The Democrats Are Rockin'

Where were all these moderate voters two years ago when I was trying to point out the facts of what would happen if this country re-elected GWBush? I continue to be amazed at the density of the American populace when it comes to elections. At least this year, they seem to have come to their senses and elected the Democrats to try to clean up the mess that the Neo-cons have put us in. I am hopeful, although I am a Liberal, that the moderates in Congress will correct the errors continually made and promulgated by the far right wing of the Republican Party.

At this point in the nation's history, it is essential that this nation get back on a positive economic focus, that it establish a consistent international policy, that it get OUT of Iraq (although not the Middle East entirely), that it find a reasonable and justifiable national security strategy, and that it establish a sound health care policy for ALL Americans, especially uninsured children. Let us hope that this world becomes a smaller and more inviting place for all Americans now that the temper-tantrum-throwing children (aka Neo-cons) are out of the picture.

Oh, and by the way, a short note to President Bush: THANKS for getting rid of Rummy! It is about DAMN TIME!!

I just love these right-wing bloggers...

www.thewideawakes.org

Wow! What a great website. It is like this guy is reading my very thoughts. NOT! I just love the way right-wingers just regurgitate the party line. The more they put Liberals down, the better they feel about themselves. I am also always amazed by the black-white way they look at the world.

Of course, I must admit that I agree with some of what the blogger writes about Hezbollah and terrorism. Hezbollah has been much more of a threat to the U.S. for many years than, oh say, IRAQ! The ties between Hezbollah (Shiite) and Iran should also be an indication of what the U.S. still has to face in Iraq with the existing and growing Shiite militias (the best example of this is the Sadr militia outside of Baghdad).

The other thing that strikes me is the way the right cites liberal and progressive thinkers to support their positions. Take, for example, the blogger's citation of JFK's position on reduced taxes. What the right forgets is that JFK followed a Keynesian model of government economics -- when the economy is strong, the government should tax heavily to increase revenue; when the economy is weak, the government should cut taxes and spend the saved revenue to help invigorate the economy. The right chooses to cut taxes, which cuts revenues, and continue to spend at the same levels. The right forgets that CLINTON is also a Keynesian! Bush, et al, is NOT.

The other example I would note is the "Eternal Vigilance Society." They quote Jefferson, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance," but they fail to understand that Jefferson was referring to the importance of being vigilant in the preservation of civil liberties. Jefferson believed that above all else, the government's responsibility was in protecting and defending the Bill of Rights. Obviously something that this administration has trampled all over!

Quote of the Day

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true." --Sir Francis Bacon

Do we not all do this? When we read a book, or listen to a lecture, we appreciate those things that we feel most strongly represents the truth of the world. We first determine what we feel should be true, and then we determine what are beliefs are to be. Often, when we go to our sacred texts, we look for those passages that will support the things we already believe to be the truth. We tend to agree with others who already share our sense of truth because we feel they most closely reflect our own beliefs.

BUSHISM of the day

"Obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and therefore there needs to be more troops." --President Bush, NYTimes, 26 July 2006

Okay, Dubya. Here's my question for you: where was this sentiment in 2003 when most of the brass at the Pentagon, Tommy Franks, Colin Powell, and Richard Armitage were saying publicly that in order to invade and successfully control Iraq there would need to be AT LEAST 250, 000 troops on the ground? In fact, most of the experts were saying we would need closer to 350,000. Where were you when your SecDef was arguing the experts down to 125,000? Why did you not speak up then to say that we would need more troops to successfully control Iraq, to prevent looting, to keep the electrical grid up, and to stave off the inevitable insurgent attacks by disgruntled Sunni Baathists? Looks like another Bush flip-flop. Where were your big ideas when this country really needed them?

Stop letting Rumsfeld and Cheney run the country. Step up and fulfill your duties as President. Listen to those who have been there -- like your own FATHER! Like your former SecState, Colin Powell, whom you essentially ran off the job because Rumsfeld and Cheney told you to. You are a sad excuse for President of the United States.

