standards apply to him, because no one will deny him anything. So if he sees something he wants, he takes it, and no one tells him no.

David saw a beautiful naked woman, so he wanted a roll in the hay with her. All he had to do was send for her and he got what he wanted. But he also got something he didn't want when she turned up pregnant. Instead of taking responsibility, he did what powerful men do, and deflected the blame. He had her husband killed in battle so he could marry her himself. Again, no one was there to second guess him.

I don't know the full story of Franklin Roosevelt's straying, nor that of Dwight Eisenhour. I understand that things happen in marriages, and to soldiers in the theater of war, so I won't sit in judgment. But John Kennedy seems to fit the pattern. The press conspired with him to cover up his multiple affairs, but no one was there to remind him of the vows of fidelity he took in his marriage. From what I read of Lyndon Johnson, the same thing seems to apply to him, too.

Bill Clinton fit the same pattern, as did Gov. Spitzer, Rep. Vitter, Sen. Edwards, and now Gov. Sanford. Being surrounded by people who want to please him gives a man a distorted view of how important he really is, and distorts his perspective on the world. He comes to believe he is the only one who matters, and his desires take precedence over everything.

Now King David had the prophet Nathan to call him to account on his actions. He told of a rich man who stole his poor neighbor's pet lamb, then pointed his finger at David and said, "Thou art the man!" David then realized his guilt and repented.

Powerful men nowadays don't have any Nathans. They don't have anyone to call them on their sins, except for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. But that was more political than moral, which is why it failed.

Instead of "Thou art the man," all they hear is, "You da man!"

So Gov. Sanford went off to take care of his personal desires at the expense of the state--not just financially, either. He left no one in charge, so if there had been an emergency there was no one in charge who could call out the National Guard or declare a state of emergency. He left no one any information as to where he could be reached, so the state was essentially leaderless for those four days.

So now that this has all hit the fan AGAIN, how are we to get someone put into place to say, "Mr. President, Governor, Senator, Congressman, Mr. Mayor, or whoever you are, thou art the man. Remember that BEFORE you indulge yourself"?

Grover Norquist's Paradise

2009-04-24T10:02:00.000-04:00

Grover Norquist is famous for saying we need to shrink government to the point it can be drowned in a bathtub--and then drown it in a bathtub.

Guess what? There is a country on Earth where the government has figuratively drowned in a bathtub. There has not been an effective government there since 1991. This country should be a Mecca for all those of Norquist's ilk, and all the Ayn Rand devotees, and the John Locke Foundation, and everyone else who agrees with St. Ronald Reagan that "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem."

This anti-government paradise levies no taxes, offers no welfare to its citizens, does nothing these people want government not to do.

This paradise is called Somalia.

I propose raising the money to send all those opposed to any government action a one-way ticket to Somalia. They can then see for themselves the logical extreme of their anti-government philosophy. They can see the Italian Mafia dumping France's nuclear waste off the Somali coast. They can see the pirates running free and terrorizing the passing commercial shipping traffic. They can see people dying for lack of opportunity to live a decent life.

Let's send them all to Somalia and be done with them.

Highs and Lows

2009-04-03T09:47:00.000-04:00

Every life has highs and lows. I realize that. But I think that my life has had higher highs and lower lows than most lives.

Consider: On the high side, I have lived in a 2800-sq. ft. house and had a higher-than-average income. Yet I have not been up to the McMansion level. I haven't earned $100,000 a year. Ever.

On the low side, I have been unemployed and not eligible for unemployment insurance, but I haven't been on the street. I was lucky enough to cash in a couple of pensions to tide me over and enough credit cards to live on.

While on the low side, I have had to file Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, but not Chapter 7.

On the high side: I have enjoyed better health than most people my age. Yet I haven't been able to be really good at anything athletic, and I don't know if I'll make my goal of living to be well beyond 100.

On the low side, I have had cancer, but it was thyroid cancer, easily removed with surgery, and I have never had to experience chemotherapy or radiation, yet.

On the high side, I have the happiest marriage of anyone I know about.

On the low side, this is my third marriage. Yet others have been married more times than I have.

On the high side, I have children who know how to make money. Yet they aren't as affluent as some others I know of.

On the low side, my daughter is the highest earner at her sheltered workshop. Yet she isn't as severely handicapped by her mental retardation and autism as the children of some of my friends. On the other hands I have friends who have children that are not as severely involved as my daughter is.

I have had three careers, the second of which was the one where I earned the most money. I have been on television and radio, but only locally. I am a published writer, but not yet a published author. I have had pictures published, but I haven't been able to make a living as a photographer.

In other words, I have experienced better times than average, and had more misfortune than average, yet I haven't had the extreme highs of a lot of people, nor the extreme tragedies that others have.

Average people experience highs and lows in their lives, and I have been higher and lower than average, as far as I can tell.

But a lot of people have had higher highs and lower lows than I have, and I'm a lot closer to average than they are.

I wonder about the pattern here. Is it what they call karma? Or is it something else?

I'll put that on the list to inquire about when I get to Heaven.

Corporate Revenge?

2009-03-13T10:28:00.000-04:00

Back in the 1970s Tweetsie Railroad carried a strongbox for outlaws to try to rob during the train ride. I guess they still do. The outlaws would stop and storm the train, and the good marshal, often Fred Kirby back then, would fight a gun duel with them and save the train, strongbox and all.

The strongbox originally had "Wells Fargo" on it, until the management of the park got a cease and desist letter from Wells Fargo. The Charlotte Observer published the witty letter the owner/manager or whoever from Tweetsie wrote back. Something along the lines of being surprised Wells Fargo still existed, and they didn't want to step on WF's trademark or anything, so if WF was going to be so uptight about it, they would change the name on the box. They changed it to Northwestern Bank.

In the 1980s Northwestern Bank got bought out by First Union. You know, the one that was so unpopular with its customers that when it bought out Wachovia Bank it changed its name to Wachovia.

Now, Wells Fargo has bought out Wachovia. So the name on the Tweetsie strongbox has come full circle. I need to take a grandchild or two to Tweetsie and see what name is on that box now.

How do you talk to a Republican?

2009-03-10T08:53:00.000-04:00

I've noticed in debating issues with Republican co-workers, etc., that they don't listen to what you're saying. They parrot the talking points dictated by Rush or Billo or Sean, but they don't engage what you're saying.

I make a statement, they respond with a talking point that doesn't directly address what I just said. How do you counter that?

Furthermore, if you say something outrageous (to them), such as pointing out how the prosperity they brag about that occurred during the Reagan Administration happened after Reagan signed the largest tax increase in history, they shout something like "REAGAN NEVER RAISED ANY TAXES!" As though shouting could make it true.

So how do you engage the drinkers of Rush's Kool-Aid?

Is it even possible?

Any ideas?

At Thee. Is? Mm!

2009-02-12T10:21:00.001-05:00

Thus did Brother Dave Gardner analyze atheism. It seems that this faith is exerting itself more and more in modern society. And it is a faith. Make no mistake about that. Fine. Let it exert itself. We who have the truth of Christ have nothing to fear.

Consider the words of Thomas Jefferson: "We are not afraid to follow any truth no matter where it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as Reason is left free to refute it."

I heard Penn Jillette, of Penn and Teller, on "This I Believe" on NPR tell how he actively believes there is no God as opposed to the unbelief in God. Also, atheists have had several best-selling books out trying to refute Christianity. Mike McDonald talks about them in his latest Western North Carolina Conference column:

http://www.wnccumc.org/nws/macdonald21109.htm

He points out that the church has thrived more when under attack and under persecution. It was when it received state sanction in Europe that it withered. So now there is an attack mounting, which gives the church the opportunity to grow and spread the true message.

I would like to point out one thing: Jesus said, "By their fruits you shall know them." (Matthew 7:20) What do atheists have to show for their faith?

The church has invented hospitals, public schools, feeding programs for the hungry, housing programs for the homeless, and disaster relief for those hit by tragedy.

What has atheism done in these areas of ministry? Where on Earth is there a hospital dedicated to the mission of atheism the way Presbyterian, Mercy, Baptist, or any other of the many, many church-related hospitals around the country and the world are dedicated to the ministry of Christianity. There are secular hospitals galore, but none devoted to the ministry of atheism.

Where are the atheist programs that dig wells in poor African villages like the UMCOR does? The UN has secular programs, but the church has more.

Where are the atheist institutions of higher learning that compete with Boston University, Northwestern, Duke, Wake Forest, Campbell, Gardner-Webb, Southern Methodist, etc., etc., etc. At the University of North Carolina, the first state university in America, a secular institution, you can get a degree in Religion.

What about housing programs? Where is the atheist equivalent to Habitat for Humanity?

Whenever there is a disaster, churches are on the front line bringing help, and opening church buildings to house those displaced. True, The Home Depot is on the front lines, also, bringing assistance, and schools are also opened for emergency housing, but these are secular, not atheist. I have yet to hear of an atheist meeting hall opened to take in those displaced by disaster.

I could go on and on, but I think I've made my point. How much good do atheists have to show for their faith?

Finally, I would like to point out that those who believe in God and attend church regularly live longer; have happier, healthier lives on average; and are more respected in the community than those who don't.

So what does atheism have to offer me to beat all that?

I close with Pascal's Quadrilateral: If I don't believe and I'm right, I gain nothing. If I don't believe and I'm wrong, I lose everything. If I believe and I'm wrong, I lose nothing, but if I believe and I'm right, I gain everything.

The Israeli War in Gaza

2009-01-16T14:12:00.000-05:00

I have been reading the things those on the Israeli side have been sending me about how horrible Hamas is, and I have been reading such people as Glenn Greenwald about the Israeli atrocities against the innocent civilian population of Gaza.

I can't take a side right now.

First: I know the Israelis have committed crimes against humanity by cutting off food and medicine against the Gaza civilian population in the name of cutting off their supply of weapons. I also remember how the Israeli government used to demonize Yasser Arafat's al-Fatah organization, calling them terrorists. So they suppressed them and Hamas rose to take its place. Now they want Fatah back to be the moderate force in Palestinian government. That leads me to believe that if they are successful in suppressing Hamas, something more dangerous and radical is likely to arise to take its place. In fact, I have already read of such groups standing by to take over.

I also know how bad it is that Hamas fires rockets into Israel, even though there were no Israeli casualties from them till Israel started hitting back. I know there is no excuse for bomb-throwing, anyway. But I also understand human nature enough to know people who feel so frustrated are likely to take any action that feels good at the time to try to strike back, even if it doesn't do what one expects. Witness the death penalty in the U. S. for an example.

So my take on the subject is what I have said before: I sincerely believe that if the Palestinians had adopted the tactics of Ghandi instead of the tactics of violence, they would have had their own state already, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Thoughts for the New Year

2009-01-04T07:31:00.000-05:00

Do you think it might get through some people's heads this year that we can leave failed philosophies behind now?

Main lesson learned: We tried conservatism and it failed. Bottom line.

The market does NOT regulate itself, and the private sector is not always better at doing things than the government.

Start with deregulation: We deregulated the airlines under President Carter, and we lost Eastern ("The second largest airline in the free world" they advertised themselves) and Pan Am ("Pan Am makes the going great"--great advertising song), and now maintenance is a scandal, you're lucky to get a bag of peanuts (airline meals are history), cabins are cramped, and now they're charging to check the first suitcase.

We deregulated the Savings and Loan industry under Reagan, and wound up on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars to bail them out when they ran rampant. That's why it was "Fredo" among the Bush sons who ran for president instead of Neal (Silverado S & L) Bush.

We deregulated the rest of the banking industry under Clinton and now we're on the hook for a trillion or more because of the irresponsible behavior of bankers gone wild. Even Alan Greenspan admits he was wrong.

The purpose of regulation is to keep things like these from happening, not to clean up the mess afterward. It's time to get serious about regulating so that everyone can compete fairly, and no one has to be put at unreasonable risk to begin with.

Can we learn now that deregulation doesn't work?

Now as to privatization, the no-bid contracts the Bush Administration passed out to support the Iraq invasion has cost far more than it would have if the Pentagon had run things in-house. Besides that, Halliburton should be prosecuted for murder for the poisoned water they furnished to GI showers, the year-old outdated food they served the troops, etc. They bought new trucks for each one-way trip within Iraq, abandoning a perfectly good truck so they could buy a new one at our expense. That's just the beginning. Books could be written volume on volume about the waste, fraud, and abuse that comes from privatization in Iraq alone, so I won't go on here.

I've talked about health care before. Another place where the private sector does it worse. Countries that support their health care system with taxes have lower death rates at every age, longer life spans, and more doctors per thousand population, at half the cost of our system. Taxes, schmaxes. So they pay an extra $50 in taxes so their child can have a nurse on their hospital floor at midnight. We pay an extra $100 in insurance premiums so some CEO can have maid service on his private yacht.

Speaking of taxes. That conservative bugaboo has been proven wrong by history. When Hoover cut taxes, 1929 happened. He raised taxes before he left office, but it wasn't enough. Roosevelt came in and raised taxes and pulled America out of the worst of the Depression. When they had made so much progress they thought they could slack off in 1937, they cut back on spending, and went into another recession. So the next year they cranked up the spending again and pulled out. JFK came in and cut taxes to stimulate the economy, and we had a recession. LBJ put on a surtax to finance the Vietnam War and we wound up with a balance budget and legendary prosperity. Nixon cut taxes, and we had another recession.

Fast forward to Ronald Reagan. First thing he did was cut taxes on his rich buddies. Right into a recession we went. The next year he signed what turned out to be the biggest tax increase in history followed in later years by a couple more, and Republicans are still bragging about the prosperity that followed. Bush came in and cut taxes on the rich, and the recession that followed brought Bill Clinton to the White House. First thing he did was raise taxes on the richest one per cent and Democrats are still bragging on the prosperity that followed. W came in and cut taxes for his rich buddies, and right into another recession we went. His idiotic policy was to continue the tax cuts, "make them permanent" was his mantra, and we still don't have as many Americans working full-time as we did in 2000.

2009 give us a new chance. Can we PLEASE learn from history now?

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-25T17:00:00.001-05:00

I know it's time for my annual rant, but first I want to wish everyone I know and everyone else who reads this a merry Christmas and a wonderful grace-filled new year.

Now for the rants:

I want to know what a song sung in a musical that is there to calm children frightened by a summer thunderstorm has to do with Christmas. Yet "My Favorite Things" is heard all through this season mixed in with Santa and Frosty and Rudolph.

Raindrops on roses (summer)
and whiskers on kittens. (no season)
bright copper kettles (no season)
and warm woolen mittens (ah, finally something related to winter.)
brown paper packages tied up with strings (the way stores wrapped purchases before paper and then plastic bags. So MAYBE related to Christmas shopping, but barely.)

Cream colored ponies and crisp apple streudels (again, no season)
Doorbells and sleigh bells (okay, one of the two relates to winter)
and schnitzel with noodles (no season)
Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings (spring or fall, but not winter.)

Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes (summer)
Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes (finally, something related to winter again)
Silver white winters that melt into springs (other end of winter from this, so not Christmas)

When the dog bites (no season)
when the bee stings (summer)

So let's check it out: Three things related to summer. One thing related to spring or fall. Six things not seasonally related. One thing from the end of winter, and only three things directly related to winter and one tangentially related, maybe. So again, what the #%@* does this song have to do with Christmas? Is it things, and merchants want you to think of things while you're shopping? I don't know.

Finally:
Well, I was going to, but I can't find the list I made of things seen and heard around Christmas time that constitute the bulk of certain Christmas songs. Maybe next year.

Meanwhile, have a good one.

Grace and Peace.

Cheney and Gonzales Indicted

2008-11-21T10:17:00.000-05:00

A grand jury in south Texas has indicted two of the biggest criminals in the Bush "Administration." Good. Here's the article:

Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales Indicted By Grand Jury

Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress at 4:41 PM on November 18, 2008.

A South Texas grand jury has returned multi-count indictments against Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

A South Texas grand jury has returned multi-count indictments against Vice President Dick Cheney and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on charges related to the alleged abuse of prisoners in Willacy County's federal detention centers:

The indictment accuses Cheney and Gonzales of engaging in organized criminal activity. It criticizes Cheney's investment in the Vanguard Group, which holds interests in the private prison companies running the federal detention centers. It accuses Cheney of a conflict of interest and "at least misdemeanor assaults" on detainees by working through the prison companies.
Gonzales is accused of using his position while in office to stop an investigation into abuses at the federal detention centers.

Tom again: The spineless "Democrats" in Washington won't do anything, but I'm glad some Texans had the guts to do something. Anything.

On becoming more Christ-like

2008-11-14T06:49:00.000-05:00

In 1996 the Republican Congress passed and the semi-Republican President, Bill Clinton, signed a law doing away with welfare as we knew it.

So why hasn't Fox "News" gotten the message? Could it be that they have a vested interest in keeping people's attention focused on their fellow victims instead of on their true oppressors? I got a chain-email today full of resentment about welfare recipients. I replied with similar resentment about the corporate fat cats who are being bailed out with my money. Corporate welfare costs a hell of a lot more to our national economy than helping those the Bible tells us to be concerned about.

In fact, the mindset represented by Fox, Limbaugh, etc. is totally opposite of what the Bible teaches. Every Old Testament prophet from Amos to Zechariah tells us to be concerned about the poor. John the Baptist told the Pharisees who sought righteousness that if they have two coats, give one to the poor. Jesus told the rich young ruler to sell everything he had and give it to the poor because it was a hindrance to him in seeking the Kingdom of God. In fact, Jesus had more to say about money and taking care of the poor than about any other single subject. I haven't counted the verses for myself, but someone told me it amounts to more verses than all other subjects put together. I would believe that.

But what does the right wing noise machine harp on? Kicking the poor. Class warfare is what it amounts to. Calling on working people to support their corporate masters in looking down on those who haven't made it in this world, while giving all kinds of undeserved breaks--at taxpayers' expense--to overpaid captains of industry who make bundles by throwing Americans out of work. This is the true class warfare that's going on in this country.

And if anyone says anything about it, he/she is called a "socialist." As if name-calling settles issues. Well, I guess if you don't think, then it does.

