eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by Blogger
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com



Donate

Scamonomics
Thankfullness
My Own Two Feet
Update
Drink More
Well, Now
RIO???
Twelve Minutes
Never Forget
The Bottom Line

Regular Reads

Atrios Daily KOS The Sideshow
Bartcop Moon Of Alabama My Left Wing
Juan Cole Hullabaloo James Wolcott
The Huffington Post Paul Krugman Glenn Greenwald

Radio Links

The Head On Radio Network The White Rose Society The Quality News Network
Nova M Radio Make Them Accountable Billy SHEARS Musical POEtry

Friends

2+2=5
A-Changin' Times
Anonymoses
Ayn Clouter
The Beat Bush Blog
The Central Tabulator
The Counterpoint
Dashiell
Engines Of Mischief
The Estimated Prophet
FAR Manor
The Funny Farm
Futurballa
Home Of The Brave
The Huck Upchuck
Ink from the Squid
Mad Kane
The Mahablog
Monkeyfister
News Of The Restless

Big Phil's Love Parade
Sergeant Freedom
Take Back The Media
Under The LobsterScope
Why Now?
WTF is it NOW?

December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
May 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009

Friday, January 31, 2003

Empty Promises, Hollow Responses

NY Times Can't Bring Itself To Challenge Bush

oday's NY Times Editorial lashes out at the Bush administration for it's "artful misdirection" in the State Of The Union address: the administration, as it always does, says one thing publicly and does almost the exact opposite in private. The editorial then goes on to describe in detail the lies the Bush administration is spreading about its policies. But it just can't bring itself to say that. The editorial finishes by adding: It is possible that Mr. Bush's forthcoming budget proposal will offer more cheerful news for the country's environmental and energy future. The State of the Union offered almost none.

Excuse me, but when, in its two years of existence, has this administration done any such thing? Why can't the Times' editorial staff just come right out and say what's going on without adding these little fairy-tale riders?

I give the Times credit for keeping on Bush's most vocal critic: Paul Krugman, who has even dared to call Bush a liar, which, under other newspapers, would have perhaps ended his career as a columnist. But that's hardly enough. The Times fancies itself the paper of record, and I can understand their commitment to journalistic standards, but where does it say that you can't be vocal when the government lies as often, and as badly, as it does?

It's all about the truth, people. And if you're afraid to say the truth because you're worried people might think you're too "partisan," then perhaps you should try another field. The Truth must be the operative word in any news organization, especially one which aspires to such lofty goals as the Times.

The foundation of the Pax Liberalis, like the foundation of any free society, is TRUST. We must have trust in a free government to safeguard our rights, trust in the captains of industry to choose the common good over their profits, and perhaps most importantly, in the truthfulness of a free press. Because free citizens cannot make the decisions they need to make if they don't know the truth. gw Bush would not have been elected if newspapers like the Times and others were as agressive in uncovering Bush's past as they were in attacking Bill Clinton and Al Gore.

I call upon the NY Times to do it's job and tell us the truth about what's going on in this country. Give us the information we need, and then trust us to do the right thing.




When Will This Happen To You??



Let Bush Know How It Feels In 2004!





Divine Bullying

Geov Parrish: Working For Change

Excerpt:

Bush's speech included many of the key elements that are making normally supportive Americans leery, particularly of Bush's foreign adventurism. There are, by my count, three major reasons why Bush and his aides are infatuated, at a geopolitical level, with the idea of invading, conquering, and either running or installing a puppet regime in Iraq.




Dominators Rule

Michael Krepon: Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists

Excerpt:

Thanks to Osama bin Laden, dominators now rule the roost in Washington. The terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon gave President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld wide latitude to implement their preferred remedies. Notwithstanding the close division on Capitol Hill between Republicans and Democrats, U.S. national security policy is now heavily lopsided toward power projection and away from treaty regimes and preventive diplomacy.




Flogging the French

Nicholas D. Kristof

Excerpt:

The macho notion that we'll do what we choose and if the world doesn't like it, it can go [insert expletive here] is both ludicrous and dangerous. We mustn't become slaves to foreign opinion, but neither should we glibly dismiss it as we prepare to launch a war that will hugely aggravate this distemper — which will nurture more terrorism.




Jesus wouldn't have a prayer among the far right

Erik V. Williams

Excerpt:

If one is keeping score, it is just as easy to point out the evils of Christianity. Tens of thousands of men, women and children, both Christian and non-Christian, have been terrorized and sped into the arms of their Maker on the point of a sword, or toasted on church bonfires, all in the name of Christ. It is a subject that seems to rarely come up in Sunday school for some reason.




The Lies In The State Of The Union

Institute For Public Accuracy

Excerpt:

Economic growth also depends on education, public health, and infrastructure - all realms in which government plays a big part, even in [w]’s America. Yet he proposes vast tax cuts that will make it harder to pay for these prerequisites of growth - tax cuts that will add over $90,000 to the income of millionaires - but $400 to households with incomes in the $30,000-50,000 range, and $58 to those with incomes between $10,000 and $20,000. The people who need public services the most -- poor and middle income households - will take the biggest hits from spending cuts -- benefit least from the tax break. And the millionaires who send their kids to private schools get the biggest breaks. All as part of a package that will produce very little economic stimulus.




A War Crime or an Act of War?

Stephen C. Pelletiere

Excerpt:

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

Mandela: Bush leading us to "holocaust"

ormer South African President Nelson Mandela said that gw Bush was after Iraq's oil and that Tony Blair's support had made the British leader the US "foreign minister". Mandela knows something about the currrent administration's tactics, having been imprisoned by similar Nazi types in South Africa. Mandela was speaking an International Women's Forum in Johannesburg. Asked to comment, gw Bush said to a befuddled reporter, "Isn't that nigger still in jail?"

US Making Good Use Of Propaganda

he Bush administration has repeatedly referred to Saddam Hussein as "Hitler," but according to this article, it's not very effective propaganda because it has yet to be backed up by anything, like pictures of the babies he supposedly "pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor," as b41 accused him of. Rumor has it that w has the same feelings. But you'd think they'd at least try to present some proof of that. It's certainly easy for people like me to assume the worst when it comes to this administration. If they'd be more forthcoming about their evidence, I and people like me would be more willing to be behind this war. But their addiction to secrecy prevents them from opening up, and that only leaves us to deal with their actions, and those speak very loudly.

Four More Soldiers Die In Afghanistan

our U.S. soldiers were killed when their Black Hawk helicopter crashed during a training mission in eastern Afghanistan. Since U.S. military action in Afghanistan began in October 2001, at least five U.S. helicopters have crashed or had hard landings that have injured or killed troops. Two Army Rangers and two Marines have been killed, and at least 11 other troops have been injured. Officials from the Bush administration could not be reached for comment: they were too busy trying to figure out how much money they're going to make on the Iraq war to be worrying about trivial things like which US soldiers died for it.

GOP Starts Year With Millions in Bank

olstered by their having control of the government, the Republican National Committee began 2004 with over $5 million in the bank, while Democrats languished, $106,000 in debt. Democrats attributed the low figure to their having spent huge sums of money on "infrastructure," using the remaining "soft money" they had accumulated before it would become illegal to use under new campaign laws, and to the fact that they blew a ton at the crap tables in Vegas.

Judicial Nominees Being Forced Down Our Throats

enate Republicans are trying to prevent opponents from blocking gw Bush's judicial nominees by bunching them together in groups rather than holding individual hearings. As many of us already know, the GOP managed to block many of Bill Clinton's judicial appointments, and now that they have the power, are preparing, as I have warned in the past, to flood the courts with right-wing racists and anti-federalist fruitcakes. As if things weren't bad enough.

Exile For Hussein?

n a sign that someone out here may be reading Pax Liberalis, the Bush administration said that exile for Saddam Hussein and his "henchmen" was a possibility, but that "time was running out." Bush made his comments during a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. The meeting went cordially until gw Bush asked if Berlusconi had ever eaten any food prepared by Iron Chef Italian Masahiko Kobe.

Thursday, January 30, 2003

In The Mail

n an earlier post, I mentioned that I got a nice, long, positive letter on my editorial The Case For War, and I thought I'd share it with you. It's from "BRFelix".
Joe:

I think you're on to something important. It is not so much the White House's policies regarding Iraq and the region that we disapprove of (at least in many cases, the Israel/Palestine mess being a stark exception) it is the people who are proposing and implementing the policies, and the way they are being implemented that we (and most of the world) object to.

We want to believe -- we do believe -- that the United States is a force for good in the world, though our government often screws up. Our model is one that has been successfully adopted in many societies, and it works more or less well when honestly tried.

We like to believe that the United States does not engage in aggressive war for territory or plunder or for any other reason, but to believe that is to pay too little attention to history. In fact the United States and its precursor colonies frequently engaged in aggressive wars for territory or plunder, to prop up friendly regimes, to further the corporate "national interest". American Indians know full well about our aggressive wars against them; so does Mexico and most of the rest of Latin America (a lesson they are learning again in Colombia and wherever else our forces are stationed). The Philippines knows, Cuba, Puerto Rico, Spain. Vietnam knows. Cambodia. Laos. China. Our government's unquestioning support of Israel is looked on as a proxy war of aggression in the Middle East -- and elsewhere.

Our nation as a whole is not entirely blameless, but the boys who run things at State and the Security and Intelligence agencies and the administrations and Congresses that let them screw things up and screw other nations over need some serious time for reflection.

The idea of bringing "democracy" to the benighted Ay-rabs is fully a part of our innate idealism. Trouble is, in Arab society, "democracy" produces something like the Ayatollah rule in Iran or, ironically, the iron-fisted dictatorship of Saddam. From what I can tell, Iraq is as thoroughly westernized as any Arab country (more so, really). The people seem highly educated, almost completely secular. The apparatus of democracy is available in Iraq, but of course it is tightly controlled, producing a perpetual Saddamization (sorry) that no ordinary democratic process can overthrow.

And from what I can tell, Iraq is not really a country at all -- it should never have been created by Britain in the first place. By rights, it should split into several ethnically cohesive parts. But Britain needed an Iraq when time was, and now America does.

And the only way for there to be one is through heavy-handed force.

So. Let there be an American conquest of Iraq, but don't expect much to change -- except that we can expect the well-being of the people to deteriorate. After all, the Ba'athists are (ahem) Socialists. (!)

Wouldn't it be fine if the Iraqis themselves pulled off a people-power revolution?

And wouldn't it be even better if an American government we and the world trusted could serve as guarantor of that revolution? Can't happen as long as the insane Dubya crew is despoiling the White House.
Another reader had good words about Pax Lib and sent me a political cartoon from the Arab News. I wonder if Ashcroft would think I was a terrorist by clicking on the site? Not that it really matters: if they really wanted me I'd have been arrested by now. The sender added:
...after having read your current posting on your website, I cannot help but inform you that your position of having Sadam exiled has now been put into words by GW. I just read that he too would welcome Sadam's exile...hmph...he must really want to win that 2004 election if he is willing to not go to war. Ironically, his statement was made after talking with Jordan leaders today (although none of the reports so far have underscored that fact). I give them credit for allowing goergie to claim what I am sure was their position/idea for peace.
More on this below.

I also got this through the email from Ray Berry:

Strike against war, for without you no battles can be fought! Strike against manufacturing shrapnel and gas bombs and all other tools of murder! Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human beings! Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction! Be heroes in an army of construction!

-Helen Keller

Digging Our Graves

by Bridget Gibson

Have you heard about the latest plan the Pentagon is considering for bodies of American troops killed in combat in Iraq? Because of the possibility of biochemical contamination, those who make the ultimate sacrifice may end up in mass graves, closed with the loving touch of a bulldozer, their no longer needed bodies receiving no sentimental fare thee well and Hail Marys, just a final cleanup pass of heavy earth-moving equipment. Those who loved them can never say goodbye and never cast them that last look of love and longing.

Their bodies may be contaminated. Contaminated with the chemicals that American corporations supplied to the Iraqi government during the 1980s when Saddam was our friend.

Remember the days when Reagan and Cheney and Rumsfeld had personal friendly chats with Saddam Hussein, and this particular segment of the "Axis of Evil" was held in high esteem? After the siege of the embassy in Iran, it was important for the United States to round up and arm its allies (you know, those who may be convenient one moment but embarrassing the next, like Osama bin Laden).

So American corporations, eager for a profit (corporations, of course, are driven by but one imperative - to make profits), and blessed by Reagan/Cheney/Rumsfeld, rushed to supply Saddam with some very interesting weapons - not just the conventional bomb-them-to-hell kind - but the kind that linger and destroy in a more insidious fashion.

Here's a list of chemical and biological weapons (and potential):

Bacillus Anthracis (cause of anthrax)

Clostridium Botulinum (a source of botulinum toxin)

Histoplasma Capsulatam (cause of a disease attacking lungs, brain, spinal cord, and heart)

Brucella Melitensis (a bacteria that can damage major organs)

Clostridium Perfringens (a highly toxic bacteria causing systemic illness)

Clostridium tetani (a highly toxigenic substance)

Escherichia coli (E. coli)


Add to this list, genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA, and dozens of other pathogenic biological agents.

The following is a list of American corporations that decided to sell equipment, materials, chemicals or biological agents to Saddam:

Honeywell

Spektra Physics

TI Coating

UNISYS

Sperry Corporation

Rockwell

Hewlett Packard

American Type Culture Collection

Alcolac International

Carl Zeis

Bechtel


Then there is the specter of nuclear weaponry. Quite a few American corporations decided that those should be passed around, also. Among those corporations that provided equipment and/or materials to Saddam, we find:

TI Coating

UNISYS

Tektronix

Leybold Vacuum Systems

Finnigan-MAT-US

Hewlett Packard

Dupont

Consarc

Cerberus

Canberra Industries Inc.

Axel Electronics Inc.


You may have noticed that a few of these corporate suppliers of death double-dipped in the poisonous well. Anyone with even a shred of conscience must wonder why these corporations would choose not just to make such weapons, but supply them, without a care in the world, to a foreign country.

Why? Because we have a system within our country that encourages the worst imaginable behavior of corporate entities, and leaves the inevitable mess for us ordinary humans to sort through. Corporations have been granted vast leeway to make poor choices in the guise of making profits.

Who would think that a machine (for that is what a corporation actually is) would be able to make a choice for life? Have you ever seen a tractor or a car or a motor that knew when to stop on its own? Of course not - the operator of any machine must make those decision for it. But when it comes to corporate behavior, the humans operating it are never held responsible for the actions of their machine.

If you were to drive a car directly into a crowd and injure someone, at the very least, you would be charged with a crime. You would have to defend your actions and take responsibility for the consequences of them.

A corporation and its operators - the CEO, CFO and the Board of Directors - are not being held responsible for the actions that are taken while the are operating the machine.

Knowingly supplying someone with the means to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands and walking away patting your wallet is a crime. In most criminal courts, such actions would constitute murder and be punishable under the laws of this country. If supplying deadly chemicals and weapons designed to kill or sicken another human being doesn't constitute criminal intent, at the very least, it is immoral and despicable.

Our own government has encouraged this reckless and negligent behavior and is now considering burying our honest and bravest servicemen and women in mass graves dug by bulldozers while these corporations can reward their top brass with obscene salaries and additional compensation.

Are we absolutely mad? Have we not had enough? We need to take our country back from these murderous corporations and from politicians that line their pockets with the deaths of our brothers and sisters.

No war is just or kind. But the war that we have waged upon ourselves for money has now come home to roost.

Oh, I got some of the usual idiot mail as well:

HA! HA! YOU LOST EVERYTHING IN THE LAST ELECTION!! YOU SUCK!! :D

HA! HA! YOU STILL SUCK!! AND WE'RE GONNA POUND IRAQ'S ASS!! :D SORRY COMMUNISM NEVER PANNED OUT!! :(

Hard to argue with logic like that. Another person was slightly better: he asked me if I had flunked economics, and when I responded "apparently, so did Bush", he wrote back saying I sounded like that Prairie Pygmy, Daschle. At last he didn't use all caps.

Tuesday, January 28, 2003

Bush: "If This Is Not Evil, Then Evil Has No Meaning!"

"I will defend the freedom and security of the American people!"

n his last State Of The Union Address, gw bush said that "my economic security plan can be summed up in one word: jobs." Since then the economy has lost thousands of jobs, and the stock market has dropped like a stone. I shudder to think what would happen if he didn't focus on jobs.

Last year, he also made clear his commitment to catching Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Though he didn't use these words in the speech itself, the operative words were "dead or alive." Is Osama dead or alive? We don't know. And the odds are good that we won't know next year, either. Of course, with the bush family, it wouldn't surprise me if he was captured in the months preceeding the 2004 election.

Those two items: the war on "terra" and the flagging economy, dominated the State Of The Union speech in 2002, and they dominate again in 2003. Only this time, the economy is far worse, and Osama bin Laden has been replaced with Saddam Hussein. I'll skip the Orwellian reference, it's been done to death.

I think it said a lot that bush entered the House with Ralph Reed, currently head of the Georgia GOP and former leader of the Christian Coalition. bush has made it no secret that he doesn't intend on repeating his father's mistake in ignoring the religious right, and tonight's speech had two important bones for them: a call for a ban on "Dilation and Extraction" procedures (I refuse to give it the name the anti-choice people want), and federal funding for church aid programs. I admit I was a bit distracted at the beginning, I was busy counting the number of convicted felons in the room. If John Ashcroft was there (he was the one designated to stay away: they do this every year, one person stays away in case a bomb hits the building during the speech) he could have made a few collars.

The overall substance of the speech was pretty predictable: School reform, Homeland Security, making the tax cuts on the rich permanent, blah blah blah, no surprises there. There were a couple of new bush-isms: "Hitlerism" being a biggie, and some old ones as well: why can't he pronounce nuclear? Say it with me...NOOO KLEEE YARRR. He said the economy was "recovering," but I don't think anyone really buys that: the stock market has been falling like crazy lately, and unemployment is at levels it hasn't been at since, well, since his daddy sat in the Oval Office. What a coincidence!

Of course his answer to all of this was equally predictable: tax cuts! But that contradicts what the Wall Street Journal said about "lucky duckies" like me who don't pay "our fair share"! How the hell am I supposed to figure all this crap out? Who the hell am I supposed to believe when they're all so damned evil? How long before my head explodes? No taxes on dividends! BOOM! Privatize Social Security and Medicare! POW! Tort Reform! KABLOOEY! Help me, Jeebus!

He had some things to say that sounded positive: like his desire to help wipe out AIDS in Africa, and his "support" for hydrogen-powered vehicles. Those fall under the category of "I'll believe it when I see it." If he's sincere and these things get done, great. But he's led us down this path before. Never mind what he says, watch what he does.

He brought up the Strategic Defense initiative again, and added something new: Project Bio-Shield, he calls it. I think he watches too much Pokemon.

Naturally, there was a lot of talk about the war on "terra," which, if you believe bush, we are winning. "We have liberated Afghanistan!" he said, to cheers. Never mind that the morning news reported heavy fighting there. Never mind that we still haven't found Osama. The terrorists are "on the run!" he said. Yeah, on the run to places like Pakistan (which has nukes) where they have the support of the local populace. bush even had the balls to take credit for capturing the Al Qaeda operatives who bombed the Kenya embassy and the USS Cole who were captured under the Clinton administration! But never mind, because they're all EVIL! EVIL! BOOM!

Oh yeah, he mentioned Iran, too, for the first time. I guess that makes it the next target.

But the main focus was, of course, Iraq. Once more he pulled out the usual suspects for justifying the war: He's an evil, evil man, etc. One of my particular favorite lines was that Hussein "hadn't provided evidence that he had destroyed his weapons." Uh, excuse me, but if he did destroy them, how can there be any evidence? Hussein is in a no-win situation, I wonder if he realizes it yet. What he ought to do is surrender himself to the authority of the World Court or make a deal for exile, which I advised him to do yesterday. If he was gone, it would ruin w's wargasm. What's the good of having all this military power if you can't use it? And funny how we're not planning on using them in North Korea, who's treating the UN like, well, like gw bush is. I don't know how often I can say it: they have nukes, and the missiles to deliver them, but thankfully for them they have no oil, so bush says they're seeking "peaceful" solutions there. Kim Jong Il must be enjoying all those blowjobs he's getting. From the look of things, we can expect the war to start around mid-February, after Colin Powell shows our allies in the UN the "evidence" we've been holding back.

W finished by saying, in effect, that God is on our side in all of this. I hope God is paying attention to what's going on in His name. Agnostic though I am, I wish somebody could do something to stop all of this. It will certainly take a miracle of some kind. Until then, all we can do is pray. Pray for our soldiers, pray for the Iraqi people, pray for us, pray for the world.

For your convenience, I recorded the speech and edited it down to a three-minute summary of it's main point. Click here to listen to it.

received some very interesting comments on my editorial, The Case For War. I had a few positive comments (including a lengthy e-mail) but mainly what I got was attitude: that my ideas were "simplistic" or "idealistic", and that the US needs to fix its own problems before doing any more nation-building. That's all expected. But what took me a little by surprise were the comments that implied that I was in favor of war with Iraq the way we are doing it, and I most certainly am not.

Let me say it again so that I can be sure that I am not being misunderstood:

I consider the bush administration to be an evil, criminal cabal placed into office illegally, and I consider the current war on Iraq to be both illegal and immoral. I am vehemently opposed to it.

