These northern elites in the Democratic Party and in the media just don't get it. They cast Kansas off as a lost cause. But here in Kansas we have a popular Democratic governor. In 1991 the Democratic Party controlled the Kansas congress. Why is it that on a statewide race a Democrat can get more then 50% but Kerry looses 62.2% to 36.5%? Because that Governor Kathleene Sebelius ran on three things only: Education, Healthcare and Jobs. ECONOMIC ISSUES. See, you have to shut the hell up about social issues such as god, gays, guns and abortion, because that's what divides people here. But everyone needs a job, everyone needs healthcare and everyone here supports education. Many people assume Kansas is just packed with partisan Republicans. How is it that 70% of Kansans strongly support education funding, yet the BOE can ban evolution and Susan Wagle can get reelected on a platfrom of shutting down all of KU because of the content of their sex ed class? Because politics isn't as important or as divisive here as it is in Massachussets. It's not that people are either partisan pro-choice Democrats or partisan anti-labor Republicans in the midwest. People can consider themselves pro-education, but when Republican politicians shift the focus to moral issues, that moral value can trump a progressive value. There are actually three parties in Kansas, the Democrats, the moderate wing of the Republican party, and the growing religious right-wing of the Republican party. The latter with the backing of lots of pro-life money is now going after the moderates that had been in control for a long time of the Republican party.
All people want to be united behind something, and for people here in Kansas religious fundamentalism unites us more than common political progressive values that would also unite us would the Democrats ever stop electing elite intellectual liberal multimillionaire like Kerry who married into more mony than anyof us have here and inherited more drug money than any of us have here.
The Democratic Party is full of old, out of touch rich guys who get elected to the Senate and stay there forever. We need to change this because who is electable is whoever can connect with voters, not whoever is most established in the party. Those who argued that John Kerry was the right pick because he was the most "electable" are retarded. Whoever we decide is our candidate is electable, and then we only have to reach out to extra voters with charisma from there. We need progressive down-to-earth people to take over the Democratic party, indeed, to SAVE to Democratic party.
It is not all Kerry's fault however. Kerry didn't get media exposure beyond two minute answers and 30 second jabs at Bush. I saw the mainstream media cover one of his speeches and he was very charismatic and witty. Unfotunately, they cut back to discussion when he started talking about the issues, because heaven forbid, the voters vote on the issues instead of moral values.
Also the nature of social stratification and the rich being so rich right now makes it hard to get anybody that is in touch with the American people from either party. Aynone who has political power has gotten so by rigorously conforming to the nature of our elite political structure.
There were two ways to frame this election: either with a progressive outlook or a moralist outlook. Kerry shunned his liberl record and tried to convince voters from a moralist perspective that he was the better candidate. He didn't use Clinton's masterful approach by saying that both parties are full of good people, but they have two completely different ways of approaching the issues and here is why my approach is better. No, he didn't lay out the issues and show his his way of thinking and approach works better for solving the problems America faces and will take up into a better America instead of into a regressive America full of nepotism, fear and lies. Instead, Kerry said that he can fight a better War of Terror. That he agrees with Bush on foreign policy, but by simply changing leaders our allies will respect us more and come help us because John Kerry is smarter than Bush. A moralist approach hails the myth of the American rugged individualist and believes that the best a country can do is get a competent, strong-willed leader to get things down and stand up to evil and corruption. Kerry tried to appeal to this and simply posed himself as the better, stronger, more hopeful, smarter candidate. That is not enough!
The fallacy of this approach is that it assumes people are either moralists or progressives. Places like Kansas (and other midwest states like Minnesota and Texas) used to be dominated by progressive Christian leaders. There is still a religious left in America and the Democrats are killing it by abondoning progressive values. When people are thinking from a moralist outlook they aren't being as rational as we want them to. But these same people can think from a progressive outlook if you focus on getting people to vote in their best economic interests, and not on moral values. Remember: everyone needs healthcare, everyone needs a job, and everyone needs education. These values unite people.
We have to focus on these values long-term, at every juncture, in every race. Once we have taken back over the House, Senate, White House and Supreme Court, the social issues such as gay rights, and abortion can come naturally because they are decided by the courts, not so much by legislators. Furthermore, those issues will be won out because people will be voting and thinking rationally and progressively instead of voting on sigle issue moral choices and justifying a moralist approach by seeing two rich powerful guys running against each other. Also, Republicans won't be able to Jerrymander half the states to give them near permanent power for the ten years between every census. Since we have failed to unite people and get them to vote in their own best economic interests, the court will fall further into the hands of the Republicans and the Democrats have lost their social and economic agenda.
How do we do this? People have a fundamental need to coopeate and find identity in a community. Fundamentalist evangelism provides this for them. We need a simple campign focus that will tear through barriers and unite people as evangelism does. Investing in renewable energy sources is an issue that is in Kansas' best economic interest because Kansas is the ideal place to put lots of those new expensive energy windmills and harness the power of our great flatness! This would bring lots of money to Kansas for building them, create high-paying jobs, and then produce revenues from energy harvested. Everyone in Kansas is feeling the high price of gas and our home energy bills have been increasing like you wouldn't believe as well.
It's puzzling to many how 70% of people in the United States can say that they want less money to go to welfare, but 70% of people also say that more money should be given to help the poor. It's because people aren't just one thing or another. We aren't either progressives or moralists, most people in Kansas are both and if we focus on issues that have the potential to unite everyone, instead of issues in which we can coast by with 50% of the vote we will grow stronger and stronger every year. When it comes down to it Kansans fund a quality education system and fully fund their roads system. But when an issue is framed in terms of a moral debate, such as the BOE evolution or the KU sex ed. issues, moral issues will trump that. We have to make sure we are focusing on issues that unite people so that they vote in their best economic interests so that wealthy Republicans can't keep destroying the United States by shifting the focus of the elections voting on moral issues because it happens to help them to continue to prop up their business interests over the interests of the American people.
November 09, 2004
August 14, 2004
I couldn't have said it better myself. Article by Richard Reeves.
WHY ARE WE IN NAJAF?
Fri Aug 13,12:03 AM ET
Op/Ed - Richard Reeves
By Richard Reeves
SAG HARBOR, N.Y. -- Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) has not been successful so far in articulating answers to questions about whether and how the United States should go to war. But he will be guided by this draft of military application policy:
"The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest. If the decision is made to commit its forces to combat abroad, it must be done with clear intent and support to win. There must be clearly defined and realistic objectives. There must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for will have the support of the American people and Congress. Our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available."
The author of those words, slightly paraphrased here, is not working in the Kerry campaign. Those are the words of President Ronald Reagan (news - web sites), condensing the thoughts of his secretary of defense, Caspar Weinberger, whose original version, part of a speech he made in late 1984, included the phrase "or of our allies" after "vital to our national interest."
So what are we doing in Najaf? Is killing the followers of a nasty Shiite preacher, killing them at the gates of the most holy shrine of Shiite Muslims all over the world, vital to the national interests of the United States and its allies?
And why is it that we are killing Shiites, the wretched of the earth in the secular Sunni Muslim country of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)? That is the same Saddam who murdered the father of the preacher five years ago. Was that our clear intent and realistic objective in invading Iraq (news - web sites)?
Would the American people and Congress -- and our allies -- have supported a $200 billion war to get preacher Muqtada al-Sadr?
And was invasion our last resort? Even the war-maker himself, President George W. Bush (news - web sites), never claimed that. In the beginning, he said, it was the last resort because the United Nations (news - web sites) had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. When there were no such weapons, he said Saddam was a very bad guy. That was true -- and it was true 20 years ago when we were supplying him with weapons to use against Iran. But was he a great enough threat to go to war ourselves? Was killing Iraqis after the war our last resort?