So what do they use to lure in the sheeple who call themselves conservative Christians? Abortion and gay marriage. What does Jesus say about abortion? Not. One. Single. Word.

What do the Gospels record Jesus saying about homosexuality? Not. One. Single. Word.

What do those who exploit gullible Christians say about what Jesus spend verse after verse, chapter after chapter talking about--namely the exploitation of the poor by the rich? Not. One. Single. Word.

Yet the "liberal media" defines "Christian" as those who promote this un-Christlike mindset.

I say if we want to call ourselves Christian, we'll become more aware of the actual class warfare going on in this country, and ask ourselves, "What would Jesus REALLY do?"

TR, Where are you now that we need you?

2008-10-24T10:29:00.000-04:00

John McCain said he was a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican." Good, but I want to know something: TR was a trust-buster. Where is McCain's trust-busting?

Specifically, what does McCain (or Obama for that matter) propose to bust up these big trusts? Since the Reagan years unbridled merging has been going on in corporate America. How many oil companies are there now? Not as many as there used to be.

Maytag bought Magic Chef, Jenn-air, and Admiral, then in 1980 it bought Amana. Whirlpool bought Roper and Magic Chef, then in 1985 it bought Maytag. Now under Whirlpool is Admiral, Estate, Roper, Magic Chef, Whirlpool, Maytag, Kitchenaid, and Jenn-air. Where is the competition? The only saving grace is that most of their appliances are now made in the USA.

Meanwhile, Electrolux owns Frigidaire, Tappan, Kelvinator, White-Westinghouse, and Gibson.

This morning I read that there were 50 media companies producing or publishing news. Now there are six.

The question I have is: How do we bust up the trusts, and then how do we keep companies from metastasizing into becoming "too big to [be allowed to] fail"?

Does any candidate anywhere have an answer?

On the Economy and the Election

2008-10-03T09:06:00.000-04:00

We are on the verge of having Wall Street billionaires rescued ONCE AGAIN from their own foolish behavior. This is getting old. Real old.

I just want to point a few things out. First, we deregulated the airline industry during the Carter years. As a result, we lost Eastern and Pan-Am and they don't even pretend to serve meals on flights any more.

We deregulated the Savings and Loan industry in the 1980s and found ourselves on the hook for hundreds of billions bailing them out.

We deregulated electricity as a commodity and as a result, Enron blacked out California and look where they ended up.

We deregulated speculation on oil as a commodity and we're paying $4.00 a gallon as a result.

We deregulated banking and Wall Street, and now we're about to pass the largest bailout in history.

Are we EVER going to learn?

John McCain called himself a "Teddy Roosevelt Republican." Teddy Roosevelt was a trust-buster. McCain has voted for and pushed for deregulation ever since his Keating five days. So when does he flip-flop again and become the true TR trust-buster?

The standard excuse is "They're too big to fail." How did they get that big in the first place? If they're too big to fail, they should be broken up the way they did (temporarily) with the telephone industry in the early 1980s. We need to regulate a level playing field so that companies can't buy out all their competition and become behemoths that have to be rescued from their own foolishness.

The problem is that they privatize profits while socializing risks. That ain't American. That's Fascism if it's the companies running the government or Socialism if it's the other way around. Right now the government is about to buy a controlling interest in a lot of companies, if the Congress has enough sense to get some equity for their (our) money. Neither is acceptable. We have to regulate the marketplace so we have truly free enterprise.

Now, as to the election, I have been giving some prayerful thought to this situation. I have voted in every general election and almost every primary since 1972. I have never voted a straight party ticket in a general election, but this time I don't believe I'm going to continue that pattern.

We can't afford any more Repuglican mismanagement.

When Democrats are in power, working people are better off. There are more jobs created, and more prosperity. No Republican administration in the last 30 years has created as many jobs as the Democratic administration it followed. The Reagan Administration did not create as many jobs as the Carter Administration did, even though it lasted twice as long. The current Bush "Administration" hasn't created as many jobs as the Clinton Administration created in any single year they were in office. Indeed, not as many people are working full-time now as there were in 2000. And the jobs created under Bush II have mostly been either government jobs (remember the party of smaller government?) or low-paying service sector jobs.

When Democrats are in power, business is better off. Wall Street has always prospered more during Democratic administrations. Look at the Dow. The biggest increases have been in Democratic times and the biggest crashes were during Republican times. The Dow has always grown more during Democratic administrations.

When Democrats are in power, government spending is more controlled. The last balanced budgets were during the Johnson and Clinton Administrations. The biggest deficits came under Reagan and Bush II.

As I said, we can't afford any more of this Republican nonsense.

Good One from Michael Moore

2008-10-03T09:03:00.001-04:00

Also in PEEK

Conservatives Attack Google for Opposing Gay Marriage Ban
Amanda Terkel

McCain's Judgment On Trial: The Senator and the Governor
Howie Klein Down With Tyranny!

The Palin Wink Should Become This Year's Gore Sigh
AlterNet Staff Whiskey Fire

Michael Moore: Here's How to Fix the Mess on Wall Street

Posted by Michael Moore, Daily Kos at 3:56 AM on October 2, 2008.

We cannot simply keep protesting without proposing exactly what it is we think Congress should do.

Friends,

The richest 400 Americans -- that's right, just four hundred people -- own MORE than the bottom 150 million Americans combined. 400 rich Americans have got more stashed away than half the entire country! Their combined net worth is $1.6 trillion. During the eight years of the Bush Administration, their wealth has increased by nearly $700 billion -- the same amount that they are now demanding we give to them for the "bailout." Why don't they just spend the money they made under Bush to bail themselves out? They'd still have nearly a trillion dollars left over to spread amongst themselves!

Of course, they are not going to do that -- at least not voluntarily. George W. Bush was handed a $127 billion surplus when Bill Clinton left office. Because that money was OUR money and not his, he did what the rich prefer to do -- spend it and never look back. Now we have a $9.5 trillion debt. Why on earth would we even think of giving these robber barons any more of our money?

I would like to propose my own bailout plan. My suggestions, listed below, are predicated on the singular and simple belief that the rich must pull themselves up by their own platinum bootstraps. Sorry, fellows, but you drilled it into our heads one too many times: There... is... no... free... lunch. And thank you for encouraging us to hate people on welfare! So, there will be no handouts from us to you. The Senate, tonight, is going to try to rush their version of a "bailout" bill to a vote. They must be stopped. We did it on Monday with the House, and we can do it again today with the Senate.

It is clear, though, that we cannot simply keep protesting without proposing exactly what it is we think Congress should do. So, after consulting with a number of people smarter than Phil Gramm, here is my proposal, now known as "Mike's Rescue Plan." It has 10 simple, straightforward points. They are:

APPOINT A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR TO CRIMINALLY INDICT ANYONE ON WALL STREET WHO KNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTED TO THIS COLLAPSE. Before any new money is expended, Congress must commit, by resolution, to criminally prosecute anyone who had anything to do with the attempted sacking of our economy. This means that anyone who committed insider trading, securities fraud or any action that helped bring about this collapse must go to jail. This Congress must call for a Special Prosecutor who will vigorously go after everyone who created the mess, and anyone else who attempts to scam the public in the future.

THE RICH MUST PAY FOR THEIR OWN BAILOUT. They may have to live in 5 houses instead of 7. They may have to drive 9 cars instead of 13. The chef for their mini-terriers may have to be reassigned. But there is no way in hell, after forcing family incomes to go down more than $2,000 dollars during the Bush years, that working people and the middle class are going to fork over one dime to underwrite the next yacht purchase.

If they truly need the $700 billion they say they need, well, here is an easy way they can raise it:

a) Every couple who makes over a million dollars a year and every single taxpayer who makes over $500,000 a year will pay a 10% surcharge tax for five years. (It's the Senator Sanders plan. He's like Colonel Sanders, only he's out to fry the right chickens.) That means the rich will still be paying less income tax than when Carter was president. This will raise a total of $300 billion.

b) Like nearly every other democracy, charge a 0.25% tax on every stock transaction. This will raise more than $200 billion in a year.

c) Because every stockholder is a patriotic American, stockholders will forgo receiving a dividend check for one quarter and instead this money will go the treasury to help pay for the bailout.

d) 25% of major U.S. corporations currently pay NO federal income tax. Federal corporate tax revenues currently amount to 1.7% of the GDP compared to 5% in the 1950s. If we raise the corporate income tax back to the level of the 1950s, that gives us an extra $500 billion.

All of this combined should be enough to end the calamity. The rich will get to keep their mansions and their servants, and our United States government ("COUNTRY FIRST!") will have a little leftover to repair some roads, bridges and schools.

BAIL OUT THE PEOPLE LOSING THEIR HOMES, NOT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BUILD AN EIGHTH HOME. There are 1.3 million homes in foreclosure right now. That is what is at the heart of this problem. So instead of giving the money to the banks as a gift, pay down each of these mortgages by $100,000. Force the banks to renegotiate the mortgage so the homeowner can pay on its current value. To insure that this help does no go to speculators and those who have tried to make money by flipping houses, this bailout is only for people's primary residence. And in return for the $100K paydown on the existing mortgage, the government gets to share in the holding of the mortgage so that it can get some of its money back. Thus, the total initial cost of fixing the mortgage crisis at its roots (instead of with the greedy lenders) is $150 billion, not $700 billion.

And let's set the record straight. People who have defaulted on their mortgages are not "bad risks." They are our fellow Americans, and all they wanted was what we all want and most of us still get: a home to call their own. But during the Bush years, millions of them lost the decent paying jobs they had. Six million fell into poverty. Seven million lost their health insurance. And every one of them saw their real wages go down by $2,000. Those who dare to look down on these Americans who got hit with one bad break after another should be ashamed. We are a better, stronger, safer and happier society when all of our citizens can afford to live in a home that they own.

IF YOUR BANK OR COMPANY GETS ANY OF OUR MONEY IN A "BAILOUT," THEN WE OWN YOU. Sorry, that's how it's done. If the bank gives me money so I can buy a house, the bank "owns" that house until I pay it all back -- with interest. Same deal for Wall Street. Whatever money you need to stay afloat, if our government considers you a safe risk -- and necessary for the good of the country -- then you can get a loan, but we will own you. If you default, we will sell you. This is how the Swedish government did it and it worked.

ALL REGULATIONS MUST BE RESTORED. THE REAGAN REVOLUTION IS DEAD. This catastrophe happened because we let the fox have the keys to the henhouse. In 1999, Phil Gramm authored a bill to remove all the regulations that governed Wall Street and our banking system. The bill passed and Clinton signed it. Here's what Sen. Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic advisor, said at the bill signing:

"In the 1930s ... it was believed that government was the answer. It was believed that stability and growth came from government overriding the functioning of free markets.

"We are here today to repeal [that] because we have learned that government is not the answer. We have learned that freedom and competition are the answers. We have learned that we promote economic growth and we promote stability by having competition and freedom.

"I am proud to be here because this is an important bill; it is a deregulatory bill. I believe that that is the wave of the future, and I am awfully proud to have been a part of making it a reality."

This bill must be repealed. Bill Clinton can help by leading the effort for the repeal of the Gramm bill and the reinstating of even tougher regulations regarding our financial institutions. And when they're done with that, they can restore the regulations for the airlines, the inspection of our food, the oil industry, OSHA, and every other entity that affects our daily lives. All oversight provisions for any "bailout" must have enforcement monies attached to them and criminal penalties for all offenders.

IF IT'S TOO BIG TO FAIL, THEN THAT MEANS IT'S TOO BIG TO EXIST. Allowing the creation of these mega-mergers and not enforcing the monopoly and anti-trust laws has allowed a number of financial institutions and corporations to become so large, the very thought of their collapse means an even bigger collapse across the entire economy. No one or two companies should have this kind of power. The so-called "economic Pearl Harbor" can't happen when you have hundreds -- thousands -- of institutions where people have their money. When you have a dozen auto companies, if one goes belly-up, we don't face a national disaster. If you have three separately-owned daily newspapers in your town, then one media company can't call all the shots (I know... What am I thinking?! Who reads a paper anymore? Sure glad all those mergers and buyouts left us with a strong and free press!). Laws must be enacted to prevent companies from being so large and dominant that with one slingshot to the eye, the giant falls and dies. And no institution should be allowed to set up money schemes that no one can understand. If you can't explain it in two sentences, you shouldn't be taking anyone's money.

NO EXECUTIVE SHOULD BE PAID MORE THAN 40 TIMES THEIR AVERAGE EMPLOYEE, AND NO EXECUTIVE SHOULD RECEIVE ANY KIND OF "PARACHUTE" OTHER THAN THE VERY GENEROUS SALARY HE OR SHE MADE WHILE WORKING FOR THE COMPANY. In 1980, the average American CEO made 45 times what their employees made. By 2003, they were making 254 times what their workers made. After 8 years of Bush, they now make over 400 times what their average employee makes. How this can happen at publicly held companies is beyond reason. In Britain, the average CEO makes 28 times what their average employee makes. In Japan, it's only 17 times! The last I heard, the CEO of Toyota was living the high life in Tokyo. How does he do it on so little money? Seriously, this is an outrage. We have created the mess we're in by letting the people at the top become bloated beyond belief with millions of dollars. This has to stop. Not only should no executive who receives help out of this mess profit from it, but any executive who was in charge of running his company into the ground should be fired before the company receives any help.

STRENGTHEN THE FDIC AND MAKE IT A MODEL FOR PROTECTING NOT ONLY PEOPLE'S SAVINGS, BUT ALSO THEIR PENSIONS AND THEIR HOMES. Obama was correct yesterday to propose expanding FDIC protection of people's savings in their banks to $250,000. But this same sort of government insurance must be given to our nation's pension funds. People should never have to worry about whether or not the money they've put away for their old age will be there. This will mean strict government oversight of companies who manage their employees' funds -- or perhaps it means that the companies will have to turn over those funds and their management to the government. People's private retirement funds must also be protected, but perhaps it's time to consider not having one's retirement invested in the casino known as the stock market. Our government should have a solemn duty to guarantee that no one who grows old in this country has to worry about ending up destitute.

EVERYBODY NEEDS TO TAKE A DEEP BREATH, CALM DOWN, AND NOT LET FEAR RULE THE DAY. Turn off the TV! We are not in the Second Great Depression. The sky is not falling. Pundits and politicians are lying to us so fast and furious it's hard not to be affected by all the fear mongering. Even I, yesterday, wrote to you and repeated what I heard on the news, that the Dow had the biggest one day drop in its history. Well, that's true in terms of points, but its 7% drop came nowhere close to Black Monday in 1987 when the stock market in one day lost 23% of its value. In the '80s, 3,000 banks closed, but America didn't go out of business. These institutions have always had their ups and downs and eventually it works out. It has to, because the rich do not like their wealth being disrupted! They have a vested interest in calming things down and getting back into the Jacuzzi.

As crazy as things are right now, tens of thousands of people got a car loan this week. Thousands went to the bank and got a mortgage to buy a home. Students just back to college found banks more than happy to put them into hock for the next 15 years with a student loan. Life has gone on. Not a single person has lost any of their money if it's in a bank or a treasury note or a CD. And the most amazing thing is that the American public hasn't bought the scare campaign. The citizens didn't blink, and instead told Congress to take that bailout and shove it. THAT was impressive. Why didn't the population succumb to the fright-filled warnings from their president and his cronies? Well, you can only say 'Saddam has da bomb' so many times before the people realize you're a lying sack of shite. After eight long years, the nation is worn out and simply can't take it any longer.

CREATE A NATIONAL BANK, A "PEOPLE'S BANK." If we really are itching to print up a trillion dollars, instead of giving it to a few rich people, why don't we give it to ourselves? Now that we own Freddie and Fannie, why not set up a people's bank? One that can provide low-interest loans for all sorts of people who want to own a home, start a small business, go to school, come up with the cure for cancer or create the next great invention. And now that we own AIG, the country's largest insurance company, let's take the next step and provide health insurance for everyone. Medicare for all. It will save us so much money in the long run. And we won't be 12th on the life expectancy list. We'll be able to have a longer life, enjoying our government-protected pension, and living to see the day when the corporate criminals who caused so much misery are let out of prison so that we can help reacclimate them to civilian life -- a life with one nice home and a gas-free car that was invented with help from the People's Bank.

Yours,

Michael Moore

MMFlint@aol.com

MichaelMoore.com

On Regulation

2008-09-18T14:48:00.000-04:00

Deregulation has been the watchword for the last couple of decades. The free market is the best regulator, they said. Government is the problem, they said. The private sector can do everything better, they said.

Yeah, right.

We're seeing that ONCE AGAIN, the private sector has failed and the taxpayers are having to bail out the fat cats of "free enterprise."

Let's look back at the 1970s. Jimmy Carter allowed the airline industry to be deregulated. What followed was airline after airline going belly-up ("Eastern, the second-largest airline in the free world" said the advertising), smaller airlines being gobbled up by larger airlines (anybody remember Piedmont Air Lines?), and ever-declining levels of service (anybody remember airline meals? Well, maybe not too bad a loss).

On to the '80s. St. Ronald Reagan railed against government and taxes. So they cut taxes and the economy plunged into a recession. The next year he signed the biggest tax increase in history and Republicans are still bragging about the prosperity that followed.

While they were at it, they deregulated the Savings and Loan industry, and a few years later the taxpayers were on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars to bail them out.

But the deregulation mania hasn't subsided. In the '90s the Republican Congress got Clinton to sign financial deregulation. As a result, insurance companies, banks, and investment companies all were able to practice in each other's business. We're paying for that now. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc., etc. Again, we taxpayers are on the hook for billions and billions.

That isn't capitalism. It's privatized gain and socialized risk. Those of us who work for a living are worse off, those of us who want to buy a new home are worse off, and only the CEOs with their golden parachutes aren't suffering.

Let's look at the situation a little closer. Fannie Mae started out as a government company in the 1930s. Before that, banks wanted all their money at the end of the five or ten years for which they wrote home loans. FNMA was set up to buy up those mortgages, which allowed our parents to realize the American dream of home ownership with 20- and 30-year mortgages.

The privatizers came in and took government out of the picture, and the company fell apart. We taxpayers are on the hook for that, now.