But it's not enough, for me, to simply be against something. Pax Liberalis is also about being for something, and what I am for is a global peace. I believe that we are on the verge of global peace, but the question is, how much hell will we have to go through in the next century to achieve it? When I was making my case for war against Iraq, I was doing so under the context of that global peace, not so much how we handle the militaty aspect of it, but how we handle the consequences. If I were the one to make these decisions, I would be content, for the moment, with containing Iraq and trying to bring about a less violent solution to problems in the Middle East and all over the world. I would go to the United Nations and discuss a real plan for the future, and how the free nations of the world can work to finish the job of "integration" that has already begun. Under a Pax Liberalis, there is no room for regimes such as in Iraq or North Korea. Sooner or later they will have to be dealt with, the question is how , and how to do it with the least loss of life.

Yes, my ideas are both simplistic and idealistic. I'm not a politician, I'm just a writer. It's my hope that a politician will see what I have written and implement some of ideas, maybe even letting me write speeches on the subject. But history is filled with examples of idealism becoming the standard. The progressives of the turn of the last century waited for thirty years to see their ideas put into place nationally. It's possible that progressives now will have to wait longer. But if someone believes an idea is right, they must stand for it and speak in favor of it whenever possible.

Finally, let me be clear on another subject: I do not believe in utopias. The Pax Liberalis is not a utopian ideal, far from it. There will still be many problems we must face as a people. But it is my hope that the problems we will face will be different problems. I don't believe a perfect society is possible. I have my doubts that we can even make a truly good society. But if we all work together, I believe that we can build a better society.




t has come to my attention that someone, possibly a regular reader, pulled a rather nasty internet prank on my pal BChan a day or so ago. As much as I enjoy (and will continue to enjoy) getting a good laugh at his expense, what that person did went over the line. I apologize to BChan for it, and ask that no one do anything of the sort again.

So while we're on the subject of BChan, he made a couple more posts in the Iraq message forum on the site we've been fighting on: one was a small graphic, "unite against terrorism" with no comment, another were "statistics" showing Free Republic gaining on Salon and leading bartcop and Democratic Underground. But that's not what I wanted to talk about. BChan has changed his signature to read All messages posted are intended for entertainment purposes only, which, by the way, is a "rule 7" copout before the fact. I have news for you, BChan: Nobody takes the ridiculous shit you say seriously anyway: well, most people don't. I used to, until I realized you were more interested in puffing up your own overinflated ego than addressing a serious issue. But that's OK. You'll be happy to know that since I made you my personal poster boy for right-wing idiocy, you've provided solid entertainment for all of us here.





Fighting Continues In Afghanistan
.S. and coalition forces are fighting a pitched battle against a group of 80 rebel forcesaligned to renegade leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the largest-scale fighting since Operation Anaconda nine months ago, the U.S. military said Tuesday. At least 18 rebel fighters were killed, and there were no coalition casualties, the military said. Meanwhile, a secret report on the combat in Afghanistan was "mysteriously published" on the Internet. The report details fighting that took place last March between US soldiers and Al-Qaeda operatives. Asked to comment on why we're preparing to attack Iraq when Afghanistan is still not secured, gw bush said that Saddam Hussein was "a dangerous, dangerous man, with dangerous, dangerous weapons." He then went on to do battle with the "dangerous, dangerous" sand trap on hole 10 of his all-white country club.

UN Inspectors Criticize Iraq, But State Need For More Time

espite UN inspectors having chastised Iraq's lack of cooperation, they have asked for more time to complete their mission. "We should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programs", said Mohamed ElBaradei, who heads the U.N. nuclear control agency. Officials for the bush administration could not be reached for comment, as they were all jumping up and down on their desks yelling "KILL! KILL! KILL!

UN Criticized By Great Leader

orth Korean dictator Kim Jong Il ordered the U.N. nuclear agency to keep out of its business, a scornful diatribe that came as top North and South Korean officials held talks on resolving Pyongyang's nuclear crisis. Hearing the comments, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan went on a furious, twenty-five minute tirade against "two-bit dicators telling the UN what to do." Asked what he planned to do about Kim Jong Il, Annan said, "KIM JONG IL? I thought you were talking about bush!"

War News Drops Dow Below 8,000

ews of the war sent stocks tumbling below the 8,000 mark for the first time since October. I still don't understand a lot about how the stock market works, but I do know that when something loses that much value, something's not right. No doubt that they'll find some way to blame it on President Clinton.

Israel Prepares To Vote

oters in Israel took to the polls and are expected to reaffirm Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, despite a huge corruption scandal just weeks ago. Sharon's Likud Party is expected to maintain a slim hold on the Israeli government despite losing a few seats in Knesset, Israel's parliament. A tired Sharon was quoted as saying "Too bad we don't have a system like United States, where the person with the fewest votes wins."

Monday, January 27, 2003

Inspectors:"Bomb Away!"

Iraq Offers "Access But Not Substance"

n what appears to be the final nail in the coffin for Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, UN arms inspectors reported to the Security Council that Iraq was not being fully cooperative and had not genuinely disarmed. "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect, and with one exception, it has been prompt." said chief inspector Hans Blix. "But," he added, "It was not enough to open doors."

This site has and will continue to be opposed to the coming war, based upon the reasons given below. Hussein is playing the same games he has always played, and it is likely that the inspector's report will sway the reluctant members of the UN Security council to support the US position. I therefore call upon Saddam Hussein to face the inevitable and surrender himself to the authority of the World Court, or to accept exile and bring about a peaceful solution to this crisis.

I also call upon the bush administration to stop acting like the power-drunk fools they are and recognize the rights of the Iraqi people to choose a government of their own, and work with the United Nations to build a free and democratic Iraq, and allow it to profit from the oil that is on their land.

While I'm at it, I think I'll ask for someone out there to donate a million bucks to the site, because the odds are about the same. Prepare for war, and pray for the world.




The Case For War
omeone on a message board asked me if I would support the coming war on Iraq if Clinton or Gore were the ones prosecuting it. My immediate reaction, and subsequent response, was that it's not a fair question. Clinton or Gore (or McCain, if it had come down to it) would simply not do things the same way as the current administration. You might as well ask if you would support France and Germany's current stance on Iraq if they were being led by Napolean and Hitler. So the question is moot.

A more legitimate question would be: What would you do if you were in charge? Putting your partisan politics aside and ignoring your personal feelings towards the policies and attitude of the bush administration, is there a compelling reason for going to war with Iraq?

Yes, there is. We on the left tend not to trust the military, or military solutions, but unfortunately there are times when brute force is called for. Dictators like Hussein are not going to go away if we act nice to them, a military solution may be the only way to deal with him. And there are many compelling reasons we should do so:

1) Hussein is a vicious bastard who tortures his own people and rules with an iron fist. He's an unstable and unpredictable bomb in a part of the world that's just waiting for the right reason to explode.

2) A stable, democratic Iraq would be a more suitable buffer between fundamentalist Iran and our "allies" in the Gulf region. It would embolden the Iranian opposition who is trying to lessen or remove completely from power the theocratic regime that deposed the Shah and took over. A democratic Iran would then find ways to make peace with a democratic Iraq.

3) Our so-called "allies" in the Gulf region, faced with two new democracies who may or may not go along with OPEC, could then be pressured by the US to change their own autocratic regimes and begin promoting freedom and democracy in their own nations.

4) Israel would feel less threatened knowing that their back is covered and that there was one less state willing to give financial aid and support to Palestinian terrorists and a less violent solution might become possible.

Those are all very compelling reasons for removing Hussein. And rather than bitch about what the current administration is doing wrong (as I'll continue to do in the future!), here's what I would do instead:

1) Get with the UN and lay out a plan for a democratic Iraq.

2) Establish a reasonable but firm deadline for Hussein's ouster. Make it stick!

3) Offer an immediate end to the sanctions and exile for Hussein if it means a peaceful transfer of power.

4) Use the troops already in place to move into Iraq and keep the peace until a democratic government is set up. Make it a combined UN force rather than solely a US force.

5) Make it clear that the oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, and that once a new, democratic regime is in place, make sure that the Iraqi people profit from it as much as the business interests who want the oil.

6) Propose to the United Nations a Marshall Plan for the entire Middle East, with the free nations of the world sharing the cost. Pressure Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Gulf region countries to democratize.

After that, I would have the US take the lead in moving, as President Clinton put it, from an interdependant society to an integrated society. Begin the process of writing a constitution for the creation of a global political entity, based upon democratic ideals and a Bill Of Rights. Begin the formation of a single global economy, and offer its benefits to all nations. Establish a standard by which unaligned nations are considered a threat to the global peace, but allow a nation to be neutral as long as they are peaceful. Don't be afraid to use military force if necessary.

This is also the best way to deal with the global threat of terrorism. Organizations like Al Qaeda will find it more difficult to operate if there is a truly global authority that unaligned states who aid them will have to deal with.

The time has come to start thinking along these lines. America cannot survive as an empire, but it can live forever as the greatest nation of free nations. It's up to us to make that world a reality.




o, having said all of that, why is it that I am against the coming war, and against it so vehemently? Because the bush administration is doing it all wrong:

They're bullying the UN instead of working with it.

It may take longer than the bush administration might like for it to happen, but the United Nations and the European Union can be convinced that removing Hussein by force can be a positive thing in the long run. If this were a question of long-term policy, we could afford to be patient. It's even OK to piss them off a little bit, because they do have a tendency to not want to take action even if their best interests are at hand. Instead, when we're not ignoring them, we're publicly humiliating them. "France and Germany are Old Europe," says Donald Rumsfeld. "We musn't be scared into impotence", says Colin Powell. The bush administration went off like a pistol, then tried to get Powell to clean up their mess. It backfired: Powell was rebuked by France and Germany's public announcement of opposition to the war, and that's pushed Powell over to the hawks.

But even forgetting the short-term, the long-term consequences are even worse. The European Union is still in its infancy, and once it gets more used to the idea of a unified continent, and once they formalize the things that are already going on under the table (as President Clinton has pointed out), they will surpass the US as the world's economic superpower. Bullying them now will make it more difficult to deal with them in fifty years.

They're not making a case to Americans

Sure, there are those who won't want war under any circumstances, and some who think that, being the biggest kid on the block, we can do whatever the hell we want, so shut up with the peace talk before we clobber ya. But there are plenty of people, even "peaceniks" like myself who would be perfectly willing to go along with it under the right circumstances. Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans want us to work with the UN.

We would even be willing to consider taking the word of the government if we felt their intentions were sincere. But, unlike the freeper's irrational hatred of all things Clinton, we have serious reasons not to trust this administration. Their addiction to secrecy, their lack of regard for the democratic process, their abandonment of Afghanistan, their failure to capture Osama bin Laden, their refusal to allow a full investigation as to the events of 9/11, the fact that bush and cheney have ties to oil companies that will profit greatly from this war, I can go on and on. They demand total trust but don't do anything to warrant it. And let's not forget the numerous convicted felons that hold key positions in this administration. There's just no "there" there as far as believability is concerned.

The bush administration and the GOP leadership think that now that they have total control of the government, everything will be smooth sailing. But they have no idea how thin the ice is they're skating on. If they don't tread carefully, they'll fall through, and the backlash might be even greater than what happened to them in 1932. Perhaps the day will come when they'll realize that having power doesn't give them the right to use it. Americans generally don't care who is in power, as long as their needs are being met.

And in the end, that's what it will boil down to. It's up to the American people to wake up and realize how badly they're being deceived by this administration, and take action. I think they will, eventually. The question is, how long will it take? And will it be too late? Time will tell.

Saturday, January 25, 2003

Bush Wants War, Pentagon Says "Slow Down!"

Powell: "This Is A Dangerous Course"

enior Pentagon officials have drawn the anger of warmonger gw Bush by urging caution in Iraq rather than rushing headlong into a war that has such little international support and is drawing opposition at home, including veteran's groups.

Pentagon planners privately refer to the pending Iraq conflict as a "Bush league war", something that may be fought more for political gain than anything else. During Desert Storm, the line officers wanted to finish the job, wanted to march into Iraq and take out Hussein and his government, but President Bush and JOC Chairman (Colin) Powell pulled the plug on the operation, says one Pentagon officer. We had our chance. We had the justification. We had the support. We don’t have it now.

Mr. Bush could not be reached for comment, as he was busy having a temper tantrum in the bathroom adjoining the Oval Office.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon, worried about possible contamination from chemical weapons, is considering burying US soldiers in mass graves and burning them. I'm sure the parents of the high-school kids who'll be available for the draft, the ones who are screaming "kick their ass and take their gas!" will be happy to hear that their children's dead bodies will be burned in the name of the Bush family's oil profits.




n an improvement for the gene pool, a man in Virginia who was beating his dog with his gun was killed when the weapon, a combination rifle and shotgun, accidentally went off. You can't make stuff like this up.

Friday, January 24, 2003

Hillary To W: Less Talk, More Walk

Senator Clinton slams junior on Michigan race issue

K, she used nicer language than that. But in an editorial in Newsday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton chastised gw Bush for his position on the lawsuit involving the University of Michigan's affirmative action program. Affirmative action plans like Michigan's, which consider race as one of many factors in an individual's life experience and qualifications, have opened the doors of higher education for a generation of students, she said. Mr. Bush keeps using the word quota to define the issue, but that isn't the case in Michigan. A quota is where a number of available positions are set aside for minorities, regardless of the qualifications. What Michigan does is apply race as one of many standards for acceptance, which is perfectly acceptable.

Of course, little things like the truth never interferes with the Bush administration's bait-and-switch policies. Pretend you're selling diversity, then sell them inequality. Funny, though, how right-wingers are all for "racial profiling," I guess governmental policies on race are only legitimate when they're detrimental to minorities.




So, what's remarkable about these headlines?

WHEREFORE ART THOU, RECOVERY?

INDEX SHOWS ECONOMY STAGNANT: BUSH SAYS,

"WE CAN'T SIT BACK AND HOPE FOR THE BEST"

ECONOMISTS TAKE DIM VIEW OF USING TAX CUTS

TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY

U.S. FACTORY PRODUCTION FELL 0.4% IN NOVEMBER

ADMINISTRATION RETRACTS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CURBS:

MOVE FAILS TO MOLLIFY CRITICS

DREAM OF STRIKING IT RICH FADING IN SILICON VALLEY

STATE'S LONG-TERM JOBLESS CORPS GROWS 50% IN YEAR RECESSION

RECORD NUMBER OF JOBLESS LEFT WITHOUT BENEFITS

US EXPECTED TO RESTRICT USE OF RACE-BASED SCHOLARSHIPS

ADMINISTRATION RETRACTS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CURBS:

HINTS OF WHITE HOUSE ADRIFT

BUSH APPROVAL RATING SLIPS TO 47%:

POLL RESULTS, REFLECTING ECONOMIC FEARS,

ARE WORST OF HIS PRESIDENCY


See The WampumBlog for the answer.




ver the years, I've discovered that right-wingers have a definite pattern and follow certain rules when "debating" someone. I've taken the liberty to get them all down on paper for your information, so that when you find yourself involved in such a discussion, you can clearly see what they're trying to do. Keep in mind that these rules aren't necessarily applied in the same order, nor are they all followed. It depends on how long the argument is. Here they are:

1) Make an obnoxious statement to get attention

They usually do this by starting with some gratuitous remark concerning an issue they feel is important. If you read this blog regularly, you see I do this a lot myself. Of course, this isn't a discussion board.

2) Dehumanize and ridicule your opponent without addressing the issue. Say anything to piss him off. Remember: sarcasm and gratuitous insults are your friends.

A good example of this is when, in an earlier argument with my good pal BChan, I was discussing the things Bill Clinton had done to move the peace process forward in Ireland, and he said Yeah, those Oval Office blowjobs were a major force for mideast peace.... Even forgetting the fact that I wasn't talking about the mideast, that statement had nothing to do with the argument at hand. I responded, in part, If Clinton's getting a blowjob helped solve the problem, maybe we ought to get Sharon, Arafat and w a piece of that action.

3) Lie about your opponent's position to force them on the defensive

Usually this takes the form of misrepresentation: like the freeper who, when reading about Pax Liberalis, said, in effect, that it had been tried before in Soviet Russia, etc.. This of course makes me have to redefine liberalism for him, which wastes more time and energy.

4) Bring up obscure references (sometimes in other languages) that make it seem like you have a clue

I've had people make me research volumes, refusing to debate an issue while I did so, and then try to get me into an argument about the merits of the article, while the original topic was forgotten. In one instance, BChan referred me to an article in Spanish, then chastised me for lacking the "intelligence" to read it.

5) When things start going against you, try to change the subject

This is a biggie, like when BChan started a message forum talking about the Gulf War, then proceeded to post dubious charges that the protesters were communists.

6) Accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a communist (or whatever)

RightWingers use the tactic that, by smearing their opponent, they render their arguments moot. One guy in a chat room even refused to take historical fact into account because "I was a leftist" and therefore anything I said was suspect. The right is doing it with Scott Ritter, for example. Newt Gingrich wrote an entire book defining this strategy and specific words to use against their opponents. It's very useful against people unprepared for these vicious tactics.

7) As soon as you realize your butt's getting kicked, do one of the following:

a)Act like you're above it all and back off

b) Feign disinterest and back off

c) Run away with your tail between your legs and pretend you won

I'm sure you've all seen examples of this from time to time.

8) Wait a while, then repeat

ad nauseum

Countering These Arguments

Mind you, it's easier to counter freeper tactics using a message board than an IRC chat room. Chat rooms are much faster, and freepers take any sign of hesitation as a sign of weakness. The rules favor them in that environment and unless you're sharp as a tack, be careful how you handle yourself. Remember that you will never convince a hardcore freeper that they're wrong on any issue, you're gearing your arguments towards the audience, and they're going to judge a "victor" less by the facts of the argument than by the ability of the presenter to make their case.

1) Tell the truth

In all things, the truth is paramount. If you have to lie to prove your point in a debate, your point isn't worth making. This doesn't mean you can't exaggerate or stretch an issue to make a point, but outright lies destroy your entire position. Never mind that this issue isn't relevant to freeper debaters, who will lie loudly and often in order to fire up their supporters and get under your skin. You can always call them on their lies later.

2) Keep your cool

If you're too pissed to formulate an argument, step back for a bit, think out your position clearly, then wade back in. A message written in anger only backfires on you, and you give the freeper a victory by losing your cool.

3) Know your stuff

Never get into a discussion about something when you're not sure of your facts. You may think your position is crystal clear, but the people you have to convince (the audience, remember) doesn't always see it your way. Think of yourself as a salesman, and a salesman has to know how to hawk their product.

4) Keep on topic

Don't let them change the subject. Remind them of what the topic is every message if you have to. If they drag you away from it you'll never get back to it.

5) Be aggressive

Don't be forced on the defensive. Freepers win by bullying and intimidating, they fall when they meet any kind of real resistance. It's perfectly within reason to go for the jugular. In politics, there's no such thing as second place: if you win, you have the power to make changes. If you lose, you have to sit on the sidelines and watch. You don't have to lie, but you don't have to be nice, either. Kick ass, take names, and never, never apologize. Being nice during the debate makes you a good loser. Being nice after you've won is noble and magnanimous. The latter is always better.

These rules aren't set in stone, the nature of depate is evolutionary, and as soon as you develop one strategy, others popup that need to be handled and countered. Just remember that, in politics, the object is to win first. The left used to understand this, the Republicans are now masters at it. The only difference between the two is what you do after you get power.

We have lost our way: Helen Thomas
eteran reporter Helen Thomas, who's been covering the White House since the days of President John F. Kennedy, said in an interview that gw Bush is the worst President this country has ever had. A lot of us feel the same way, Helen. All Presidents have good and bad points, and every President has done some pretty nasty things upon occasion, both in office and on the road to office, but, according to Thomas, nothing like what we're seeing now. I have never covered a president who actually wanted to go to war. Bush's policy of pre-emptive war is immoral - such a policy would legitimize Pearl Harbor, she said in a November speech at MIT to enthusiastic applause. Unfortunately, too many people in this country are too misinformed, too apathetic, or just too goddamn stupid to see what's going on around them. After WWII, when we liberated the Nazi concentration camps, General Eisenhower forced German citizens to tour the camps, forcing them to see what they had helped to do. I wonder, will that happen here in America? And will I be one of the people in those graves?




ometimes, you just have to wonder. Consider that a GOP Congress spent over sixty million taxpayer dollars investigating the sex life of President Bill Clinton, yet they've only spent $3 million investigating what happened on 9/11. Wonderful how our so-called "public servants" have their priorities straight, hmm?




roving that he's still President, as David Letterman told him, President Bill Clinton tore into gw Bush on issues such as health care and taxes. The first thing you ought to do when you find yourself in a hole is quit digging, he said at a rare public appearance in Washington. Instead they are looking for a bigger shovel. Asked to comment, gw Bush said he always found it easier to use a shovel when you're "putting food on your family."

Thursday, January 23, 2003

U.S. To Allies: Do What We Say, Or Else!

n an unbelievable display of vitriolic, blackmailing gall, officials from the illegal Bush administration are set to demand that US allies France and Germany publicly state that Iraq is defying the United Nations. Annoyed at the fact that France and Germany aren't following Karl Rove's script, the administration is acting like the spoiled child that fronts for them.

"Our goal is to rub their nose in reality, and then proceed to discuss what we do about it," an official said, referring to France. "We want to create a situation where they have to respond to the obvious facts and then explain why they don't want to act on them."