"I know what I'm doing when it comes to winning this war," said Bush last Wednesday on the campaign trail in Albuquerque. That's good to hear. What exactly are you doing in Najaf? Killing bad guys, I guess. If that is the criteria for putting the Marines around the shrine of the Imam Ali, then we will be at war forever, everywhere.
Reagan, no "girly-man" he, began thinking hard, and differently, about sending young men and women into harm's way after 241 U.S. Marines on a peacekeeping mission to Lebanon were killed by a truck-bomber who crashed into their barracks near the Beirut Airport in October 1983. (Fifty-eight French soldiers were killed in a simultaneous blast.) Seven years later in his autobiography, he wrote:
"Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines' safety that it should have."
Reagan pulled the Marines out five months later, saying: "In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave. ... Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there."
It was then that Reagan wrote his list of policies regarding use of the military and concluded with this: "I would recommend it to future presidents."
August 09, 2004
Powerful RNC Video about Kerry
The RNC/Bush team have released this 12 minute video showing clips of Kerry speaking about Iraq.
This is powerful stuff that will not only ring true with republicans that eat this Kerry Flip-Flop stuff right up, but also Democrats, most of whom oppose(d) the war and want a strong candidate that will (did) too.
This is a preview of what the RNC in New York will foucs on, Kerry's Senate record.
Heh, I hate to say this but I was right. I looked at Kerry's Senate record and knew it wouldn't fly quite so well in the general election and that a person without a long Senate voting record is always a better bet. Oh well, Kerry's not my man, but he certainly will need to respond to the video and maybe we can help him do that.
They really did some cheap editing with this video. Several times, if not more than half of the time, Kerry's sentences are cut off in the middle, and the viewer has no idea what his point is. For several quotes in the video, audio and visual are not provided, they just past some crap up there and expect the American public to believe what they say. At one point there is a quote from Kerry and then a written quote which tries to use an ellipse to splice together two sentences which were not originally together.
Nonetheless, powerful propaganda.
This is powerful stuff that will not only ring true with republicans that eat this Kerry Flip-Flop stuff right up, but also Democrats, most of whom oppose(d) the war and want a strong candidate that will (did) too.
This is a preview of what the RNC in New York will foucs on, Kerry's Senate record.
Heh, I hate to say this but I was right. I looked at Kerry's Senate record and knew it wouldn't fly quite so well in the general election and that a person without a long Senate voting record is always a better bet. Oh well, Kerry's not my man, but he certainly will need to respond to the video and maybe we can help him do that.
They really did some cheap editing with this video. Several times, if not more than half of the time, Kerry's sentences are cut off in the middle, and the viewer has no idea what his point is. For several quotes in the video, audio and visual are not provided, they just past some crap up there and expect the American public to believe what they say. At one point there is a quote from Kerry and then a written quote which tries to use an ellipse to splice together two sentences which were not originally together.
Nonetheless, powerful propaganda.
What Republicans Really Stand for
I dunno whether I despise the Ivy-League educated elitist moderate pro-business Republicans like Bush that run the party and simply pander to the Religious Right, or the Religious Right that actually gets out the vote for them.
But today I want to focus of the radical right with three great examples...
James Hart Is running in for the U.S. House of Representatives in Tennesee on a Eugenics platform. According to James, low IQ based on genes is the cause of poverty and urban decay, thus eugenics is needed.
As someone who has spent a decent amount of time, both academicly and individually, studying genetics I can say that he is probably off on the whole Eugenics thing though. This social darwinist that he worships wrote on a false pretense that natural selection was a brutal process of competition and killing. From what we know now, we know that environmental changes have more to do with natural selection than brute killing, and that COOPERATION is and has been at least as important a part as the brutal competition 'survival of the fittest' notion of the early 1900s. Btw, in 1919 the Supreme Court upheld South Carolina's right to use Eugenics and the ruling still stands. The Eugenics movement started not in Nazi Germany, but in America.
What is facinating about this guy though is that he is right-on as far as the economic issues go: NAFTA, Jobs, Tax Cuts, Social Security, and Worker's Rights.
Susan Wagle: There is now a war between the religious radical right of the Republican Party of Kansas and the ruling-class pro-business corrupt branch of the Republican Party. The religious right has oulled into the lead. This week republican moderate and Wichita Mayor for over 20 years, was defeated in a primary by Susan Wagle. Now Susan tried to pull all funding to the University of Kansas because she didn't approve of the content of their sex education class. It was really quite embarrassing. What's even worse is that she not only stands by her bill that would have ruined KU, but she is making it a centerpeice of her re-eleciton and fundraising efforts. Susan beat Knight for a Kansas State Senate seat in my city 64% to 36%.
There is also a guy running on an anti-evolution platform. We fought not to re-elect two of the State Board of Education members who made Kanss that laughingstock of the nation with their anti-evolution campiagn a while back. Well, the far right's moneymakers are back and putting up candidates.
The Religious Right will seriously vote for anyone!
But today I want to focus of the radical right with three great examples...
James Hart Is running in for the U.S. House of Representatives in Tennesee on a Eugenics platform. According to James, low IQ based on genes is the cause of poverty and urban decay, thus eugenics is needed.
As someone who has spent a decent amount of time, both academicly and individually, studying genetics I can say that he is probably off on the whole Eugenics thing though. This social darwinist that he worships wrote on a false pretense that natural selection was a brutal process of competition and killing. From what we know now, we know that environmental changes have more to do with natural selection than brute killing, and that COOPERATION is and has been at least as important a part as the brutal competition 'survival of the fittest' notion of the early 1900s. Btw, in 1919 the Supreme Court upheld South Carolina's right to use Eugenics and the ruling still stands. The Eugenics movement started not in Nazi Germany, but in America.
What is facinating about this guy though is that he is right-on as far as the economic issues go: NAFTA, Jobs, Tax Cuts, Social Security, and Worker's Rights.
Susan Wagle: There is now a war between the religious radical right of the Republican Party of Kansas and the ruling-class pro-business corrupt branch of the Republican Party. The religious right has oulled into the lead. This week republican moderate and Wichita Mayor for over 20 years, was defeated in a primary by Susan Wagle. Now Susan tried to pull all funding to the University of Kansas because she didn't approve of the content of their sex education class. It was really quite embarrassing. What's even worse is that she not only stands by her bill that would have ruined KU, but she is making it a centerpeice of her re-eleciton and fundraising efforts. Susan beat Knight for a Kansas State Senate seat in my city 64% to 36%.
There is also a guy running on an anti-evolution platform. We fought not to re-elect two of the State Board of Education members who made Kanss that laughingstock of the nation with their anti-evolution campiagn a while back. Well, the far right's moneymakers are back and putting up candidates.
The Religious Right will seriously vote for anyone!
August 05, 2004
How does this moron not choke on his own food... Oh wait, he does.
Today Bush said, "Our enemies are Innovative and resourceful and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Audioclip available here.
This guy is not qualified and doesn't deserve to be President.
Why wait until November, impeach this imbecile now!
Long Live 'The Pretzel'
Audioclip available here.
This guy is not qualified and doesn't deserve to be President.
Why wait until November, impeach this imbecile now!