Yet they will still argue that the private sector can do everything better.

The Bush mob are privatizing as many functions as possible in terms of troop support that the military used to do in-house, and the result is far more waste, fraud, and abuse than the Pentagon ever saw when they were running the whole show.

Yet they still argue that the private sector can do everything better.

Every civilized country in the world has a socialized health care system. The United States has a couple of them: The VA, and the military hospitals where Bush and Cheney get their socialized health care. We also have the health care system that members of Congress get, and Medicare. All of these are less expensive and provide better care than the privatized system the rest of us have to put up with.

As I've pointed out before, the United States ranks no. 12 in longevity with our "best in the world" private health care/health insurance system. Every other country spends less and gets more for their money than we do, they have more doctors per thousand people than we do, and they have a lower death rate at every age than we do.

Yet they still argue that the private sector can do everything better.

Okay, no system is perfect. Some European countries have longer waiting lists for elective surgery than we do; and some countries don't allow private insurance companies to compete with the tax-supported national health system. (I believe that is wrong. Every enterprise does better with competition. I believe the Post Office has gotten better since FedEx, UPS, and the others have been able to compete with it.) Still, I would rather wait an extra five weeks for a knee replacement than an extra five hours in pain in the ER waiting room the way we have to do in this country. And people scream about taxes. Again, as I've said before, I would rather pay an extra $50 in taxes so a nurse could be on call on my hospital floor at midnight than an extra $100 in insurance premiums that pay for fuel for the CEO's private jet.

Now, if you want to say I'm wrong and that the private sector can still do everything better, then give me some facts and figures to back up what you're saying.

Thanks for that last post

2008-09-16T14:01:00.001-04:00

Thanks to BuzzFlash for the last post.

Which candidate has:

2008-09-16T13:58:00.000-04:00

9/11: A personal memorial

2008-09-11T09:44:00.000-04:00

Seven years ago today I went into work at Sears, and Louise, who worked in the next department over, asked me if I had heard the news: Someone flew a plane into the World Trade Center. I immediately thought of the plane that flew into the Empire State Building in the 1930s, so I didn't think it was more than a possibly tragic accident.

But as the time progressed, and we tuned into coverage in the TV department, rumors started to fly: Someone claimed that Hezbollah had claimed credit (blame). But no one knew anything.

Then the second plane hit. Then the Pentagon. Then someone came in and actually bought a dishwasher. I couldn't believe it.

I watched the flames go up, and I started thinking, "This is serious." Then I noticed the blacked remains of the upper floors, and I thought, "This is really serious." Then the first tower fell.

My son called me and we both marveled together at the horror we were watching. All we could say was that we couldn't believe it. It was awful.

Then I heard about a fourth plane that had crashed in Pennsylvania.

Now we know what heroes the passengers of Flight 93 were. We have seen the Naude brothers' video, and we have heard stories of survivors and seen the tragic day as part of a plot point in TV shows (Mac Taylor's wife died in the WTC on CSI: NY) .

I now realize that my first thought wasn't terrorism, because the Clinton Administration had been so effective in tracking down, arresting, trying in open court, convicting, and punishing the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing. The Bush Administration has taken the military course and it has been a total fiasco. Osama bin Laden is still thumbing his nose at us, and we are bogged down in a war started against bin Laden's biggest enemy in the Arab world.

Still, my prayers are with those who died seven years ago today and with their families.

May God's will be done henceforth.

On the undiscovered Sarah Palin

2008-09-11T09:35:00.000-04:00

First I want to say one thing: Obama has said Sarah Palin's family is off-limits for political discussion. That's good. I wish the Republicans would follow the same standard, instead of the way John McCain joined in the laughter when Rush Limbaugh called 12-year-old Chelsea Clinton a "dog."

That plus the fact that Bristol Palin is living proof of how effective "abstinance only" education is.

Now, to the real issue at hand: Sarah Palin continues the Republican tradition of hypocricy, claiming to put America First, when it is really corporate fat cats that come first. Also claiming patriotism while affiliated with a group with secondhand ties to al-Qaida.

See this expose:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/09/palins-aip-connected-to-terror.php

So not only Bush is in bed with bin Ladin, but Sarah Palin is, too?

The McSame campaign has jumped on the bandwagon, saying, "Yeah, we're for change, too." But this shows the same corruption and hypociricy continuing.

On PUMA's, Rhetoric, Etc.

2008-08-29T11:22:00.000-04:00

Those who scream that they are going to vote for John McCain just because Hillary Clinton didn't get the Democratic nomination are beneath contempt. Their candidate didn't win. So get over it. You say you're going to vote for McCain out of spite. So you vote against yourself. McCain will continue using the Constitution for toilet paper, will appoint judges like Scalito to the Extreme Court to see to it he gets away with it, will plunge us into more wars than our military will handle so he will have to draft your sons, and will bankrupt the middle class. But that's all right to you, huh? You want to sacrifice the livelihoods and perhaps the lives of your children just so you can get your whiney-hiney point across. Get a life.

I remember being bitter about Robert Kennedy entering the Presidential race after Gene McCarthy had done all the hard work of showing there was a strong anti-war vote out there. I went to sleep praying Kennedy wouldn't get the nomination one night, and the next morning I heard on the radio he had been assassinated. Talk about your wake-up call!

A few months later I was at the beach wearing my McCarthy button, and a fellow asked me if I would have voted for Kennedy. I thought about it and said I would have. Thereby I think I won over another McCarthy voter.

Little good it did, since Humphrey won the nomination, anyway, and our protests in the streets of Chicago (I watched on TV, but I was there in spirit) helped Nixon win the White House. You see how much good that did.

I grew up, and it's time for the PUMA's do do the same.

Now, I heard Bill Richardson's speech at the convention last night, and it did my heart good to hear him tear into the Republicans over shredding the Constitution, torture, etc. The one thing that made me uncomfortable was his criticism of McCain's plan to give tax cuts to oil companies that are swimming in profits. He kept calling them "tax breaks." That's Republican language. We don't need to let the Republicans define our terms. We need to define them for ourselves. It is the estate tax, not the "death tax;" it is a tax cut, not a "tax break." It isn't as though the taxes these hyperprofitable companies pay now is such an outlandish burden. So we need to call these gifts to the fat cats what they are: tax cuts.

I couldn't stay up for Obama's speech last night, but what I heard about it on the radio made me feel a lot better. I may even go back on my pledge and go ahead and contribute to his campaign. I'm still ticked off about the FISA vote, but the attack attitude he took last night made me feel that finally a nominee had found his backbone and stood up on his hind legs and let the Repuglicans have it the way they deserve.

John McCain, it is reported, is going to name the governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, his Vice-Presidential candidate. I don't know much about her, but I see this as trolling for the PUMA vote. I believe we can still whip them if we stick together and keep our message strong.

I must say, now I am looking forward to voting for Obama this fall.

On the Real John McCain

2008-08-20T14:24:00.000-04:00

A fellow USNA graduate and fellow POW who knew John McCain in both situations has an excellent article on why he won't be voting for the media's favorite "war hero."

Here:

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859_1,00.html

I highly recommend it.

On Party Platforms

2008-08-18T08:38:00.000-04:00

Party platforms perform a purpose, I suppose. They lay out the stands of the party on various issues, give the candidate some backing for his/her campaign statements, etc. They also express views of the party that may or may not reflect what the candidate actually stands for. In which case, some voters may be attracted ( or repulsed) by what the platform says and others attracted (or repulsed) by what the candidate says, if it is something different.

Back in 1996 I heard Fred Grandy, who was then a Republican Congressman, talking on NPR about his proposal that the Republican party replace its platform with a mission statement. He gave a proposed statement talking about relying more on private enterprise than on government, etc.

But I have been thinking ever since about that idea. This year especially, since the Democrats who made Barack Obama the nominee apparent are so disappointed in his capitulation to the Right, in the guise of "running to the center," a strategy which has lost all presidential elections save two since 1984 and all congressional elections from 1994 through 2004.

What if we didn't have a party platform? What if we put out a mission statement instead?

Every business and organization, even most churches, now have mission statements. It's one of those fad things that run through the corporate mind set from time to time. My university has one, and so does the department in which I teach.

So why not one for the Democratic party?

Let me start by proposing this one, which can be perfected later:

"We, the Democratic Party, are dedicated to electing officials of government who share the values of the majority of the American population. These values include a respect for the Constitution and a belief in the strict division and equality of the three branches of government the Constitution lays out. We believe that the entire society benefits when every person has a chance to succeed on his or her own merits rather than being exploited by persons or institutions more powerful. We believe government has a role to play to ensure the safety of both workers and consumers, and to ensure fairness in competition. The Declaration of Independence asserts the existence of inalienable rights, and the Democratic Party is dedicated to ensuring those rights for all people."

Any thoughts?

On the Edwards Affair, Unfortunately

2008-08-15T08:28:00.000-04:00

I don't really want to comment on how disappointed I am in John Edwards. But I will say if his wife can forgive him then the rest is none of our business. I understand that men who have power and importance tend to think they can do whatever they want with whomever they want, especially when an attractive woman is available. I just wish they had caught W. Bush and Condi Rice in flagrante so they would shut up about the Democrats.

Of course, catching Larry Craig, et. al. didn't do the trick Oh, well.

Then, too, if every politician who couldn't keep it in his knickers were to be made ineligible to be President, then George Washington, Thomas Jefferson(?), Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhour, John Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson would have been banned from the office.

What I want to gripe about is the news coverage.

I present to you two politicians, both candidates for President of the United States.
Candidate 1 had an affair while his wife was in remission from her cancer, ended the affair and confessed to his wife, who reconciled with him, and he ended his run for the White House.

Candidate B had multiple affairs after his wife was crippled in a car wreck, divorced his wife and married his trophy mistress and is still running for President.

So which one is the media hounding?

Give me a break.

On Republican Fear

2008-07-28T13:31:00.000-04:00

Why do those who call themselves "conservative" harbor so much fear?

I remember one member of our church where I did my internship who was very conservative. My intern supervisor described him as "a very fearful man." That was true. He was afraid of people who were different, afraid of the government, afraid of foreigners who received American foreign aid. Other than that, he was a good man.

I've noticed since then that fear is the driving emotion of the conservative movement. Jesse Helms made his career exploiting people's fears of blacks, Communists, gays, etc. Every campaign ad (with maybe one exception) slammed whoever was running against him as "too liberal"--exploiting people's fears of that bugaboo that Ronald Reagan came to power denouncing.

Now, "liberal" has become a dirty word, so much so that those who agree with liberal ideals and ideas call themselves "progressive" instead. Of course, this kind of name-calling is a short cut past the thought process, but that doesn't lessen the use of fear in the language people use.

They are afraid of "terrorists." This has taken over from "anarchists" whom Nixon demonized to exploit fear once "Communist" lost its luster as a bogeyman. So now they allow the government whom they claim is totally incompetent to run anything from health care to disaster relief to have total access to every secret of their lives. "Take my rights, take my liberties, take everything my ancestors fought and died for. Just don't let the bad guys hit me again."

A friend of mine said he was going to vote for whoever will keep this country safe. I said I was going to vote for whoever would restore the Constitution. I fear neither one of us will be able to do so. In the name of "national security" the Bush enablers have made us less safe, and in the name of the Constitution, the Democrats have buried the Fourth Amendment.

But I, as a proud, patriotic American refuse to be done in by other people's fear. I will not submit to threats of what terrorists may do if I stand up for my inalienable rights and God-ordained freedom. I will not yield my Constitutional rights. You can take my Constitution "from my cold, dead hands!"

True American patriots won't go down without a fight. That doesn't mean I'll take up arms in an insurrection, but I will express myself here on this blog, and in letters to the editor. We need more Thomas Paines, and I want to do my part to carry on his tradition.

Please join me.

More on the FISA fiasco

2008-07-24T11:36:00.000-04:00

So Bush and the Telecoms were spying on Americans BEFORE 9/11, and now Congress has excused that. Hmm. So how well did that illegal spying work to PREVENT 9/11?

I see.

Now, you also say the bulk of it went on AFTER 9/11, and no one has attacked us since. One word: Anthrax. Remember? So, how well has the illegal, unconstitutional spying program the Congress just gave its consent to worked to catch the terrorist(s) who perpetrated that attack?

I see.

Tell me again how valuable that program is, how vital to our "national security"? Show me how effective it is, and then I'll listen.

Meanwhile, can someone direct me to any way I can help support the ACLU and other groups who are mounting a court challenge to this monstrosity of a "law" before President McCain can appoint more Scalitos to the Extreme Court? I would surely like to know.

Note: I'm writing this before I have Googled it. So stand by for any possible updates.

Grace and Peace.

On the Bugaboo of Taxes

2008-07-23T10:40:00.000-04:00

Nobody likes to pay taxes. That goes without saying, but people are saying it over and over, usually as a diversion from the problems that are facing the country. To keep anything positive from being accomplished, they scream, "He wants to raise your taxes!"

Well, I want to try to throw a little different perspective on things, if I might. (Well, of course I might. It's my blog, isn't it?)

Taxes paid for the schools I went to, the police that protect my person and property, the streets and roads on which I drive, the traffic signals that keep me from being rammed at every intersection (even though I HATE red lights), the health inspectors that make sure the food I eat is safe, and myriad other benefits I enjoy. Plus, they allow my handicapped daughter to live as independently as she does.

Of course they also pay the salaries of politicians I voted against; waste, fraud, and abuse; and corporate welfare. But on the whole they are necessary, and there are benefits to being a tax-paying citizen.

There are other things that I need for my taxes to pay for, such as health care.

Once again: In countries where taxpayers cover health care costs, the people have more doctors per thousand population, they have a lower death rate at every age, so they live longer. The latest figures I have seen show that 98% of the population of England would choose their system over ours, and 95% of the doctors would. Yet they spend less than half what we spend per person on health care.

So the health insurance premiums go to pay the hyperinflated salaries of bean counters whose job it is to keep from paying our claims. Yet if you start talking about this, people will counter, "but they pay more in taxes than we do."

So *&^%-in' what? They pay less overall.

What it boils down to is that I would rather pay $50 in taxes to make sure my child has a nurse by his hospital bed rather than $100 in health insurance premiums that pay for fuel in the CEO's jet.

Let my taxes pay for my health care, for railroad travel, and for other things they need to pay for. Let my tax dollars pay to hunt down the criminals behind the 9/11 attacks. I don't want them paying for illegal spying, nor for an unprovoked war. Neither do I want my country's unprovoked war paid for on credit, enslaving our economy to Chinese bankers.

Would it be possible to have a sane and intelligent debate over taxes and the proper use thereof?

I didn't think so.

On Defending the Constitution

2008-07-17T09:21:00.000-04:00

I have decided that I will try to give all I can to the downballot Democrats. I can't in good conscience give money to support Barack Obama.

I will gladly vote for him in November, and I will campaign against Flip-Floppin' McSame. But after he voted for the Bush Administration and against the Constitution, I can't give Obama any of my money. I replied to a fund-raising snail mail, pointing out his inconsistency in his rhetoric vs. his support of the FISA abomination. I told his campaign not to count on any more money from me.

Damn, I wish the media hadn't ganged up against John Edwards.

The important thing now is to take back the government that the Republicans have taken over, starting with the White House, then maybe we can also get the DINO's out of the positions of power in Congress and get some real Democrats in there. Sens. Dodd and Feingold must be getting lonely.

Next, we can work on the Supreme Court. We need more Ginsburgs and fewer Scalitos.

Thus, I will give my campaign contributions to the downballot Democrats.

David Davis for President

2008-06-26T09:19:00.000-04:00

David Davis is a member of Parliament in England who resigned because of the "42" law. PM Gordon Brown wants to pass a law allowing the police to hold someone for up to 42 days before charges must be filed. Now, it is 28 days. The Conservative Party opposes the new law (imagine that!), and David Davis, a prominent Tory, resigned his seat over the issue. He is going to run again (or "stand" as they say over there) for election to the same seat, campaigning solely on the issue of opposition to the 42 law. The Liberal Democratic Party in England will not oppose him in the election, because they agree with him, and the Labour Party isn't going to run anyone against him out of fear of being embarrassed.

Where are the politicians on this side of the Pond with that kind of integrity? Even Barack Obama, who denounced warrantless wiretapping in speeches, especially one in South Carolina during the primary, says he is in favor of the FISA abomination before the Senate now. He will work to remove the retroactive immunity (or so he says) for the major telecoms that broke the law (BEFORE 9/11 by the way) by allowing Bush to use their networks to spy on us--that's right: you and me--without any hint of a warrant as required by the Fourth Amendment.

But Obama says he will vote for the bill that allows future warrantless wiretapping on us, even if he can't (and everyone with a brain knows he can't) remove that provision from it.

I know all the Democrats who support it have been paid handsomely by the telecoms; I wonder how much they have given Obama.

Where are the David Davises over here now that we need them?

On Obama and Public Financing

2008-06-24T13:22:00.000-04:00

I have been in favor of public financing of political campaigns for some time. I supported the "Just $6" movement--for just six dollars a voter we could finance all campaigns. Of course, we also need to require TV and radio stations to air political content for free as a requirement for using our free air space.

Having said that, I would also point out that that Barack Obama has gone the public route by a different way. George McGovern tried it in 1972--instead of 25 donors giving a million dollars apiece, he asked for a million voters to give $25 apiece. I was a member of the "McGovern Million Member Club." Now Obama uses the internet to raise money from small contributors and raises unprecedented millions in an incredibly short time. Both were ways to keep the influence of fat cats out of it--fat cats who will later come around asking for favors as a return on their investment.

This request for a return is showing this week as Congress guts the Fourth Amendment to let fatcat telecoms get off scot-free from accountability for their law-breaking in enabling Bush to spy on Americans in violation of every law of God and man.

Back to the subject: Now that Obama has said he won't take public financing with its limits on spending, the Republicans are crying foul, and the media are giving them a loud outlet for their whining. But that same media won't tell you that the Democrats are suing McCain for breaking the law on public financing. He put up public financing as collateral to get loans for his primary campaigns. When he got the money, he declared he wouldn't be taking the public financing, after all. Yet the media are utterly silent on that point.