Seeing public support for this illegal and immoral war wane, Bush's poll ratings falling like a rock, and the stock market doing the same, the Bush boys do exactly what we've come to expect from them: ratchet up the war noise until everything else is drowned out. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous, dangerous man with dangerous, dangerous weapons, said Bush in St. Louis, where he was adressing a crowd of freepers bussed in to mouth the words correctly. Dangerous, dangerous, they whispered ominously.

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il, who heartily enjoyed the blowjob Bush recently gave him, could not be reached for comment, as he was too busy laughing.




hile our attention is being diverted to Iraq, the illegal, babykilling Bush administration continues to tear down the wall between Church and State. Calling it "discrimination against religious groups", a new policy from the Dept. of Housing and Urban developement will allow allow religious groups, for the first time, to use federal housing money to help build centers where religious worship is held, "as long as part of the building is also used for social services".

Evangelist Pat Robertson, who received more than $500,000 from the federal government last year, welcomed the ruling, saying it will "allow me to brainwash, er, convert more and more people into my church."

Church of Satan practitioners also welcomed the new rules, saying that they've needed a new place to perform animal sacrifices, as their old place burned down.




ulitzer prize winning wartime cartoonist Bill Mauldin died today at the age of 81. Many of you reading this never heard of Bill, but his cartoons were loved by millions of troops during World War Two and beyond. His two primary characters, the disheveled and unshaven Willie and Joe, captured the essence of what it meant to be a footsoldier: "Just gimme a coupla aspirin. I already got a Purple Heart," says a weary Joe to a corpsman seated at a table containing medicine and medals. It's a pity more people today don't get the chance to see Bill's work. Soldiers today are being used by the Bush family to further their own political goals, and once they've served their purpose, they'll discarded. Never forget that it was liberal Democrats who gave our fighting soldiers the GI Bill, all they're going to get from the Bush administration is the shaft. As Willie and Joe prepare to head off to Iraq, all I can say is, Goodbye, Bill. We'll miss ya.




n a blow to the CIA, Venezuela's Supreme Court ruled that a nonbinding referendum scheduled for February 2nd on President Hugo Chavez' rule is unconstitutional. Infuriated opposition leaders vowed to force the referendum anyway, showing what crybabies right-wingers are when they don't get their way. Not that it will stop them, of course. Th eopposition is backed by the CIA and the Bush family evil empire, who can't stand to see anyone else controlling whatt hey feel is their oil. Prepare for violence.




he Reverend Al Sharpton officially announced his candidacy for President today. I want to say this about him: He's done some damn stupid things in the past, and he really doesn't have a broad enough appeal to win a national election, and I wouldn't vote for him based upon his never having held an elected office before, but he's mastered the political game and is a force to be reckoned with as far as motivating voters is concerned. The Democratic Party needs to take this man seriously and make good use of his political savvy.




n yet another example of the almost casual lies of this administrations, boxes used for a background where dimbulb Bush was giving his usual, prepackaged speech to a hand-picked audience of moronic lemmings had "Made In China" labels removed or obscured, and "Made In USA" stamped on them instead. As usual, the administration found someone to blame for it, proving once more that as far as personal responsibility is concerned, the box stops anywhere but the White House. The snafu is a perfect analogy for the policies of the administration anyway: use a smokescreen of patriotism to hide the reality of the situation.

Actually, I think it's good that these little stories are finally starting to come out. Is it a sign that some on the press who aren't part of Karl's Kids are begining to flex a little muscle? I doubt it, but it would be a good thing.

Tuesday, January 21, 2003

Demeaning The Opposition

y good buddy BChan is at it again, re: Iraq. Since there's no argument he can make that justifies his immoral and arrogantly ignorant position on the coming slaughter, he does what freepers do best: change the subject. He's now talking about how ANSWER and Not In Our Name, two of the many organizations involved in the anti-war protests, are fronts for communist organizations. The right wing is doing the same with Scott Ritter: they're losing control of the argument, so they lay a pedophilia charge on him to eliminate him as a credible source and to distract us from the real subject, which is the coming Holy War For Oil in Iraq. The charges don't have to be true, they just have to be made, and before you know it no one's talking about the war anymore. Hey it's worked for them in the past.

Of course when all this is pointed out, BChan's answer is short, simple, and irrelevant (just like most right wing arguments are): The truth hurts. If the American Nazi Party was behind this stuff, I'd post about that, too. Uh huh. In case you hadn't noticed, BChan, the American Nazi Party, that is, the Republicans, are behind this...not the protests, but the war. There are altogether too many scary analogies to what's going on now and what was happening in Germany in the 1920's and 1930's. Hitler used the fire at the Reichstag building as a pretense to grab power, w and his crowd have used 9/11 to push programs like the PATRIOT act, Homeland Security, and Operation TIPS. Hitler lied about the treatment of Germans in Poland to justify his immoral war against them, we're lying about Hussein's capabilities and his association with Islamic terrorist organizations to justify ours. The tactics being employed, the corporate control of the state, the propaganda machine that's in place, all this is straight out of the fascist handbook, yet you, BChan, dismiss all of it as a "conspiracy theory". I wonder if the thousands of chiildren who are about to be slaughtered in Iraq will feel the same way.

For the record, and to answer BChan on that specific point: I don't know enough about ANSWER or Not In Our Name to say whether they're fronts for communists or not, but even if they were, even if I was completely opposed to everything else they might stand for, they'd still be right in opposing this war. Just because we have the military might to force Hussein out of power doesn't mean our actions are justfied. All we're doing is going in there and stealing their oil, and that's just plain wrong by any standard. We write and enforce laws to prevent people from using physical force from taking things that belong to us, nations should be hed to the same standards. Rule Of Law, one of the primary principles of the Pax Liberalis, ought to be the standard we apply when dealing with "rogue nations" such as Iraq. The oil in Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, period. It doesn't belong to Saddam Hussein personally, nor does it belong to the board members and corporate executives of American oil companies.

BChan's ridiculous ideas are a combination of misinformation, ignorance, apathy and arrogance: he's being lied to, he doesn't really know what he's talking about, he doesn't care about anything but his own ego and personal well-being, and he's too proud to admit that he's capable of being suckered. He calls my ideas "laughable" and "misguided", but of course he never clarifies what he means by that. When he tries to define liberalism, he starts talking about socialism and communism instead, as if they were the same thing. They're not, but for him, that's not the point: the argument has nothing to do with the merits and shortcomings of any political ideology, it has to do with puffing yourself up at someone else's expense. Against the misinformed or ignorant it works great. But when they encounter someone like myself, who is knowledgable, and who can fight back, they get their asses kicked time and time again.




ontinuing their policy of blaming anyone but the people who make the rules, the US officially blamed two Air Force pilots for accidentally firing on Canadian forces who were conducting a live-fire exercise in Afghanistan. Four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight wounded, the first losses suffered by Canadian troops since the Korean War. The Air Force called the pilot's actions "reckless" and they were charged with involuntary manslaughter. If convicted, they could face as much as 64 years in prison.

While it's true that the pilots failed to follow standard procedure by attacking, since they were only obligated to report having seen live fire, you can bet your ass that they were under pressure to get some kills, and if they had hit some Afghani natives instead of allied soldiers, they wouldn't be facing charges right now. Our soldiers in the field are under tremendous pressure placed on them by an administration hell-bent on sacrificing their lives for the political gain of the Bush family. Pilots have been pressured to take amphetamines and other stimulants in order to fly longer missions, and sooner or later these things take their toll. Being a veteran myself (though not a combat veteran) I know how the military will say publicly that a specific action is against policy, but privately encourage disregarding those policies if it means completing a mission, in effect setting up subordinates for a fall if things go wrong. It's not that much different in the civilian world, either. Yes, the pilots deserve to be punished, but so do the superiors who create the conditions that allow these things to happen.




t's the 30-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and both sides are out in force: the pro-choice people trying desperately to prevent the ruling from being overturned, the anti-choice people demanding equal rights for embryos. I'd have some sympathy for the anti-choice people if they weren't such pricks to begin with. I can see their point, but they're such a bunch of obnoxious, self-righteous, hypocritical, bigoted assholes that it's hard to take them seriously. When is a fetus a parasitic being living inside a human and when is it a human that deserves the full protection of the law? Let's pick a point, stick to it, and be consistent. Is it a human at the moment of conception? If that's the case, shouldn't every miscarriage be investigated as a possible murder? Should you charge whoever performs the abortion with murder, and everyone who knew about it as an accessory? Pax Liberalis recognizes reasonable ways of dealing with this issue, as with all issues. It has to do with tolerance and accepting the fact that other people believe differently than you do. No pro-choicer I know is demanding that any anti-choice person have an abortion, or believes that the government should forcibly abort children, like they do in China. Pro-choice is pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

Normally I'd say that both sides have their share of loons, but in this case, not only can I not see anything positive about the anti-choice position, I can't find much of anything that's negative about the pro-choice crowd. Anti-choicers aren't just against abortion, they're against the idea of recreational sex to begin with, and they want to do everything they can to prevent it. They're against any form of birth control except abstinance, even in the case of sex between legally married couples. There are even some on the anti-choice side who want to declare discarded, unfertilized human eggs from fertility labs as "potential humans." Where does this shit stop? Is a woman who has a period committing murder? Should you marry a girl off when she's 12 to prevent this? And why is it that once the kid is born, their whole attitude is "screw you?" They claim to be all for adoption, that is, as long as they're talking about white (and preferably blonde) babies. There are plenty of minority babies available, but God forbid any of them get adopted into white families. And the sad thing is that many adoption agencies don't like whites raising blacks as well, the hardcore social engineers on the left doing their best to keep up the status quo. It's remarkable to me, too, that we make it so difficult for people to adopt a child, yet any two idiots with sex organs can get together, have a kid, and be allowed to raise it. We either have to make one easier or the other harder, or both.

Under a Pax Liberalis, a lot of things would change. We recognize a secular marriage as a legal contract having to do mainly with lawful and financial situations: who inherits what, taxable exemptions, etc. We would recognize same-sex marriages, even group marriages between several partners: the operative words being consenting adults. No church will be under an obligation to perform any ceremony they feel is in violation of their tenets, but under secular law, the marriages will be legal and binding.

We also recognize the right to choose, but would set a reasonable boundary for when abortions could or could not be performed, relying mainly on medical and scientific matters, not superstitious dogma, and the primary choice would go to the mother, the father, and their physician. We realize that this position will piss off a lot of those on the truly lunatic anti-choice fringe, but you know, you don't go changing the title of the book to "Across The World In Eighty Days" just to please the Flat-Earthers.




aying the law is not intended to protect people from their own excesses, a federal judge threw out a class-action lawsuit that blamed McDonald's food for obesity, diabetes and other health problems in children. McDonald's celebrated by revealing their latest advertising campaign: a contest called "How Many Double-Quarter Pounders Can Your Two-Year Old Eat?"




roving that gw Bush is a "uniter, not a divider", traditional enemies France and Germany got together to announce their continued opposition to the US' Holy War For Oil in Iraq. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made their announcement at a a joint news conference commemorating the 40th anniversary of France and Germany's post-war friendship treaty. The two then went to the nearest McDonald's, where they stuffed themselves silly with "Royales With Cheese".

Monday, January 20, 2003

Free Republic Goes To War

nswering the call of our nation's need, the mighty denizens of Free Republic march forth to lead the nation into the great War Against Terrorism, the latest War to End All Wars!

In our first episode, our hero, John Smith, enters the Free Republic recruiting office in the heart of downtown Freeperville to pledge his body and soul to the cause! To put his life on the line for the idea of peace, liberty, and the American way! To battle alongside other manly men against the assorted communists, liberals, homosexuals, and anyone else who dares to speak out against all things American! Grab a beer and join us!

John Smith: Is this the Free Republic Recruiting office?

Recruiter: Yeah, what do you want?

John Smith: I came to sign up.

Recruiter: You did? Why?

John Smith: What do you mean, why? I want to fight the terrorists!

Recruiter: I don't know, you look like a funny boy to me.

John Smith: WHAT?

Recruiter: You're not a faggot, are ya?

John Smith: I'm gonna punch your face in...!

Recruiter: WHOA there...OK, kid, you passed the first test.

John Smith: What do you mean, test?

Recruiter: A lot of faggots and commies try to infiltrate our outfit, so we have to be careful.

John Smith: You call me a faggot again and I'll kick your ass.

Recruiter: Fine, fine, I believe ya, kid. Ever been in combat before?

John Smith: No, no combat. And stop callin' me 'kid.'

Recruiter: OK, OK. Save it for combat. You ever fire a gun?

John Smith: Sure. I shot two commies last week.

Recruiter: Two commies?

John Smith: Yeah, in the supermarket. I heard them say something bad about Reagan so I let 'em both have it.

Recruiter: Good enough. You're in.

John Smith: Great. Where's training?

Recruiter: Training?

John Smith: Don't I have to go to basic training or something?

Recruiter: Only sissy boys get training. If you can't defend yourself already, we don't want you. We go balls to the wall here, kid.

John Smith: If you call me 'kid' again, I swear to God I'll rip your head off!

Recruiter: I said, save it for combat! What's your name?

John Smith: John Smith.

Recruiter: No, no, your Freeper name.

John Smith: Huh?

Recruiter: Haven't you ever been online? No one uses their real names here!

John Smith: Oh, I see, like on the site. OK, I want to be Hillary Sucks, then.

Recruiter: You can be Hillary Sucks 3,627

John Smith: 3,627?

Recruiter: Yeah, we get a lot of those. We have over ten thousand named Clinton Sucks.

John Smith: How can you tell anyone apart?

Recruiter: Hell, we're all the same anyway, so what's the difference?

John Smith: I guess. OK let me be Hillary Sucks 3,627, then. What company am I in?

Recruiter: You'll be in Company #22,874.

John Smith: You mean we have over 22,000 companies? Damn, that's a lot of people! How many are in a company?

Recruiter: One.

John Smith: ONE?

Recruiter: Yep, you're General 'Hillary Sucks 3,627', of the fightin' 22,874th.

John Smith: GENERAL? But I just signed up!

Recruiter: We're ALL Generals, pal. All 22,874 of us. I'm General 'IH8DemonRATS 199'

John Smith: Aren't there any privates?

Recruiter: No, we don't allow niggers.

John Smith: So who's in charge?

Recruiter: Nobody's in charge... you do all your own fighting and then come back and brag about it at the Officer's Club later.

John Smith: Sounds like my kind of outfit.

Recruiter: Hey, we kick ass. Haven't lost a man yet, well, except for a couple that fell off their bar stool. If you can't hold your liquor, you're no good anyway.

John Smith: Never lost a man! You guys are tough as hell! How do you do it?

Recruiter: Simple...we never fight...that is, unless a few hundred of us get the drop on a cripple or something.

John Smith: Even better. Where do I sign?

Recruiter: Right here.

Next week on Free Republic Goes To War!, Hillary Sucks 3,627 gets his first Purple Heart!

John Smith: Jesus Christ, varnish these bar stools, will ya? I just got a big splinter in my ass!

Americans Wake Up, Media Sleeps
Newspapers Conspire To Undersell Protests, Looking For War To Boost Ratings?

NY Times:"Tens of thousands" in D.C. Protest Iraq War Plans

Washington Post: "Tens of thousands" Oppose a Rush to War

Los Angeles Times: "Tens of Thousands" of Anti-War Activists

CNN: "Tens Of Thousands" rally around the globe

ABC News: "About a Thousand" Rally Against Iraq War

CBS News: "Tens Of Thousands" rally in capitol

NBC News: "Saddam Hails Demonstrators"

Liberal Media, My Ass






ver the weekend of Jan. 18-19, hundreds of thousands of people, not "tens of thousands" as Karl Rove's toadies would like us to think, took to the streets to voice their anger in a vain attempt to stop the inevitable war with Iraq. The protests, held in such cities as New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. were meant to draw attention to the fact that there are many, many people who are against this immoral war, and want to let the rest of the world know that most Americans do not stand with the illegally appointed gw Bush. "Bush has an attitude that provokes me," said protestor Nik Grant. "He acts like he represents all the people. We're here to show he doesn't."

But the national news media has decided that it would ignore or downplay the size protests and ridicule the participants. Dancing in a conga line and shouting calls for peace, demonstrators on Sunday pressed as close to the White House grounds as they could get to demand that President Bush back off Iraq. Police swiftly arrested those who breached barricades. said ABC news, copying a feed from the Associated Press nearly exactly. Didn't they send any reporters of their own to cover the protests? Why are there no aerial views of the crowds to give a better idea as to their size?

One of the keys to a Pax Liberalis is the independence of the press. A truly free press would have covered the protests truthfully and not act as advocates of war by downplaying their significance. The only motivations I can see for doing so would be because opposition to war would interfere with the profit margins of their corporate ownership, or because a war would boost their circulation or their ratings. Either way, it's blood for money and it shouldn't be allowed, and it wouldn't be allowed under a Pax Liberalis.

But most telling of all is the idea that it doesn't matter how many people are against the war, we don't believe that the illegal Bush administration would listen anyway: according to a CNN Poll, 77% of the respondents say that the antiwar protests will not have an influence on governmental policy. I think that's the saddest thing of all. Governments, according to the Declaration Of Independence, are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. I don't think we've reached that point yet, but it's pretty clear that if the huge numbers of people who want us, at the very least, to allow the process of international law to play out before we commit troops to combat are being ignored by our alleged representatives, then something is clearly wrong.

BChan: We're All Commies!

The right wing, being toadies of the existing neo-fascist power structure to begin with, don't need such great numbers. It's remarkable how few of them are needed to speak out in order for them to get their way: look at the Michigan University lawsuit. A few whiteys complain about unequal treatment and that's enough to put into doubt decades of hard work which culminated in the civil rights movement and affirmative action programs designed to bring justice to a system unfairly tilted towards whites. And so a vast (but loud and obnoxious) minority, who can't even get a decent counter-protest going (picture on right), are allowed to dictate policy.

My good buddy BChan, that Holy-Roman Empire lovin' guy who does the right wing two-step on Free Republic, quoted an article from WorldNet Daily, that bastion of journalistic integrity, that tries to link protest organizers A.N.S.W.E.R. and Not In Our Name to organizations such as the "quasi-Stalinist" World Worker's Party and the United States Communist Party. That's a typical ploy of the right, of course: anyone who disagrees with them is a card-carrying commie, or in this case, a Saddam-loving terrorist. Gee, B-Chan, I guess the Pope must love Saddam too, since he's against the war. Or does the idea of papal infallibility only come into play when you agree with him?

When future generations look back on this time, perhaps the biggest question they'll ask is how America went, in such a short span, from being the kind of country who showed compassion towards their enemies, as we did with Japan and Germany, to a country capable of launching a war, not in their defense, but for the sake of greed and lust for power. If my view of the future is correct, under a Pax Liberalis, the influence of money on government will be greatly diminished (though not entirely destroyed), and the media will be an honest advocate for truth and not a stooge for either the state or for corporate leaders. But such a thing will not be possible unless we are willing to fight for it, and until we accept the idea that those freedoms belong to everyone and not just a privileged few. Let's hope we all have the courage to make such a world possible.




peaking of media bias, the NY Times featured a nice puff piece on convicted felon John Poindexter today, praising his work as a "technocrat" who has a vision of a Star Trek-style command and control system to monitor terrorist activities and, knowing the GOP, political enemies. Just how many convicted felons are in the current illegal administration? Don't ask WHite House spokestroll Ari Fleischer.

Another piece continued the lie of w's "high poll ratings" which are exaggerated to begin with, and are dropping anyway. The article is discussing the number of Democratic candidates for President, gushing about how "popular" the boy king is, and how Democrats "need a disaster" in order to unseat him. Actually, a disaster would be nominating whiney losers Joe Lieberman or Dick Gephardt, but that's another story.




My buddy the Right Wing Slayer has discovered a blog that gives "lessons" to "Christians" on how to debate "Non-Believers", giving such tidbits of advice as Don’t get engaged in a discussion about issues, logic or evidence. That is a satanic ploy. Instead, follow the techniques outlined below, and you can claim victory in the crusade against the godless. You know, you can't make up material like that.




In yet more proof of the racist policies of the GOP, the illegal Bush administration sent a wreath to the gravestone of confederate leader and American traitor jefferson davis, a policy his daddy discontinued (due more to infighting among the assorted racist confederate groups than anyything else), and that President Bill Clinton never honored. But now that nigger-hating is in vogue again, and since they forced Trent Lott out of the spotlight (but not out of the picture), it's OK to honor racist bastards again. Maybe next year he'll send house slaves Colin Powell and Condi Rice to place the wreath personally.