Long Live 'The Pretzel'
August 04, 2004
Republican National Convention Platform
I have received an exclusive peak at the 2004 RNC platform. It goes as follows:
Freedom through conformity
Sadam is Osama
God is Country
Ignorance is power
Shalt not kill is shalt not murder
Supporting troops is shutting up
More deaths is more security
Five Votes is Democracy
Left is Wrong
Right is Left
Country is God
Life is Death
Black and White
Us and Them
Up is down
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
War is Peace
Obey
Freedom through conformity
Sadam is Osama
God is Country
Ignorance is power
Shalt not kill is shalt not murder
Supporting troops is shutting up
More deaths is more security
Five Votes is Democracy
Left is Wrong
Right is Left
Country is God
Life is Death
Black and White
Us and Them
Up is down
Ignorance is Strength
Freedom is Slavery
War is Peace
Obey
July 21, 2004
'Who's paying for the war?' Good Article from William Buckley
WHO'S PAYING FOR THE WAR?
Tue Jul 20, 8:00 PM ET
William F. Buckley
For all that the critics rail against the war in Iraq (news - web sites), surprisingly little time is given to decrying the sheer cost of it. Somebody, somewhere, was cluck-clucking about $87 billion back during the Democratic high jinks that preceded the ouster of Howard Dean (news - web sites) and the anointment of John Kerry (news - web sites). We do hear of ancillary costs. For instance, with the call-up of the National Guard, the state governors are running out of the backup manpower they habitually look to for help with crime and fire-fighting. You can let crime slide for a while, but not forest fires. And that means extra expenses to lure men and women from retirement or to train recruits.
But how are we feeling the pinch of the direct expenses of the war? We coast along as if we can take care of that kind of thing simply by borrowing. In the last two years, our deficit spending has been in the neighborhood of $800 billion. If you are sitting at the national poker game you can get away with a fugitive smile by counting in current inflation. At 3 percent, we can figure that the $7 trillion national debt gives us back $210 billion, inflated away (whsk!). But reasoning along those lines wouldn't make much political headway in an election year. We need some straight talk, and straight talk speaks of impositions on U.S. citizens, foremost of which is -- taxation.
We have been waiting for word from Sen. Kerry. Here is his most recent on the subject: "George Bush wants to defend giving a tax cut that's permanent to people who earn more than $200,000 a year. I'm fighting to roll back George Bush's unaffordable tax cut for the wealthy and invest it in --" a new and better Army? a new fleet of aircraft carriers? a missile defense? increased pensions for soldiers?
Oh no: "-- invest it in health care, education, job creation, and to build America again." Therefore, raise taxes in order to increase social spending. That leaves -- untouched -- the expenses of this war and any correlative privations. Again, wars are free.
The Democrats would certainly be entitled to call on President Bush (news - web sites) to advise the public in the matter. Using political language, it's his war, not the Democrats' war, and the costs of it should be his to apportion. The administration has made no public accounting of the cost of the war framed in this language. Candidate Kerry could seek to reorient the whole question by telling us what we have forfeited on account of the war -- more health care, education, job creation and America-building. But he can't do this effectively without first telling us how to do away with the war in Iraq and its attendant implications. To talk about raising taxes on the wealthy may be effective boob bait, but it leaves unanswered the question of how to finance national defense operations.
President Bush can try to skim over the question much as President Reagan did. If the economy grows, so do tax returns at current levels. But Mr. Bush has to take a very deep draught of optimism to explain how we are going to alter the current forecasts, other than by inflation. The debt is at $7 trillion and is projected, in 10 years, to be at $9 trillion. That figure can only be attenuated by a relative rise in income, over against outlays. Or -- by inflation, which, whatever its incidental benefits, is the surest enemy of stable growth and an impartial reward to savings and enterprise.
The administration isn't in a position to establish absolutely that the tax relief for the wealthy generated more for the economy than the amount of that tax relief. Mr. Bush profoundly believes that this is so, and practitioners of supply-side economics accept this as a doctrinal matter. But Mr. Bush has to arrive prepared to cope with the immediate appeal of Candidate Kerry's call for more taxes for the wealthy. This is not easy to do, because the imagination tends to freeze when higher taxes on the rich are pleaded. In the good old days we could begin our thinking the other way around, not by saying that the tax cuts help or hurt, but by saying simply: The money is theirs, not ours. So think of something else.
Mr. Bush has some fine writers on his staff. Add this one to their special challenges.
Tue Jul 20, 8:00 PM ET
William F. Buckley
For all that the critics rail against the war in Iraq (news - web sites), surprisingly little time is given to decrying the sheer cost of it. Somebody, somewhere, was cluck-clucking about $87 billion back during the Democratic high jinks that preceded the ouster of Howard Dean (news - web sites) and the anointment of John Kerry (news - web sites). We do hear of ancillary costs. For instance, with the call-up of the National Guard, the state governors are running out of the backup manpower they habitually look to for help with crime and fire-fighting. You can let crime slide for a while, but not forest fires. And that means extra expenses to lure men and women from retirement or to train recruits.
But how are we feeling the pinch of the direct expenses of the war? We coast along as if we can take care of that kind of thing simply by borrowing. In the last two years, our deficit spending has been in the neighborhood of $800 billion. If you are sitting at the national poker game you can get away with a fugitive smile by counting in current inflation. At 3 percent, we can figure that the $7 trillion national debt gives us back $210 billion, inflated away (whsk!). But reasoning along those lines wouldn't make much political headway in an election year. We need some straight talk, and straight talk speaks of impositions on U.S. citizens, foremost of which is -- taxation.
We have been waiting for word from Sen. Kerry. Here is his most recent on the subject: "George Bush wants to defend giving a tax cut that's permanent to people who earn more than $200,000 a year. I'm fighting to roll back George Bush's unaffordable tax cut for the wealthy and invest it in --" a new and better Army? a new fleet of aircraft carriers? a missile defense? increased pensions for soldiers?
Oh no: "-- invest it in health care, education, job creation, and to build America again." Therefore, raise taxes in order to increase social spending. That leaves -- untouched -- the expenses of this war and any correlative privations. Again, wars are free.
The Democrats would certainly be entitled to call on President Bush (news - web sites) to advise the public in the matter. Using political language, it's his war, not the Democrats' war, and the costs of it should be his to apportion. The administration has made no public accounting of the cost of the war framed in this language. Candidate Kerry could seek to reorient the whole question by telling us what we have forfeited on account of the war -- more health care, education, job creation and America-building. But he can't do this effectively without first telling us how to do away with the war in Iraq and its attendant implications. To talk about raising taxes on the wealthy may be effective boob bait, but it leaves unanswered the question of how to finance national defense operations.
President Bush can try to skim over the question much as President Reagan did. If the economy grows, so do tax returns at current levels. But Mr. Bush has to take a very deep draught of optimism to explain how we are going to alter the current forecasts, other than by inflation. The debt is at $7 trillion and is projected, in 10 years, to be at $9 trillion. That figure can only be attenuated by a relative rise in income, over against outlays. Or -- by inflation, which, whatever its incidental benefits, is the surest enemy of stable growth and an impartial reward to savings and enterprise.
The administration isn't in a position to establish absolutely that the tax relief for the wealthy generated more for the economy than the amount of that tax relief. Mr. Bush profoundly believes that this is so, and practitioners of supply-side economics accept this as a doctrinal matter. But Mr. Bush has to arrive prepared to cope with the immediate appeal of Candidate Kerry's call for more taxes for the wealthy. This is not easy to do, because the imagination tends to freeze when higher taxes on the rich are pleaded. In the good old days we could begin our thinking the other way around, not by saying that the tax cuts help or hurt, but by saying simply: The money is theirs, not ours. So think of something else.
Mr. Bush has some fine writers on his staff. Add this one to their special challenges.