An interesting little tidbit from 'News of the Weird' by Chuck Shepherd

General Motors executives, trying to explain the dwindling stock market value of the company, have repeatedly complained of oppressive pension benefits owed under United Auto Workers contracts; however, according to a June Wall Street Journal investigation, GM's fund for worker pensions is "overstuffed with cash," while its fund for executive pensions is $1.4 billion in the red and getting worse. [Reuters, 6-22-06] [Wall Street Journal, 6-23-06]

Under the subheading 'Chutzpah!', Mr. Shepherd placed the above quotation. My reactions to this short paragraph are two-fold. First, does this really qualify as news of the weird? And, second, does this really surprise anybody who really understands how modern corporate economic policy works in this country today?


Should we classify information like this as weird news, or should this little blurb actually go on the front page of the newspaper? I find it ironic that the modern corporate world wants to blame their troubles on the working class, who earn 1/300 of the average CEO salary, while ignoring the complicity of Boards in escalating CEO salaries to an unmanageable level. Haven't we been hearing about this escalating problem for several years now? Shouldn't one of these corporate boards at some point ask itself why a high-profile CEO (who is not responsible for producing any of the corporation's goods or services) make an average salary that is 300 times the salary of the average worker (who IS responsible for producing the corporation's goods and services)?

The Republican party wants to argue that Americans as a whole have become dependent on the entitlement programs provided by the federal government. When liberals argue, however, that corporate America has become dependent on the government largesse for tax breaks, institutionalized subsidies, and other forms of corporate welfare we are derided for failing to understand the importance of propping up these huge salaries for CEOs.

Perhaps it is time for corporate America to police its own actions in paying out these huge sums of money to individuals who, with a few exceptions, have largely failed to uphold their promises of fat profits and smaller production costs. When a baseball team signs a free agent for a large sum of money, they generally expect that player to continue to be successful on the field. It seems that corporate boards, however, pay large sums of money to CEOs who have not previously performed up to expectations. What has so greatly influenced these boards to fail in their feduciary duty to the company, and to the American ideal of SUCCESS bringing great rewards?

Thoughts On The Republican Dream: A Poem

your american dream?

ten thousand dead
people unfed

mothers crying
children dying

save the unborn
forget the new born

OH, and keep those gays from getting married

HATE -- BIGOTRY -- CLASS WARFARE

we gotta get rich
i love that coulter bitch

morality only has two issues
just give those poor folks a box of tissues

why can't everyone be like me
living off of daddy's money

i don't really have to work
but watch me fuck these minimum-wage clerks

i want my aristocracy
why don't we try theocracy?

if you idiots would just listen to me
the whole world would be more free

your american dream?

Paranoia

Do you think it is crazy for me to think the government is eavesdropping on my phone calls? Every time I pick up my phone to make a call, before I hear a dial tone, I hear a double click. It reminds me of the sound my old analog answering machine would make as it began to record. I know what you are thinking, "Why in god's name would the government eavesdrop on me?" THAT is an excellent question. After all, why would the government eavesdrop on any citizen of the United States?

Because as long as we allow this administration to erode our civil liberties, the government can apparently do any damn thing it likes.

Courage? Oh, COME ON!

I am so freaking tired of hearing how courageous Dubya was last week because he spent five hours in Baghdad. Give me a break! I heard an interview with a Marine in Ramadi who said (and I paraphrase): You know, when an IED goes off in Baghdad, it is front page news. It makes all of the television news programs. Here in Ramadi, we deal with seven IEDs every day. Does the media report those? When we take out forty insurgents, does that make the front page? NO. This is the reality of Iraq right now.

We didn't see pictures of Dubya travelling around Iraq, did we? Hell, we didn't even see him travelling around Baghdad. He arrived in secret, stayed five hours, and left in secret. Yeah, that's courage!

Courage is knowing that you will be dealing with seven IEDs every day, but knowing that you have to perform your duty any way. Courage is driving convoys around Iraq even though you know you have a giant bull's eye painted on your door. Let's talk about REAL courage from now on.