I'd like to know why.

Of course. The media are McCain sycophants all down the line.

Now, just to point out a couple of things: The general election campaign does not officially start until after the party conventions. So we are still technically in the primary season, so there is no law relevant to the general election in effect yet, anyway.

Just remember.

Thoughts on various and divers subjects

2008-06-20T11:26:00.000-04:00

I am sick over the stupid Democrats in Congress going further than the Republicans did in giving Bush carte blanche to violate the Fourth Amendment and protect the giant telecoms that broke the law cooperating with him.

I'm also sick that Barack Obama didn't stand up and denounce this unconstitutional move, and furthermore , according to Brother Greenwald, recorded a radio endorsement of one of the Congressmen from southern Georgia that helped make this abomination possible. He was supporting a "Blue Dog" white candidate whose primary opponent is a black woman who is involved in the community in the largely black district. So, I won't be contributing to Obama's campaign, after all.

But with all the anger and disappointment I feel, I still am going to vote for Obama because I want the Democrats--the REAL Democrats to take Congress back over next year. Then we can get some stuff done, pressuring the White House incumbent into doing more to help this country than even he realizes can be done.

Let it be, Lord.

Now, about oil. I'm fortunate that two gas stations near me are competing to have the lowest prices for gas. I have been filling up for at least a nickel a gallon less than the low-price stations where I used to fill up.

Some want to drill in ANWR for more oil (which would lower the price of gas a penny a gallon--ten years from now, if it doesn't all go to Japan the way most Alaskan oil does), but I want to know why they don't go ahead and drill on the land they already have next door to ANWR, which has even more oil under it than ANWR does. And why don't they drill in Wyoming? They have plenty of oil land leased there. In fact, I read on the Huffington Post yesterday that the oil companies have 65 MILLION acres of leased land they are not drilling on. So why do they want to make the entire U. S. coastline look like Galveston?

When those questions are answered, I'll listen to arguments about the drilling they are asking for. Meanwhile, conservation can save more energy than more drilling can provide.

I may have said this before, I haven't looked back lately, but in the '70s when the first gas crises hit there was a lot of research into alternative fuels. When St. Ronald Reagan took over he ended that and got the price of Saudi gas down, making us more dependent than ever on the Arab financiers of 9/11.

Unfortunately, the "Drain America First" approach isn't enough to cover the needs of this petroleum-based economy. We need something else to propel us and provide the plastics that we depend on.

God help us.

On Impeachment

2008-06-11T08:32:00.000-04:00

Now that Dennis Kucinich has read his articles of impeachment of George W. Bush into the Congressional Record, he is getting much more coverage from the national media than he ever got for his bill to impeach Dick(head) Cheney.

It's an exercise in futility, for sure, but it is something that needs to be done.

Nancy Pelosi has taken impeachment "off the table" as one of the first statements she made upon becoming Speaker of the House. That doesn't mean Bush/Cheney didn't commit impeachable acts. They committed many crimes, including mass murder. But there aren't enough Democrats with backbone to stand up to them, and there are too many Republicans to get the 2/3 majority needed for conviction. So it isn't a practical pursuit.

STILL: It needs to be discussed. We need to keep the crimes of the Bush "administration" in front of the public. We need to keep on and keep on reminding people that this bunch of incompetent frat boys running the government now does not represent a new American system of government. They are a fluke.

We are still a people under a system of laws, and those laws are not subject to the whims of a mad King George.

Therefore, Kucinich needs to keep pushing on his impeachment proposal, and the rest of us need to keep pressure on our elected officials, so that it will not be forgotten that we are proud, patriotic Americans, not peons subject to the vagaries of Bush and his corporate masters.

Stand up for America!

Now that Obama has it sewn up

2008-06-09T15:35:00.000-04:00

I admit Barack Obama was not my first, nor second, choice for Democratic nominee. Still, I can endorse him without hesitation.

I like his vision, and I believe he will have long enough coattails that we in the blogosphere will be able to put the pressure on a majority Democratic Congress to get things done beyond what Obama has proposed, e.g. health care reform beyond the timid steps he proposes.

I also noticed that he did well among working-class whites WEST of the Mississippi, while the punditocracy was talking about how poorly he was doing among working-class whites, but leaving out that the ones they were talking about live EAST of the Mississippi.

I have a feeling Obama can win even without Appalachia.

Of course, since I live in Appalachia, I would like for him to win here, too.

WTF

2008-05-16T13:18:00.000-04:00

John McCain has eight houses. Barack Obama pulled himself up by his bootstraps. McCain calls Obama "elitist"?

The media hounded and hounded Theresa Heinz Kerry until she disclosed her income tax records in 2004. They are giving Cindy McCain a pass on that.

Jeremiah Wright says unpopular things about the U. S. government and a big uproar follows. John Hagee says outrageous things about Catholics and Jews and McCain is proud to have his endorsement.

The New York Times reveals that the "Military Experts" that the major media have had on over and over to "comment" on the war were sent out by the Pentagon to tout the company line, and many, if not most, were also on the payroll of defense contractors. Yet not one word, for the most part, has been said about it on any of these media. Of course, GE is one of the biggest defense contractors, as well as the parent company of all the NBC iterations. Go figure.

Cindy McCain is the heiress of a $100 million beer distributorship, yet all the Southern Baptist tee-totalers will get behind her husband.

Anybody want to add any examples?

Glenn Greenwald Nails It

2008-05-06T12:04:00.000-04:00

Glenn Greenwald, author of the new book, Great American Hypoctrites, tells the truth in his blog. He especially gets it right with this, from the other day:

Why the Jeremiah Wright story deserves more attention

I think the most important thing to note about the Jeremiah Wright Story is that we're a Nation plagued by exceedingly few significant problems; blessed with a quite healthy political culture and very trusted political and media institutions; composed of a citizenry that is peacefully content with its Government and secure and confident about their future; endowed with a supremely sturdy economic foundation free of debt and other grave economic afflictions; vested with the ability to command great respect and admiration from the other nations of the world; emancipated from the burdens of war and intractable conflicts which have toppled and destroyed so many other great nations of the past; and, most of all, we're becoming freer and more prosperous by the minute.

Not only that, but we have an extremely impressive, serious and honor-bound ruling imperial class devoted to the preservation of all of these blessings.

So it isn't as though we really have anything else to talk about besides Jeremiah Wright. There are some countries in the world -- probably most -- which have so many big problems that they could ill-afford to devote much time and energy to a matter of this sort. Thankfully, the United States isn't one of them. I believe it's critical that we keep that in mind as we discuss him for the next seven months.

Yeah. Go Glenn.

More on Hypocricy

2008-04-18T12:24:00.000-04:00

This past week George W. Bush admitted to another impeachable offense. He approved the use of torture (regardless of the tortured vocabulary to get around that word). So what do our esteemed media outlets focus on?

Barack Obama's remarks about working-class voters being bitter about the situation the Bushites have put us into, and turning to religion, guns, and xenophobia.

It was fifty minutes into Wednesday's debate before the pitiful "moderators" asked any substantive questions, then they were more into the "gotcha" mode than in the serious discussion people were hungering for.

I notice they never ask why McCain doesn't wear a flag in his lapel. Nor did they ever ask how much Mitt Romney spent on hair cuts and makeup.

These overpaid pretty TV faces don't know anything about what we out here in the working world care about. In fact, they don't find it ironic when a man with eight houses (McCain) calls a man who pulled himself up out of poverty (Obama) elitist.

Well, I want to say that Obama understands us a lot better than the overpaid talking heads or fat-cat politicians who live at ease on money earned by others. (Bush and McCain)

We ARE bitter about the Administration that send our sons and daughters to die in a war based on 935 lies while giving tax cuts to their wealthy supporters.

We ARE bitter about seeing our jobs shipped overseas and being told how much better off we are because we can buy all these cheap trinkets from China.

We ARE bitter about gasoline going through the roof and we aren't able to afford to drive to work on our wages, but have to go into debt to buy a tankful of gas, while oil companies are raking in record profits and enjoying enormous (in every sense of the word) tax cuts.

We ARE bitter when we try to get help when we're laid off and are denied, yet see illegal immigrants getting all kinds of handouts. I have been told of first-hand experiences with this.

We ARE bitter because we can't afford a decent place to live nor the heating oil or propane to heat it.

So in our bitterness we turn to those things that have been constants in our lives: our culture, our faith, the comfort of knowing we are armed against a home assault and can hunt for food if we can't afford to buy it, the comfort of being around people like us and distrust of outsiders.

Changing the subject, though, I just thought of something. When Jimmy Carter was in the White House, gas first hit a dollar a gallon. He got Congress to fund research into alternative fuels so we wouldn't have to be so dependent on Arabian oil.

When Ronald Reagan came in, he immediately put a stop to that research, and worked on getting the price of oil down. As a result, we are more dependent on the financiers of Al Qiada than ever.
Thanks, Ronnie. Of course, we never heard of this when Reagan died a few years ago. No, the news coverage could only be called hagiography.

See why we're disgusted? Obama was dead on the money.

Harry Chapin's Heirs Endorse Barack Obama

2008-04-10T19:47:00.000-04:00

I clicked on "Next Blog" above and was sent to another political web site. The author had just gotten an e-mail from Jen Chapin, daughter of the late Harry Chapin, and she and her mother are endorsing Obama's candidacy.

Here is Sandy Chapin's statement:

On Barack Obama and Harry Chapin
By Sandy Chapin

I am so excited about Barack Obama as a candidate for President of the United States that I am compelled to share my thoughts with you. I learned from Harry that when you really believe in the power of individual people you can accomplish great things. I learned that when you are young with boundless energy, initiative and sheer determination to pursue the impossible dream you can empower others to galvanize their own energies, ideas, and determination. Remember, Harry said that out of every six or seven tasks he tried, “I might fail at three, but if I hadn’t tried I would have accomplished nothing.”
Harry founded an organization to end hunger at home and abroad with the realization that he must not compete with, but partner with all the existing, dedicated anti-hunger groups and he would make a life-long commitment in order to ride on past the occasional hurdles that lead to doubt and despair.
I have been waiting a long time to see someone light the fire to inspire individuals to act, to see a universe beyond self-interest and to fulfill his potential to be the best that they can be.
Yes, I believe Barack Obama is like Harry- standing tall for his country with intellect, stamina, and desire from the depths of his being, not to divide and conquer, but to seek a better tomorrow. I believe Barack Obama defines compromise not as concession, but as seeking and combining the best qualities out of differences. I believe Barack Obama defines strategy, not as tactics, but as preparation plus iimagination. Imagine what we can do, acting all together, doing our best!
Yes, my intuition says Senator Obama is a new kind of leader who can lead us, as Harry said, “Onwards and Upwards.” But I have also read and watched and listened and studied and I believe Barack Obama is the best person for this new era of a new generation, a new economies and a new world order. He understands our disaffected youth are a generation starving for direction and for a sense of purpose. They want to address the huge gap between the rich and poor caused largely by the explosive power of special interests. And they are more aware of the profound and complex issues facing this new world where we are intricately bound whether or not we choose to be. He is the best person to enlist a majority of citizens to address the new economic order – no longer the 19th century where a factory owner with tax breaks in his pocket would buy new machinery and hire more workers. It is workers who alleviate poverty; it is workers who are the engine of the economy. Workers with incentives from government can repair our collapsing infrastructure, can assist in teaching the under-schooled, can develop the new companies for energy efficiency and innovation. And I believe Barack Obama can move America into its appropriate relationship with the rest of the world, a position that has been essentially altered during two terms of George W. Bush.
China has consolidated at home and set out prongs of power on every continent abroad. The European Union has steadily strengthened and enlarged. India and Turkey and Brazil and Russia and Vietnam and Venezuela and Morocco will be our allies and partners or not. The present administration has taught us that who is president does make a difference, a difference of life and death. Peace comes, not from threats, but from understanding -- understanding that today’s world and tomorrow’s is multi-nuanced, multi faceted, multipartite.
Some people called Harry Chapin a visionary. He knew that you had to have a vision, to stretch toward a goal, but you had to engage in the streets to structure the best plan to achieve it.
This is a pivotal election. Our country is crying out for change. We need Barack Obama to lead us back to our roots in the constitution and moral character and forward to active and responsible citizenship in the nation and the world.

Something I've been thinking about...

2008-04-10T19:32:00.000-04:00

I saw this on another blog, but I've been putting off commenting on it myself. But now that our illustrious Congressman, Patrick McHenry, has made his true colors known in the national media, I've got to say something.

First, though, McHenry went to Baghdad on one of those sheltered tours Republican Congressmen take so they can pretend to be manly. While there he tried to go into the gym to work out a bit, but he didn't have the proper credentials. So he called the contract soldier who stopped him a "two-bit security guard." That made the headlines. What didn't get so much publicity was the fact that he took video of a rocket attack that landed in the Green Zone, in fact hitting the gym he had tried to get into, and posted it on his web site with descriptions of where it hit and how much damage it had done.

The son of a bitch thereby told the Iraqi insurgents how effective and accurate their attack had been so that they could improve their aim the next time. The next time came, and now three brave American soldiers are dead.

And McHenry still hasn't issued what any sane person would call a true apology.

This brings up the point I wanted to talk about: The Satanic images on the Republican elephant logo.

If you go to any official Republican sites, or look at Republican literature, you will see a stylized elephant with a blue top and red-and-white striped bottom. The three stars in the blue field are upside-down.

They are Satanic Pentagrams.

I knew the Republican Party was possessed by something evil, and now this proves it. Ever since the Bush crowd have been in the White House, the logo has had pentagrams instead of stars.

I pray for an exorcism this November.

More on Media Amnesia

2008-04-07T09:07:00.000-04:00

I said what I said before about Hillary Clinton, but still, I can't let one thing go.

She has been getting all sorts of grief (probably deservedly so) for remembering sniper fire that never happened when landing at a Balkan airport.

But, putting things in context, I remember Ronald Reagan saying he remembered helping to liberate a concentration camp in Europe at the end of World War II. He was never in Europe during WWII. He was over here making movies--war propaganda movies included, which helped the war effort--but he never was at a concentration camp's liberation.

So where was the media outcry over that whopper to match what they are screaming about Hillary's misstatement?

Or for that matter, why was it a story for no more than two days when George Bush I, in 1988, forgot that Pearl Harbor Day was in December and thought it was in September?

The old double standard from your "liberal" media.

Still More Republican Hypocricy

2008-04-01T15:57:00.000-04:00

It never ceases to gall me how the draft dodgers in the Republican Party and on Fox "News" are always questioning the patriotism of war heroes, even while giving lip service to "supporting the troops."

It happened in 2000 when the Bush campaign destroyed John McCain's soul by spreading lies about him, including lies about his Vietnam service.

It happened again when the Repuglicans in Georgia morphed the picture of Sen. Max Cleland, a man who left three limbs in Vietnam in service to his country into a picture of Osama bin Laden.

Again, in 2004, they got swift boat veterans to tell lies about John Kerry, contradicting what they themselves had said only a decade earlier.

Now, draft dodgers Pat Buchanan and Bill O'Reilly dare to question the patriotism of former Marine hero Jeremiah Wright, simply because they don't understand fire-and-brimstone preaching, and care nothing about the Black experience in America.

I wonder how the Patrick McHenry campaign is going to impugn the patriotism of Daniel Johnson. Daniel Johnson was in the Navy when he lost his legs rescuing a shipmate. Everybody on the left and right praised him for it. George Will even devoted a column to praising his heroism. Now he's running for Congress from our district. Assuming he wins the Democratic primary and assuming McHenry pulls the usual shenanigans to win the Republican primary again, he will take aim at Johnson's patriotism, the way the rest of the cowards on his side usually do. It will be interesting to see what lies he comes up with.

More random thoughts

2008-03-14T09:59:00.000-04:00

--I recently heard on NPR about a study done in Indiana, where part of the state observed Daylight Saving Time and part didn't. Turns out more energy was consumed in the part of the state where DST was in effect. So claims of DST saving energy are bogus. A book a few years ago (which I believe I have referenced before) stated that the research shows people drive more during the later daylight hours, thus DST costs more energy than it saves. Now the Indiana study confirms it. Turning up the thermostat an hour earlier when it's colder and keeping the air conditioner turned cooler during a later evening hour before turning it up at bedtime burns more electricity than would be used otherwise. I've never really liked DST, anyway, even though it does give me another hour to drive with the top down.

--Hillary Clinton lost my vote for good the other day. I heard her audio clip when she said, in effect, that John McCain was more prepared to be Commander-in-Chief than Barak Obama is. First, she falls into the Republican trap of calling the C-in-C role of the President the most important role, contrary to the Constitution's portrayal of that office. Then, she gives the Republicans ammunition to use against the eventual Democratic nominee in the fall. Because of that I will not vote for her in the primary, and if she wins the nomination, I will vote for a third-party candidate in November.

--I have looked at the situation, and I believe that Obama is the closest thing we have available to the President we need in these times. We need someone with the compassion of Abraham Lincoln, with the passion for the environment and trust-busting of Theodore Roosevelt, with the vision and ambition to get things done of a Franklin D. Roosevelt, the scrappy tenacity of a Harry Truman, and the vision to inspire people of a John F. Kennedy. Nobody has all that, but of all the candidates left, Barak Obama comes closest. He is talking about reaching out across the aisle (as opposed to the triangulation of the Clintons) and about inspiring hope in the population. Now, if he will appoint John Edwards as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and others of equal caliber to other important posts, we will have a good eight years ahead of us.

Enough for now. Any questions?

Once again, connecting the dots

2008-03-07T07:54:00.001-05:00

Okay, let's see: George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden were both investors in the Bank of Commerce and Credit (or was it Credit and Commerce--I don't remember) International (BCCI) when John Kerry's investigations got it shut down because of its corruption.

Next dot: W. made his first million in the Carlyle Group alongside Osama's brother.

Next dot: When Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait Osama bin Laden, fresh from driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan (with U. S. help--see Charlie Wilson's War), goes to the Saudi royal family asking for permission to take out Saddam Hussein. They refuse and bring in the Americans and their allies, instead. Osama's Al Qaeda turns against the Americans for violating the Holy Places in Saudi Arabia.