Article I read at www.peroutka2004.com
What’s Wrong With the Pro-Life Movementby Bob StrodtbeckThis article originally appeared on DaveBlackOnlineThe pro-life movement defends the principle of protecting the right-to-life for all people. As America’s post-modern culture attracts more individuals with the allure of convenience and relativism, the pro-life principle covers an increasing number of individuals from embryos created in a laboratory to incapacitated geriatrics in nursing homes.The national debate over abortion has kept a high profile for most of the nearly three decades that Americans have been erroneously told that killing babies in the womb is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The focus of the debate has been on the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which asserts a penumbra right to privacy in the Bill of Rights entitles women to access abortion procedures.Over the years that the national debate over abortion has been measured by polls and propaganda America has been dragged into a relativistic culture that endorses killing babies in the womb and applauds scientists creating babies in the lab. Meanwhile governments are increasingly subjected to the desires of wealthy international corporations or the whims of unrestrained judicial branches which show an interest in both.It is not the advocates of abortion rights that have forwarded this lurch into social destruction, however, but the pro-lifers who have wasted 30 years pursuing an agenda rather than fighting for principles that have defined American liberty.The U.S. Constitution establishes multi-leveled government with defined responsibilities so the nation would not be subjected to the whims of power-lusting individuals. This balance of powers is not limited to the branches of national government outlined in the Constitution, but includes the state governments that are referred to in Article I, Section 3, clause one (the selection of the Senate was originally under the authority of state legislatures) and in the tenth amendment.Roe v. Wade did not so much create a right out of thin air, but was an usurpation of state legislative authority by the federal courts. This expansion of federal judicial power is now so broad that any state or local law can be struck down by judicial fiat. The power grab by the courts is a clear violation of its limits to hear only “...cases in law and equity, arising under this (the U.S.) Constitution....” This means the federal courts have the authority to hear cases regarding laws written by the U.S. Congress and enforced by the president.The pro-life movement, however, has been preoccupied with attempting to influence the national government to support its agenda when it needed to educate the general public of the dangers of a central government taking power unto itself. In pursuit of this unfruitful strategy, pro-lifers are busy raising support for the reelection campaign of President Bush in spite of his lukewarm action on pro-life principles.Pro-life support for Mr. Bush is creating more threats to the structure of constitutional government than even Roe. Mr. Bush is an unflinching internationalist who seems to have no problems eliminating American borders and converting the military into a rapid deployment force for political and economic agendas that are poorly defined and executed without a shred of constitutional support. His agenda focuses on unconstitutional expansions of federal authority into education, medical practice, and church missions. He has further expanded executive control over the use of lands that was initiated through executive orders written by Bill Clinton and his lust for fast track trading authority for trade agreements has subverted congressional oversight in relations with trade partners.Pro-lifers are willing to accept these abuses of power because Mr. Bush will use their politically correct clichés at opportune moments. This concession on the part of pro-lifers, though, is in absolute defiance of the major principle that the framers of the Constitution used to develop legal limits on federal office holders – that is that human nature is self-serving and continually seeking personal aggrandizement.The pro-life movement seems to be committed to gauging its influence by endorsements it gets from national political celebrities, but time has proven that those platitudes won’t stop babies from being killed. The movement’s support for the current president might even help to finish the work of destroying the U.S. Constitution that was so hideously forwarded by Roe.---Since 1993 Bob Strodtbeck has been writing commentaries for The Apopka Chief, a news weekly circulated in a community ten miles north of Orlando. His analyses investigate a wide range of topics from what he calls a “Christian pragmatic” view – that is to say, he considers that human interactions are largely driven by the human instinct toward self-service, which is traditionally known as sin. This perspective has given Bob great liberty to criticize governmental officials from both parties upon the standards of constitutional laws they swear to uphold and review cultural and economic phenomena from moral standards defined in the Bible. Bob currently lives in Orlando with his bride Pam and children Charlotte and Richard. He may be reached for comment here.
July 20, 2004
Outfoxed and other links
some great clips are available here from the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. MoveOn.org sponsored a national house party showing of the video; however, I didn't go.
Another link to interesting videos here. Viewer discretion advised due to strong language on some of them.
A funny video about election 2004 mudslinging.
Also, everyone needs to make sure they are registered to vote, which can be done here.
Another link to interesting videos here. Viewer discretion advised due to strong language on some of them.
A funny video about election 2004 mudslinging.
Also, everyone needs to make sure they are registered to vote, which can be done here.
A vote for Bush is a vote for...
Bush is such a likeable, charismatic campaigner. When Michael Moore used the clip of Bush saying "Some may call you the elite, I call you my base." That was George at his best. On the campaign trail he keeps the jokes lined with political jabs in full force. Al Franken even admits that the first time he met Bush he could only describe him as charismatic, and those who have seen him on the campaign trail, (or those who have seen coverage of him on Faux news on the campaign trail) will agree that he is charismtic.
Many passion-driven humans think to themselves how can all these things that the crazy conspiracy leftist are saying be true about him? How can Michael Moore's attacks possibly be true? How can a guy that can barely properly use the english langauge, be bent on world conquest? But Michael Moore at times leaves out the big picture. I think he leaves out the big picture until the end of his movie with the excellent Orwell quote about the need for poverty, ignorance and perpetual war in order to keep the lower castes in order. All this is bigger than Bush. Remember the Afghan Unicol pipeline deal started in 1998 under Clinton, not Bush.
Everyone must remember that this is bigger than Bush. Buss is not a lone fanatical right-winger. Bush is a man very much so socialized by the dominant power stucture of America (he's a president's son afterall). When you vote for any candidate, you are voting not for them, but voting for the people supporting them. If you choose to vote for Bush, your not voting for a charismatic guy from Texas, you are voting to let the uber-wealthy have a carte blanc to continue to control whatever aspect our our democracy they wish. You are voting for his #1 campaign contributor Ken Lay who pillaged his employee's savings and very lives. You are voting for Halliburton. You are voting for the logging industry to be able to cut our forests down at will. You are voting for business-paid "expertss" that destroyed the ergonomics rules that people tried to hard to get passed, which means your vote says that you believe repetitive motion work injuries are figments of worke's' imagination. You are voting for the neoconservatives who openly desire American Empire. You are voting for conservative foreign policy think-tanks that are funded by oil companies! You are voting for a complacent media structure that won't question the Bush administration talking point of the day because it's not good for their business interests to be good reporters. You are voting for a media system that only covers foreign tragedies when intervening would benefit American business interests.
If you plan on voting for Bush based on religious conviction please listen carefully. If you support Bush because of your stance on abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research or issues like that, please, vote for Peroutka (http://www.peroutka2004.com/) or another one of the third party candidates (http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm) because people like Bush really don't care about these issues, they only pander to your vote because you will give it to them is they make tough, passionate rhetoric on the issues. If Roe v. Wade is to be reverse, it will take a much stronger mush more independently-minded pro-life movement then one simply subservient to the business interests of the Bush conservatives.
Many passion-driven humans think to themselves how can all these things that the crazy conspiracy leftist are saying be true about him? How can Michael Moore's attacks possibly be true? How can a guy that can barely properly use the english langauge, be bent on world conquest? But Michael Moore at times leaves out the big picture. I think he leaves out the big picture until the end of his movie with the excellent Orwell quote about the need for poverty, ignorance and perpetual war in order to keep the lower castes in order. All this is bigger than Bush. Remember the Afghan Unicol pipeline deal started in 1998 under Clinton, not Bush.