Saturday, January 18, 2003

Americans Start To Wake The Hell Up

Hundreds Of Thousands March Worldwide, Many More Not Buying The Bullshit



rotesters in US cities such as Los Angeles (above) and all over the world are voicing their opposition to the upcoming illegal war on Iraq, even as huge numbers of troops move into the region in preparation for the coming slaughter waged by the illegal Bush administration for their political and financial gain. Among those beginning to speak out are veterans of real wars fought in defense of democracy. I am dead set against it, said The Rev. Bill Berglund, 82, a Marine who served proudly in World War II and Korea. It is a needless exercise of power by a certain group of people in Washington.. Remarkable how the people who've fought in the wars are the ones most dead set against going into one without a reason, hmm?




eanwhile, UN inspectors continue their search for the chemical weapons the US sold Iraq during the Reagan and Bush administrations, the only discovery of any note being a few decrepit missiles with empty warheads. But, as Aesop pointed out, any excuse for a tyrant, so gw Bush and his house boy Colin Powell are delivering a nuclear-sized lie about these lead pipes being dangerous. "If the Iraqis are allowed to keep these weapons, they might hit our brave soldiers with them!" said an enraged gw Bush, after returning from a meeting where he kowtowed to North Korean leader Kim Jung Il, who called w's bluff.




he NY Times features two blistering editorials on Bush, one by the editorial department on the White House lies about the affirmative action case in Michigan, the other a scathing retort on the Bush administration's bait-and-switch politics, saying one thing and doing another, written by Frank Rich.

The first editorial points out how the administration handles cases like this: it does one thing to appease its core, racist constituency, then lies about it to everyone else. It's using the word "quota" in the Michigan case even though the school doesn't have quotas. It's a pattern they've repeated endlessly since Bush was illegally installed: lying about the motivation and the need for war in Iraq, saying they're not negotiating with North Korea when in fact they are, etc.

Frank Rich's column, Joe Millionaire For President, slams "Dr." Bill Frist, the stealth racist who replaced obvious racist Trent Lott as Senate Majority leader. Note that Lott is still in the Senate, by the way, and is no doubt pulling strings from behind the scenes as the GOP loves to do. Frist, according to Rich:
suggests that that little Trent Lott nastiness is behind us now because Republicans are going to have "a dialogue on race in a more visible, a more open way." The dialogue, we later learn, consists of

(1) highly visible photo ops for Dr. Frist with black conservatives;

(2) a spirited defense of the judicial nominee Charles Pickering's strenuous effort to reduce the sentence of a convicted cross-burning hoodlum; and

(3) the White House intervention in the Supreme Court case challenging the University of Michigan's affirmative action program.

In business terms, this is called the old bait-and-switch: hawking one product but selling you something completely different. But Rich points out that, when it comes to the bait-and-switch, no one is better than gw Bush. The Michigan case is a perfect example: just before the administration announced that they were going to get involved there, White House spokestroll Ari Fleischer announced that w would be visiting Africa, a trip thad had originally been announced just before the Trent Lott fiasco, and was carefully re-scheduled as soon as the heat was off. Once the "Africa card" was played again, w could proceed to lie through his teeth about his stance on the affirmative action case and pretend he was all for "diversity".

By the way, does anyone remember Harvey Pitt? He "resigned" on election night, yet he's still in office. How long is he going to continue to stay there? As long as they need him to do their dirty work. And as long as we're focused on this war with Iraq (and then later on, Iran or Syria), and as long as the press in this country continues to cover for the boy king, we'll never really know what's going on behind the scenes.

The sad truth, however, is that the Joe Millionaire analogy Rich used is dead on: the American people are like those stupid, gold-digging women on the show, buying the lie being sprung on them by a corporate entity which is laughing at them. Their anger when they find out the truth will be justified, but the truth of the matter is that they brought most of it on themselves. So far, most Americans still don't realize they're being lied to, and how much. And in the end, gw Bush may or may not pay for his crimes, but you can be sure that we'll all suffer because of them.



n yet another example of US policy on oil, US troops are now fighting in oil-rich Columbia, shedding their blood to protect an oil pipeline that's been attacked by "Marxists" 200 times in the last two years alone. According to the illegal Bush administration, the soldiers are there to train Columbian soldiers and not take part in combat, but we know how good the word of this administration is.

In Europe, calls for patience are falling on deaf ears as the Bush administration moves more and more troops into the Middle East. French President Jacques Chirac, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and others in the EU have expressed concern oer the finding of "missiles," but the question of how much or how little Iraq is cooperating, and whether the missiles are in violation of their treaty has yet to be seen. Russia, meanwhile, has reached its own oil deal with Iraq, further complicating matters. Will Russia use its veto power in the UN to deny the US permission to go into Iraq, or will it cut a similar deal with the incoming American puppet colonial regime in return for a "yes" vote on war? Will France declare its own war and surrender to Iraqi forces? Will Tony Blair ever have time to see that chiropractor? And just who is the man in the trenchcoat threatening to drop a stink bomb in Vladmir Putin's toilet? Tune in tomorrow for another episode of As The World Burns.




"Crossfire" co-host and gw Bush toadie Tucker Carlson admonished Democrats to Stop Being Losers! Some things Democrats could do would be to arrange for the current president (I assume he means gw Bush) to mess up horribly, preferably by losing a war or driving the economy into stagflation. So what you're saying, you pinheaded puppet, is that Democrats should sacrifice the lives of American soldiers and try to wreck the economy for political gain? Pardon me, but isn't that what the current administration is already doing? Go back to masturbating, bowtie boy, it's about all you do anyway.

In a related story, spineless wimp Joe Lieberman said he was very happy for Carlson's advice and would take it into consideration after he formulated a commiittee to discuss the plan and then droned on and on for at least twenty minutes after both reporters covering his press conference fell asleep. Go home, Joe.

Friday, January 17, 2003

Deficit Drunks

"As a drunk is to alcohol, the Bush administration is to budget deficits."

NY Times columnist Paul Krugman goes after the illegal Bush administration once more, proving that there are still some out there in the press who aren't shills for the Bush family. You know, when this loser got put into office I said it would take more than a decade to fix the economy once they were gone. Unfortunately, I seem to have been an optimist. Bush, pictured here, is more than happy to rob from the poor, give to the rich and lie about it, knowing that his toadies in the press will cover for him. But you know, sooner or later, the shit's gonna hit the fan and the walls are going to come crashing down on these neo-fascists. Hopefully sooner, and hopefully by nonviolent ways.




So, eager to distract us from the crappy economy, and desperate to find any pitiful excuse to justify their immoral and illegal war on Iraqi children, the babykilling Bush administration said the discovery of empty warheads was "troubling and serious," though they've been saying that for the past five months about everything from Saddam Husein's attitude to what he had for breakfast that day. You know, just a few days ago, the whore press was praising dimbulb's "patience" and then he goes off on this stupid "Saddam's Time Is Running Out" crap. The whole press corps seems like they're being hypnotized or something..I mean if this crap had happened under Clinton, they'd be falling all over themselves trying to get his ass in jail, but with w, it's "he's bold!" or "he's patient!", or whatever the hell else Rove's blast fax said that day.




I was listening to the Randi Rhodes Show and she was talking about how w is giving the same speech over and over: "9/11 changed everything. Oceans will no longer protect is. We will stop at nothing to bring the evildoers to justice. That's why I'm attacking (insert enemy here)." He used the speech when he was going after Osama, now, since no one knows where Osama is, he's using it to justify war with Iraq. Pretty soon he'll be using it to justify war with oil-rich Venezuela. He'd use it to justify war against Alaskan caribou too, if it would make it easier for his oil buddies to tear up the countryside looking for more black gold. And pretty soon he'll be using it to justify arresting people like me.




In Iran, people there are beginning the slow and dangerous process of removing the fundamentalists from power and creating a truly democratic government after years of repression and poverty. Unfortunately, they're also part of the "axis of evil" and pretty soon gw Bush is going to be giving that same speech to justify war with them, and they'll be stuck with another puppet US colonial regime, which is what the fundamentalists overthrew in the first place.




Before I begin, I owe an apology to BChan: looking over the Free Republic Forum where they were dissing Pax Liberalis, I discovered that the long diatribe that I answered point for point was not in fact written by him, but by "concerned with politics". I should have suspected something when the word "despair" was spelled so badly: BChan's ideas may be idiotic, but he is a good speller. And just so you know, I'm not getting soft, idiotic is a just a kind word for what I feel about BChan's idea of a new Holy Roman Empire.

That having been said, I was thinking about the Pax Liberalis, and my conflict with B-Chan, and I was reminded of Ginsberg's Theorem, (a corollary of Murphy's Law*), which states:

1) You Can't Win

2) You Can't Break Even

3) You Can't Even Quit The Game


And that in turn leads us to Freeman's Commentary on Ginsberg's theorem, which states:

Every major philosophy that attempts to make life seem meaningful is based on the negation of one part of Ginsberg's Theorem. To wit:

1) Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win.

2) Communism is based on the assumption that you can break even.

3) Religion is based on the assumption that you can quit the game.


Now, human nature being what it is, there are good reasons why Freeman's Commentary is true, at least in how it applies to governmental and social philosophies. Each of the three philosophies listed above are faulty because of how they deal with people who go against the status quo.

Under capitalism, for example, those who lack the ability to gain wealth will suffer because of the undue influences great wealth has on society as a whole, and on the greater injustices that occur because of an unequal distribution of wealth. As Thucydides, my favorite writer on the subject of the corruption of power, wrote: Great wealth and great power only creates a desire for greater wealth and greater power. The objectivist writer and poster child for ideological lunacy, Ayn Rand, may have been correct when she argued that those with greater drive deserve greater wealth, but she was wrong to assume that all wealth is earned wealth, and even moreso in the idea that everything that is done is a transaction. Money is important, but it isn't everything.

Communists despise private wealth altogether, and over-react to the abuses of capitalism by squashing the human spirit. People who disagree are imprisoned or sent to mental institutions, or even sometimes put to death. When you understand the conditions of working people during the time of Karl Marx, you can get an idea as to why he wrote the Communist Manifesto to begin with, but even he would have been appalled at the abuses of power committed by Soviet dictators like Stalin. Marx was wrong not so much because of his philosophy but because he didn't understand the importance of human nature.

I don't think we need to go into too great detail about how theocracies deal with non-believers. As George Carlin said, "If you read the Bible, you know that God is one of the leading causes of death. Millions of dead [people], all because they gave the wrong answer to the God question." I'll say it right here: there is no "right" religion and no "wrong" one. Every form of belief has a certain amount of truth and a certain amount of falsehood embedded in it, and no form of government based upon religious beliefs can either last or prosper.

Liberalism isn't like that. It isn't an ideology, it's a concession to the realities of the world. Capitalism can do great things but if left to itself it becomes oppressive. Communism looks good on paper, but in application it crushes the spirit that makes a society prosperous. People have a right to believe whatever they want about God, or not to believe in God at all if they so desire, but they don't have a right to use the government to force their beliefs on others and they don't have a right to punish people for believing differently. Liberalism is a belief in the freedom of people to live their own lives as they please, to profit from their own hard work, and to worship God (or not) without fear of repression. And Liberals believe that those freedoms need to be backed up by a powerful political entity lawfully empowered by the people that govern it, an entity strong enough to enforce the will of the people. Those who refer to it as socialism or communism are either misinformed, lying, or just plain stupid.

I believe that the Pax Liberalis in some shape or form is inevitable, because freedom is ultimately what everyone wants. The enemies of freedom have a lot of money and power at present, but since they have no vision of what to do with that money and power above and beyond getting more of it, they will over-reach, and we need to take advantage of it when they do, both by showing how criminal their activities are and punishing accordingly, and by giving people a reason to hope for a better future, something to be for rather than something to be against. And once the idea of it is established globally, as is already occurring in places like Europe, then the next era in human history can truly begin.

*Murphy's Law: Anything That Can Go Wrong, Will Go Wrong

Thursday, January 16, 2003

OK I think I know why I got the hate call: my anti-Lott letter was printed in TIME magazine's current issue. Of course they edited the hell out of it. This was the original text of the letter:

What difference does it make who the GOP chooses to be majority leader? The person may change, but the policies won't. The only thing Lott was guilty of was saying out loud what the GOP leadership says in private to its core constituents: the assorted racists, bigots and hatemongers that the Democrats cast out because the party leadership decided that the right of a black man to vote without fearing for his life was more important than their political power base.

Lott isn't the exception, he's the rule: people like Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft and even Don Nickles are the soul of the racist right. There's no place for them in leadership positions, there's no place for them in our government, and as far as I'm concerned there's no place for them in this country.


This is what TIME printed:

There's no place in leadership positions for people like Lott or others who espouse racist beliefs. There's no place for them in our government, and there's no place for them in this country.

Read It Here:Sixth Letter Down

So the good news is that people all over the country can read my stuff. The bad news is some of them are insane.


I got my first threatening phone call today, I must pissing off the right people. It was very brief so I managed to write down how it went while it was still fresh:

Me: This is Joe.

Caller: Joe?

Me: Yes...who is this?

Caller: I guess you don’t like Trent Lott too much, do you.

Me: Who is this?

Caller: You’ll find out. (hangs up)

It was a male with a Southern accent

I never got one of these before so I don't know exactly how to handle it...I'm just putting it here so in case something does happen people know I was threatened.




Joey Joe Joe Show #23 is now ON THE AIR!

Joey Joe Joe Show #23!

Click on the radio to listen!





Immediately upon taking office, Georgia's new Governor, Sonny Perdue, continued a Republican tradition by abandoning every platform he ran on during the election. Perdue defeated incumbent Roy Barnes mostly because Barnes had the courage to lessen (though not entirely remove) the confederate battle symbol on the Georgia state flag. This angered millions of 19th century worshipping rural Georgians, who not only voted to get rid of Barnes, but cast out decorated war hero Max Cleland as well, replacing him with chickenhawk RNC puppet Saxby Chambliss. But rather than bringing back the pre-2001 flag, Perdue instead called for a non-binding resolution. If the rebel symbol stays as it currently is, Perdue faces a huge backlash from the people that elected him, if he puts it back he faces huge losses of business and other revenue as investors will leave Georgia high and dry. Way to go, you traitorous losers!

But wait, there's more! Another group who favored Perdue because og Gov. Barnes hard-nose tactics were schoolteachers, who found out that, under Perdue's budget, they would be denied a pay raise for the first time in ten years!

And we're still not done! Perdue, who vowed to lower taxes, raised them instead, especially "sin" taxes like cigarettes and liquor. Why did he have to do that? Because thanks to our pal gw Bush, the federal government can't help the states any more with money, since they're giving it away to the rich in the form of tax cuts, and spending hugely in the deficit to pay for an undeclared war that's being waged to scare you into voting for people like w and Perdue who are causing (or in Perdue's case, are going to cause) all your troubles to begin with!

So congratulations, citizens of Georgia! You get to watch your sons and daughters go off and fight rich men's wars, while your taxes go up and disgruntled teachers teach your children how wonderful the confederacy was! Makes me proud to be a Georgian!




Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is about to decide whether or not it wants to trample even more civl rights. The court is hearing the case of William Hibbs, a Nevada state employee who was fired for taking leave to care for his sick wife. If the Supremes decide against Mr. Hibbs and holds that the Family and Medical Leave Act (under which Mr. Hibbs is suing) does not apply to state employers, then the floodgates will be open for states to freely discriminate against their own employees, knowing that Congress can do nothing to stop them. The court has already struck down the Violence Against Women Act, depriving victims of sexual violence of the right to sue in federal court, and has also held that Congress doesn't have power to protect state employees from being discriminated against for age or disability. If they continue along this path, and it seems likely they will, considering that the bench is preparing to accept dozens of mini-scalias across the nation now that the GOP controls the government, then we can expect see challenges to minimum wage laws, overtime laws, minimum work week laws, food safety laws, etc. But that's OK, because, fortunately, we'll have plenty of new wars to keep our minds off the fact that we have no rights whatsoever. Makes you proud to be an American.


Wednesday, January 15, 2003

Crawling To Beijing

Continuing its policy of limp-wristed diplomacy towards countries that pose an actual military threat, the Bush administration sent assistant Secretary Of State James Kelly crawling to Beijing to beg China's help in resolving the crisis in North Korea. "Please, please, help us," Kelly whined. "My boss's poll ratings are down and he really needs to beat up on Iraq to bring them up again. If you help us with North Korea, we'll send you another spy plane!"




His whining toady safely in Beijing, Bush continued to hurl invectives at Iraq, saying he was "sick and tired of games and deception," and vowed to get that oil even if he had to kill every hungry, poorly-trained soldier in Iraq. Some of the games and deceptions Hussein might have in mind include faking a coup or an assassination attempt, which would make it even more difficult for the babykilling Bush administration to wage war.



Believing that the taint of racism has been lessened from the GOP, an emboldened gw Bush announced that the White House would intervene in a case about affirmative action. "There are better ways to promote diversity," mr. Bush said from a cart on an all-white golf course. Pointing to a black busboy off in the distance, he continued: "Little Billy over there is part of a program we have of letting black people work with people who are better than them. Maybe one day he can even get to be President. Not as long as I have anything to say about it, of course, but maybe. Asked for comment, the busboy, whose name was Robert and not Billy, told reporters "What the hell is that damn fool talking about? This is the only damn job I could get, and I have a degree in electrical engineering from Stanford! Dumbass can't even get my name right, but the last time I said anything about it twenty security guys beat the crap out of me. Why don't we get his ugly ass out of office so I can get back to work?" Upon hearing the comments by Robert, radio show host Neal Boortz said "Listen to that lazy nigger. No wonder he's just a busboy."




As if it weren't bad enough that the rest of the world thinks we're dangerous, more than a few think we're crazy, too. An opinion piece in The Times Of London, which by the way is a conservative newspaper, British novelist John le Carré says A recent poll tells us that one in two Americans now believe Saddam was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Centre. But the American public is not merely being misled. It is being browbeaten and kept in a state of ignorance and fear. If it makes you feel better, John, while it's true that the American public can be taken for suckers pretty easily, it doesn't last. It's just another case of us waiting for the river to catch fire before we come to our senses. The only question is how bad things will get before we finally do.




Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat, announced that he was "gooing to be President." Notice he didn't say he was "forming a committee," or "thinking about it," he said he was Going to be President. I wish we had a hundred more like him. I hope the Bush family doesn't "suicide" him.




The whore press continues to cover for the Bush family: According to The Scoop, the elder Bush was booed lustily at the American Music Awards, but ABC censors deleted the boos. Asked for comment, gw Bush vowed that he would get those who booed his daddy, "dead or alive."




All's quiet on the BChan front for the moment but it'll heat back up again. As soon as he says something stupid, which he will inevitably do, I'll be on his ass like white on rice and you'll read about it here. Then he'll post it on Free Republic and it'll go back and forth until the entire world is consumed in the flames of this titanic struggle between two diametrically opposed forces! Who will win? Good or evil? The fate of mankind rests in the ongoing struggle between a comic book artist and an unemployed freelancer! Oh, the humanity!

Well, maybe not. I've seen some people get pretty obsessive about these online wars, and I'm guilty of that, too. But these battles are good for me because they keep me honed and they keep me angry and wanting to fight, and these days it helps to keep motivated. I don't back down from a fight, but on the other hand, with some people it's like beating your head against a wall, you know what I mean?




I want to thank the reader who sent me a donation, my first and only one so far. I don't make a big deal about it because I don't like being pushy, but every little bit helps. Mostly I'd like to get more readers so if any of you out there would care to spread the word about the site that would be just as good.




I also welcome your comments and suggestions, so don't be afraid to write.




I'm working on a paper that will more clearly define the philosophy of the Pax Liberalis. It will include a Preamble and Bill Of Rights for a future global government, and I know the idea of it sounds pretty sophomoric, but hey.




The Pentagon, preparing for the inevitable war with Iraq, is dispatching an enormous array of naval combat power to the Persian Gulf region, including two seven-ship armadas carrying thousands of Marines.The Navy also is prepared to put as many as six aircraft carriers within striking distance of Iraq. As a further precaution, the Air Force has made plans to ensure that both Voltron and Ultraman will be available if necessary.

Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said they need months to search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, but getting that time may depend on whether Iraq provides new evidence about its nuclear, chemical and biological programs. Blix said he will deliver this message to the Iraqi government when they visit Baghdad next week. Asked to comment, gw Bush ran around the oval office singing the spoiled girl’s song from Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman announced his candidacy for president Monday, promising to show Americans he is "a different kind of Democrat." In order to prove this, he said would run on the Republican ticket as well as the Democratic ticket, and just to be on the safe side, the Green Party ticket. Spokesmen for the Spineless Wimp Party and the Hopeless Loser Party called Lieberman "too pathetic" even for them. Lieberman spoke to students at his old high school who had to be physically restrained from committing suicide during the short but unbelievably boring speech.

General Electric Co. workers picketed at plants around the country early Tuesday as thousands of workers joined a two-day strike protesting an increase in health care co-payments. Union officials said about 20,000 employees from assorted unions were participating in the strike, which officially began at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday. Plans by Bush administration officials to have the striking workers shot were rejected as being "too obvious."

Six major news organizations announced Monday the breakup of Voter News Service, the consortium they had built to count votes and conduct surveys on Election Day. In order to save time and money, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX and The Associated Press said they would just ask Karl Rove who won, and that would be good enough for them.

The Bush administration escalated its campaign today to loosen restrictions on religious charity-providers, with Attorney General John Ashcroft delivering an aggressive attack on the "bigotry" that he said religious groups had faced for decades in the United States. "Out of fear, ignorance and occasional bigotry, faith-based groups have been prohibited from competing for federal funding on a level playing field with secular groups." No fewer than three constitutional historians were seen to be pulling their hair out over the speech. A spokesman for the Church of Satan disagreed with the Attorney General, saying that the Bush administration had done very well by them.