Next dot: Al Qaeda attacks U. S. interests--including bombing two embassies in Africa. President Clinton bombs places in Sudan and Afghanistan thought to be sanctuaries for Osama and his boys. Republicans condemn Clinton for this. The CIA has Osama in its sights in Afghanistan, but the royal family of Dubai protects him. Clinton puts a contract out with a price on Osama's head.

Next dot: Al Qaeda attacks the U. S. S. Cole in October, 2000. In December it is proved conclusively that it was Al Qaeda, but the news was full of hanging chads and the Supreme Court installing W. into the White House.

Next dot: The first thing W. does when assuming the Oval Office is to take the bounty OFF Osama's head, even knowing he was behind the Cole attack.

Next dot: The security agencies report to Bush that Al Qaeda was planning an attack inside the U. S., and Bush does nothing.

Next dot: 9/11. Bush vows to get Osama, "dead or alive."

Next dot: Immediately after 9/11 Bush lets all of Osama bin Laden's family fly out of the U. S. before any can be questioned about Osama's whereabouts.

Next dot: When the finest fighting force in the world, the U. S. military, has Osama surrounded at Tora Bora in Afghanistan, Bush cuts and runs to go attack Saddam Hussein, Osama's biggest enemy in the Arab world, even though Bush later admits that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Next dot: It is learned that the Saudi royal family financed the 9/11 hijackers. Bush walks around the Rose Garden holding hands with the Saudi Prince.

Next dot: Osama's lieutenant, Zarkawi, was in Iraq, and Saddam was trying to hunt him down when his hunt was interrupted by the American invasion. This invasion opens the door to Al Qaeda to come into Iraq and give them a foothold they didn't have before.

Next dot: In a press conference Bush admits: "I don't care about" Osama bin Laden.

Next dot: Bush tries to turn over ownership of U. S. ports to the same Dubai royal family that protected bin Laden from the CIA.

Next dot: Osama bin Laden is still taunting us, still plotting against America, and Bush is leaving it to the British to thwart the plots while W. continues to give his attention to shredding the Constitution here at home, instead of working against Al Qaeda.

A Disturbing Thought

2008-02-19T10:45:00.000-05:00

My wife was in a cast for six weeks, and she still is out of work while her broken foot continues to recover. Therefore, I haven't been able to blog as much as I otherwise would.

But something occurred to me last night, and I have to post it.

If Sandra Day O'Connor, in Bush v. Gore in 2000 had ruled in favor of the Constitution instead of the Republican Party, then Joe Lieberman would have the inside track for the Democratic nomination for President.

Scary thought.

You know about Holy Joe, of course. He was such a loyal Bush supporter and Iraq War fan that he deserted his own party to vote consistently with the Bush side of the aisle.

The Democratic voters of Connecticut didn't appreciate that, so they mounted a campaign that caused Ned LaMont to beat Lieberman in the primary. Well, Holy Joe wouldn't take it lying down, so he became an independent and got the Democratic Party Establishment to endorse him in the general election, which he won. So now, he calls himself an Independent, caucuses with the Democrats, and votes with the Republicans. He has even endorsed and campaigned for John McCain in the current race for the White House.

So maybe a LITTLE good came out of the 2000 election fiasco. Only a little.

I'd like to see someone publish a book about what might have been. Alternate histories have been popular for some time. I'd like to see an alternate history of the Gore Administration.

First, Bush's buddy, Osama bin Laden, would have been hunted down and either killed or captured.

Therefore, 9/11 wouldn't have happened.

Saddam Hussein would be contained, with weapons inspectors on hand to keep him in line.

The U. S. would have signed onto the Kyoto Protocols, and we would be making progress toward solving the global warming crisis.

Gasoline would be beginning to approach $2 a gallon.

Al Gore would not have won a Grammy, nor would he have won the Nobel Peace Prize.

So we might have lost a LITTLE by having the Constitution upheld in 2000.

Well, we'll keep dreaming.

What I didn't say

2008-01-11T11:46:00.001-05:00

I was on the radio yesterday. The local NPR station, WFAE Charlotte, which is translated on WFHE Hickory has a talk show from 9 to 10 (a.m., repeated at 9 p.m.), called "Charlotte Talks." Every so often they have some listener volunteers come on for a session they call, "Average Joes."

I was invited to be one of the Average Joes yesterday. I was on with two independent voters and a leader in South Carolina's Green Party. We talked about the election, health care, and the culture, among a few other topics. There wasn't time to say everything I wanted to say, much less what I thought about since then.

First, the two-party system in this country is much like TV was in the '50s and '60s. Three major networks carried the bulk of the shows that people watched, and there was very little on any independent stations beyond some old movies and such.

Our political system is set up the same way. The two major parties control the political dialogue in the major media, and one is hard-pressed to hear any views other than what they tell us. Inside-the-beltway conventional wisdom is all we hear unless we dig around the blogs.

I have been thinking about the parliamentary systems that other major democracies have, with all kinds of splinter parties forming coalitions to get different things done. I wish America could be more like that. Now, I have said before that Ronald Reagan was the best argument in favor of a parliamentary system, and Newt Gingrich the best argument against one.

Anyway, I wish we could hear from more parties, from the Libertarians, the Socialists, the Greens, the Progressives, etc. Not just the two major brands. We need more variety in our American political discourse. We need to hear more and different views than the two we have.

My wife needs the computer now, so I'll resume later.

On the "War on Christmas"

2007-12-14T06:10:00.001-05:00

Once again the puppets of Rupert Murdoch are wailing about a "war on Christmas." It seems that it's suddenly politically incorrect to say "Happy Holidays."

Let's look at this. It was around 70 years ago that the song, "Happy Holidays" came out (theme from Holiday Inn which premiered the song, "White Christmas"). It was around 40 years ago that Andy Williams recorded a song that begins, "It's the holiday season." Yet it's just been in the last few years people have started to take offense.

Now, we have Thanksgiving in late November and a month or so later Christmas. A week after that we have New Year's. In among all that we have Hanukkah and Kwanzaa. Now what kind of days are these? They're called "holidays."

So now do we have to go around saying, "Happy ThanksgivinghanukkahKwanzaannewyear and Merry Christmas"? What is wrong with the wish to express Christian good will by wishing your neighbors well during more than one holiday at a time?

And why do they take the season of celebration of the birth of the Prince of Peace and make it into a time of creating an artificial reason for strife? After all this is an overwhelmingly Christian nation. Even the Congress says so. The spineless Congress that can't stand up to the most unpopular president ever and carry out the will of the majority of the American population could pass a resolution affirming Christianity as the majority religion of this country. Schools are closed on Christmas, government offices are closed on Christmas, and even stores are closed on Christmas.

So creating an artificial and non-existent "war on Christmas" must indicate some underlying motive. What could that be?

First, it could be a distraction from the commercialization of the season about which many of us have been complaining for at least 40 years. I don't think I need to say anything more about that, because everyone has heard everything there is to say about that.

Second, it could be a distraction from the war on the Sabbath that the corporate masters of these mouthpieces carry out all through the year. People buying and selling on the Sabbath, which the Bible condemns, is a staple of the American way of life the way it has evolved over the past 50 years. So to keep people from looking too closely at that they say, instead, "Look over there!" So they invent a controversy over wishing your neighbors well for a cluster of holidays at once.

Pay attention.

Reflecting on 1968

2007-12-11T11:27:00.001-05:00

Last night I watched the documentary, "1968" that we recorded Sunday night. A couple of thoughts come to mind.

First, that was the year I had my "Vickie moment." Vickie was a grad student in Music when I worked at the music library on campus at Carolina. Everybody loved her, because she was as sweet as she was beautiful. Her fiance was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I was going through an existential crises during the later months of 1967 and the early months of 1968. I had been in Air Force ROTC, and I had favored a strong military solution for the Vietnam war. I even stood in a pro-war vigil once. But I was beginning to have doubts. I was beginning to wonder if everything I had believed about the war was true. I stopped calling myself a hawk and called myself a vulture instead.

Then Vickie walked into the music library wearing a "McCarthy" button. Gene McCarthy was running for President on the anti-war platform. It hit me that if Vickie could support McCarthy while her fiance was fighting in Vietnam, then I could, too. I could oppose the war and be at peace with my conscience. I became an ardent anti-war activist, and I never let up until the troops came home. BTW, I never knew anyone who ever spit on a veteran. No one. I also never knew anyone in the anti-war movement who ever took Jane Fonda seriously, either.

Now it bothers me when people I'm close to, people I love, mindlessly parrot all the Fox "News" talking points. I never expected anyone in my family to turn into a dittohead. I pray every day that those I love will have their own "Vickie moments."

Now, about the documentary itself, it was good that Tom Brokaw brought a former student protester and a former Chicago cop together to talk about the disturbance outside the 1968 Democratic Convention in which they both participated.

I realize he also had to balance the voices of the era with those of others who didn't find the era so liberating. Pat Buchanan and some woman who writes a column for the Wall Street Journal.

Buchanan said the "silent majority" (a term he coined as a Nixon speechwriter) turned to the Republicans because of the protests on college campuses. I seriously doubt that. I think it was more the fact that the Nixon campaign appealed to their fears (giving those fears the faces of the student radicals, perhaps, but fears nonetheless) and their hatreds. The famed "Southern strategy" was nothing less than a naked appeal to the endemic racism in the South. Buchanan is just playing sleight-of-hand by saying what he did.

The woman from the WSJ talked about the women of the Women's Liberation movement (and the protesters in the anti-war movement) as being rich spoiled brats who were just playing at their protests. Well, I was not a rich kid who indulged in my protests at the expense of a big parental bank account. I grew up on a subsistence dairy farm, and my parents never had a big surplus when it came to money. So I was fighting for my ideals, my beliefs, and my Christian faith. No, the indulged rich kids are the frat boys who are in Washington now, making all kinds of scary noises about nonexistence threats so they can continue sending OTHER people's children into war while ignoring the real threats from the real terrorists.

And as Forrest Gump said, "That's all I've got to say about that." (For now.)

Quoting from DailyKos

2007-12-10T12:50:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, Devilstower had one of the greatest blog posts ever. I wish to quote a part of it.

This post was about John F. Kennedy's speech to the Baptists, in which he emphasized America's law and tradition of separation of church and state, and saying that his being a Catholic should have no influence whatsoever on whether anyone votes for him or not. This is the speech the Republicans have been distorting into an unrecognizable form since Mitt Romney has been called out on his Mormon faith and has given that speech which was nothing at all like Kennedy's.

But here is a great passage in Devilstower's post:

In discussing the growing influence of religion in politics, many media pundits have been quick to point toward Jimmy Carter. Carter, an obscure candidate trying to reach a broader and younger audience, agreed to a famous interview with Playboy Magazine, a portion of which revolved around his faith. If it had been a cycle or two later, he might have been angling for a chance to guest host Saturday Night Live, or these days face off with Stephen Colbert. The difference is that rather than being pampered through a few minutes of laughs on television, Carter sat down and talked for five hours, during which he answered hundreds of questions.

Of course, only one of those answers is remembered, the one in which Carter confessed that he had "lusted in his heart" after women other than his wife. It's probably the most famous answer in the history of presidential interviews. But do you remember the question?

The question Carter was answering was not whether he'd been tempted to engage in the kind of activities imagined on Playboy's pages. The question was whether, as a professed evangelical Christian, Carter felt that he was better than anyone else. Carter's response was an adamant no. The media sifted his lengthy answer for that "lusted in my heart" moment because they thought it both titillating and funny. Carter's complete answer was a lot more candid and earthy.

Christ says, don't consider yourself better than someone else because one guy screws a whole bunch of women while the other guy is loyal to his wife. The guy who's loyal to his wife ought not to be condescending or proud because of the relative degree of sinfulness.

And now you know why Carter's Sunday School class is so popular.

The interview also makes clear that Carter was just as adamant as John Kennedy in placing an absolute barrier between church and state. He cites Jesus' admonition to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" as clear instruction that Christians should not insert their faith into political matters, saying that he considered the separation of church and state to be both a constitutional and a biblical mandate.

The current sad state of affairs can't be blamed on Jimmy Carter.

The fault lies in the same calculated cowardice that has dominated Democratic politics post-Carter, and especially in the last six years. John Kennedy went to stand before his opponents and refused to tell them what they wanted to hear, but since September 2001, Democrats have increasingly scrambled to find acceptance, even if that meant reversing themselves so quickly they tripped on their own tongues.

We've reached the sorry state where the Republican Party officially and vocally support everything that John Kennedy stood up against in his 1960 speech. The Democratic Party has adopted a strategy on this and many other issues, in which they either stand aside or lend half-hearted support to Republicans. They do this in the hopes that when Republicans push too far, Democrats can pick up the pieces without having offended anyone. That's the strategy of hyenas. The strategy of vultures.

It's a strategy that wins elections by not losing. But it's also a strategy that advances rarely any cause. After all, when the lions have had their fill, the vultures settle to eat, but the vultures never capture territory from the lions.

In between their efforts to bestow sainthood on bumbling liar, Ronald Reagan, Republicans have recently been trying to remove all evidence of Kennedy's progressive positions so they can claim him as their own. And maybe they deserve him. If George W. Bush can brush the Constitution aside to create his "faith-based initiative," and see it pass the Senate 95-5, how can there be any pretense that the party of John Kennedy still exists? It's worth noting that, previous to the 2002 election, Democrats blocked the passage of this bill in the Senate (even though it had passed the House with the help of 15 Democratic congressmen). If if you're looking for the moment when Democrats officially surrendered the idea of separation between church and state, 2002 is as good a date as any. Sent fluttering by their losses that November, the vultures settled down beside the lions to gnaw away the Constitution.

Forgotten in all this are the issues that Kennedy wanted to address in that long ago speech. The issues that Kennedy called the "real issues" of the campaign. Issues like poverty.

the hungry children I saw in West Virginia

Health care.

the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills

Inequality and education.

an America with too many slums, with too few schools

And the loss of respect the nation was suffering in international affairs.

the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power

Any and all of those issues might have been the centerpiece of a Democratic speech today, because those issues remain unsolved. And oddly enough, many of these issues were also on the mind of the man who two thousand years ago stood up in his family church and announced that "I come bringing good news for the poor."

When you're too busy trying not to lose, you may win elections now and then, but you rarely advance those causes you're supposed to care about. We've reached the point where Republican voters can claim the philosophy of absolute greed.

"I make a great deal of money through my own hard work. I don't want to pay for someone else's child to eat breakfast at school anymore."

Get that? She makes not just enough money, but a "great deal of money." How dare anyone take it away for something so frivolous as feeding a poor child? And yet Republicans, through their actions in blurring the lines between church and state, have become the "party of faith." Because they say so. Because they are bold in their actions and snarling in their defense.

We need to be just as adamant. We need to not hide behind any abstraction or evasion. We need to be unafraid to address this voter and say "I am going to take some of your money, and give it to that poor kid, because it's more important -- both to the child and to society -- that he eat, rather than that you have an extra week in Cabo."

Note that we should not pretend that "a program will take your money." Or "the government will take your money." This is a democracy, and we are the government. I will take your money. I will. Some of that money you worked hard for and want to keep. I will give it to a kid who is hungry. If your concern is that poverty should be addressed by individuals, then there's a simple solution: feed him. If there are no poor children needing food, I won't have to take anything for them. If your position is that people would be more generous if only the government would stay out of it, then sorry. I'm not willing to put this child at risk to as part of your experiment. Besides, if that were true, then why were their more hungry kids before we started these programs to give them a little breakfast? If your position is that your being able to keep all your money is more important than a child being fed, then I simply think you're wrong. And sick. You want to keep that money? You better beat me at the polls.

The strategy of vultures gives us both a party and a nation that would embarrass John Kennedy. The erosion of that barrier between the interest of the state and that of the church gives us a church that Jesus would not recognize. As an American and a Christian, I find both results terrifying.

Those ministers in 1960 might have hated what Kennedy had to say, but they applauded him for having the courage to say it. What candidate today will have the guts to step forward[?]

Thanks for a great post, DT.

On National Health Insurance

2007-12-07T11:53:00.000-05:00

If we go to a single payer plan the way the Europeans and Canadians (in fact, EVERY civilized country except for us) do, there will be more consequences than people are talking about now.

What I'm talking about is this: The employment picture in this country will be drastically altered.

How many people have you talked with who said they hated their jobs, they hated the company they worked for, and the only reason they were staying with it was the health insurance?

Take that away, and they won't have to stay misemployed any more. They can go do what their dreams call them to, and maybe they'll live longer. They certainly will have the opportunity to live happier.

But what about the employers? With such a mass exodus of disgruntled workers, what will they do?

First, they may find they don't need to lay off so many people (or "human resources" as the bean counters call them). Therefore, they don't have to ruin Christmas for so many the way the annual corporate layoffs do around here. They may even be able to build up good will among their customers. Maybe?

But then, they may find themselves shorthanded. They may have to think about what an employee needs to keep them at work. They may discover that their workers actually want to be treated as human beings. A novel concept for Corporate America. They may have to pay a living wage, offer human-scale work schedules, and give family time off and other non-monetary benefits. Managers may have to stop being martinets and start being good managers instead?

What do you think about these consequences?

Well, it's nice to dream. Corporate America and the insurance industry is going to fight tooth and nail to keep the current unsustainable system going, regardless of who is elected to Congress and the White House. That's why we the people (workers, customers, and interested public) need to keep the pressure on. I'll keep writing my senators (when I get some senators) and my Congressman (when I get a Congressman) demanding action to fix the current system. (I don't currently have any representation in Congress. I only have Bush lackeys.)

I encourage others to do the same.

On the Drought

2007-11-30T07:53:00.000-05:00

We here are in the midst of the worst drought in memory. At least in my memory. My father spoke of "those two dry years" in the 1930s, but I don't know if they were drier than now or not.

But it is awfully dry here.

Meanwhile, Texas had some devastating floods this year while we were crying for rain. So a thought struck me: Why can't we set up a system to pipe water from where there is too much to where there is not enough?