Everyone must remember that this is bigger than Bush. Buss is not a lone fanatical right-winger. Bush is a man very much so socialized by the dominant power stucture of America (he's a president's son afterall). When you vote for any candidate, you are voting not for them, but voting for the people supporting them. If you choose to vote for Bush, your not voting for a charismatic guy from Texas, you are voting to let the uber-wealthy have a carte blanc to continue to control whatever aspect our our democracy they wish. You are voting for his #1 campaign contributor Ken Lay who pillaged his employee's savings and very lives. You are voting for Halliburton. You are voting for the logging industry to be able to cut our forests down at will. You are voting for business-paid "expertss" that destroyed the ergonomics rules that people tried to hard to get passed, which means your vote says that you believe repetitive motion work injuries are figments of worke's' imagination. You are voting for the neoconservatives who openly desire American Empire. You are voting for conservative foreign policy think-tanks that are funded by oil companies! You are voting for a complacent media structure that won't question the Bush administration talking point of the day because it's not good for their business interests to be good reporters. You are voting for a media system that only covers foreign tragedies when intervening would benefit American business interests.
If you plan on voting for Bush based on religious conviction please listen carefully. If you support Bush because of your stance on abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research or issues like that, please, vote for Peroutka (http://www.peroutka2004.com/) or another one of the third party candidates (http://www.politics1.com/parties.htm) because people like Bush really don't care about these issues, they only pander to your vote because you will give it to them is they make tough, passionate rhetoric on the issues. If Roe v. Wade is to be reverse, it will take a much stronger mush more independently-minded pro-life movement then one simply subservient to the business interests of the Bush conservatives.
July 12, 2004
Political Paradigms post put through Snoops Dogg's Shizzolator
This is my last post with help from http://www.asksnoop.com/
Political Paradigms: How do yo' ass see society?
Here are several different ways that muthas view society." Which fits yo' ass best?
1. The world is made up of corporations 'n muthas n' shit. Peeps are distinct from corporations." The government is da entity responsible fo' protecting muthas from corporations n' shit.
2. Peeps vrs n' shit. Government." Government has always tried control muthas, know what I'm sayin'? Peeps gots constantly struggle keep da government in check, know what I'm sayin'?
3. Peeps vrs government vrs, know what I'm sayin'? corporations, know what I'm sayin'? Corporations 'n government are both concentrations of power that work against da interests of da muthas, know what I'm sayin'?
4. Society is a struggle between two groups of muthas." The two current groups are those wit little power 'n those who has control in society by ownership of da means of production." The latter group spreads they influence accross government 'n culture." They interests are an contrast wit da interests of working muthas, know what I'm sayin'?
5. There are muthas 'n Dogg." Governments are justly created by Dogg ('n history) n' shit. Everything happens fo' a reason 'n that reason will be revealed if one studies into that shiznit 'n looks hard 'nuff n' shit.
6. There are gravy muthas 'n bad muthas n' shit. While there may be some gravy 'n some bad in izzall muthas, life is fundamentally a struggle fo' da gravy forces in society conquer da evil ones."
7. Businesses simply consist of muthas." Government constantly interferes wit business, therefore government is at contrast wit da progress muthas are trying make."
Political Paradigms: How do yo' ass see society?
Here are several different ways that muthas view society." Which fits yo' ass best?
1. The world is made up of corporations 'n muthas n' shit. Peeps are distinct from corporations." The government is da entity responsible fo' protecting muthas from corporations n' shit.
2. Peeps vrs n' shit. Government." Government has always tried control muthas, know what I'm sayin'? Peeps gots constantly struggle keep da government in check, know what I'm sayin'?
3. Peeps vrs government vrs, know what I'm sayin'? corporations, know what I'm sayin'? Corporations 'n government are both concentrations of power that work against da interests of da muthas, know what I'm sayin'?
4. Society is a struggle between two groups of muthas." The two current groups are those wit little power 'n those who has control in society by ownership of da means of production." The latter group spreads they influence accross government 'n culture." They interests are an contrast wit da interests of working muthas, know what I'm sayin'?
5. There are muthas 'n Dogg." Governments are justly created by Dogg ('n history) n' shit. Everything happens fo' a reason 'n that reason will be revealed if one studies into that shiznit 'n looks hard 'nuff n' shit.
6. There are gravy muthas 'n bad muthas n' shit. While there may be some gravy 'n some bad in izzall muthas, life is fundamentally a struggle fo' da gravy forces in society conquer da evil ones."
7. Businesses simply consist of muthas." Government constantly interferes wit business, therefore government is at contrast wit da progress muthas are trying make."
June 28, 2004
Political Paradigms: How do you see society?
Here are several different ways that people view society. Which fits you best?
1. The world is made up of corporations and people. People are distinct from corporations. The government is the entity responsible for protecting people from corporations.
2. People vrs. Government. Government has always tried to control people. People must constantly struggle to keep the government in check.
3. People vrs government vrs. corporations. Corporations and government are both concentrations of power that work against the interests of the people.
4. Society is a struggle between two groups of people. The two current groups are those with little power and those who have control in society by ownership of the means of production. The latter group spreads their influence accross government and culture. Their interests are an contrast with the interests of working people.
5. There are people and God. Governments are justly created by God (and history). Everything happens for a reason and that reason will be revealed if one studies into it and looks hard enough.
6. There are good people and bad people. While there may be some good and some bad in all people, life is fundamentally a struggle for the good forces in society to conquer the evil ones.
7. Businesses simply consist of people. Government constantly interferes with business, therefore government is at contrast with the progress people are trying to make.
1. The world is made up of corporations and people. People are distinct from corporations. The government is the entity responsible for protecting people from corporations.
2. People vrs. Government. Government has always tried to control people. People must constantly struggle to keep the government in check.
3. People vrs government vrs. corporations. Corporations and government are both concentrations of power that work against the interests of the people.
4. Society is a struggle between two groups of people. The two current groups are those with little power and those who have control in society by ownership of the means of production. The latter group spreads their influence accross government and culture. Their interests are an contrast with the interests of working people.
5. There are people and God. Governments are justly created by God (and history). Everything happens for a reason and that reason will be revealed if one studies into it and looks hard enough.
6. There are good people and bad people. While there may be some good and some bad in all people, life is fundamentally a struggle for the good forces in society to conquer the evil ones.
7. Businesses simply consist of people. Government constantly interferes with business, therefore government is at contrast with the progress people are trying to make.
June 23, 2004
Republican Lies on Ahmad Hikmat Shakir al-Azzawi
So here's how it works. Cheney lies to us about Sadam and Al-Qaeda, the rest of the gang back him up. The 9-11 commission, after Bush attempted to underfund and block it, concludes there is no link. Then a doofus Republican on the commission, John Lehman, says that "at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen," an elite army unit, "was a very prominent member of al-Qaida." Well, this idea seems to have come from the Wall Street Journal Editorial page on May 27. Then this lie was continued by the Weekly Standard on June 7. The link between the Iraqi officer and Al-Qaeda was discovered by the controversial Pentagon intelligence unit under Douglas Feith (I.E. the same lying neo-con propaganda organization that had fed us so much worthless information already). Worse of all, the congressman probably believed what he was saying, and the people believed him, after all he is on the 9-11 commission, he must know more than we do.
Apparently, they got Ahmad Hikmat Shakir confused with a different man, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir al-Azzawi. Way to go neo-cons!!! Score one for the warmongers!
"The CIA concluded "a long time ago" that an al-Qaida associate who met with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia was not an officer in Saddam Hussein's army, as alleged Sunday by a Republican member of the 9/11 commission."