In an effort to improve the Republican Party's image among African-Americans, party leaders agreed today to set benchmarks for the party to gauge how well it is doing in grooming black candidates, hiring black staff members and acting on issues of concern to black voters. The promises were made in a closed-door meeting at the offices of the Republican National Committee with more than a dozen black Republican business, political and religious leaders where the Republicans treated them to "heapin’ helpins’" of fried chicken and watermelon, which the Uncle Toms lapped up greedily. However, they declined the invitation to the minstrel show and cross-burning ceremony.

A partisan fight over reorganization of the Senate spilled tonight onto the Senate floor, with Republican leaders demanding control over committee assignments, financing and office space, and Democrats insisting that they retain their chairmanships until they get what they view as an equitable power-sharing arrangement. In accordance with the government’s new "FOX attitude," the politicians who win two out of three falls in televised mud-wrestling matches will qualify for committee seats, with the chairman wearing the championship belt.

An online poll by the BBC asking if a war on Iraq required further backing from the United Nations showed clear support for allowing the inspection process to continue. With over 18,000 votes cast, 75% voiced their support for United Nations approval.

In a related story, an online poll by TIME magazine's Eurpoean division asked that, between Iraq, North Korea, and the US, which country poses the biggest threat to world peace in 2003. With well over 100,000 votes cast, 10% said North Korea, 13% said Iraq, and a whopping 77% said the United States. Upon hearing the news, gw Bush raised up his fist and chanted We’re Number One! We’re Number One!

Inspectors in Iraq say they need a year to do a proper search for weapons in Iraq, and I can just see the smoke coming out of w's ears on that one. The US is already conducting war games in the area, and should have everything ready to go in February. The baby-killing Bush administration, however, has only paid for the catering up to that point.

Pope John-Paul II, meanwhile, spoke very candidly about his opposition to the Holy War For Oil On Iraq. Just curious, BChan, is he wrong, too?

Continuing their double standards when it comes to dealing with countries that do or don't have oil, the illegal Bush administration is considering energy aid to North Korea if it gives up its nuclear program. Refresh my memory, but isn't North Korea a part of the "axis of evil"? Why is it OK to deal with them but lob bombs on Iraqis? Oh yeah, I forgot. Oil. By the way, is that Bill Clinton or gw Bush being crushed by the missile on the banner in that picture? I don't know how fast those commies can paint a banner so it's possible it could be an old one they dredged up from the warehouses. It may be an old picture, too. If it is Clinton, maybe they borrowed it from GOP headquarters and wrote Korean slogans over the English ones. Paboh*, as the Koreans would say.

The illegal Bush administration continues their criminal interference in oil-rich Venezuela, where "protesters" backed by the CIA and big oil interests continue to strike at legally elected President Hugo Chavez. Asked for comment, Bush just started singing that song Veruca Salt sang from Willy Wonka and The Chocolate Factory.

Smarmy whiner Joe Lieberman announced he was running for President, and a collective nation yawned. Give it up, Joe.

AOL-Time Warner head Stephen M. Case resigned his position as chairman today amid allegations of incompetence and financial loss over the merger of the two companies. Mr. Chase will remain on the board of directors, however, because he's the only one on it that hasn't been banned by the Soup Nazi.

The illegal Bush administration's tax break orgasm is due for a bit of coitus interuptus after several moderate Republicans joined with Democrats in denouncing the giveaway for the rich. Can you get a case of blueballs this way? Just curious.

Pax Liberalis vs. The Holy Roman Empire and Free Republic

The denizens at Free Republic, after having been notified my BChan of my "commie/socialist" views, have made a few responses of their own. Comments include:

He should add IAC.org to his link list and he would be the complete commie. -LittleBill

and

Crap. I actually gave that site a hit just to read a whole page of whining. Ack! "It's just not fair everyone is smarter, more productive, patriotic, and just plain better off than me." If he/she wants to live the way he/she does, keep voting for left wing losers like him/her self. For a better life, vote Republican. We've "proven" our policies are successful, or else this liberal wouldn't be bitching about his/her failed, miserable life so much. -concerned about politics (who apparently thinks liberals believe that "Achievement is politically incorrect")

But of course, BChan chimes in himself, and I responded:

Nobody likes being forced to 'think' as the liberal thought police dictate they should.

The only people who will be “forced” to do anything under a Pax Liberalis are criminals, whether it be a gunman stealing a hundred dollars from a convenience store or a corporate executive who steals millions from his employees in a complex scam.

Liberals believe in the Bill Of Rights and in the freedom of all people to live their lives as they see fit. “Liberal” means “Free.” As Jefferson said: [while] the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

Forcing someone to think contrary to their conscience creates hate. Hate creates violence. Violence creates war.

I agree. And none of it has a place under a Pax Liberalis. No one will be forced to think contrary to their conscience. The only limits are the ones we place on ourselves, the only thing disallowed are things that take away the freedom and property of others, like crime and repression. Wars are a last resort, and never a first option.

The politically correct say they do it to SAVE humanity, but the very thing they say they're trying to prevent is multiplying in strength every day because of political correctness doctrine.

Humanity will save itself, the Pax Liberalis, like any free society, provides the framework for freedom using a careful balance between:

-a Free State which provides the level playing field that allows a capitalistic system of Free Enterprise to prosper while preventing the worst aspects of it and allows a Free Press the freedom to say the things a Free Society needs to hear to remain free.

-Free Enterprise, which gives the rights of citizens meaning, equalizes opportunity, destroys privilege, and gives to the life and citizenship of every individual the highest possible value both to himself and to the commonwealth.

-a Free Press which serves as a voice for Truth, not a propaganda tool for the state or for corporate interests. It is Truth, more than anything else, that makes us free.

There's more hate in the world today because of political correctness and the thought police than ever before. Bodies can be bound, but the soul must be free.

Liberals believe in the freedom of both body and spirit. We believe in the First Amendment, in the right to speak your mind and to worship God, or not, as you see fit. “Political Correctness,” however it began, has become just another catchword for those who are looking for an excuse to spread hatred themselves.

Liberal policies are a death-style choice. Examples of the "proven" liberal policies are the former USSR and North Korea. They've "proven" liberalism induces poverty, despair, and plague.

No, those are example of Communist policies, and the only thing I can gather from that statement is that you’re either lying about what liberalism is, or you can’t tell the difference between them, and I don’t know which is worse. Either way, it doesn’t say much for you.

Liberals are opposed to Communism because we’ve seen firsthand the despair it causes. Liberals are also opposed to laissez-faire capitalism for the same reasons. The key is a careful balance between State (Free Government), Industry (Free Enterprise), and Media (Free Press).

Real examples of liberal policies include:

-the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe and Japan after World War Two and turned them from bitter enemies to unwavering allies

-The Rural Electrification Act and Tennessee Valley Authority, which brought electricity to millions of people

-The Interstate Highway System which was a tremendous boon to businesses

-The Landing On The Moon, arguably the single greatest achievement in the history of humankind (and the spin-off technology that is changing the entire world)

If the world was run by liberal policies, who would produce? Who would feed, clothe, or house the dependant liberals? Would there be forced work camps? Who would be free, and who would be enslaved?

People would produce, just as they always have. A strong capitalist system helps people to support themselves. A Free State provides for the common defense, helps promote the general welfare, and creates the level playing field that capitalism needs to prosper. A Free Press gives people the information they need to make the best decisions they can.

No one is “dependant,” everyone pulls their weight under a capitalistic system of free enterprise. Government provides framework and infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.) and allows free enterprise to be competitive while preventing monopolies, ensuring a safe workplace, and being responsible to the world on which we live. Everyone would be free in the sense of being able to choose and create their own future based on their hard work and skill without being oppressed by the state or by a corporate oligarchy.

There will be no work camps. No one will be enslaved, except by themselves.

Examples of theocratic rule are also represented throughout history: from the Crusades and the Inquisition to the religious states of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. It doesn’t matter which religion, when combined with the power of the state they all become oppressive. Liberals believe in the separation of Church and State and in the freedom of people to worship God as they see fit, or not to worship at all, and not to be unfairly disadvantaged regardless of how they choose.

A Pax Liberalis is not a Utopian society, liberals do not believe in Utopias. Freedoms are not a thing given, they are a thing earned, and they must be earned anew, generation after generation. The price of freedom is responsibility and citizenship, not dependency and indentured servitude.

The enemies of freedom are everlasting and powerful: Greed, Intolerance, Ignorance, Apathy. They exist in the freest of states, they exist in the freest of markets, and they will never be wholly defeated. But free citizens of a free world can work together to lessen their influence.

Time and time again, these people compare liberalism to socialism and communism, despite the huge differences between them. I wonder how many of the posters actually believe that, and how many are just saying that for whatever reasons. For the record, however, here's how I see the six various economic principles. From left to right:

Communists
Commies believe the government owns everything. Private industry is out, no one's allowed to own a business, the money the government prints is pretty worthless. As they used to say in the old Soviet Union, We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us. In communist societies, you spend a lot of time waiting on lines for basic stuff like toilet paper, and you worry about who in your life is a government spy. I think their lousy track record speaks for itself.

Socialists
Socialists distrust private industries. They'll be tolerated, but the government will tell them how much they're gonna charge for their products and how much they're gonna pay their workers. The government otherwise stays out of your life for the most part, unless you get sick and have to go to a hospital. There have been successful socialist governments, but frankly I wouldn't want to live there.

Liberals
Liberals believe more in a balance between government and industry. Most industries are privately owned, except for natural monopolies like utilities and infrastructure. They won't tell industry how much they can charge or how much they can pay their workers, but they'll set limits to make sure customers aren't being ripped off and working people aren't exploited.

Conservatives
Conservatives believe in the same balance that liberals do, but believe the rights of industries are superior to the rights of individuals. They wouldn't regulate prices or wages, and they would only prosecute wrongdoing by industry if it was too obvious to be ignored.

Libertarians
Also known as laissez-faire capitalists, social Darwinists, or in some extreme cases, objectivists. Laissez-faire is a French phrase meaning "hands off," that government has no right to interfere with business.

Libertarians distrust government completely. Any kind of enforced cooperation, like taxes for example, is flat out wrong. The government doesn't have any authority to do anything apart from defending the country, anything citizens do should be done voluntarily. Those that can't hack it get run down by the economic steam train.

This all sounds wonderful on paper, but how you're going to defend the country and keep discipline among this group, or how you're going to enforce the law at all is beyond me. It's an ideology whose unifying political philosophy is to have no unifying political philosophies, and if you think that sounds weird, you haven't met many libertarians.

So far there's never been a completely libertarian government, so we have no clue as to whether or not it will work past a generation or so. We've come close a few times in the US, but those phases usually end when the economy hits the crapper and people figure out that just blindly trusting that the people with the money are going to do anything but act in their own self-interest is, well, stupid.

Fascists
Private industry essentially owns the government and controls the media. They love getting people stirred up by war because it keeps them scared and distracted, and gives them a convenient excuse to grab power. They manipulate people by playing on their fears, and they "physically intimidate" anyone who disagrees with them. Fascists practice extreme nationalism, they love, or pretend to love, the symbols of their countries religiously: you can always tell who they are by how many flags they have surrounding them when they speak at their rallies. The Nazis are the poster boys of fascism, but they weren't the only ones, and the threat of fascism never really goes away, because there's always going to be a group of people who have a lot of money and will use it to manipulate the system for their advantage. Does any of this sound strangely familiar, by the way?

I know you're going to argue with me over those definitions (you obviously equate liberalism with what I would call socialism or communism), but that is how I define them.

Your serve.

*Pahbo - "Stupid"

Monday, January 13, 2003

A Little Old Time Revenge

Update: BChan, as expected, has taken this to the next level, posting my comments below on Free Republic for perusal, and I'm sure, a little Old Time Revenge. Considering how important this faux macho posturing is to him and his cohorts on FR, I didn't expect him to just sit there. That's fine.

This was his response, posted to the "article:"

Heh, heh. Joe's not a bad guy, you understand. He just really, really hates the Bushes. And the rich. and, apparently, me.

For you reading this, notice he begins with the condescending, patronizing tone (heh heh): Oh, you naive liberal. Naturally, in his mind, I'm just a stupid fool who doesn't understand how the world works, a whiny adolescent who wants something for nothing, etc. etc. I used to be bothered by comments like that, but not any more: because I know how hard I can work when the need arises, and I also know that everything bad that's happened to me isn't always my fault. That's a difficult attitude, considering my financial state right now, but I refuse to be cowed by difficult times. Things will change, and if you think I'm obnoxious now, when I'm poor, consider how I'll be when I get back on my feet. I have news for you: I'm not stupid and I'm not going away, and unless you plan on killing me, you'd better get used to it.

As for hate, I don't hate the Bushes personally, but you bet your ass I hate everything they, and the Republican leadership, stand for: Greed. Privilege. Hubris. I hate the fact that they're looking to instigate a war that will kill thousands, and that they're willing to sacrifice a few of our soldiers in the process, for their political and financial gain. I hate the fact that they want to shift the tax burden to people who work for a living by cutting taxes on money that's made from other money. I hate the fact that on one hand they say "I trust the people" then on the other goes out and does everything he can to keep "the people" from finding out what's going on behind closed doors. I hate the fact that they characterize anyone who disagrees with them as a traitor. I think I have a right to get pissed off about those things.

You've said to me on many occasions, BChan, that I'm driven by envy. You're wrong. It's not about envy, it's about justice. It's about being just as tough on corporate crime as we are on blue-collar crime. For the record, I don't "hate" the rich. I have no problem with wealth, or rich people in general. I would be perfectly happy if gw Bush would live the rest of his life in wealth and ease whether he's earned his money or not, because frankly it's none of my damn business. But when he and people like him use their money to gain political power and use that power as a tool to make themselves even richer at my expense, then I have a right to express my anger. And if you think that's naive or stupid, or even worse, traitorous, then I suggest that it's you who have a problem with what America is, and not me. I'm not a good businessman, and I've never been capable of earning a lot of money, for whatever reasons: laziness, lack of focus, incompetence in handling money, I'm guilty, to a certain extent, of all of those things, and I'm willing to take responsibility for my own screw-ups. But I believe that if you work hard and play by the rules you shouldn't be punished for it. That's one of the many tenets of liberal thought, maybe if you truly understood what liberalism was you'd realize that.

And while I'm on the subject of hate, let me make a confession: compared to right-wingers, I'm a piker. You want to see hate, BChan? Here's some hate for you:

How many different versions of Satan, the devil, have you seen in your life? I mean, the comic book devil with the red face and the horns, seen that one. We've seen the Satanic devil of the horror films. We've seen the devil portrayed as just an average man, a human being, in the movie "Rosemary's Baby". We've seen the comic devil of TV shows. We've even seen the smooth, tempting devil in Hollywood moves. Is Tom Daschle simply another way to portray a devil? -Rush Limbaugh

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building -Ann Coulter

We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too. -Ann again

if we had only known, we could have tried to help them... -"glocman45", commenting on a story about an Al Qaeda attempt to kill President Clinton

If I were a RAT, I would kill myself to save honor. -sultan88 and Yessssss!! The "Ultimate Solution" to our problem of the Liberal 'Rats! Inexpensive, efficient, & final. -Landru from FR

God Hates Fags Actually the God Hates Fags site has been bounced around from ISP to ISP because of it's violent homophobia, but the link uses exerpts from it.

i mean, we all agree, if we shot all the democrats, the us would be a better place. -geiger (from the Undernet #politics chatroom)

I could go on, of course, but I think you get the picture. Compared to that stuff, what I said about you making me angry looks pretty lame in comparison, don't you think?

And before you go digging for them, yes, there's plenty on the radical left who have just as much hate in them as the hardcore loonies on the right. But you know what? They don't have any political power. Those I mentioned above are part of the propaganda machine that helps those who control the government now: Ann is a favorite of the right, and Rush was made an honorary member of the 104th Congress for his efforts.

For the record, I don't hate you personally, BChan, in fact I like you a lot, you're always good company (those rare times when we get to meet), and you're not a drooling idiot like some of the fretards I've run across. But goddamnit you can be such a fuckin' jerk sometimes, and I think you need to be slapped down occasionally as a lesson in humility. You remember humility, don't you, BChan? That's something you're supposed to have if you're a Christian. Remember the first time you pissed me off, and I told you in no uncertain terms what I thought, you said "Ah, gee, it's ony the internet" as if what was said "didn't count" because it was typed and sent over telephone lines.

I believe in the Pax Liberalis, in whatever form it takes, because it would be beneficial to you, BChan, and even whoever from FR who is reading this thinking I'm a "communist." They talk a lot about "freedom" and crap, but then they turn around and disinclude blacks, homosexuals, or anyone else they don't feel comfortable with. A New Holy Roman Empire wouldn't be anywhere near as inclusive, or beneficial. It's not gonna happen, man and I think you need to accept that.

By the way, before I forget, the link you mentioned led to an article about the sexual problems of the Catholic Church. The deployment link was elsewhere on the page.

Sunday, January 12, 2003

Fight! Fight! Fight!

It seems that BChan took my comment: My problem is that I let guys like that get to me too much: my first instinct is to want to bash their brains in, but the law frowns upon that sort of thing as an actual threat, and warned me that I "better make that first bash count". This from a guy who's a proud regular on Free Republic, whose members do make threats and I'm sure occasionally follow up on them. And I don't think I have to mention that it's the right-wingers who are fond of killing their enemies: JFK, RFK, MLK, and there's still a lot of questions about Carnahan, JFK Jr. and Wellstone, not to mention that Enron guy who "suicided" himself and God knows how many others who have been killed in the name of Greed and God. And of course those they don't assassinate directly they assassinate politically: Gore, Carter, Clinton and even John McCain being big examples of that. Oh yeah and they have no qualms about killing Americans in the name of their glorious mission, as well. So, BChan, if you're paranoid enough to think that I'm a threat to you, I suggest you take a look at the company you keep, because they're a bigger threat to you than I am.

And you're probably asking, why am I making such a damn big deal out of all of this? You're just a "comic book artist", aren't you? I'm making a big deal of it because as far as I'm concerned, BChan, you're part of the problem. You don't care about the issues, that is, you don't care about them any more than as a means to make snotty comments designed to get under people's skin, which you admit you enjoy doing, a lot. You say you don't care, BChan? You will.

While we're on the subject of BChan, every time I see a news item like this, I keep thinking about the current Holy War For Oil with Iraq, and how wonderful a future, global, Holy Christian Roman Empire will be once we get rid of those nasty infidels. It'll be a wonderful world, at least, for pedophiles and rapists. But I guess since, according to BChan, it's OK by Jesus to KILL children, it must be OK to RAPE them, too.

Meanwhile, the Holy War For Oil grinds on as more troops deploy to the Middle East. There may be "no atheists in foxholes", but I wonder how many of our soldiers who are going to be fighting are thinking that they're part of a war between Islam and Christianity, or if they're just doing their secular duty as they've sworn to do. I also wonder if they're prepared to police the entire Middle East, because if you think this'll end in Iraq, think again. Onward, Christian Soldiers!

Of course, when it comes to fighting an enemy who might actually be able to fight back, the illegal Bush administration starts using wimpy words like "coax" and "talk." That's typical of bullies, of course. Do you think Jesus will spare our Christian soldiers from nuclear flame if Kim Jong Il decides to lob a missile their way?

Speaking of North Korea, our old pal snotglass sums it all up brilliantly:

As mindless liberals reflexively attack our elected wartime President, George W. Bush over his brilliant and inspired handling of the near-crisis brought about by the sinister North Korean communist regime and the inept foreign policy of the failed Clinton administration, it is important that we true conservatives remember the nature of the Korean dictator and charter member of the Axis of Evil.

He is the pampered and spoiled product of his country's ruling elite and the son of his country's former leader. Born to the wealth and high social standing of his family's political dynasty, he has enjoyed a life of privilege far removed from concerns of his exploited countrymen. Despite an obvious lack of merit, talent or aptitude, he received the best accommodations his country could offer. He was a notorious playboy and immoral rake until he reached an age at which most men have matured. He produced nothing and accomplished nothing unconnected to his family's name, and owes his current political position to solely his father's cronies.


Couldn't have said it better myself.

Republican Governor George Ryan of Illinois showed great courage in commuting all of Illinois' death row inmates to sentences of life imprisonment. I'd praise him more if he wasn't getting to leave office anyway. It's always easy to make these decisions when you don't have to face re-election, but on the other hand, he didn't have to do anything. For the record, I am personally opposed to the death penalty on principle, but I would be more willing to accept it if we held to a strict standard instead of just offing poor blacks on dubious evidence because the poor blacks can't defend themselves, and don't get a lot of sympathy anyway, because a lot of these prisoners really do deserve to be behind bars. A lot of prosecuters love executing these people whether they're guilty or not because it makes them look good, and relatives are understandably looking for revenge. Revenge is a powerful thing, but I think justice is more important. And I think executing the innocent, the insane, the underage, and the retarded is a far worse moral crime.

Californians are vainly fighting back against the illegal, baby killing Bush administration's attempt to deny them water. The illegally appointed US Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton would like nothing better than to see everyone in California, except those that live in heavily Republican cities like San Diego, die of thirst, but killing all those poor people would mean that the very rich would have to bury all those bodies, and you don't expect the very rich to do any actual work, do you?

The GOP is not only going to use New York City for political advantage again, they're planning on sticking it for $50 million for the honor of it. I hope that some real journalist will uncover how much w knew about 9/11 and plaster it all over the NY papers and news in the days before the election. It'll make for a fun little meeting, don't you think? Not that I think that'll really happen considering how much the media is sucking off w, but hey, I can dream.