The Air Force tried cloud seeding during Vietnam, and it was disastrous. But what about a pipeline?

We have an electrical grid that sends electric power around the country wherever the demand is. Why can't we figure out a way to do that with water?

We could set up a series of pipelines that run from reservoirs where there is plenty of water and to spare and send it to wherever there is a drought or the danger of one.

As one who has been opposing the water transfer from the Catawba River to Concord and Kannapolis this seems a radical departure. But if we were able to draw from the flooded regions, where they don't want the water and use it here where there isn't enough, then that wouldn't exactly be the same thing.

You see, there may come a time when there is too much water here, and instead of suffering a flood we could send it to other dry areas. But we can't just rob this place to send water to a hotel in Concord that wants to set up a water park for its guests. That's a whole different animal.

A water grid. Think about it.

Two random thoughts

2007-11-14T10:45:00.000-05:00

First: Ann Coulter is nothing but David Duke in a dress. Why do the so-called "liberal" media keep giving her a forum for her evil rantings?

Second: It seems that CEO competence is in inverse proportion to their salaries.

'Nuff said.

None dare call it heresy

2007-11-09T11:56:00.000-05:00

I went away on vacation and haven't caught up with everything yet since I got back.

Anyway, this blog usually has political stuff on it, but I want to look at something else today. I am an ordained United Methodist minister, and I teach Old and New Testament courses for a university. I have something to say about an ignorant heresy that has been around for over a century now, and this is my opportunity to spout off about it.

During the 19th. Century a preacher named Darby came up with a theory that has been called, "Pre-Millenialism." He took a Bible verse here and a verse there completely out of context and put them together in a way the authors never intended and came up with something completely contrary to what the Bible teaches throughout its text.

The heresy claims that at some point (soon!) all the "good" people (probably Republicans) will be carried up to heaven to meet in the air with the righteous departed who will rise from their graves. This will leave school buses to crash, ambulances unattended, hospitals understaffed (wait--that's nothing new), etc.

Following that will be the "Tribulation:" a time of intense misery--although how much more miserable it could be than the Bush Administration I couldn't say. This tribulation will last seven years after which time Jesus will come back and end the world, send the bad people to hell and establish a thousand year reign of righteousness on the Earth. After that, the world will end and the good people will return to heaven to enjoy eternity.

First, despite the fact that this is total hogwash, it is totally out of character for God as we see Him revealed, especially in the New Testament. If there is to be any tribulation at all the place for Christians is in the midst of it, carrying out God's work of comfort to those afflicted, and bearing witness to God's love in Jesus Christ.

Second, the number 7 is a symbolic number. It is part of the Hebrew numerology we see throughout the Bible. Seven is the number for God, for perfection, the complete number. The number for evil is the incomplete number: 3 1/2. "Time and times and half a time." Sometimes, it is six, but most of the time evil has three and a half years.

Furthermore, there are minor references in the heretical scenario that don't hold water: The "Universal Church" they predict has no scriptural references. None. You will see proof texts for the other assertions in their literature, but not for this one. It is made up out of thin air. Also, the number 666: In Biblical times they didn't have Arabic numerals the way we do, so letters had double duty as numbers, so each consonant had numerical value. The values in "Neron Caesar" (the accusative case spelling of his name) add up to 666. It has no significance to us beyond that except to warn us of Nero wannabes, such as George W. And when Revelation tells of the Mark of the Beast having to be on the forehead and wrist of anyone who wants to do buy or sell, it shows that evil cannot create anything; it can only counterfeit the good. When Jewish men pray they put phylacteries on their foreheads and wrists. So this was John's way of showing evil imitating the good. It has no significance for modern times except to warn us to be wary of those who wear religious cloaks to mask their evil intents. I won't name names this time, but I'm sure you can find examples.

Finally, if you will read all the references they use to proof-text the events in their context you will see that the Bible contradicts this whole scenario.

The way I've got it figured, this scenario, this heresy, is popular among people for whom the demands of Christian discipleship are too much trouble, so they fold their hands, sit back, and say, "Maranatha," which loosely translated means, "God, get me out of this."

Battered Wife Syndrome

2007-10-09T15:41:00.001-04:00

The Democrats in Congress were elected last year because the people wanted them to end the war in Iraq. They haven't done it. The people wanted them to stop the Cheney Administration from their illegal eavesdropping. They haven't done it.

Therefore, the Democratic Congress has approval ratings almost as low as the Cheney Administration, and the Republicans in Congress.

Yet this gives the Repuglicans grounds to bash them, because they aren't more popular. The reason they aren't more popular is because they won't stand up to the Repuglicans they way the people want them to. Their reaction? The Battered Wife Syndrome.

Too often battered women are convinced that it's their fault: If only they would try harder to please him he might let up on the beating. And of course he never does. But that only makes her try harder to please him, which is impossible to do.

The Democratic leadership in Congress are acting like battered women, trying hard not to get beaten up by the Administration and their Repuglican colleagues. But no matter what, the Repugs are GOING to call them unpatriotic, are GOING to accuse them of siding with the terrorists, etc., etc., etc.

Look, this administration is one of the most UNPOPULAR in history, Bush is a lame duck, and the Democrats own a majority of Congress. Why can't they understand they are in a position of strength, not weakness. The only people who really want them to act more like Republicans are the so-called "liberal" pundits like Maureen Dowd and David Broder. So-called "liberals" like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews are despicable in their behavior, parroting Repuglican talking points unquestioningly, claiming that "most Americans" believe the same way they do, in spite of every single poll, including the ones from Fox "News" showing the exact opposite.

So when will the Democratic leadership stop trying to please these people and start trying to please the people who elected them?

I swear, if I were a political cartoonist, I would draw Bush as a lame duck, held up by two crutches, one named, "Pelosi," and one named "Reid."

Connecting Dots

2007-09-24T09:53:00.000-04:00

I don't like cliches, but I can't think of a better way of expressing my thoughts of late than "connecting the dots."

I've been connecting some dots lately, and I don't like the picture that is emerging.

Dot 1: George W. Bush made his first million in the Carlyle Group, in business with the brother of Osama bin Laden.

Dot 2: After Al Qaeda started terrorist attacks on U. S. Embassies and other sites, President Clinton placed a bounty on Osama bin Laden's head. Al Qaeda attacked the U. S. S. Cole in October of 2000, and it was not determined until December of that year that it was Bin Laden's al Qaeda.

Dot 3: After Bush moved into the Oval Office one month later, the first thing he did was take the bounty off Osama bin Laden's head.

Dot 4: During the Clinton Administration the CIA had Osama bin Laden in its sights, but the Royal Family of Dubai protected him.

Dot 5: Bush tried to allow this same Royal Family of Dubai to own American ports.

Dot 6: Bush was warned, early in his administration that "al Qaeda [was] determined to attack inside U. S." He ignored it, and told the staffer who brought it to his attention, "Okay, you've covered your ass. Now get out."

Dot 7: Al Qaeda operatives flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and would have done more damage in Washington but for the brave passengers of Flight 93, while Bush sat and read, "My Pet Goat," AFTER having been told the attacks were in progress.

Dot 8: A day or so after 9/11, when all air traffic was prohibited in the U. S., Bush allowed the bin Laden family to fly out of the U. S. without asking any of them for information about their relative Osama.

Dot 9: Bush declared, in the greatest speech of his presidency, that al Qaeda was the enemy and declared of Osama bin Laden that he was "wanted: dead or alive."

Dot 10: When American forces had Osama bin Laden surrounded at Tora Bora, he cut and ran to go invade Iraq. He used lies to justify a war against Osama bin Laden's mortal enemy, Saddam Hussein.

Dot 11: Repeatedly, in press conferences, Bush has admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but he refuses to stop linking the two in speeches by himself and his vice-president. Even now, he continually portrays the fight in Iraq as a fight against al Qaeda.

Dot 12: Al Qaeda in Iraq is NOT Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda, and even so it comprises at most 5% of the opposition the American troops are facing in Iraq.

Dot 13: Al Qaeda is a creature of and supported by the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia.

Dot 14: Bush is close to the Saudi Royal Family, and was photographed walking through the Rose Garden holding hands with the prince who is the head of the Saudi Royal Family, the major factor in support of al Qaeda and the hateful Wahabi movement that feeds it.

Dot 15: Osama bin Laden is still making videos taunting us, and Bush brushes them off.

I don't like the pattern here. What do you see?

Continuing what I started Yesterday

2007-09-19T09:29:00.000-04:00

I just learned today that Greg Anrig, Jr. has a new book out: “Why Right Wing Ideas Keep Failing.”

He says when the ideas put forth by Grover Norquist and Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch ( and they complain about George Soros, for cryin' out loud) are actually put into practice the result is a disaster for everyone. Prime example: New Orleans (heckuva job).

Another example: Colorado. Some years ago the state passed the so-called, "Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). The result: the roads in Colorado are crumbling, many lost productive man-hours waiting at the underfunded DMV, many wasted productive man-hours spend in needless traffic jams because the state can't afford to maintain, much less widen or build new, roads. The right-wing "think" tanks propose more political hiring so that one's ideological visions can be realized (if you're George W; didn't propose it for Bill C). Result: A competent FEMA that was so outstanding during Florida hurricanes before did such an unspeakably lousy job in NOLA. Check out TPM Cafe for the book club discussion of it.

Good idea for a Christmas gift. Only problem is, those who would benefit most from reading it are the most likely to reject it out of hand without reading it.

Ah, well, maybe some day I can read it.

So many books, so little time.

Conservatives' track record

2007-09-18T13:44:00.001-04:00

A fellow commenter at Glenn Greenwald's blog in Salon, Jeff Smith has a page posted titled "Why Conservatives are Always Wrong." (conservativesarealwayswrong.googlepages.com)

He makes some really good arguments. In fact, I can't find any fallacies in his arguments. I look on it as an evangelical Christian, of course, but I tend to agree with much of what he says. I want to share a sample of the history of Conservatism from his post:

Æ In the 16^th century, medical pioneers set out to chart the workings of the human body. Where the old doctrines relied on sacred symbols and mystical “spirits” and “humours,” the new science mapped internal organs, watched blood circulate and began to uncover the physical causes of disease. These first steps toward modern medicine filled conservatives with horror, and they tried hard to bring the whole enterprise to a stop. They opposed the use of autopsies to learn how the body worked. They insisted that disease was caused by Satan’s influence, epidemics by collective sin, and mental illness by demonic possession. And even as the scientific facts were becoming known, later conservatives kept up the fight against further new developments, like vaccines and anesthetics – which, they said, violated “nature” and usurped God’s right to decide who should suffer and die.

Æ In the 17^th century, while Galileo was fighting his battles, other debates were getting underway over the sources of government power – whether it lay within families and was rightly conferred by birth, or whether it rose from the people and should rest on the consent of the governed. Against proposals for electing rulers and other novel “democratical” ideas, conservative opinion came down firmly on the side of aristocratic privilege and the so-called divine right of kings.

Æ In the 18^th century, movements developed with the aim of reforming the system of criminal justice. Liberal thinkers argued for speedy and public trials, rejected the “cruel and unusual” in favor of penalties that fit the crimes, and supported modest efforts to see that even prisoners were treated humanely. Why did these arguments need to be made? Because at a time when dozens of minor offenses carried the death sentence, when political and religious dissent was criminalized and when legal penalties included literally cutting people to bits, conservatives thought the laws were, if anything, too soft.

Æ In the 19^th century, women were still unable to vote, own property or practice professions. When reformers called for giving them these rights, conservatives invoked both nature and the Bible to prove that women were created subservient to men, belonged in the home, and didn’t need to participate in public decision-making because men knew their interests better than women themselves did.

Æ In the 20^th century, another movement declared that people should be treated equally regardless of race. Progressive reformers like Martin Luther King Jr. called on America to live up to its founding promise, and to honor Scripture’s true meaning, by guaranteeing civil rights for all. Conservatives – including some still alive today – replied that King was distorting both the Constitution, which left it up to each state to decide how racist to be, and the Bible, which licensed white supremacy based on some tale of an ancient curse. Defiantly standing in the schoolhouse door (literally and figuratively), conservatives darkly warned that “unnatural” mixing of the races would lead to all manner of social evils.

He does point out, however, that twice in history conservatives have provided a needed balance to liberal excesses: during the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution and in opposing Communism. Both went over the line and led many liberal and progressive minds astray.

But on the whole, history sides with the liberals.

Good work, Jeff.

On "Supporting the Troops"

2007-09-11T13:41:00.001-04:00

Yellow ribbons abound since 9/11 six years ago. Hypocritically, they are all over big, gas-guzzling SUV's without which there would be no need for troops in Iraq, as if that were really effective in keeping gas prices down. Remember that before we cut and ran when we had Osama surrounded so that we could go attack Saddam, Gas was $1.60 a gallon.

"Support the Troops!" they yell. Yet anyone who expresses doubts about the stupid policies that have put the troops in harm's way is accused of "not supporting the troops." Those who want to bring the troops to safety are "not supporting the troops." Those who want to uphold the Constitution are accused of "not supporting the troops." Well, you know the drill.

I submit to you that sending troops into battle without adequate armor is not supporting the troops. Sending the troops into battle without adequate rest is not supporting the troops. Giving no-bid contracts to KBR/Halliburton to feed the troops out-dated food is not supporting the troops.

I submit to you that forcing injured troops back into battle without adequate recuperation is not supporting the troops

We are accused of being hypocritical for saying we support the troops but oppose the war that has killed 3700 of them. They say more and more and more have to die so that we won't "fail" in Iraq, even though there is no definition given for what victory would actually be, as Ambassador Crocker admitted to Congress yesterday.

I submit to you that it is hypocritical to say you support the troops, yet support sending them to face death and dismemberment for no good cause (no, Iraq is not part of the "war on terrorism." It is feeding al Qaeda and making America and the rest of the world less safe). You are not supporting the troops when you blindly follow the would-be dictator that has fired every General whose military judgment disagrees with those of the chicken hawks who never served this country in uniform, and that includes the Commander-in-Chief, who went AWOL from the Air National Guard when drug testing started.

I say, support the troops by impeaching the Liar-in-Chief and his power behind the throne, Cheney.

Remembering 9/11

2007-09-10T19:42:00.000-04:00

The sixth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is this week, so it's a good time to look back over the history and look at how things developed before and since.

It goes back to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The Carter, Reagan, and Bush I Administrations supported the local fighters, the Mujahadeen, in their fight against the Russians. One of the Mujahadeen leaders was Osama bin Laden, whose brother was in the Carlyle Group with George W. Bush.

Once the Russians were gone, the freedom fighters' attention was turned toward Saddam Hussein, who was threatening Kuwait. Osama bin Laden went to the Saudi royal family asking for permission to take Saddam out. Instead, the Saudis brought in the Americans to get the Iraqis out of Kuwait. That was an abomination to bin Laden and his group, which he called, "the Base." In Arabic, that name is al Qaeda. Therefore, al Qaeda turned against America.

They coordinated simultaneous attacks on American embassies in Africa, and allies of theirs bombed the World Trade Center. The Clinton Administration hunted down the criminal bombers, arrested them, tried them in open court, convicted them, and they are now serving sentences. President Clinton put a bounty on Osama bin Laden's head, and the CIA almost had him in its sights, but the royal family of Dubai protected him. Meanwhile, Clinton's people also thwarted the Millennium Plot against the L. A. airport, attacks on the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and Saddam Hussein's plot against George H. W. Bush. All while leaving the Constitution intact.

In October, 2000, the U. S. S. Cole was attacked. It took until December that year to determine that al Qaeda was behind that attack. Of course, everyone's attention in December that year was focused on hanging chads in Florida. In January, when George W. Bush moved into the Oval Office, the first thing he did was remove the bounty from Osama bin Laden's head.

The World Trade Center remained a target of the terrorists, however, and in full knowledge of that Rudy Guliani had New York's emergency management headquarters moved there, against the advice of his emergency services coordinator.

In August, 2001, the Daily Briefing came to the White House titled, "al Qaeda Determined to Strike in U. S." Bush and co. ignored it.

Then a group of criminals, mostly from Saudi Arabia, flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and would have done more damage but for the brave passengers on Flight 93.
The next day or so, when all air traffic was grounded, the Bush Administration allowed the bin Laden family to fly out of the U. S., without asking them first if they knew anything about the whereabouts of their relative, Osama.

The Bush Administration's response to the attacks was to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban government that sheltered Osama bin Laden. Then, when they had Osama surrounded, they cut and ran so they could go over and attack Iraq, which, Bush has repeatedly stated in news conferences, had nothing to do with 9/11, even though they used 9/11 as a justification for taking out Osama's enemy, Saddam.

A high-ranking member of al Qaeda was in Iraq before America invaded, but the invasion prevented Saddam from his sworn task of hunting him down.

Now, we have overthrown Saddam, and a civil war has broken out among the three different groups that were cobbled together into a nation after WWI. Our presence as an occupying army has given them all a focus for their hostility. Plus, the Iraq war has been the best recruiting tool al Qaeda has ever had. Al Qaeda didn't have a presence in Iraq before the war, but they're there now.

Also, Bush has tried to turn U. S. ports over to the royal family of Dubai, the protectors of Osama bin Laden.

Now, according to the latest polls, 70% of Iraqis want us out of their country within the year. At the same time 70% of Americans want us to pull out within the year, and over 60% of American service personnel want us to withdraw from Iraq within the year. It seems the only people who want us to stay are the Iraqis the Americans are propping up in Iraq, and those over here who believe the Bush lies about Iraq being connected to 9/11.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan's opium crop now provides most of the world's heroin, and Osama bin Forgotten is still making videos taunting us. What we need to do is pull out of Iraq and strike al Qaeda. The Bush Administration should be held to account for letting Osama still be running free to taunt us.

Shame.

On "Success" in Iraq

2007-09-07T12:25:00.000-04:00

Next week, Gen. Petraeus will give Congress a report the White House has written saying that the "surge" is working wonderfully, and we need to stay in Iraq so that the next President will be the one recorded as "losing" there.

Gen. Petraeus has a history of being consistently wrong about Iraq, and he has a history of incompetence when it comes to running the war there. It was under his command that so many weapons went missing and wound up in the hands of those who were using them against Americans.