By Knut Royce
Washington Bureau
June 22, 2004
But the truth doesn't matter, the damage has been done and tens of millions of Republicans will not read the truth or explore outside their ideology and the lies fed to them by the right-wing untruth machine. This false link between the Iradi officer and Al-Qaeda is just one example of how the truth for the American right-wing is raped and tortured everyday.
Apparently, they got Ahmad Hikmat Shakir confused with a different man, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir al-Azzawi. Way to go neo-cons!!! Score one for the warmongers!
"The CIA concluded "a long time ago" that an al-Qaida associate who met with two of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia was not an officer in Saddam Hussein's army, as alleged Sunday by a Republican member of the 9/11 commission."
By Knut Royce
Washington Bureau
June 22, 2004
But the truth doesn't matter, the damage has been done and tens of millions of Republicans will not read the truth or explore outside their ideology and the lies fed to them by the right-wing untruth machine. This false link between the Iradi officer and Al-Qaeda is just one example of how the truth for the American right-wing is raped and tortured everyday.
Sean Hannity vrs. Ted Rall
Here is Hannity's remarks to Ted Rall as Rall sits right in front of him (these comments were non-consecutive): "You are mean. You are cruel. You are thoughtless, and you are a hateful human being. You don't have a soul. And you don't care about anybody but yourself. And you do this for shock value so that your name could be noticed. You're a slob. You're an absolutely -- you're a hateful human being to do this to families that are suffering. There's no excuse for it. There's no rationale for what you're doing. You're mean, cruel and thoughtless. You are thoughtless, mean, hateful liberal."
Ted Rall just sat there and took it from Hannity. To see the cartoon that got Hannity so pissed go to http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/uclickcomics/20040610/cx_tr_uc/tr20040610&e=6
And to see the accompanying article, go here http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&e=2&u=/ucru/20040610/cm_ucru/reagansshamefullegacy
After Hannity's belligerent rant to Rall's face, Rall did what smart liberals who never get their own show like angry pseudo-witty reactionaries like Hannity do, use wit and satire. Which Rall did here http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/uclickcomics/20040612/cx_tr_uc/tr20040612&e=5
Ted Rall just sat there and took it from Hannity. To see the cartoon that got Hannity so pissed go to http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/uclickcomics/20040610/cx_tr_uc/tr20040610&e=6
And to see the accompanying article, go here http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&e=2&u=/ucru/20040610/cm_ucru/reagansshamefullegacy
After Hannity's belligerent rant to Rall's face, Rall did what smart liberals who never get their own show like angry pseudo-witty reactionaries like Hannity do, use wit and satire. Which Rall did here http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/uclickcomics/20040612/cx_tr_uc/tr20040612&e=5
June 22, 2004
Torture, Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Bush
Well looky what we now know:
"Among the techniques that Rumsfeld approved on Dec. 2, 2002, in addition to the grabbing, the yelling and the stress positions:
Use of 20-hour interrogations.
Removal of all comfort items, including religious items.
Removal of clothing.
Using detainees' ``individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress.''
Do these "individual phobias" include the fear of having another man rape you?
No, really folks. As sad as that is, that IS the question we now have to ask.
"Among the techniques that Rumsfeld approved on Dec. 2, 2002, in addition to the grabbing, the yelling and the stress positions:
Use of 20-hour interrogations.
Removal of all comfort items, including religious items.
Removal of clothing.
Using detainees' ``individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress.''
Do these "individual phobias" include the fear of having another man rape you?
No, really folks. As sad as that is, that IS the question we now have to ask.
June 20, 2004
9-11 commission: Iraq and Al-Qaeda??
Iraqi Officer Tied to Al Qaeda - 9/11 Commissioner
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20040620/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc
Sun Jun 20, 4:17 PM ET
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s militia, a panel member said on Sunday.
Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the new intelligence, if proven true, buttresses claims by the Bush administration of ties between Iraq (news - web sites) and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.
Things we can learn from this article:
1. Gosh, the Republicans are still lying to us. And they are doing it very well. All they have to do is say Iraq and 9-11 in the same sentence as many times as possible and we fall into a war-hungry hypnosis. "ties between Iraq and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America."
That last sentence is all that a lot of people will take away from the article.
2. We also can see from the words "believed responsible" in this article that neither Al-Qa'eda nor Osama Bin Laden have claimed responsibility for 9-11 attacks. In press articles Osama is often referred to as the "alleged" leader of the attackers. There are many explanations of this, but the one I believe in is that this terminoloy is used by the press because the administration has incorrently classified what Al-Qa'eda is. In order to make the enemy seem bigger and scarier than they are, Al-Qa'eda has become a elaborate terrorist network in which people are members of and there is a clear chain of command. This is for the most part is not true. The word Al-Qa'eda means 'pattern' 'formula' 'base' or it is also used as 'foundation' 'pedastal' or a 'precept' 'rule' 'pattern' 'principle' 'maxim' 'formula' 'model' 'pattern'. the word Al-Qa'eda was first used when groups in Afghanistan (funded and trained by the US) were fighting the Soviets. Al-Qa'eda was used to describe either a 'manual' or a way of fighting. By late 1996, when Osama bin Laden went from Sudan to Afghanistan, the word started to evolve to describe isolated cells of violent radical muslims. Although these cells would become more united, they were still very different in each country. To describe Osama at the top of the chain of command, I beleive, would be incorrect. Osama has been more like a major financier.
The principle idea held by followers of the Al-Qa'eda movement is that the muslim world should be at war with the West. Hmm... sounds like their goal was accomplished with our 'War on Terror'. This required the Muslim world to be united, which of course required the fall of the 'Republic' of Iraq, which was created by Britain, and whose leader was put in place by America in the 1980s. Sadam and Osama hated each other. For all we know this Iraqi Lt. Colonel with unconfirmed ties to Al-Qa'eda could have been working to undermine Sadam Hussein. Sadam was a megalomaniac secular dictator who wouldn't share power with Osama, or any other
3. Moreover, the President and Co-President Cheney hate the American people. They despise you. They are rich robber barons who have never had to respect lesser humans in their life. They run America like they run their companies, putting the organization under with their lying and cheating, while they make money for themselves. Their contempt for us can be seen in these two lies:
a. Bush sent out an e-mail to his close supporters saying that the 9-11 commission's report confirmed what Bush had been saying about Al-Qa'eda and Iraq. The report said the exact opposite of Bush's lies, but this administration has no problem personally lying to people who support them.
b. Cheney's big evidence that he had repeated since several weeks after 9-11: "peddling an uncorroborated assertion by one Czech intelligence official that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta had been seen five months before meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague. The 9/11 Commission, citing physical and documentary evidence, said the facts indicate Atta was already here by then and had never left." That's right, the administration is still using completely uncorroborated evidence because they have such a contempt for the truth and for the American people. The assertion of the Iraqi lt. colonel with ties to Al-Qa'eda also "still has to be confirmed". Furthermore, was this Iraqi agent an agent of Iraq, or maybe an simply agent who had Iraqi ethnicity?
So the idea of these ties between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda is based on lies told by a known liar whom Richard Pearle was paying $340,000-$422,000 a month to feed us (create) evidence who still couldn't come up with a link, an unconirmed claim that at least one member of Iraq's army had ties to Al-Qa'eda, an unconfirmed claim that Mohamed Atta met with an "Iraqi agent" in 2001, and the claim that an Al-Qa'eda agent received medical care in Baghdad.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=3&u=/nm/20040620/pl_nm/iraq_intelligence_dc
Sun Jun 20, 4:17 PM ET
By Peter Kaplan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks has been told "a very prominent member" of al Qaeda served as an officer in Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s militia, a panel member said on Sunday.