Illegal Immigration

In thinking about the concerns with illegal immigration, I have to ask myself, "What is all the bother about?" I understand that taxpayers would rather not be paying for illegals to have public services provided for them; however, it is also my understanding that illegals have paid a substantial amount of taxes themselves. One figure that I saw indicated as much as $10 billion paid to states in taxes by illegal immigrants. Are the rest of us really 'supporting' illegals, or are they paying their fair share as well.

Many arguments center around the necessity of illegals to provide labor that others of us are not willing to take on. Should we really expect people to risk their lives to enter this country so that we can have the basest forms of labor provided without concern? Of course, the opposing argument is that if the federal government would raise the minimum wage (which has not been raised in nearly TEN years), then we would not have to rely on illegals to fill labor jobs. If the wages were better, there would be greater competition for the work. Republicans, who are leading the battle to send illegals home and to keep them out of the country, are split on the need for illegals to enter the country. If illegals can provide cheap labor for business, then why should the minimum wage be raised?

The President has proposed a guest worker program, but as Fareed Zacharia points out in this weeks' Newsweek, similar programs have not worked in Europe (in particular Germany) because the 'guest workers' have no promise of eventual citizenship in the European countries for which they have left their families in order to work. The United States should expect nothing more of any guest worker program here. Why should people leave their families to make a home in another country where they struggle to learn the language without the promise of someday becoming a citizen of that country and having the opportunity to bring their families here to join them. We must give everyone who comes to this country to work an equal opportunity to achieve citizenship, freedom, and equal consideration for services.

But it all comes back to the notion, "What is the big concern all of a sudden?" Give Mexicans the same rights as Canadians -- free passage to and from Mexico to work or live. Treat law-abiding visitors with respect and appreciation for the work they provide this nation, and give them the freedom to chose a life of freedom, liberty, honor, and wealth here in the United States.

Freakonomics

If you haven't picked up this book by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, please check it out. Levitt is an Economist at U of Chicago, but he is like no Economist you have ever encountered. A recurring theme of the book is that 'morality is what we ought to do, and economics is what we actually do.' He looks at situations as various as teachers cheating for their students on standardized tests and sumo wrestlers cheating to let each other win matches to how legalized abortion helped to reduce crime rates in the 1990s and real estate agents hold out for better offers when they sell their own properties than when they sell other peoples' properties.

The authors introduce diverse concepts that (although they claim to not have a theme) are all related by one unifying theme -- the power of mathematics and statistics, in the form of econometrics, to tease out patterns and commonalities among seemingly diverse topics.

Pick up this book or at least peruse the website linked into the title of this post.

Why does Hamas victory in Palestine come as a surprise?

Three years ago, I watched a report on a television news program that discussed the significant positive contribution that Hamas was making to the Palestinian people. Many communities were turning to Hamas for social assistance and for opportunities to move forward. These people were choosing Hamas, a known terrorist organization, over the more acceptable Palestinian Authority and its political arm, Fatah, largely because Hamas was actually able to get things done. There was no infighting and the leadership seemed to have the Palestinian people constantly in mind when making decisions, unlike the PA who seemed to have a greater political agenda.

Why are we suddenly surprised, then, that Hamas won the first democratic election in Palestine? Why does this information come as such a shocking factor to the current President and his administration? Perhaps it is because we do not really understand the Middle East at all. Maybe the neo-conservative movement never had a grasp on the realities of the world. Maybe the major players in the Bush administration are too wrapped up in ideology to accept reality.

The argument can be made that the United States should not deal with Hamas because of their history of terrorism, and of their desire to see Israel destroyed. I would argue that we cannot end the relationship with the Palestinians, that we started building after the death of Yasser Arafat, because of this sudden democratic shift to the leadership of Hamas. Certainly we must walk a careful line with Hamas, but we cannot disregard the peace process, especially now that the leadership of Israel is also in flux.