One thing that will by hyped is the lower level of "violence" in certain neighborhoods. Well, the reason the violence is down there is because the ethnic cleansing has been completed there. Plus, they don't count mass bombings as happened at that ethnic enclave last week as "sectarian violence." If you're shot in the back of the head, it's sectarian violence, but not if you're shot in the front.

And they will hype Anbar Province as proof the surge is working. Actually, it proves the opposite. The Sunnis in Anbar have taken over for themselves and we have withdrawn troops there, not "surged" them.

Trust the Bushevik liars to turn anything around to prove their point, even though it has nothing to do with reality.

Iraq and Vietnam

2007-08-23T09:35:00.000-04:00

Finally, Bush admits that Iraq is like Vietnam, only he misses the point of the analogy.

Because Vietnam was such a quagmire, they have been resisting the comparison, not wanting to admit that Iraq is a quagmire. But in front of the VFW, many of whom are Vietnam vets, Bush, who got out of Vietnam by leaping over 120 others to get into the Air National Guard and then went AWOL when they started drug testing, tried to get support for his Iraq fiasco by comparing leaving to his imagination of what happened after we left Vietnam.

Let's look at the parallels: Vietnam was started by lies the President told about American ships being attacked in the Tonkin Gulf.

Iraq was started by lies told by the President about Saddam Hussein being linked to the 9/11 attacks on America and the fictitious threat his WMD's posed. He cut and ran when he had Osama bin Laden surrounded to go start this unprovoked war on Iraq.

American troops went into Vietnam based on a resolution Congress passed authorizing force in retaliation of that specific attack.

American troops went into Iraq based on a resolution Congress passed authorizing force against Saddam Hussein if he didn't let the inspectors rid his country of WMD's.

In Vietnam we propped up a corrupt dictatorship which was the ruler of one side in a civil war.

In Iraq we are propping up an ineffective government which can't bring a settlement to its civil war.

In Vietnam American troops became demoralized by the lack of leadership and no clear definition of victory, only vague assurances of "light at the end of the tunnel" and distorted emphasis on a few pockets of seeming success.

In Iraq, according to an op-ed written by seven soldiers and NCO's, American troops are demoralized by a lack of leadership and no clear definition of victory, only vague assurances that things will soon get better and distorted emphasis on a few pockets of seeming success.

In Vietnam, there was no way to tell who was an ally and who was an enemy; someone who shined your shoes in your camp by day may be shooting at you at night.

In Iraq, there is no way to be sure who is an ally and who is an enemy; someone who you train as a policeman or Iraqi soldier today may be planting an IED against you tonight.

In Vietnam, troops were so frustrated that they took out their anger on civilians, and defined any dead "gook" as a dead Vietcong.

In Iraq, troops are so frustrated that they take out their anger on civilians, and perpetuate the torture at Abu Graib Prison that Saddam Hussein started.

In Vietnam, war profiteers from the oil companies and others secretly wanted the fighting to continue to improve their profits.

In Iraq, war profiteers are running the show, serving our troops outdated food, housing themselves in four-star hotels while our troops suffer in insufficient tents.

In Vietnam, the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong captured and tortured American troops.

In Iraq, the Americans are rounding up citizens who are sold to the Americans for a bounty and torturing them.

I asked in Vietnam, and I asked in Iraq: If what our enemies do is so horrible, why are we trying so hard to emulate them?

Good place to conclude, but something else Bush said need refuting:

He said Vietnam gave us phrases such as "boat people" and "killing fields."

I would also remind him that Vietnam gave us "We had to destroy the village in order to save it," and "fragging."

Also, the killing fields came about in Cambodia, when the Americans didn't support Prince Sihanouk and the Communist regime of Pol Pot took over. And it was the Vietnamese who won the Vietnam war that overthrew the Pol Pot regime and stopped the Cambodian killing.

And while we're at it:

All the predictions the Bushites and their disciples in the corporate-owned media made turned out to be wrong, just as the predictions about Vietnam proved false.

Nixon promised that as the Vietnamese took over their own fighting the Americans could withdraw, just as Bush has said repeatedly: "

They predicted that if Vietnam fell to the Communists, so would Laos, Thailand, etc., etc. till they came to America's shores. Well, it didn't happen. Vietnam became a trading partner of the U. S. and China became our largest creditor. Cambodia fell before we left Vietnam, and the Communist Government of Vietnam straightened them out.

They predicted that American troops would be greeted with flowers and hailed as liberators and that democracy would flourish there and spread to the region. Didn't happen.

They predicted that it would be over soon and wouldn't cost more than $50 billion. HAH!

They predicted that Iraq's oil revenues would pay for the war. Unh uh.

There are a lot more parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, but I think I've made my point.

Continuing what I started Yesterday

2007-08-17T11:27:00.000-04:00

It is government's job to protect us: Protect us from military threats from abroad, from criminal acts from within (and, in the case of terrorism, from within and without, e.g. 9/11), and from those who would threaten our rights as Americans, such as the Bush Administration.

Among the rights we have as Americans is the peaceful enjoyment of our homes and our public lands. Such a threat is materializing now on Wilson Creek in my county here. A developer wants to put up a gated community which will destroy the view for the rest of us. We have the right to enjoy our wilderness areas without our view being spoiled by a bunch of ticky-tacky houses or McMansions, either one. Yet our County Commissioners are likely to be in sympathy with the developer, and once the opportunity comes to vote them out of office the damage will have been done. And once the election comes, who will run against them but more thralls to the moneyed interests?

Ever since the Reagan Administration, those who control the terms of our national debate have painted *ALL* politicians as corrupt, sub-human, etc. so that no decent person is willing to run for office lest he have his every mistake plastered all over the media.

How long will it take to change a country's mind-set?

Ramblin' Thoughts

2007-08-16T08:16:00.000-04:00

What is your idea of the function of government?

For me, as for Thomas Jefferson, it is to ensure I can exercise my rights as a citizen.

For example, if I want to operate a business, it is government's role to ensure that I am able to compete fairly, without being forced out of business by behemoths like Wal-Mart; if I want to operate a farm, I won't be forced into poverty by agri-monsters like ADM. Also, since I work for someone else's profit, if I want to join with my fellow workers to form a union so we can be treated more fairly by our bosses, then the government is the only advocate I have that is strong enough to ensure that I can.

I can't prosecute those who pollute my air and water for trespassing. My government has to do it for me.

I am part owner of the national parks, national forests, and other public lands. I have to rely on the government to manage them so that people like me can have the full benefit and enjoyment of these properties.

I believe we are all in this life together, the way the Old Testament prophets from Amos to Zechariah said, and whose teachings were brought to fulfillment by John the Baptist and Jesus Christ. Therefore, we have a government to make sure we are all able to take care of each other.

For other things, government has no business interfering: If I want to write a peaceable letter or e-mail to someone I know, government has no right to snoop into what I'm saying. Government has no say-so in who shares my bed, when, or what goes on there, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult and not under any kind of coercion.

On the other hand, government does have an obligation to help protect our children from those who would exploit them for sexual or economic reasons. This includes ensuring monogamous marriages so that children can have the best advantages of a two-parent household.

Also, government has an obligation to see that my wife, or other person whom I designate, has every right to my person and estate, the right to visit me in the hospital or wherever else I may be, and the right to make decisions for me when I am unable to take care of myself.

I think it would be best if government got out of the marriage business. If two people want to share their lives, then they can get a certificate from the government affirming that, and if they want to dissolve that partnership later, then the courts can grant them a divorce. But if they want to call it a marriage, then leave that up to the churches, or whatever faith system the people involved may share. Churches should be free to recognize whatever marriages they choose, and not be obligated to recognize marriages that are not in accordance with the churches' creeds.

Ronald Reagan came to the White House proclaiming that "big government" was the enemy of the people rather than its advocate, so ever since then, government has stepped aside while big corporations have exploited the people. This is a violation of the Constitutional duties of the government, and it's time we got things back into the proper balance.

On the DLC

2007-08-14T13:31:00.001-04:00

Harold Ford should know better.

He is the head of the Democratic Leadership Council, the "centrist" group that has been running the Democratic Party since at least 1988, and consistently losing elections along the way.

Their philosophy is to go after the "undecideds" in the "center." They take their base for granted while trying to appeal to the (supposed) Republican leanings of the center voters. Thus, we get Bill Clinton confronting Sistah Souljah, and the general tone of the 2004 campaign, "Yeah, me too, but I'd do it better."

The thing is, this doesn't work,

These tactics don't encourage black and Latino voters to come out. Voters like me will vote for whoever we can to come closer to the change we want, but less motivated--or more idealistic--voters won't bother.

Meanwhile, the Lee Atwater approach, continued by the unlamented Karl Rove, was to appeal to the base and paint the other side as the extremists.

The DLC response is to try to argue the situation on the Republican terms. But the Republican tactics are to rely on bumper-sticker slogans to set the terms of the debate. Thus we get such groaners as "death tax," "socialized medicine," "welfare cheats," etc.

The puny DLC approach is no match for that, so as a result, the Democrats LOST the 1988 election for the White House and control of the Congress in 1994. They won the 1991 and 1996 presidential elections (by a plurality only) by nothing more than the strength of Bill Clinton's personality. Meanwhile they FAILED to win back the Congress in 1998, 2000, and 2004, and FAILED to win enough votes in 2000 and 2004 to overcome the vote fraud, cheating, and outright theft of the elections by the Bush people.

Meanwhile, the corporate-owned media and their pampered, millionaire anchor people won't raise any fuss about the situation, because the status quo leaves them sitting pretty.

And the DLC approach is to keep them sitting pretty, while losing elections and claiming theirs is the only way to win.

Why So Many Perverted Republicans?

2007-07-20T11:05:00.000-04:00

What is it about the "Family Values" party that brings out so many hypocrites? A Republican official from Raleigh earlier this week, then Rep. Vitter from Louisiana, and just this morning we hear about Coy Privette, head of North Carolina's Christian Action League. This was after the Ted Haggard scandal and all the rest.

It used to be said that Democratic scandals were about sex and Republican scandals were about money. But now the Republicans are the ones caught with the weenie in the cookie (jar?).

Research has shown that those who make the most noise about homosexuality are the ones least secure in their own sexuality. I guess the same thing goes for other sexual proclivities. I guess we need to exercise forgiveness, as the Bible tells us, but it is hard when these have been the most unforgiving toward others.

So is there something about the Catholic priesthood and the Republican Party that attracts perverts? Or do these institutions give people a way of covering for and denying to themselves the true nature that resides in their hearts? A nature that they don't want to admit, even to themselves?

I pray for all of them.

The System Works

2007-07-07T12:05:00.001-04:00

Treating terrorist acts like the crimes they are is the most effective way of dealing with them, as was demonstrated in England this past week.

Terrorists tried to blow up car bombs in England, and none of the intrusive street cameras or other national snooping had anything to do with it. People on the street saw smoke coming from the cars and alerted police. They tracked down the criminals and arrested them, and another group of incompetent terrorist wanna-bes is in gaol.

The same thing happened during the Clinton Administration in the U. S. Those who blew up the truck under the World Trade Center were hunted down, arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced without having to resort to any unconstitutional Patriot Act, warrantless snooping, or anything else. Criminal actions were prosecuted by the criminal justice system, and it worked.

Meanwhile, the Clinton Administration stopped the attempt by Saddam Hussein to assassinate George H. W. Bush, the terrorist attempts on the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and LAX and others, all without shredding the Constitution the way the Bush/Rove Administration have. The Clinton Administration was more successful, too.

Meanwhile, the Bush/Rove Administration took military action against the criminal element that had 15 Saudis and four others fly--or attempt to fly--planes into buildings on 9/11/01 and it has been a miserable failure. Terrorist attacks have increased exponentially around the world.

Also, when the had the head of al Qaeda--Osama bin Bush's Friend--surrounded in Afghanistan, they cut and ran to go off and start a war with Iraq, which, as Bush has admitted more than once, had nothing to do with 9/11. Now, his Iraq War is the greatest recruiting tool al Qaeda has ever had.

The system works, if anyone has sense enough to use it.

On Protest

2007-07-03T13:27:00.000-04:00

In 1968 I was hovering over the peace movement. I wasn't happy about the Vietnam War, but I thought as a patriotic American I should support the Johnson Administration for which I had campaigned so hard four years before. When a young graduate student came into the music library where I worked wearing a "McCarthy" button, that sealed it for me. Her fiance was a Lieutenant in Vietnam, so if she could support the anti-war candidate, that gave me permission, in my own mind. Thus I became a vociferous opponent of the war, writing letters to the editor, marching in the streets, attending rallies, etc.

Those days are behind me, even though we are in the midst of a mess at least as bad as Vietnam. Still I have my outlets for protest. I have this blog, and I have the ability to write letters to the editor.

There are two proposals I would like to add. First, how can we get a nationwide rally of chiropractors to descend on Washington to help the Democratic leadership find its backbone? If anybody has any ideas about that, please let me know.

Second, I intend to do this, and I would like to invite as many others as possible to join me: to send to the Supreme Court justices, the President and Vice-President, and our own Senators and Congressmen copies of the Constitution, with a note attached: "Here's something you seem to have lost sight of. You need to read this and remember what you swore to uphold." (or words to that effect)

Anybody got any other ideas?

On Impeachment

2007-06-29T09:06:00.000-04:00

The polling organizations refuse to ask Americans whether they favor impeaching Bush and Cheney. Still, the groundswell is there. Buzzflash had a contest for the Top Ten Reasons to Impeach Dick Cheney.

The winner was B. Dunn.

Herewith the Top Ten Reasons to Impeach Dick Cheney.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

B Dunn submitted the Amendments in reverse, which might be a good way to read them to understand the gravity of the Bush/Cheney betrayal of our Bill of Rights.

On Health Care

2007-06-26T13:42:00.000-04:00

I seem to have posted on this before, but now SICKO, a Michael Moore film, is going to premiere this weekend, and it's on the national radar again. If the Democrats in Congress can find their spine, we might have a decent national debate.

Maybe we need to organize a march on Washington by Chiropractors.

Anyway, We will hear (have started hearing) a lot about long waiting lists in single-payer countries, etc. BUT you won't hear the fact that in France, Canada, and England, they have more doctors per thousand population than in America, that a poll in England showed that 98% of the population and 95% of the doctors prefer their system to ours, and that they have lower mortality rates at every age than we do. The U. S. has the 28th. longest life span in the world.

Yet our system is the most expensive and the least efficient.

I heard on the radio a while ago that a large number of English people have private supplemental insurance. Fine. Here, we have "medigap" insurance, to close the gap between what Medicare pays and what the desired care costs. Yet Medicare is the best, most efficient health care system in the country. We have heard a proposal put forth many times to eliminate the age restriction and have Medicare available to everyone in the country. I would certainly sign up, and I'd probably get supplemental insurance to go with it.

With a system like that in place we wouldn't have corporate bean counters telling us that we can't have certain medicines or certain procedures that we need to save our lives and overruling the opinions of doctors. We feared bureaucrats, but we got the same people in charge, just with different job titles. Same job, different employer.

So what is so great about the system we have that leaves over 45 million people with no health coverage, that causes American manufacturers to operate at a disadvantage because overseas competitors don't have to cover employees' insurance premiums, that causes people to go to Canada for their prescription medicines because they can't afford American prices, that encourages drug manufacturers to stop looking for new treatments and just tweak old drugs to make more money (thus we have ten meds for one ailment, and we have Nexxium, which is just repackaged Prilosec)?

I say it's time to discuss a new way of looking at the situation, and we might start by looking at EVERY OTHER CIVILIZED NATION IN THE WORLD, and see what they know that we don't. Of course, no system devised by human beings is perfect. Thus, we have the opportunity to see what weaknesses there are in other systems and try to do something better.

Still almost anything would be better than the clusterf*** we have now.

More on immigration

2007-06-22T12:29:00.000-04:00

I read an article on-line the other day, and I unfortunately didn't bookmark it. It was about how NAFTA caused the influx of illegal immigrants looking for work.

Most of the immigrants were small farmers in Mexico, and their crop was corn (tortillas, don't you know?). Since NAFTA, big, government-subsidized factory farms in the U. S. have been supplying most Mexicans their corn, at a higher price now, so these people are forced off their land. Where they gonna go? Up here, where there's work.

Second thing: In 1986 they passed an immigration "reform" law that gave amnesty to aliens who were here and legislated prosecution for employers who hired illegals. Well, they granted the amnesty, but when it came to cracking down on their corporate masters who pay for their re-election campaigns? Lip service.

In fact, enforcement has dropped drastically in the last six years. Guess why?

Three guesses, and the first two don't count.

The effect, of course, is to suppress middle-class and working-class wages. This is exacerbated by the fiction that there aren't enough high-tech, computer graduates to fill all the high-tech jobs, so they need more H1-B visas for workers from India, etc. The only reason they want more workers from India is that they won't have to pay as much as they pay American workers.

This is in direct violation of everything the Bible teaches. And aren't these supposed to be the evangelical Christians' favorite candidates?

I'll quit before I ramble too much.

Nanny State vs. Bully State

2007-06-18T10:03:00.000-04:00

Father's Day brought thoughts to my mind about the image of government as parent.

For years (decades?) Republicans (who are called "conservatives") have been decrying the policies of the Democrats (who are called "liberals"), deriding them as favoring a "nanny state," wiping the noses (and other places which are wiped) of people too lazy to shift for themselves.

On the other hand, they project a "father state": strong on defense, and standing up for personal responsibility.

Well, both descriptions are faulty, and both are inadequate. True, there are faults with both, but there is some value to both ideas.

First, the Democratic programs produced more of a Heather Badcock state. Heather Badcock was the murder victim in Agatha Christie's The Mirror Crack'd. When Miss Marple had a fall on the street, Heather Badcock came out and comforted her, took her into her house, and made her tea and cheerfully did other things for Miss Marple, even though those things were not altogether what Miss Marple wanted or needed. How many of you have been married to people like that?