Republican commissioner John Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the new intelligence, if proven true, buttresses claims by the Bush administration of ties between Iraq (news - web sites) and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.
Things we can learn from this article:
1. Gosh, the Republicans are still lying to us. And they are doing it very well. All they have to do is say Iraq and 9-11 in the same sentence as many times as possible and we fall into a war-hungry hypnosis. "ties between Iraq and the militant network believed responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America."
That last sentence is all that a lot of people will take away from the article.
2. We also can see from the words "believed responsible" in this article that neither Al-Qa'eda nor Osama Bin Laden have claimed responsibility for 9-11 attacks. In press articles Osama is often referred to as the "alleged" leader of the attackers. There are many explanations of this, but the one I believe in is that this terminoloy is used by the press because the administration has incorrently classified what Al-Qa'eda is. In order to make the enemy seem bigger and scarier than they are, Al-Qa'eda has become a elaborate terrorist network in which people are members of and there is a clear chain of command. This is for the most part is not true. The word Al-Qa'eda means 'pattern' 'formula' 'base' or it is also used as 'foundation' 'pedastal' or a 'precept' 'rule' 'pattern' 'principle' 'maxim' 'formula' 'model' 'pattern'. the word Al-Qa'eda was first used when groups in Afghanistan (funded and trained by the US) were fighting the Soviets. Al-Qa'eda was used to describe either a 'manual' or a way of fighting. By late 1996, when Osama bin Laden went from Sudan to Afghanistan, the word started to evolve to describe isolated cells of violent radical muslims. Although these cells would become more united, they were still very different in each country. To describe Osama at the top of the chain of command, I beleive, would be incorrect. Osama has been more like a major financier.
The principle idea held by followers of the Al-Qa'eda movement is that the muslim world should be at war with the West. Hmm... sounds like their goal was accomplished with our 'War on Terror'. This required the Muslim world to be united, which of course required the fall of the 'Republic' of Iraq, which was created by Britain, and whose leader was put in place by America in the 1980s. Sadam and Osama hated each other. For all we know this Iraqi Lt. Colonel with unconfirmed ties to Al-Qa'eda could have been working to undermine Sadam Hussein. Sadam was a megalomaniac secular dictator who wouldn't share power with Osama, or any other
3. Moreover, the President and Co-President Cheney hate the American people. They despise you. They are rich robber barons who have never had to respect lesser humans in their life. They run America like they run their companies, putting the organization under with their lying and cheating, while they make money for themselves. Their contempt for us can be seen in these two lies:
a. Bush sent out an e-mail to his close supporters saying that the 9-11 commission's report confirmed what Bush had been saying about Al-Qa'eda and Iraq. The report said the exact opposite of Bush's lies, but this administration has no problem personally lying to people who support them.
b. Cheney's big evidence that he had repeated since several weeks after 9-11: "peddling an uncorroborated assertion by one Czech intelligence official that lead hijacker Mohamed Atta had been seen five months before meeting with an Iraqi agent in Prague. The 9/11 Commission, citing physical and documentary evidence, said the facts indicate Atta was already here by then and had never left." That's right, the administration is still using completely uncorroborated evidence because they have such a contempt for the truth and for the American people. The assertion of the Iraqi lt. colonel with ties to Al-Qa'eda also "still has to be confirmed". Furthermore, was this Iraqi agent an agent of Iraq, or maybe an simply agent who had Iraqi ethnicity?
So the idea of these ties between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda is based on lies told by a known liar whom Richard Pearle was paying $340,000-$422,000 a month to feed us (create) evidence who still couldn't come up with a link, an unconirmed claim that at least one member of Iraq's army had ties to Al-Qa'eda, an unconfirmed claim that Mohamed Atta met with an "Iraqi agent" in 2001, and the claim that an Al-Qa'eda agent received medical care in Baghdad.
June 17, 2004
More on Health Care
I'm now 19 and I've been working since I was 14 years old. My dad has a doctorate and has always worked fulltime. My mom has a masters, has stayed at home, worked full time, worked two jobs and now works 36 hours a week. For the vast majority of my life my brother my sister and I have had no health insurance. There was a period when my mother was able to get insurance from the state, which covered me and looked like a good plan.
With state insurance I went to my doctor that I had gone to since I was little and my parents had paid cash with. My long-time doctor's clinic didn't accept the state insurance. So I decided to pay cash like we always had. But after they knew I was insured, even though they couldn't accept my card, they couldn't see me as a cash patient.
So there I was sick, with plenty of cash in my pocket since I've always worked hard, and a medical card, but unable to see my long-time doctor. Something is seriously, seriously wrong in America when both medical insurance and cash are no good, and sick people aren't able to get treatment.
Most politicians and media elites don't address or repond to this issue, they can't understand the issue unless they feel this issue as I have felt it. To me, Howard Dean is the truest of heros for standing up and fighting for quality preventative health care in America.
Here is Dean's most recent address at democracyforamerica.com
A Moral Crisis
by Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
In the richest, most advanced country in the world in the 21st century, it's simply wrong for sick children to go without seeing a doctor because their parents can't afford it. It's wrong for a woman to find out she has late-stage breast cancer, because she couldn't afford a mammogram. It's wrong for seniors to have to choose between prescriptions they need and putting food on the table. The time has come to make healthcare for all Americans a reality.
It is more important that we do this in 2004 than perhaps ever before. In this election year, the crisis of health care costs is front and center as perhaps never before. Health care costs for workers have gone up by 50% since George Bush took office. In fact, costs are up four times the rate of inflation. Middle class families are paying more than they can bear and it's no surprise that nearly four million more Americans have become uninsured while George Bush has been in the White House.
President Bush hasn't lifted a finger to hold down soaring health care costs to help more families afford health insurance and help the families that already have health insurance but are struggling to pay the bills. Instead, he's done the bidding of the big prescription drug companies and HMOs that benefit from rising costs. The cost of the top 10 most used prescription drugs have gone up about nine percent over the last year alone.
I'm supporting John Kerry for President because he has a real and realistic plan to hold down costs and cover the uninsured without raising taxes on the middle class or putting in place a big government bureaucracy. He would let everyday Americans buy into the same great health care plan that the President and Members of Congress get - and he'd help working families and small business owners afford the costs. And his plan has been praised for using carrots and sticks to really hold down runaway health care costs.
How can we, the richest country on this earth, continue to do nothing while 44 million Americans live without health coverage? In this election, we have a chance to fix that. The millions of families without health insurance - the millions more that have coverage but are killing themselves to pay the bills - are looking for new leadership that will make that happen. Those are the stakes.
I believe John Kerry's plan is sensible and that it can pass Congress -- but most importantly, I believe that it is the right thing to do. When I graduated from medical school, I took an oath in which I pledged to practice my profession with conscience and dignity and to always make the health of our patients my first consideration. I still believe in that oath. And that's why I believe John Kerry is the clear choice to be our next President.
With state insurance I went to my doctor that I had gone to since I was little and my parents had paid cash with. My long-time doctor's clinic didn't accept the state insurance. So I decided to pay cash like we always had. But after they knew I was insured, even though they couldn't accept my card, they couldn't see me as a cash patient.
So there I was sick, with plenty of cash in my pocket since I've always worked hard, and a medical card, but unable to see my long-time doctor. Something is seriously, seriously wrong in America when both medical insurance and cash are no good, and sick people aren't able to get treatment.