Continuing with the GOP, now that they think they've immunized themselves from charges of racism by sliding cross-burner Trent Lott to a powerful position that's not quite in the public eye and replacing him with Bill Frist, another racist and cat-killer who has a friendlier face, here they go re-nominating n----r haters like Charles Pickering to important positions at federal curts all across the country. Our friends at Media Whores Online have gone into better detail about the hypocritical spin of the GOP trying to paint Pickering as being FOR civil rights when he's very much AGAINST them, and how media whores like the Washington Post suck down Karl Rove's GOP jism like there was no tomorrow.

Our pal Kurt Nimmo at Another Day In The Empire has a great comment on an article about how the illegal Bush administration is shifting the tax burden away from people who make money with money (through investment, capital gains, and dividends from stock, not to mention inheritance, the GOP's favorite way of "earning" money) to people who earn money from the sweat of their brow. And while we're on the subject of taxation, let's look at this:



Adding up those figures, that's $9.1 trillion in profits, and they get another $3.4 trillion on top of that from the government in the form of tax breaks! That's an effective tax rate of NEGATIVE 26.3%! Now think about the things the Bush administration has not done because they said it was "too expensive," like expanding medical benefits for VETERANS who risked life and limb for this country in VietNam and other places, and think about how we can deny THEM money while we're SHOVELLING it to these companies?

But, our fretard friends will say, those companies create jobs! And how many jobs did these four companies create?

NONE


So, message from w? Screw You!

While the varied conservatives and religious fanatics look for ways to rob us blind while leading the world right back into the 14th century, others are looking towards the future. Ask yourselves, which world would we rather live in? A Holy Roman Empire that would survive, for a short time, on ignorance and fear, or a Pax Liberalis where free people decide their own future? Anyone who thinks that America achieved what it has because we're "Christian," or that any theocracy is going to allow the kind of free thought that drives progress better think again. I have news for you: It ain't gonna happen. Your worldview isn't just evil, it plain sucks, and won't last long. So enjoy it while you can, because sooner or later you're going down, and this time your fall will be so low that none can foresee it arising ever again.

I'm not sure what to make of this letter I got from Robert at Veterans For Peace:

Until the Ground War happens, there's hope it can be stopped. Uncle Sam may believe that deployments will create a sense of inevitability among the public, other nations and the UN -- that it is meant to be. It isn't. It can still be stopped and reversed.

There's incredible posturing going on. The administration however has to be perceived as doing something -- especially since the UN weapons inspectors have found zilch and N.Korea has nukes to defend itself from foreign aggression.

We need to increase the pressure all we can. I firmly believe it can be stopped. Next Sat and all week thereafter there will be people in the streets of DC, the west coast and all over the world to protest this insanity -- people from all walks of life.

Also, you may write a short letter to a newspaper voicing your opposition to trading blood for oil. An Ohio paper that publishes all letters is letters@chronicletelegram.com .


It's a great letter, and I agree wholeheartedly (in fact I'm going to add a link to Veterans For Peace), but it started out Dear Libertarians, and I'm no Libertarian, in fact, I think Libertarianism is as ridiculous a political philosophy as theocraticism (is that worded correctly?). However, as the saying goes, politics makes strange bedfellows, and this is one veteran that's all for this site.

Friday, January 10, 2003

Oh, The News We Have

In another example of why are they even bothering?, the illegal Bush administration argued that Jose Padilla, the man suspected in the so-called "dirty bomb" plot, shouldn't have an attorney, because it would damage their interrogation. Padilla has been held without formal charges since June. He sat in jail a month before it was announced that we had him, while the Bush administration waited until they needed some attention diverted away from political troubles, that is, Enron. I'm keeping track of this case because I'm probably on some list of other enemy combatants somewhere.

Meanwhile, in yet another example of Republican incompetence on economic matters, the Senate had to pass a special emergency bill to keep the government running. Despite having total control of the government, they are apparently unable to pass even the most basic bills designed to keep the government operating without having to resort to these drastic measures. Dumbasses.

The babykilling Bush administration has announced that it's going to make its interference with oil-rich Venezuela more public. A group of central American nations, called the "Friends Of Oil-Rich Venezuela" is being organized to subdivide the oil-rich nation once its popular but Communist President has been killed or exiled. "We plan on killing or delegitimizing any leadership that gets in our way, suppressing dissent, bleeding them dry and then forgetting all about them." said a White House spokesman. When asked why the Bush cabal is being so uncharacteristically blunt about their ruthless plans, the spokesman said "Like it matters now. You want to keep working, you better keep your yap shut and do what we tell you."

Under the category of damned if you do, damned if you don't, thousands of legal immigrants from various Middle Eastern nations rushed to meet a deadline to "register" with "authorities" from the "government." The last time this happened, we just grabbed about a thousand of them and lobbed them neatly into prison. So if you show up, doing what you believe to be your civic duty even though you're not an American citizen yet, the odds arre you'll get thrown in the clink. If you don't show up, the odds are good they'll come to your house in the middle of the night and deport you back to the country you left because the government there was too oppressive. Asked to comment, comedian Yakov Smirnov said "At least, in former Soviet Union, they didn't pretend to be a democracy." Upon hearing the remarks, the Bush administration announced that they would be deporting Mr. Smirnov back to "wherever the hell he came from."

The Daily Howler, boldly going where no bold website has ever gone boldly before, has boldly pointed out how the babykilling Bush administration's toadies in the press keep using bold spin words put out by their bold leader. "What do you think of the administration's bold plans?" said one toadie to the other. "Oh, they're very bold. They're the boldest plans I've ever seen, and it speaks to the boldness of this bold administration and all the bold things it wants to achieve. It is most assuredly bold." "So, you're saying it's bold?" "Yes! BOLD! BOLD! BOLD! BOLD! !" The two then proceeded to jump up and down on the table, screaming "BOLD! BOLD! BOLD! BOLD! !" For the next hour, until the next show, "Our Bold Leader Knows Best" came on.

A federal bankruptcy judge ordered employees of United Airlines to take severe pay cuts as part of United's bankruptcy hearing, as United had requested. The pay cuts were ordered by bankruptcy judge Eugene Wedoff, who is seeking reappointment of his 14-year term and is mosy likely looking to appease his evil masters by stomping on workers. Will United executives face pay cuts of their own? Don't count on it. Of course, the employees should consider themselves lucky to be able to work at all: the US economy lost over 100,000 jobs in December, which was one of the most dismal holiday seasons in recent history. Asked to comment on the plight of the poor and working poor, a spokesman for the Bush administration said "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?" and added that there was plenty of work at McWane, Inc.

The babykilling Bush administration continues to refuse to accept any result that doesn't lead to war with Iraq. UN inspectors have until January 27th to dig up some dirt and make it sound credible enough to convince a skeptical United Nations. If we go in without UN support, all hell will break loose, but of course for some people that's just fine and dandy. I figure if you took the cobined military might of every Islamic nation on Earth (and considering how much they fight with each other, that's no mean feat) they probably couldn't pose a threat to Brooklyn, let alone the US. Terrorist attacks can be halted by a combination of good intelligence, cooperation betwen government agencies like the FBI and CIA, and of course helping to make the world a better place so that terrorists wouldn't have a reason to strike. But since none of that includes a few people making more money than any human should be allowed to have, these options are unthinkable. Welcome to the New World Order.

We're still in the process of gutting democracy in Venezuela so that in case oil reserves are threatened during the Iraq war, the babykillers in the Bush administration can still get their oil money. How many will die in the coming chaos in Venezuela? What difference does it ake to Bush and cheney? They're only mud people, after all.

And in the midst of all of this, what vital area gets serious attention from the murdering GOP? Condoms. Seems they're on a crusade to get rid of them, and spreading lies about their effectiveness. But what did you expect from a party that condones killing children in Jesus' name? But the thousands of mud people and heathens who are going to die in the Iraq war are nothing compared to the millions that will die of AIDS. I think this administration is trying to beat the old fascist record of about six million murdered, thogh they still have a long way to go to catch up to Stalin.

Thursday, January 09, 2003

Thanks to Joey Davis of RightWingSlayer for helping me with some html difficulties I was having. Been a little delayed by that and by personal matters from updating.

UN Inspectors still haven't found a "smoking gun" in Iraq, though of course that won't stop the Bush administration from murdering innocent Iraqi children. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has tried to let matters cool off a bit, but how successful he'll be in persuading Bush remains yet to be seen. It's hard to tell exactly what this administration's real plans are, and being as he is in complete control of the government, the decision on exactly when to start the war will be his and his alone. It's possible that this is an attempt to force Hussein into exile and use the military buildup we have as the first of a series of occupational forces. If this could be accomplished without bloodshed it would be a tremendous victory for mr. Bush. And then of course, the question will be what happens afterwards in Iraq. Unfortunately, us peasants don't know, and our concerns barely register with an imperial government.

Under the category of I wish we had a press with balls like that, Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was yanked off the air while addressing corruption charges that have severely damaged his ruling Likud party. Mr. Sharon was...about 10 minutes into his speech, when the chairman of the Central Elections Committee, Mishael Cheshin, a Supreme Court Justice of liberal leanings, decided that he was in violation of a law preventing the broadcast of election propaganda in the month before a vote. I would love to see any of the major networks do that to w. Hell, I'd love the news networks showing them busing in supporters to these rallys to make him look good. There are elections coming up in Isreal on January 28, and at present things don't look good for Sharon. Israel's government has shifted back and forth from hard-line conservatives who want to escalate the war against Palestinians, to those who want to negotiate. The Palestinians, meanwhile, seem just as determined to fight on regardless of what Israel does.

Back in North Korea, cult personality Kim Jong Il has decided to follow the Bush family lead and pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Bush family members applauded the move, saying it would mean one more war that would make them look good.

The New York Times, working with PBS and the Canadian Broadcasting Company have been investigating numerous deaths and injuries at the various iron plants of McWane Inc. Part One, At a Texas Foundry, an Indifference to Life deals with numerous safety violations at the Tyler Pipe Company, a subsidiary of McWane. Part Two, Family's Profits, Wrung From Blood and Sweat deals with the McWane factory in Birmingham, Part Three, Deaths on the Job, Slaps on the Wrist, deals with how regulatory failure allows the owners and managers to literally get away with murder. This of course is the true face of deregulation and a careless disregard for worker's safety in thus country. McWane has simply decided that it's cheaper to pay the fines than it is to make their workplace safer. If you go into a grocery store in Texas, rob a clerk and shoot him, you get executed. But if you're the manager of an iron plant that knowingly puts workers into dangerous places, it doesn't matter how many get killed, you will almost never get prosecuted, almost no chance of getting convicted, and on those rare times that you do, you get almost no disciplinary action:

Under federal law, causing the death of a worker by willfully violating safety rules — a misdemeanor with a six-month maximum prison term — is a less serious crime than harassing a wild burro on federal lands, which is punishable by a year in prison.

The McWane family, however, are small potatoes when compared to the Bush family. McWane only intimidates safety regulators. The Bush family owns them. The workplace of the future is here!

In one of the most horrifying stories I've heard in a long time, a family's dog was shot and killed by police officers while being stopped in Tennessee. Police officer Eric Hall shot the dog as it jumped from the car and ran toward him. The family was released without charges. Do you think we could be a little more paranoid?

While the GOP and their cronies in the press are beginning to lay down their smear campaign on Sen. John Edwards after he announced his intention to run for President, they may find themselves fighting yet another savvy fighter from Arkansas: Gen. Wesley Clark. Clark, a highly decorated war hero who led the campaign against Kosovo, would nullify any GOP charges of being weak on the war issues and strengthen the Democrat's hand on foreign policy issues. There's no official word from Gen. Clark on the matter, but you can be sure he'd scare a lot of people at the GOP.

Continuing to show their true colors on race relations, the Bush administration is re-nominating Charles Pickering to a seat on the Federal Court of Appeals, one step below the Supreme Court. Pickering was defeated because of his, shall we say, lack of concern on racial issues and on his tendency to let his personal feelings decide cases rather than gasp! the law. Supporters of Pickering could not be reached for comment, as they were preparing a cross to be burned on the lawn of Sen. Charles Schumer.

I've been told that the reason this site isn't as successful as others is because I'm not angry enough. To tell the truth, I have trouble writing when I get angry, I mean really angry. And yesterday I was very angry indeed after my confrontation with B-Chan. Not because I thought I had lost an argument (I kicked his ass, as I always do) but because my "opponent" simply doesn't care. He's doing well, and so are the bulk of his friends, so he could care less about what happens outside of that little sphere. He's a pretty good example of what Media Whores Online calls Moron Americans. Not to say he's stupid (he's not) but

This actually started on a message board for a convention I used to have a lot to do with. It was started in response to this cartoon by our friend Tom Tomorrow.

Now one of the people on this board is a guy called B-Chan. I actually know this guy: he's a nice enough fellow in person but as always he comes across pretty sarcastically on the web. I've had some battles with him from time to time, and here's the one we just had. B-Chan is in Italics.

Wow! Rich and powerful people cover each others asses? Who knew? Thanks for the scoop, Tom Tomorrow!

Well why don't you try to DO something about it, B-Chan, instead of just making sarcastic remarks and ignoring the problem because you think rich people are "groovy" (regardless of how they get their dough), or because "that's just the way the world is"? Why should Robertson escape scrutiny when we're going to try and kill Hussein with NO evidence he had anything to do with Al Qaeda?

News flash, Joe: this war has nothing to do with oil.

There you go again. Yeah, sure, we've got a lot of "other" reasons, some of them legitimate (Hussein is scum) others not (as Dave says, improving w's poll numbers), but all other considerations aside, we wouldn't give a damn about Iraq if they didn't have oil, and I wish you'd stop insulting our intelligence by implying otherwise.

If we'd wanted Iraq's oil, we could have taken it in 1991, along with that of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

So why did we encourage the Kurds and others to revolt against Hussein right after the Gulf War, then stand by and watch them get killed by Hussein's elite troops, with weapons we allowed him to keep? Why didn't we take bin Laden up on his offer to take Hussein out? There are so many unanswered questions about these events that just listing them would take hours. Whatever reasons we had for not taking Saddam out when we had the chance, we'll never know, because if the Bush family does anything well, they keep secrets. The difference between you and me, B-Chan, is that for whatever reasons, you trust the Bush family and I don't.

(There's plenty of oil in Alaska, anyway -- if only Congress would allow us to dig it out. )

If we took all the energy we're putting into stealing other countries' oil and put it into finding new energy sources we wouldn't have to go to war with Iraq OR tear up Alaska.

This war is about Western, Christian civilization (what's left of it) vs. the latest installment of the 1400-year-old Islamic jihad. Since Islam is tolerated in a Christian society, but Christianity is forbidden by Islam, it's obvious who the Good Guys are. There isn't enough room on this planet for two worldviews, and if it's Us or Them, then I vote for Us. Vive Charles Martel.

Not all Christians agree with you here, B-Chan:

We acknowledge that Saddam Hussein is a cruel tyrant, but a war on the country he rules is not a just war... It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior and the Prince Of Peace, would support this attack.

That's just one sentence in a petition sent to w "beseeching" him to stop the war. It was signed by hundreds of religious leaders, including Bishops of the United Methodist Church, to which he belongs. These are Christians who don't like the idea of killing innocent children in Jesus' name. Why aren't you among them, B-Chan?

We're going after Iraq first because North Korea is hemmed in by China and Russia and will keep until we've settled Saddam's hash.

Saddam was pretty hemmed in himself, he wasn't going anywhere, he had no plans to go anywhere, and he would have kept, at least until we found Osama.

(We'll probably have to have it out with them once and for all eventually, but personally I'm praying for a Gorbachev-style collapse in Pyongyang instead of a war.)

I doubt it. Too much "heritage" there and too much control and too little access to the outside world. That sort of thing is far more likely to happen in China, and it won't happen in China any time soon.

Our second goal in Iraq is to install a regime that is friendly towards its neighbors -- even the Jewish ones -- and one that isn't run by psychopathic gangsters or Islamic fundies, thus establishing an island of sanity in that region and giving us a base to protect our interests in the region. (Yes, Joe, the government has a responsibility to protect our national interests, and any government that doesn't needs to be removed.)

There you go again. I'm sure the Japanese felt the same way when they attacked Pearl. You know, I would agree with you if we weren't so damn hypocritical. See the pretty picture? That's Donald Rumsfeld, currently the US Defense Secretary, shaking hands with the "evil one", Saddam himself. We did a lot of business with him in the eighties, just like we've done business with a lot of scummy characters when it suited our interests. I don't know what Hussein did to get on our bad side, but it must have been pretty big. Dave already mentioned Pinochet, and he's just one of many over the years: The Shah of Iran, Marcos in the Phillipines, Noriega in Panama (until he pissed us off, too), etc., etc., etc. The Saudis are only slightly better, so are the Yemeni and the Kuwaitis and all the other assorted lunatics and scumbags we've put into power and propped up in the name of expediency.

So spare me the diatribe about our "noble efforts" trying to bring democracy, freedom and Christ to the heathen masses. We don't give a damn about them. We didn't care about Iranians under the Shah, about Phillipinos under Marcos, about Cubans under the Batistas. We didn't care about the Afghanis when we abandoned them after the Russians left in the 80's, we don't care about them now that we have our puppet government, and we won't care about Iraqis once we get our hands on those oil fields.

As for Turkmenistan: We can do business with loony dictators who have interests in common with us and aren't a threat to anybody.

Then what did Hussein do to us to turn us against him? We gave him money, we gave him weapons, we gave him the WMD he's supposedly hiding, we kept giving it to him even when we knew e was using it on his own people. He hasn't been a threat to anybody for years. Some American companies even continued to do business with him when it was illegal to do so. I would really just like to know what the hell is going on.

It doesn't matter if it takes 478 days or 478 years to get Osama bin Laden (even if he is still alive); the point is to kill as many Al-Qaida throatcutters as possible until we do get him.

Yeah, we're doing a wonderful job of that. Al Qaeda has been moving slowly back into Afghanistan, and they've been active elsewhere. For all his big talk, w hasn't really accomplished a whole helluva lot.

Afghanistan will sort itself out; Pakistan ought to be our next target.

Why hasn't it been sorted out already? It's been over a year now, and there's no real change, unless you count the US using its soldiers to protect its hand-picked President, former Unocal adviser Karzai. And I wonder if you're really prepared to have us police the entire Middle East, like some in this administration want us to?

Tuesday, January 07, 2003

Help The Rich, Then Lie About It

Two different and seemingly unrelated items appeared in the NY Times today, one an article and the other a commentary.

The commentary, An Irrelevant Proposal by Paul Krugman, hits at the heart of GOP financial strategy: help the rich and lie about it. Mr. Krugman sums it up brilliantly:

...the man in charge — that is, Karl Rove — is clearly betting that the economy will recover on its own, and intends to use the pretense of stimulus mainly as an opportunity to get more tax cuts for the rich. Ideology aside, will these guys ever decide that their job includes solving problems, not just using them?

As has been pointed out before, this is a regime that is almost entirely political. Everything it does, it does not because of the greater good of the US and the ideas the US supposedly stands for, but for the benefit of their own power and profit. Power politics is fine, and we expect all politicians to play that game to a certain extent, but a line has clearly been crossed here. The Republican leadership, who consider themselves to be Republicans first and Americans when it's convenient, are far more interested and far more capable of grabbing power than they are at using it once they have it. Now that they've achieved their goal of gaining complete control of all the branches of government, there's nothing preventing them from putting forth an economic policy that helps the rich and hurts people who are having enough trouble just staying afloat, us "lucky duckies" who need to be paying more taxes. But since the poor barely even count as human to these people, and because, being poor, they can't make huge campaign contributions, they're ignored, and in some cases they're even prevented from voting.

As far as Republicans are concerned, the only people in the world are the richest ten percent, the ones who control nearly three-quarters of the entire wealth of the nation. Everybody else exists to support them and their interests, when they're allowed to exist at all. If it weren't for the fact that they need people to do all their dirty work for them, and because there would be too many bodies to bury or burn,the other 90% would have simply been killed off years ago. No doubt, once technology creates inexpensive machines to replace unskilled workers, there are plans for that in the future.

How do they get away with all of this? Why does the 90% just let it happen? Well, the 90% aren't exactly what you'd call united. There will always, for example, be party loyalists who will rarely cross over and vote for the other party. Some have good reasons for doing this, others don't, and they tend to pay a lot more attention to the political game than the rest. If you're reading this, the odds are you're part of this group.

Some, about 10-20%, are what Gene Lyons and Media Whores Online refer to as Moron Americans, people who are swayed not by the message but by tone and attitude of the candidates, as well as the general "images" of the parties. They're people who believe, for example, that Republicans are more moral than Democrats because, well, Republicans say they're more moral. They don't delve into any issue past a few sound bites and very often make their decision at the last minute.

Then there are those that are just, well, stupid. While politics can a complex game, there are certainly enough aspects of it that should be apparent even to those on the lowest levels of educated society. Am I working too hard? Am I getting paid enough? Can I afford rent? These are issues people face daily and it ought to be pretty clear when things have gotten out of whack. Unfortunately, these are people who are easily convinced that the solution is to blame someone: white trash freepers will blame liberals, blacks (and/or other minorities), commies, socialists, etc., and vote for racist/reactionary politicians (I want to thank you for everything you've done to keep the niggers down. said a caller to Jesse Helms on a talk show). Some blacks will blame The Man while deriding education as a "tool for whitey" and refusing to do anything that will lift them out of poverty. The white trash, likewise, will intentionally try to destroy any political strategy that helps them because their ideology states that they have to be a "self-made man" and any attempts at organizing on their own behalf or standing up for yourself politically are somehow socialistic or communistic. never mind that the "self-made men" they admire and vote for usually get their money from a big inheritance. Unfortunately there isn't a lot anyone can do for these people, like alcoholics, they have to make that decision themselves.