Similarly, some of the social reforms of the past century had the best of motives, but unintended consequences. "Urban renewal" turned out to be little more than poor people removal; housing projects were merely warehouses for unwanted people, and Aid for Families with Dependent Children actually encouraged women to stay home and have children out of wedlock. Good intentions, but not carried out well, partly because of Republican opposition. A Heather Badcock state.

On the other hand, the Republican administration of the past six and a half years has been more of a "bully state" than a "daddy state."

A bully father sits around drinking beer while his wife struggles and the children are neglected. The Bush Administration with a compliant Congress have neglected the needs of America's poorest children, and poverty and hunger rates have risen to a point higher than they were in 1967 when the Johnson Administration tried to do something about the problem.

A bully father spends money on his buddies and his pleasures while his wife and children do without. Bush lied us into an unprovoked war in Iraq, and Cheney's Halliburton buddies and Bush's Saudi masters have made obscene profits off the slaughter of the bravest young Americans.

A bully father refuses to listen to his children cry. Instead he tells them to "suck it up" or "walk it off," or even calls them "sissies." The American people have been told to shut up and let Bush "protect" us from the big, bad terrorists, even while he is making life easier for those same terrorists. Anyone who disagrees is being "disloyal" or "not supporting the troops," or even "supporting the terrorists."

A bully father convinces his victims in his family that they can't make it without him. The Bushites have told us repeatedly that the Democrats are "soft on defense" and that only Bush and Co. can protect us.

I could go on, and I probably will. I'm thinking about turning these thoughts into a book. But meanwhile, what we need is a Daddy state.

A good Daddy is equally able to change a diaper or a tire. A good Daddy can help his children with their homework, and make sure they have a safe home. A good Daddy can teach his children how to use a gun safely, and help wipe away their tears. A good Daddy loves his wife and listens to his children. A good Daddy helps his children achieve all they can amount to.

We need a Daddy state. One that keeps us both safe and prosperous.

Can any declared candidate come close to that?

On Celebrity Worship

2007-06-13T13:36:00.000-04:00

All over the media are celebrations of the tenth anniversary of the death of Diana Spencer who was the Princess of Wales before she divorced Prince Charles.

Why the hagiography of someone who is known for being glamorous? Many other people do much more for the benefit of humanity than Diana ever did, yet get only a small fraction of the publicity she got, if any at all.

The media is so full of the comings and goings of Lindsey Lohan and Paris Hilton that there is scarcely any room left for important things like the loss of our democracy at home and our respect abroad.

Maybe that's the idea.

Anyway, I'm just sick of it all. I remember on the Saturday after her death, NPR had a tribute to her that took up the first 20 minutes of the Weekend Edition Saturday program. I was so disgusted that I wrote them something like this: "The fuss you made over Princess Diana dying was so intense, you would thing that Mother Teresa had died. Oh, wait. Mother Teresa did die, didn't she? But you wouldn't know it listening to the first twenty minutes of your news coverage, which was all Diana."

I'm still disgusted, but I know there's nothing I can do about it, except ignore it.

I remember hearing about Diogenes sunning himself outside the hogshead barrel he called home. Alexander the Great rode up, having heard of this philosopher, and said, "I'm Alexander. Is there anything I can do for you?"

To which Diogenes replied, "Yes, you can get out of my sun."

Diogenes is my hero.

Three Questions

2007-05-23T06:21:00.000-04:00

Three questions I have not been able to find the answer to, no matter who I called (Cecil Adams, Glad You Asked, etc.):

First: Is there another species on Earth in which two females will fight over a male?
Too many bar fights, etc. I don't like to get near two women fighting.

Second: I know that men and women vary equally in heights. I just wonder if my observation is true, that women's heights are more spread out along the range while men's heights tend to cluster around the norm. I have noticed more instances of Allison Janney and Kristen Chinoweth than I have of Shaquille O'Neal and Muggsy Bogues. Do the average group of women vary in tallness more than the average group of men do?

Third: What universe do professors at Business Schools inhabit? They teach that companies can increase sales by throwing thousands of customers out of work, that they can attract more customers by cutting back on customer service, and that you don't have to show loyalty to your workers to get them to show loyalty to your company. I mean, what have they been smoking?

Back to serious stuff later, but I am curious about these.

On Communication

2007-05-16T07:06:00.000-04:00

Actual conversation: The other day it was storming furiously outside the store. I stepped around the corner and looked out the doors at the rain coming down. I said to a fellow employee, "I'm sure glad I remembered to close my sun roof."

She said, "You left your sun roof open?"

I said, "No. I said I'm glad I closed it."

A customer came up: "You left your sun roof open?"

I said, "No, I'm giving thanks that I remembered to close it."

Another customer came up: "You left your sun roof open?"

"No. I said I'm glad I closed it."

It seems to me that we don't know how to listen to each other. I remarked to my wife last night that no one in my life, except her, has really listened to me.

I believe that if we are to make any progress as a society, we need to start really listening to each other. It's not easy. We want to push our point across, so we just wait for an opportunity to put our two cents' worth in rather than listening to what the other person has to say.

Therefore, we have name-calling instead of dialogue: "Liberal!" "Right-Wing!" "Communist!" "Wing Nut!"

It's all a shortcut past the thought process. Rather than engaging each other and LISTENING to what we each have to say, we slap labels on people and/or ideas and dismiss them out of hand.

But guess what? You might learn something if you just listen.

I promise I will listen to you if you promise to do the same for me.

It's got to start somewhere. Why not us?

On Quality

2007-05-11T14:04:00.000-04:00

When Lee Iacocca was doing the ads for Chrysler Corporation, of which he was CEO, he used to talk about the "American tradition of quality." The only thing is, there is no such tradition.

The quality craftsmen stayed in Europe.

Those who came over here were the losers and the dreamers. Practical people don't venture out into unexplored territory. People who are doing well at their craft don't leave it all behind to strike out into something new.

Still, over the generations, the descendants of those who settled in this region of North Carolina learned how to turn out some pretty good products, especially furniture.

Admittedly, the reason furniture manufacturing came here was the same reason textile manufacturing came: cheap labor. We were the China of the late 19th. and early 20th. Centuries.

BUT: We learned to make good stuff.

The furniture they made here was good enough that the families were proud to put their names on it: Broyhill, Kincaid, Bernhardt. People felt good enough about it to put the names of their towns on it: Thomasville, Drexel, Lexington.

But, times change. Now, the companies have been bought out, merged, etc. The children of the furniture families didn't want to be bothered to run the companies the way their parents and grandparents had, so they sold out. Major conglomerates own the companies now, companies such as FBI: Furniture Brands International. And these conglomerates are run, not by furniture manufacturers but by Business School graduates.

You know, the people who learn you can increase sales by throwing thousands of your customers out of work; that you can get more customers by cutting back on customer service.

Therefore, customer service is out-sourced to India, to people who know nothing about the manufacturing process and barely understand English.

And manufacturing is out-sourced to China, where quality is low on the priority list.

Meanwhile, the local manufacturing plants are either shuttered or turned into distribution warehouses.

One of the local plants attaches legs to tabletops brought in from China. Half--HALF!--of the tabletops brought in from China are useless because the quality is so poor. Yet it is still cheaper to throw out half of them than to have local people from Caldwell County build them right the first time, as they have done for decades--generations. And cheaper is what the bean-counters who run the companies are after.

As I said, there is not American tradition of quality. America was settled by the losers and the dreamers. And the losers have gravitated to management.

On Immigration

2007-05-08T12:26:00.000-04:00

I have not posted much about immigration, because I have so many mixed feelings about it.

Of course we know we of European ancestry trace our heritage to those who came here seeking a new and better life, just as the current immigrants from Central and South America are doing now. Those whose ancestors came through Ellis Island (and other such gateways) brag about how their forbears came legally, obeying the laws, etc. Those whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower (and other such ships) came in conquest and didn't obey the laws. Of course, the aboriginal inhabitants whose ancestors came over on the land bridge didn't have immigration laws to enforce, nor the means for adequately enforcing them if they had existed. Those of African heritage, for the most part, are descended from people who did not come here willingly, but slavery was condoned by the laws at the time.

But we now live in the 21st. Century, and we European-Americans are the dominant ethnicity in this country. And our laws lay out certain standards by which a person may legally enter the country. The problem is that the corporate interests who fund the campaigns of those in governmental power have an economic interest in the cheapest labor possible. Labor is not "workers," nor even "the work force" any more. It is now "human resources." Workers are dehumanized in the modern world, so we are all so many interchangeable parts in the industrial machine.

Now, there are two ways in which companies try to minimize labor costs: First by relocating to places where labor costs are cheaper. Thus, they came south in the 19th. and 20th. Centuries, and more lately have moved production to places such as the Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, and, especially, China.

The second way they reduce labor costs is by bringing in immigrants who are willing to work harder for less money. Especially if they are illegal immigrants who they can pay less than the legal minimum wage. Thus, there is work for those willing to make the perilous journey to this country.

That added to the miserable Mexican economy with its corruption and lack of opportunity for the people there causes a massive migration of Mexican and other workers from that region seeking a new and better life for themselves and their families.

The backlash come from those of us who were already here having our way of life disrupted. I have to press "1" in order to do telephone business in English, which is the language most used in this country. I have to turn boxes around to see labels written in English. I have taken a few Spanish lessons, and my first wife had been a Spanish major in college. But I am resisting the necessity of becoming bilingual. If I learn another language I want it to be my choice, not forced on me by society changing around me.

Working in retail, I encounter language difficulties from Spanish-speaking customers, true. But I also encounter Hmong speakers and deaf customers. I expect in about ten years we'll start seeing Arabic-speaking customers if the Iraqi refugees are allowed into this country. If I were fluent in Spanish, Vietnamese, or American Sign language, I would be able to serve my customers better. In fact, it is customer service that causes signs to be printed in both English and Spanish. This is the reason I would wish to be bilingual. I just don't like it being forced on me.

Now, foreign language speakers are not that unusual in America. In Chicago, there are neighborhoods where you never hear a word spoken or see a word written in any language other than Polish. In Brighton Beach, New York the street signs are in Cyrillic. When I lived in New Mexico, I saw monolingual people getting by with either English or the Spanish of their Conquistador ancestors. So bilingualism isn't the main issue. The problem is that these other examples are in isolated enclaves. The American Southwest is the largest of these, but Spanish is an essential part of the culture there. Now, the whole country is being inundated with Mexican culture, and a lot of us are frustrated at the futility of fighting it.

Now, those in power see the profit in the current arrangement, so they keep Congress from passing effective enforcement laws. If there were no job market, illegal immigrants would have no reason to come here. So they have us fighting against our fellow victims of the system.

Instead of cracking down on major businesses and industries that employ illegal aliens, Congress passes a symbolic law to build a fence a third of the way along the border with Mexico. It's obvious how serious they are about this when you note that they appropriated only enough money to build a third of that. Big whoop.

So now I've laid out the problem, I think it's time for some solutions. We are not going to stem the tide with half-hearted measures like that symbolic fence. We are not going to change things by writing letters to the editor demanding new residents learn English. News flash: If they can't read English, they can't read your letter. We are not going to change things by refusing driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. And we are not going to solve the problem by any "guest worker" measures. That has been tried and didn't work.

Now, I will admit that I engage in symbolic gestures, too. I display my merchandise English side out, and I speak English to my customers. Of course, I may take a sign language course, since that is the way my mentally-handicapped daughter learned to speak. It taught her the concept of words.

The only thing that will make a difference is improving the conditions in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, Bangladesh, and China. We need to demand that the products we buy are products of fair trade, not what is now called "free trade," which is just corporate exploitation of people we can't see up close. We need to elect politicians with the courage to stand up to the corporations and demand living wages and better living conditions for all workers worldwide, so that the products we buy won't be tainted with the blood and misery of other workers and subsidized by our tax dollars, the way they are now.

On Health Care

2007-04-16T14:25:00.001-04:00

This country is in crisis, and no one but the general population knows it. Once again, the people are way out in front of the politicians and the press.

People are healthier, live longer, and have lower death rates at every age in countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, etc., etc. than they do in the USA, where we spend tons more money on health care. Besides, they have more doctors per capita than we do.

In fact, we have the most inefficient health care system, and the most expensive, which seems to go hand in hand. It is long past time for us to grow up and join the rest of the developed world and gain some sanity in the way we pay for the health care of our population. Insurance companies, as I have ranted about before, are destroying the country.

Juan Williams, then of NPR, noted that people rejected Hillary Clinton's health care plan a decade ago because they said you wouldn't get to see the doctor of your choice and some faceless bureaucrat in Washington would say what drugs you were allowed and how long you could stay in the hospital.

Instead, we got HMO's and other insurance plans so that you don't get to see the doctor of your choice and some faceless accountant in New Delhi says what drugs you are allowed and how long you can stay in the hospital.

Those brainwashed by the current situation in America talk about the long waits for surgery, etc. in those other countries, even though the research shows that waits there are no longer on average than they are here. Besides, if they spent the portion of their GNP on health care that we did, every single patient could have a solid gold wheelchair.

But I doubt much will change in the near future because of the campaign contributions by the big drug companies and insurance companies.

Just one more reason for public financing of campaigns.

Scattered Thoughts

2007-04-11T08:20:00.000-04:00

I haven't had a chance to post lately, so I want to bring more than one thought into this post.

The Presidential candidates the other day disclosed what kind of vehicles they drive. I noticed that John Edwards said they traded their SUV for a Ford Escape hybrid. Good on them. But they also have a Chrysler Pacifica for the room they need carrying the children around. I remember those days, when my son had to carry his whole arsenal of toys with him wherever we went.

But he also has a 1995 model pickup truck for when he needs to haul things. Now, that impresses me. This guy is, in my father's immortal words, "rich as three foot up a bull's butt," and he can afford any new truck he wants, but he chooses to hang onto one that's 12 years old. You got to trust someone like that. I like older pickup trucks, and I want to trust someone who hangs onto one, even if he doesn't need to. Full disclosure: My pickup truck is a 1993 model.

But, then there's George W. Bush, who drives a pickup around that mini-ranch of his. I don't know the vintage of that truck, but for him it's an affectation, anyway. Does he EVER do anything on that land of his besides clear brush?

Next thought: On the Don Imus controversy: I have never been much of a fan of Imus, and as the years have gone on, I have become less so. This latest outrage of his about the Rutger's women's basketball team is just more of the same stupidity we have come to expect from this blowhard who tries so hard to be hiply politically incorrect. As far as I'm concerned, he isn't worth listening to. Hasn't been for years.

Of course, I have tried listening to Howard Stern and have been about bored to death, too. Another one who could disappear from the airwaves without my missing him.

Having said that, now let me say that I disagree with those who advocate firing Imus over this insult. I believe in the First Amendment strongly enough that I believe there is room for Howard Stern's idiotic ramblings, Don Imus' desperate attempts to sound outrageous, and even the drug-addled bloviations of Rush Limbaugh. Though why anyone would take any of these clowns seriously is far beyond me. But I don't believe in censorship for political reasons.

I do believe there are things that children shouldn't listen to, which is why I tried to monitor what my kids listened to on their audio devices at home. But the immorality of the idiots listed above along with the Fox fools is not enough to justify taking them off the air.

Same goes for the Dixie Chicks. I deliberately bought their latest CD, even though I generally don't like that kind of music, just to support their freedom of speech.

Jokes you can't tell any more

2007-04-03T10:44:00.000-04:00

I once made a list of jokes you can't tell any more because of things that have changed. Right now, I need a diversion, so I'm going to share the two I remember.

A herd of bees was flying along, and they decided to stop for gas. They all flew into an Amoco station, except for one who flew over to an Esso station. That just goes to show you: There's always one Esso bee in every crowd.

You can't tell that any more since Esso changed its name to Exxon. Exxon bee doesn't have the same meaning.

The other: What do you call a dog with wings?

Linda McCartney.

You can't tell that one any more because Ms. Eastman-McCartney has passed on, and it would be in poor taste, anyway.

Then there are racist jokes, which I have no desire to pass along, anyway.

On Christian Action

2007-03-27T09:34:00.000-04:00

I just read Bill Moyers' s speech at Occidental College:

http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0322-24.htm

It started me thinking about my Christian faith, and what I'm doing about it. Last night in class we talked about Isaiah and Micah. Last week we talked about Amos and Hosea. One theme common to all Old Testament prophets is concern for the poor. Unanimously they condemn the rich for exploiting the poor, just as John the Baptist and Jesus Christ do in the New Testament. In fact, if you count the verses Jesus has more to say on this subject than any other.

But what do the "Christians" of today emphasize? The Christian Action League (or Association, or whatever they call themselves) concern themselves with keeping ABC stores out of communities, opposing liquor-by-the-drink, and other such matters of personal morality. What do they say about Wal-Mart exploiting their workers, forcing them to work off-the-clock, underpaying them and forcing the rest of us to cover their medical care through Medicaid?

Not one single word.

Locally, a Baptist church sold money for a new Wal-Mart that the majority of the community did not want built. The only stipulation was that this Wal-Mart would agree not to sell alcoholic beverages. Of course, the Walton family have enough high-powered lawyers to get them out of any such agreement in a very short time.

But why was a Christian church so unconcerned about something Jesus obviously cared so much about? Why is it all about personal behavior and policing other people's bedrooms while the weightier matters that the Old Testament and New Testament provide such a strong witness about are totally ignored?

Maybe it's all about the offering plate. They want the big donors in their pews to pay the salaries of the pastors and staff and to finance ambitious building programs. But where is the ministry? Where is the prophetic voice that this nation so desperately needs now?

Where are the prophets calling us out of our complacency and condemning the powers that be for selling out the poor, giving tax breaks to the rich, and increasing the burden of sustaining society for the rest of us while the fat cats get a free ride?

Where is the outrage?

I pledge to continue to be a lonely voice in the wilderness. I just wish I could hear some more voices locally to reinforce God's word in this world.

A wise man who I looked to as a mentor (Carlyle Marney) once told his distinctions of clergymen: There are the priests who bless the status quo and the prophets who call us out of our comfortable lives. Then there are the regular church pastors who try to balance the two roles in their careers.

Well, I am no longer a pastor, so I am free to be a prophet. Lord, show me where you want my voice heard, and give me the words to say to make a difference.