The rest are the ones who don't even bother to vote, the majority of Americans. They're not necessarily morons, but like the Moron-Americans, they only pay a little bit of attention to what's going on, being completely absorbed with the details of their own lives. Politics, they believe, is irrelevant and won't have any affect on them. Besides, both parties are equally bad and therefore there's no point in "getting involved." These are mostly middle-to-upper class: well paid, well-fed and insulated from most of the poverty that defines so many people's lives. Some, like a lot of my relatives, are conformists whose lives consist of going to work, raising kids, and sending them off to school to become carbon copies of themselves. Ever read the comic strip For Better Or For Worse? That's who I'm talking about. Getting 10-20% of these people politically involved is what makes or breaks political campaigns, and the Republicans do everything they can to keep them away from the polls. It was these people who, in the latter part of the 19th century, created the modern liberal movement in this country: middle-class New Yorkers who were horrified at what they saw in Jacob Riis book How The Other Half Lives and in events such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. They decided that enough was enough, and that governmental regulation was the best way to deal with the situation. They helped fund progressive causes and created some of the first worker protection legislation in US history, then brought that knowledge and skill to the White House in the form of Franklin Roosevelt and the New Dealers who rebuilt this nation and saved it from ruin.

This group hasn't been affected by events yet, but that won't last. The one thing we can say for sure about people with money and power is than no matter how much of it they have they'll always want more, and when the poor ane lower middle class have nothing left to give the upper middle class will start getting hit. Sooner or later they will over-reach, and when that day comes the GOP, if they're lucky, is going to find itself right back where it was in 1932. If they're unlucky, they'll find themselves with Czar Alexander and Louis the 16th. Remember, the current swing towards the GOP, while it's translated into a lot of political power, is still very small compared to the swing the Democrats had in 1932, and it won't take much to drag it back towards progressive causes. May you live in interesting times goes the old Chinese curse, and trust me, the only thing these people hate more than getting involved is to have to live in interesting times.

But, you say, with all the creepy, scummy things that are going on, why aren't these people involved now? Even if they're not directly affected, surely

I get good mail, too:

When I was in Viet Nam, I had no doubts about who was more concerned about US casualties-- those opposing the war or those waving the flag yelling "kill those commies." Supporting the troops doesn't include applauding the squandering of their lives. I hope you'll continue to oppose this coming nightmare for our military.

Thanks. Even though I'm all for the use of military force when necessary, it should always, always be an absolute last resort when every other option has failed. According to reporter Helen Thomas, who has been reporting on the White House since the Kennedy administration, Bush is the first President she's ever seen who actually wants to go to war. And why shouldn't he? Neither he nor anyone in his immediate or even distant family will seriously be put at risk in Iraq or Korea or anywhere else this administration cares to wage war with. And they'll make a fortune off of it, too. He's taking advantage of the honor of our soldiers to obey the orders of their commanders ans using it for his political gain, spilling their blood for his profit, never mind the blood of thousands of innocents who will die at our hands. Bush claims to be a Christian, I can't believe that He would in any way endorse or condone what we're planning on doing in Iraq. I'm not a Christian, yet I seem to have more compassion than Bush does. It makes you wonder.

This report actually came out on Saturday, I just heard about it today from a website called AntiWarmonger that I'll have a permanent link to soon. Apparently the US has been chasing Al Qaeda members into Pakistan under the impression that they had permission to do so. According to the article, US and Afghan forces exchanged heavy machine-gun fire with Pakistani forces in the southern Waziristan area on Thursday, according to local officials on the Pakistani side. So the war in Afghanistan is still going on while we focus our attention on Iraq, and somewhat on North Korea. Suppose, just suppose, that as the US is on the edge of actual war, that Al Qaeda operatives and their allies along the Pakistani border decide to launch a major offensive. Then, North Korea decides to lob a nuke towards, say, Tokyo. At the same time, China decides that this would be a perfect time to "assimilate" Taiwan back into the mainland. Now Donald Rumsfeld says we can handle a multi-front war, but the question is, do we really want to? Another question is, is any of this necessary at all? And of course my final question is, why do we only get this news from foreign sources or blogs like this?

Here's part of the answer, at least to that last question. The FCC is about to lessen deregulatory rules for broadcast stations even more than they already are. Accoding to the article, in the NY Times, Since the rules on ownership of radio were last relaxed in 1996, the two biggest companies went from owning 130 stations to more than 1,400. Only totalitarian regimes want this much control of the media, and they don't want it because they want to watch ESPN all day. They want it as a propaganda machine to further their own causes and to quash any dissent. And as usual the public is being left out: The F.C.C. chairman, Michael K. Powell, has scheduled only one public hearing, in Richmond, Va., on the proposal, and the public comment period will close at the end of this month. Michael Powell is the son of Secretary Of State and "house boy" Colin Powell, and you can be sure he'll listen to all of our complaints before he ignores them anyway.

Monday, January 06, 2003

Web Wars

Monday, January 06, 2003

Continuing an ongoing dialogue:

Joe, I think our basic "disagreement" is, now that we are heading towards the battle, the time to complain is over and we should get behind the struggle and help in any manner to make it as short as possible. Yes, by all means, make sure people understand the roots of the conflict, and remind them that we need to get in and get out as quick as possible, but let's not undermine the efforts of our young men and women by creating dessention (sic) in the ranks, so to speak. This doesn't have to be another Vietnam, unless we let it become so.

Naturally I always support our troops, and I want to see as few casualties as possible. Of course it's possible to support the troops themselves without supporting the policies and the leadership that put them there. I have heard of civilians who spit on GI's coming home from 'Nam and it sickens me. A soldier isn't responsible for policy, a soldier feels honor-bound to do his duty in the best interests of his country, and even more so when the soldier is forced to go to war against his will via the draft. A lot of people faced a serious moral dilemma about whether to go or whether to find legal (and illegal) means to avoid combat, and as long as the decision was made in clear conscience, I have no problem with either decision. The soldiers serving today are volunteers who understand (as I did) the risks they take.

I don't know if you're aware of this, but recently the US held war games in preparation for an attack against Iraq. The American general who was commanding Iraq's forces managed to sink most of the American fleet in the Persian gulf and bog down our invasion using low-tech means that Iraq used in the first Gulf-war (like using motorcycles instead of bombs and giving coded orders through public prayers). Now I'm sure you know, having probably participated in such war games yourself, it is common for one side to discount what the other has done for varying reasons, stop, and commit what we kids used to call a "do-over." In these particular war games, there were so many of these that the general playing Iraq resigned angrily, saying that "we run these games to learn, and nothing's being learned here." I used to have that url, I'll see if I can locate it again.

As for what happened in Nam and comparing it to what might happen here, my knowledge of local events during Nam are too limited to make a true comparison. My impression is that we weren't really fighting to win the war, but that's not really backed up by aything more than a gut feeling. If I'm not mistaken, I'm sure you're referring to incidents like what happened with Jane Fonda, making the enemy look good, etc. I do know that she has apologized on numerous occasions for what she did there, and I for one am willing to forgive her for being naive. I'm a bit less willing to forgive those who knew that the war was both immoral and being prosecuted badly (like MacNamara) yet continued on anyway. A few years back, they released audio of LBJ saying in private how he thought the whole thing was a "damn mess" and that he wished he knew how to get out of it, despite his public crackdown on dissent and vocal support for the war. Anti-war politicians like McGovern, on hearing those tapes for the first time, said they wished they had known about LBJ's feelings, that together they could have worked out a peaceful and honorable solution to the war before it escalated, as it did under Nixon.

The present situation is different, the reasons given are less clear even than during Nam, and I don't trust anyone who values secrecy as much as the current administration does. But I certainly hope that there are as few casualties as possible, not just among our own troops, but among the innocent Iraqis who would rather just go on living their lives in peace and freedom. I also hope that those Iraqis are considered when putting together a postwar government. I'm all for unity, but I reserve my right to speak out when I think things are wrong.

As to your contention that this action will swell the ranks of Osama's group of goons, it has one minor flaw. They don't need a reason, just an opportunity They are scared to death that our way of life, will someday replace theirs, and while that may occur, it won't be during their lifetime. A change of that magnitude will take generations, and as long as the oil rich powers that be, on both sides, are in control, any alteration of lifestyles or forms of governace are just a pipe dream (or nightmare depending on how one percieves it).

The Islamic fundamentalists have too many problems to list here. There's certainly a minority who will never believe that America is anything but evil, we have a few of those in our own country. But by attacking Iraq without even a decent pretense of justification we will enable that minority to convince those who are on the fringe. Perception is everything, and people who have no hope also have no fear. If we can truly create a peaceful, democratic Iraq, then yes, it will go a long way to marginalize the fundies. I just don't believe we have that in mind. I hope I'm wrong.

All that being said, I will try to keep an open mind, for I am a firm believer in getting all the necessary information before making up my mind. One of the things that distresses me the most is, we have become a society that has forgotten how to disagree without becoming disagreeable, and it pains me to watch seemingly intelligent people descend into chest thupping neanderthal's when it would have been wiser for them to have followed Mark Twain's advice. That is, "It is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.". That is a hard lesson to learn and it has taken most of my lifetime to learn it.

I agree wholeheartedly. But, if I can be partisan for a moment, when I hear people like Rush Limbaugh comparing Sen. Tom Daschle to "Satan" for simply doing his job in blocking legislation he felt was wrong for the country, and when I hear pundits like Anne Coulter say "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too," then I think I have a right to be a little defensive. And when that message, in different words and forms, is spread far and wide, 24/7 on the radio and television, when FOX News, which claims to be "Fair and Balanced" and yet is run by Republican operative Roger Ailes and funded by Republican financier Ruppert Murdoch, repeats it, then I get both scared and defensive. Unfortunately, too many on the left are either unwilling to see that a problem exists, or believe that fighting back is wrong. I refer you to my blog for more details on that note.

Mind you, I am not trying to "convert you" to my way of thinking. I'm not a priest of a liberal religion. I'm just a guy who feels the need to speak out on these issues, and I hope that some day enough people listen so that, at the very least, politicians will start listening more to their constituents and less to those who finance their campaigns.

I saw this opinion piece in the LA Times, I think the guy above needs to read it. Here's an excerpt:

When Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the first President Bush likened it to Nazi Germany's occupation of the Rhineland. "If history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms," he declared. The administration leaked reports that tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were massing on the border of Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion

The Burden

By Michael Ignatieff

Excerpt:

If America takes on Iraq, it takes on the reordering of the whole region. It will have to stick at it through many successive administrations. The burden of empire is of long duration, and democracies are impatient with long-lasting burdens -- none more so than America. These burdens include opening up a dialogue with the Iranians, who appear to be in a political upsurge themselves, so that they do not feel threatened by a United States-led democracy on their border. The Turks will have to be reassured, and the Kurds will have to be instructed that the real aim of United States policy is not the creation of a Kurdish state that goes on to dismember Turkey. The Syrians will have to be coaxed into abandoning their claims against the Israelis and making peace. The Saudis, once democracy takes root next door in Iraq, will have to be coaxed into embracing democratic change themselves.

This is a long read, and a very powerful article, but I recommend it highly. The US is playing a dangerous game, one that could very easily bring the entire world into a destructive war.

Though the article is careful not to be overly critical of what I feel to be the empire-building apparatus of the Bush administration, it's main thrust, as I have said on numerous occasions, is that the future of Iraq and global peace lies not in how easily we can defeat a weak Iraq army, but in what we do after we take over Iraq. If I believed that we really intended to create a peaceful, democratic Iraq ruled by its people under a free Constitution, then I would be all for it. I just don't believe that this is our intention. I think all the oil oligarchy and its chief crony, the Bush administration, wants is to get their greedy little hands on that oil, and to hell with what the Iraqi people want.

A global government, acting under principle and law, might have used a combination of diplomacy backed by military force to remove Saddam, a dangerous madman, from power, but would have put something better in its place. Instead, we have a jingoistic administration that knows nothing except how to play power politics, making trumped-up charges against Iraq, and who will apparently refuse to accept any solution that doesn't lead to a US colonial puppet regime. This sets a dangerous example and will only make the world less safe for us, not more. That makes it all the more imperative for the American people to wake up and put a stop to it before it's too late.

In case you think I'm a little paranoid, consider that the US has just completed a deal with Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan for the construction of an oil pipeline that will originate in the Central Asian Oil fields, which have a LOT of oil, to the Arabian Sea, a pipeline the freepers refuse to believe will be constructed. Why the pipeline? Because according to companies like Unocal, which holds the contract on the pact just signed, that's the quickest,easiest, and cheapest way to get the oil. So here we are, just finishing off a battle in Afghanistan (which still isn't quite finished, but that's another story), getting ready to go to war in Iraq, and stirring up trouble in oil-rich Venezuela. The common denominator in all of this is oil, and it's the foundation of our potential empire-to-be. And the regimes in places like Turkmenistan and other Central Asian countries are just as vicious and insane as Hussein. So it's pretty plain to me that democracy is hardly our intent, and until the US juggernaut is halted, not by military force, but by the docile American public, we can look forward to many years of tough times, lost freedoms, and daily fear.

Sunday, January 05, 2003

Can The Left Retake The Media?

There were some interesting letters in the NY Times today in answer to their column Outflanked Democrats Wonder How to Catch Up in Media Wars. This is the best point that was made: The liberal position doesn't have to be dry; Bill Clinton was a master at articulating the Democratic viewpoint. Democrats need someone who has smarts and charisma, and who can also help inspire our innate ability to reach for compassionate solutions to very complicated problems.

Unfortunately, the majority of Dems in power are "old school" liberals: losers who think the same things that worked in the hippie sixties and disco seventies will work today. They won't. Campaigning is a question of focus, and the Democratic leadership lack focus. Bill Clinton gave them focus and gave them drive and they resented him for it, and didn't fight for him. They paid the price for it in 1994, in losing Congress, and they paid a price for it in 2000 and 2002 when Clinton's formidable skills went mostly unused.

The letters contained a pretty wide variety of viewpoints, including a hardcore freeper:

With Howard Stern, Anna Nicole Smith, the now-defunct "Murphy Brown" and PBS gambits sympathetic to just about every liberal idea, they don't need another show. Their ideas are out there for all to see and hear. Apparently, our citizens largely aren't buying,

a hardcore freeper pretending to be a liberal:

I'm an environmentally conscious, pacifist-leaning vegetarian who... was forced out of the Democratic Party that generations of my family so unwaveringly supported when it spearheaded social movements violating almost every one of our religious and moral beliefs,

those who are in denial that a problem even exists:

Media dominance is overrated. Franklin D. Roosevelt won four terms at a time when newspapers leaned Republican, and Ronald Reagan won landslides when liberalism dominated,

and finally the assorted losers in the hippie patrol who think that fighting back in and of itself is wrong:

The search for a liberal answer to Rush Limbaugh will never succeed, since "the worst are full of passionate intensity," as Yeats said, and an answer to Mr. Limbaugh in equivalent terms would degrade everything that the Democrats stand for..

Man, any idiot who quotes Yeats to a society that prefers its information in ten second soundbites offered by people who posess the intellectual capacity of your average cockroach simply deserves to get their asses kicked. I'm not saying Yeats was wrong, I'm saying that if the enemy is using guns, you need to stop using sticks with nails.

Of course, there was plenty of advice:

The best strategy for Democrats and liberals is to let those who have been denied the blessings of American life tell their own stories and wake the country's conscience.,

and

Where are the women? The Democratic Party big boys need a shot of hormones. Estrogen. Judiciously blended with testosterone. This time, there won't be any side effects except the rise in temperature that many of us older women have come to think of as a "power surge.",

but they sounded pretty lame. Times have changed, and liberals need to wake up to that reality. Clinton understood that and that's why he won. Gore understood it too, but he was swept away by forces he underestimated. He didn't lack the drive, but he trusted too much in the intelligence of the average American voter to see through the crapola. Clinton said it best: When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody, who's weak and right.

There are a lot of reasons that the Dems can't compete freely with the GOP hate machine. One is money: the GOP machine is perfectly willing to give money to people who support their cause, liberals think you ought to do it for free. And very few of us are independantly wealthy enough to really devote the kind of time that's needed to put together a radio show and still support their families. If Joey and I were right-wingers, someone would have picked us up by now.

Another reason is that, yes, by and large, liberals tend to be more analytical than confrontational. What liberals don't understand is that you have to be confrontational. I agree you don't have to lie and dehumanize your opponents like the right wing does, but you have to be aggressive and you have to call them on the lies and push back when they push you. Politics is a blood sport, and you can be all for the right things and still go for the throat. Hit back hard and never apologize! said Harry Truman.

In an interview on Buzzflash, left-wing radio host Randi Rhodes makes the best point of all:

Here's the dirty little secret of news talk. There are advertisers making huge "buys" on really low rated shows that air nationally. If advertisers only go where the listeners are why do they buy cable news, Oliver North, or Rush Limbaugh who has horrible ratings? They are buying CONTROL of CONTENT. It's leverage, whether it's radio, cable or network. They control millions of dollars of any company's revenue source. So that if something is said or done to disrupt their global business, they take their advertising elsewhere, or threaten to and then shut down the message.

That's the point, and that's where the money comes in. Why do they even bother to measure ratings in the first place? Because of advertising. Advertising is how broadcast radio (and TV) gets money. In theory someone who has something they want to sell will buy ad time on (or sponsor) a particular station or show based upon the ratings. A more popular show can obviously demand a higher price because the more people who listen, the more people who are willing to buy the product. But when Rhodes talks about buying content, she means that the people who are doing the advertising on shows like Rush or Liddy or whoever are less interested in selling anything than they are in making sure the right message (theirs) gets heard, and the wrong message (anyone who interferes with their profits) gets suppressed.

Why does ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) advertise? Rhodes asks. Do they want to sell you a soybean? Why does Boeing advertise? Are you gonna' buy aircraft? Aircraft parts? GE the largest defense contractor wants to sell you a light bulb and/or a missile? And then there's BASF -- they don't make anything! They just make it better. Uh huh. They're buying CONTENT. Millions and millions of advertising dollars DO affect the message you get. It controls the news that is reported and the news that is NOT.

If a station knows he can count on the money regardless of the ratings, then the actual ratings matter less to them. And these "advertisers" consider the money well-spent if they can use radio as a propaganda machine to fire up their loyal supporters who will fire up politicians, who in turn will reward these companies with tort reform and deregulation and other goodies. The advertising money is an investment in a political strategy, and it's become a huge network where Republican politicians have a free route to their audience and it skews the whole national outlook. Democrats need to start doing the same thing and start sponsoring both veteran hosts like Rhodes.

Congratulations to the Falcons and quarterback Michael Vick for winning their wild-card playoff game against the Green Bay Packers, the first postseason loss ever suffered by the Packers at home. I know it doesn't have a damn thing to do with politics, but once again I like to let the fretards know that it's possible for an avowed liberal such as myself to be a fan of football. Way to go, Dirty Birds! Next stop, Philadelphia!

NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman argues in his latest editorialthat the war in Iraq is most definitely about oil, at least in part, but a lot depends on what we do after the war is over. Once the war starts, and once we've committed ourselves to using our overwhelming military might to secure these oil fields for our use and profit, there's no turning back. Actually, at this point there's no turning back anyway, the troops are already in position and just about ready to go.If I were a candidate for President in 2004, and the war was still waging, I would say that, if elected, I would continue as planned, but I'd keep the Bush family evil empire from profiting by it. I'd make sure the Iraqis get a government that they want, not one that we impose on them to protect our profit margins.

Soon the GOP will begin their two-year stint as masters of the government. Don't let Trent Lott's removal as Senate majority leader fool you: he hasn't resigned from the Senate and he's been given the important post of Chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee. Didn't Lott swear to resign the Senate if he lost the leadership position? Well, you know how good the word of a Republican is.

The RNC has wasted no time in beginning its attacks on Sen. John Edwards, who announced his candidacy for President a few days ago. Not that this is unexpected. The GOP hate machine is in full swing, and it's a formidable force, especially when it's backed by a national media afraid to tell the truth. Whoever winds up getting the nod as the Dem Presidential candidate is going to have to fight like hell 24/7, like Bill Clinton did. Only by dominating the airwaves with money and ads can the GOP hope to win. They've been devoid of ideas for over a century and the only thing that's kept them from being destroyed as a party completely is a combination of all that money and manipulating the fears of Americans: whether it's Communists, Liberals, or terrorists. Yes the Dems have problems in the area of fighting dirty, but unless the GOP is planning on simply killing all of us, the tide will turn back to us once more.

Saturday, January 04, 2003

Who Do You Trust?

Saturday, January 04, 2003

The guy who implied I was a supporter of Hussein wrote me back, with a wordier response but not doing much more but elaborating on his original writing. Here's the exchange (he's in italics):

War is neither moral nor immoral. It is the likely outcome when reasonable discourse between states becomes impossible and civilized behavior disappears. Hussein has proved to be a vicious and unstable personality, determined to alter the balance of power in the MidEast at the expense of Europe and the US. His agenda is anti-democratic with no pretense of populist support. He is a delusional monster who must be contained. We have spent a decade trying to neutralize his impact and have largely failed. It seems now that he must be eliminated.

The act of war in and of itself is always immoral, the reasons for it may be moral or not, depending on who you ask and on who won and gets to write the history. I don't disagree that Hussein is a "vicious and unstable" person, but the same can be said for many leaders of many countries, some of whom are our allies.

I also remind you that we didn't think Hussein was so bad when we were selling him "weapons of mass destruction" in the 80's, when it suited our needs to aid Iraq in their war with Iran. We continued to do so even when we knew he was using the gas on his own people. After the gulf war we encouraged the Kurds and other factions to overthrow Hussein and did nothing when they were gunned down by weapons he was allowed to keep.

And containment was hardly a failure. The only people Hussein is any real threat to are his own. We have created a de facto state of Kurds in northern Iraq, and have been flying over and bombing his facilities in both the north and the south almost daily since he kicked out the UN inspectors in 1998. We haven't been sitting idly by, despite propaganda that says otherwise. And again I remind you that Hussein has no ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. He's a vicious bastard but he's a SECULAR vicious bastard.

Yes, the war is about oil. He has an enormous amount and clearly wishes to control more. We need it, not just the US, but the entire world. It is our primary source of energy.

It is for the present but it doesn't have to continue to be that way. And whether the amount of oil available in the world will last us a decade, a century, or a millennium, it is in the end a finite resource, and the sooner we lessen or eliminate the need for it, the better. If we took all the energy we're putting into war and put it into research for other energy sources and forging a truly global community based on the rule of law and the ideals presented in the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution, then wars in places like Iraq, would be unnecessary.

I recommend you read "War Is A Racket" by Gen. Smedley Butler, a man who knew first-hand what our policies were in the world.

We didn't keep the oil when we could have. Aramco could have ignored the local sensibilities and kept the oil with force. We never entertained the idea, rejecting it as the worst form of colonialism.

The real reasons we stopped in Iraq after Desert Storm will probably never be known, considering how secretive the current administration is. Perhaps we felt that, properly weakened, our former friend Saddam would be more cooperative and he just turned belligerent. I've heard a lot of stories about how we encouraged Iraq to attack Kuwait to begin with, but these people play at games those of us on the bottom only hear about in rumors. Even the evidence being given as justification for the war is based in part on information that has not been released to the general public. It's a question of trust, and it's obvious that you trust G.W. Bush and I do not; in fact, I trust him as much as I trust Hussein.

However, we cannot allow a vicious dictator to hold the world hostage for energy! We can bemoan the fact that we haven't all switched to solar or hydro electric or whatever, but the fact remains, the world relies on oil.

Again, I point out that Hussein is hardly singular as far as dictators are concerned. Our "friends" in Saudi Arabia are hardly better, and we just signed an oil deal with Turkmenistan, which is being run by an even stranger dictator.

Finally, it is not that I am willing to kill Americans or Iraqis. I only worry about how many will die if we don't act. Remember, in 1939 many, many people felt that our enmity towards Hitler stemmed solely from our desire to protect markets and to prevent Germany from engaging in world trade. Were they right? Perhaps. But that only disguised the much deeper evil hidden beneath the surface. Can you be so sure that this isn't the case again?

In1939 Americans were extremely isolationist and unwilling to get involved in yet another war in Europe. Germany was also much larger and dangerous than Iraq will ever be. There were also many Americans who liked Hitler and even did business with him during the war: one of those was Prescott Bush, W's great-grandfather. But that's another story. As I said in my previous letter, I am all for the use of military force when it's justified, I just don't think it is here, and I don't like being told I'm a traitor for opposing what's going on, as you implied then.

Friday, January 03, 2003

I Get Mail

I got two letters the other day dealing with the following mass-mailer I sent out:

Good News! We're now being told that the cost of a war with Iraq will only be about $50-60 billion, a lot lower than originally estimated. No doubt joyous citizens will take to the streets to celebrate. Now we know that we'll only be horrendously suffering the effects of this administration's misguided and immoral policies, and not be completely devastated, as we were expecting.

Before I get to the letters, let's make it clear that the $50-60 billion dollar figure isn't even true: Eric Alterman reports that the $50-60 billion number came from bush administration budget director Mitch Daniels, who, according to Eric, apparently just made it up out of thin air. The real cost of the war would be closer to two trillion dollars over ten years. That's nearly $200 billion per year, four times as much Daniels is saying the war will cost in total.

But even discounting that, what about the massive cost of human life? I don't know how many of our soldiers will die, but you can bet that most of the casualties will be Iraqi citizens who don't give a damn about Hussein, not to mention the children. And then there's the reputation of the United States: most of the world already thinks we're too arrogant and pushy, and all too willing to ignore UN policy when it suits us. Some of the criticism over the years has been justified, a lot of it hasn't, but as the GOP well knows, appearances are everything.

Anyway, I got a couple of responses to the original letter. One was pretty straightforward, a guy who wrote and said If this was 1940, you would undoubtedly be defending the 3rd Reich as a misunderstood nation being unreasonably targeted by Zionists in Washington and London............give it a rest!

You know, if this guy really understood what fascism was, he'd realize that it's the bush regime that's acting like a 4th Reich, but you'd never convince him of that. And of course there's the standard implication that because I'm against this immoral war, that somehow I'm "defending" Iraq. But you can't put I'm not for Iraq, I'm against killing Iraqi children on such weak evidence on a bumper sticker. Notice how the guy never attacked what I said, he never discussed the issue, he just went straight to character assassination, but that's pretty typical behavior from the right.

The other letter was more intriguing and far longer, so I won't reprint the whole thing here. He started out by saying I am not offended by your emails nor am I upset with receiving any email that I might not agree with, such as yours, which is fair enough. Total agreement even among allies is a rare thing, and not even really a good thing. But unlike the first letter writer, this guy doesn't accuse me of being in league with the enemy.

He continues: I do feel that every peaceful means should be exhausted before going to war, when talking fails that is when the big stick needs to come out and used. I would much prefer that the leaders in the region in question would have the courage to handle the situation, but they don't, so someone has to remind Saddam that he isn't as important as he thinks he is.

I agree with this statement. Iraq is really best dealt with by his neighbors, but they refuse to deal with Hussein for reasons far too long to go into here. In my response I pointed out that I would be completely in favor of getting rid of Hussein if I were convinced he was a real threat to us. I'm just not convinced.

He then says I was telling, anyone who would listen, back in the '80's, when I first joined the Guard, that our current situation, concerning "homeland security", would occur within the first decade of the 21st century, they said I was being paranoid. They aren't laughing now. Neither am I, and neither are a lot of others.

Is this the fault of our leaders, be they Democrat or Republican? No, it is our fault for not paying attention to what was going on and being more concerned with getting rich, during the "Greedy '80's and '90's". This is something I pointed out in my recent article "The Black Sheep" and also in "Waiting For The River To Catch Fire." He finishes by saying:

So, if you wish to continue this dialogue, feel free, but I advise you in advance that while I don't agree with everything you have stated in your previous messages, I will defend to the death your right to state them.

The trouble I have with his letter was that, while twice he pointed out that he disagreed with me, he never really indicated exactly where he did. Maybe he thinks I'm a right-winger? Regardless, he wrote very well and talked about things that frighten him, just like I talk about things that frighten me. I don't know if this guy is a right-winger or not, but if he is, I wish there were more of them like him. There's plenty of room in the world for serious discussions, even knock-down drag out fights over things like policy, but when, like the first respondent, you do nothing but dehumanize your opponent, there's not even any point in continuing the discussion.

Sound Familiar?

Being a student of ancient history, I'm reminded once more of Thucydides, the forcibly retired Greek general who wrote about the Peloponnesian War, which happened 2500 years ago. At the time, Athens was greatest naval power in the Western world, and a land power equaled only by their rival Sparta, who they were at war with. One of Sparta's tributary states was the small island Melos. The people of Melos had no love for Sparta, and preferred to stay neutral during the battle. But that wasn't good enough for Athens, who plundered and raided Melos. The Melians weren't happy about that, and became hostile. The Athenians prepared to take them over and sent a group to negotiate what was essentially terms of surrender, which the Melians refused to do. Part of the conversation went like this:

Athenians: There’s no point bothering you with the same old story about how we have a right to our empire because of our military, or tell you that we're attacking you because of something you did to us. We won’t bore you with a long speech which you wouldn’t believe anyway. So since we both know exactly what’s going on, we hope you’ll just make it easy for both of us, accept it for what it is, and make the best of it. You know as well as we do that this is how the world is. Rights only come into play between equals in power. The strong do whatever they want, and everyone else does whatever they can.

Melians: Regardless, it’s important – and we’re speaking because we must, since you’re telling us to forget about our own rights when it comes to what’s best for your interests – for us to remind you that the rights you’re denying us protect you also. You in particular ought to know this, because your fall would not only destroy you but set a horrible example for anyone else who struggles to be free.

Athenians: It’s a law of nature that men rule wherever they can. It’s not like we’re the first to do this. Men were doing this before us, men will do this long after we’re gone. But since we’ve got the power, we’re using it while we can. You, and everyone else, would do the same thing if you were us.

Does any of this sound familiar? It should, it's pretty close to how we deal with everyone else. Gunboat diplomacy is great, as long as you're the one pointing the gun.

Black Sheep

That's me on the left, when I was maybe four years old. I grew up in a pretty normal family, but somehow I didn't turn out normal, in fact you might say I'm kind of the black sheep of the family. I don't mean that to sound like I'm a criminal or anything, in fact I've never been arrested, never even really been in trouble unless you count a couple of traffic tickets and a bunch of financial difficulties. My life, from a certain point of view, has been pretty damn boring. I don't drink, I don't do drugs, I don't treat women like property, I love my wife dearly and I'm not afraid to show it. So why am I considered the black sheep? Because my relatives have something I don't: A LIFE.

Why am I bringing this up? What does it have to do with politics and the Pax Liberalis? Quite a bit, actually. You see, my "normal" relatives, engrossed as they are with their own lives, are pretty clueless about what's happening in this country, and that's also pretty common for most Americans. Think about it: more than half of the population didn't even bother to vote in the midterm elections, as important as they were. And how many of those who didn't vote are even registered to vote? The Republicans are counting on that apathy, in fact one of the reasons they're so vicious is to make sure that politics is such a dirty business that most people will turn it off.

It's a good strategy as far as winning elections is concerned, and taking care of the people who put you in office, that is, your campaign contributors, but in the long run it's bad for the fifty percent who's staying away, it's bad for the country as a whole, and it's even bad for the Republicans, though they don't see it yet, and some of them never will. But it isn't necessary to convert the hardcore types, it's futile to even try. The only way they get beaten in the end is when their policies screw things up so badly that the fifty percent who aren't paying much attention, that is, people like my relatives, finally begin to really get affected by what's going on and turn out in droves to get rid of the bums.

Do you think things are bad now? Consider what life was like for most people in the years between the stock market crash of 1929 and the election of FDR in 1932. A lot of people lost their life savings because of financial scandals not much different than what's going on today. Public schools as we know them didn't exist: if the community couldn't afford a school, you just didn't have it. Working people had little or no rights, but you didn't think about that too much because unemployment was measured in double figures, and you considered yourself lucky to even be working, The future? What future? And the people who caused all the trouble, the Republicans and the business interests who financed them, had complete control of the government and the media even more than they do now. And Liberalism was an untested idea that frightened people because of the implications of massive governmental regulation of the economy. In short, it was a mean world run by mean people.

That governmental interference in the marketplace was exactly what FDR was talking about when he said We have nothing to fear but fear itself!. At the time, Europe was turning to fascism, socialism, or communism, and no one knew for sure what affect Roosevelt's policies were going to have in the US. But things were so bad for so many people that they were willing to invest him and the New Deal with a great deal of power. And the New Deal was so successful that it's taken the Republicans seventy years to regain the power they lost in 1932.

Today is different. True, a lot of things are the same as they were in 1929, but there are major differences. Yes, the big companies still control the government and nearly all of the media, but no amount of spin in the world is going to convince people things are great when they're rotten. Ask any Russian how seriously they took Pravda. There was no way we could communicate with each other as easily as we can now: not just the Internet, but with cel phones and other technologies that have made the world a smaller place. We also have the experience of history to show us how successful liberalism was, getting people to remember that, while tough, isn't as tough as getting them to try something they've never tried before.

And unlike in 1929, the rest of the world is simply not going to put up with the crap coming from America for very long. In 1929, Europe was already on the verge of war, today they are united, and won't be so willing to let us just declare war after war on whoever we like, for whatever reason. Iraq will be a cakewalk, but the European Union won't, and neither will Japan or China. And what about our own soldiers? How many wars do you think they're willing to put up with? How effective a fighting force will they be if, in the back of their minds, they're wondering whether what they're doing is right? The kids who are screaming "Kick their ass and take their gas!" may not be so damn enthusiastic when they're sitting in a foxhole in the middle of nowhere, wondering if they're even going to be alive the next day.

So yes, things are tough now, but they're not hopeless, and they're not as bad as they were in 1929. We're just used to better things and it's infuriating to have to fight just to get back what we lost. And we should get used to the idea that, in the short term, we're going to get our asses kicked, because we're poor and disorganized, and the fifty percent who don't care enough to get involved, people like my relatives, aren't going to help. The Republicans themselves don't realize that the liberal regulations they're going to try to get rid of are protecting them: if the regulations didn't exist, things would be a lot worse and they'd be gone so fast their heads will swim. But that won't stop them. They'll go too far because too far is the only place they can go. And when that happens, I'll be here, me and all the other black sheep like yourselves. We'll know what's been going on and we'll hopefully have a plan, if not a Pax Liberalis, then something else, and maybe next time it'll take a lot more than seventy years for the right-wingers to regain what they'll have lost.

Thursday, January 02, 2003

Accountability

Looks like Medicare is next on w's list: he's planning to make it "more competitive", which is Rove Newspeak for "getting rid of it" With Bill Frist in, it ought to go very smoothly, and I'm sure he'll make a lot of money on the deal when it's done.

One of the standards of the Pax Liberalis will be to make both governments and corporations more accountable to the public at large, and one of the ways to do that is to make sure, as much as possible, that everything they do behind closed doors that affects the public will eventually be available for anyone to see. People who keep these dealings secret almost always have something to hide. Because of the crap that went on under Nixon, they passed a law that said 20 years after a President leaves office, his papers must be made available for anyone who wants to see them. There are exceptions: things that have to do with national security for example, but twenty years would render most of those matters irrelevant. GW Bush has fought hard to prevent Reagan's papers, the first to come up under the new laws, from public scrutiny, and so far he's been successful. Part of that is family history of course: what Bush 1 knew about Iran-Contra is probably hidden in there somewhere. But the Bush family is known for their passion for keeping secrets, and that sort of thing should simply not be allowed for people in public office, especially for Presidents.

Another example is what's been going on in oil-rich Venezuela, where "opposition" leaders with ties to the Bushistas are trying to oust (once again) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. It doesn't matter to the Bushistas and the oil barons that Chavez was easily voted in as President, they're going to keep trying until he's gone: bets are on to see if he'll be "suicided" before his term is up.

Speaking of oil, according to a news report from Pakistan, they're getting ready to begin building that oil pipeline that the freepers are going crazy denying. This has been planned for quite some time, as you can see for yourself in this official government document from 1998 detailing the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas. According to the document, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. Note, by the way, that the guy who gave this speech to Congress represented Unocal, and keep in mind that the current, hand-picked President of Afghanistan, is a former Unocal consultant. How do guys like me get in on some of this action? Oh yeah, I'd have to become evil.

Wednesday, January 01, 2003

Spanky Goes To War

I've been thinking a bit about the article I mentioned below that talks about the Democrats looking for left-wing talk show hosts. Now, Joey Davis and I just completed show #21, which I called Spanky Goes To War, and one of the points they brought up in the article was that left-wingers tend to be less confrontational and more "wonkish". "Most liberal talk shows are so, you know, milquetoast, who would want to listen to them?" said Harry Thomason, the Hollywood producer who is close to Bill Clinton. "Conservatives are all fire and brimstone." Joey and I tend to agree, which is why we do the show the way we do. In this day and age, it's vital that the message not only be presented but be presented in the right way, to attract listeners not just among those who would normally agree with our stances, but people who might not even follow politics at all. It's important for us to let them know, in an entertaining way, that politics does affect their lives, and the choice is theirs to allow it to affect them in a positive way, as we would like, or in a negative way, as the right-wingers do. The opposition wants to appeal to your anger and guide that anger towards the government, which they hate because it gets in the way of them ripping you off.

Now certainly Joey and I want to get on the air because it would mean that we'd be better off financially than we are right now...come to think of it, both of us being unemployed, a job at McD's would probably make us better off financially, at least if it were a full-time job, but I don't want anyone thinking our intentions are completely altruistic. That's not to say that we wouldn't do the show if we weren't getting any money for it, we've been at it for almost five months now without getting a dime on the deal, but certainly if we had to choose between doing the show and providing for ourselves and our families, we'd have to put our families first. If we were independently wealthy we'd keep doing the show, and we'll keep doing it for the present until something drastic happens to force us to stop. Since we now know that the Dems are openly looking for people to broadcast the left's viewpoints on the radio, we will step up our efforts to get in on this.

I also want to point out that we don't think right-wingers should be forced off the air completely. We don't. Within reason, all viewpoints deserve to be heard. That's what the Fairness Doctrine was all about, and under a Pax Liberalis that would be reinstated. The misfortunes of the left in recent years occurred in part because whenever they did have a message it went either under-reported or was given derogatory coverage by a media wholly owned by corporate entities who have every reason to propagandize on their behalf. If anything needs to be changed, that's number one. It's all part of the balance I always talk about between government, the press, and industry.

One other point: both Joey and I get sick of the old-timers who don't understand that things are different now, and it takes more than just lighting a doobie and whining to make changes. America has changed since the sixties, and the left's attitude has to reflect that. The right-wingers haven't changed their basic message in over a century, they just know how to use the new technology and get people's attention better. All this bull about "not being like them" is just bull: true we don't have to become evil war-mongering toadies, but that doesn't mean we can't show the same kind of passion and fight just as hard for our beliefs as they do for theirs. Harry Truman said to hit 'em hard and never apologize, that's just what we intend to do.

In the bartcop chat room the other day someone said that "if we don't watch it, we'll be living in a police state." The truth is, we already do live in a police state. Most of us aren't aware of it because it doesn't affect us directly, though if things continue along their current path, it's quite possible that it will. The people who are getting affected at present are Arab-Americans who are naturally suspect after 9/11, as witnessed by the mass arrests recently in L.A. The comic strip Doonesbury is dealing with that pretty well right now. As always, the future will show how bad things will get.

John Edwards of North Carolina will apparently make his official announcement to run for President in 2004 on Thursday, according to an article in the NY Times. He'd be someone I'd be willing to vote for, not wimpy losers like Dick Gephardt and Joe Lieberman, who is apparently hanging out in Israel doing...hell, who cares? I swear, if the Dems nominate Lieberman or Gephardt, I'm forming my own damn party. Those two are prime examples why the Dems are in the minority now.

Some Notes

Despite appearances to the contrary, I really do want to present a positive attitude on this blog, but face it, it's not easy. Consider the latest headlines: The Army is moving thousands of troops into the Persian Gulf, the biggest deployment since the Gulf War, in preparation for the inevitable war, and I don't give a damn what GW Bush says about how he wants a "peaceful solution" or that he still "hasn't decided" whether we're going to war. He's lying, folks, but then if you're a regular reader you probably already knew that. Then, he goes on to say that the situation in North Korea is totally different and calls for diplomacy. Of course: North Korea actually has nuclear weapons, and they have missiles that can deliver them to Tokyo or maybe even Hawaii or California. Iraq, on the other hand, has no nuclear capability, no means to deliver nuclear weapons, and has been, if not totally cooperating, not kicking UN inspectors out like North Korea has been doing. So why then aren't we moving troops into South Korea for a "pre-emptive strike"? Because North Korea doesn't have oil.

As if that weren't bad enough, after screwing with their electricity in 2000, the Bush administration is going to start cutting off Southern California's water supply. Serves them right for voting for Gore instead of monkey boy.

Meanwhile, the Dems are looking for a few good radio hosts to counter the right-wing hate machine. Pardon me for bragging, but they don't need to look much further than Joey Davis and I on The Joey Joe Joe Show. Joey and I are really starting to click right now, and if the show's as good as it is when we can only donate a limited amount of time to it, imagine how good it could be if we could do it full-time. More news on this as it occurs.

So you see what I mean? It's tough to keep a happy face on all of this as the new year gets underway, but perhaps in 2003 we'll have some better news. It's important to always keep your eye on the prize, and if enough people continue to work hard at it, we may someday actually achieve the Pax Liberalis the human race needs.

If You're Desperate And You Know It, Bomb Iraq

I got this from the bartcop board a week or so ago, I like it a lot.

(Sung To The Tune Of “If You’re Happy And You Know It, Clap Your Hands”)

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.

If the corporate scandal's growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'.
'Cause Saddam will soon be croakin',
Bomb Iraq.

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Close your mind and take directions,
This is how we win elections,
Bomb Iraq.

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.