Most politicians and media elites don't address or repond to this issue, they can't understand the issue unless they feel this issue as I have felt it. To me, Howard Dean is the truest of heros for standing up and fighting for quality preventative health care in America.
Here is Dean's most recent address at democracyforamerica.com
A Moral Crisis
by Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
In the richest, most advanced country in the world in the 21st century, it's simply wrong for sick children to go without seeing a doctor because their parents can't afford it. It's wrong for a woman to find out she has late-stage breast cancer, because she couldn't afford a mammogram. It's wrong for seniors to have to choose between prescriptions they need and putting food on the table. The time has come to make healthcare for all Americans a reality.
It is more important that we do this in 2004 than perhaps ever before. In this election year, the crisis of health care costs is front and center as perhaps never before. Health care costs for workers have gone up by 50% since George Bush took office. In fact, costs are up four times the rate of inflation. Middle class families are paying more than they can bear and it's no surprise that nearly four million more Americans have become uninsured while George Bush has been in the White House.
President Bush hasn't lifted a finger to hold down soaring health care costs to help more families afford health insurance and help the families that already have health insurance but are struggling to pay the bills. Instead, he's done the bidding of the big prescription drug companies and HMOs that benefit from rising costs. The cost of the top 10 most used prescription drugs have gone up about nine percent over the last year alone.
I'm supporting John Kerry for President because he has a real and realistic plan to hold down costs and cover the uninsured without raising taxes on the middle class or putting in place a big government bureaucracy. He would let everyday Americans buy into the same great health care plan that the President and Members of Congress get - and he'd help working families and small business owners afford the costs. And his plan has been praised for using carrots and sticks to really hold down runaway health care costs.
How can we, the richest country on this earth, continue to do nothing while 44 million Americans live without health coverage? In this election, we have a chance to fix that. The millions of families without health insurance - the millions more that have coverage but are killing themselves to pay the bills - are looking for new leadership that will make that happen. Those are the stakes.
I believe John Kerry's plan is sensible and that it can pass Congress -- but most importantly, I believe that it is the right thing to do. When I graduated from medical school, I took an oath in which I pledged to practice my profession with conscience and dignity and to always make the health of our patients my first consideration. I still believe in that oath. And that's why I believe John Kerry is the clear choice to be our next President.
War for business interests?
I read a review for Farenheit 9/11 from USAtoday by Walter Shapiro entitled "Moore's movie loses its point in a barrage of cheap shots"
Excerpt from this review:
"Does anyone seriously believe, as Moore suggests, that the United States invaded Afghanistan primarily to pave the way for a natural-gas pipeline? Or that the war in Iraq was a single-minded effort to win new contracting business for Halliburton?"
My response:
Uh, yeah. Business leaders do, and people who know whats going on beleive that. It's rather well established for better or worse the war in Afghanistan was to build our pipeline. We tried working with the Taliban and at one point we got the go ahead, but two months before 9-11 we realized that he Taliban was untable. We had war plans for Afghanistan before 9-11, that's how we were able to mobilize so quickly. And remember Bush said twice he was no longer concerned with Osama Bin Laden. The pipeline was the key objective.
Read the Brzezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostratic Imperatives' from 1997 that very logically informs us that 60% of the world's GNP, 75% of it's population, and 75% of the world's known energy sources is in Eurasia. Hence, our focus needs to be there. This plan was followed by Clinton and Bush.
This isn't exactly complicated stuff that people in power aren't well aware of. Nobody wants to pay $7.93 a gallon like Britian is paying right now.
Well, I'm guessing none of you ran and researched The Grand Chessboard Yet, so I'll give you an excerpt. Since Russia, Turkey, Iran and China all want a peice of these resources, Brzezinski informs us that "America's primary interests is to help ensure that no single [other] power comes to control this geopolitical space [Central Asia, I.E. the "Stans"] and that the gobal community has unhindered financial and economic access to it."
Union Oil of California proposed a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan, to Pakistan and the Indian port of Karachi. We tried to work this out with the Taliban, but they were obviously too chaotic. Now, with Unocal employees as the American envoy and the president of the newly born democracy.
The Guardian on Sept 26th, 2001 tells us that in July of 2001 a group of interested parties met to listen to former US State Department official, Lee Coldren, as he passed on the message that "the US was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action". On Sept 22, 2001 The Guardian tells us that "Osama bin Laden received threats of possible American militray strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington."
On Sept 9, 2001 Bush was presented with a National Security Presidential Directive outlining a global campaign of militray, diplomatic and intelligence action targetting al-Qa'eda. According to NBC news, President Bush was scheduled so sign this directive but "did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks." NBC news gos on to explain that "The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly... because it simply had to pull the plans 'off the shelf'"
Brzezinski foretold "a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat" would be needed to set in front of the American people in order for the standard maufacturing of domestic consent. PNAC also foretold that a "massive Pearl Harbor like attack" would be needed to carry out our strategy in the Middle East.
Faithfully,
Rob
Excerpt from this review:
"Does anyone seriously believe, as Moore suggests, that the United States invaded Afghanistan primarily to pave the way for a natural-gas pipeline? Or that the war in Iraq was a single-minded effort to win new contracting business for Halliburton?"
My response:
Uh, yeah. Business leaders do, and people who know whats going on beleive that. It's rather well established for better or worse the war in Afghanistan was to build our pipeline. We tried working with the Taliban and at one point we got the go ahead, but two months before 9-11 we realized that he Taliban was untable. We had war plans for Afghanistan before 9-11, that's how we were able to mobilize so quickly. And remember Bush said twice he was no longer concerned with Osama Bin Laden. The pipeline was the key objective.
Read the Brzezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostratic Imperatives' from 1997 that very logically informs us that 60% of the world's GNP, 75% of it's population, and 75% of the world's known energy sources is in Eurasia. Hence, our focus needs to be there. This plan was followed by Clinton and Bush.
This isn't exactly complicated stuff that people in power aren't well aware of. Nobody wants to pay $7.93 a gallon like Britian is paying right now.
Well, I'm guessing none of you ran and researched The Grand Chessboard Yet, so I'll give you an excerpt. Since Russia, Turkey, Iran and China all want a peice of these resources, Brzezinski informs us that "America's primary interests is to help ensure that no single [other] power comes to control this geopolitical space [Central Asia, I.E. the "Stans"] and that the gobal community has unhindered financial and economic access to it."
Union Oil of California proposed a pipeline from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan, to Pakistan and the Indian port of Karachi. We tried to work this out with the Taliban, but they were obviously too chaotic. Now, with Unocal employees as the American envoy and the president of the newly born democracy.
The Guardian on Sept 26th, 2001 tells us that in July of 2001 a group of interested parties met to listen to former US State Department official, Lee Coldren, as he passed on the message that "the US was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action". On Sept 22, 2001 The Guardian tells us that "Osama bin Laden received threats of possible American militray strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington."
On Sept 9, 2001 Bush was presented with a National Security Presidential Directive outlining a global campaign of militray, diplomatic and intelligence action targetting al-Qa'eda. According to NBC news, President Bush was scheduled so sign this directive but "did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks." NBC news gos on to explain that "The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly... because it simply had to pull the plans 'off the shelf'"
Brzezinski foretold "a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat" would be needed to set in front of the American people in order for the standard maufacturing of domestic consent. PNAC also foretold that a "massive Pearl Harbor like attack" would be needed to carry out our strategy in the Middle East.
Faithfully,
Rob
Liberty
Since enlightenment thinkers opened their minds to new ideas for how to organize society, and great philosophers like Emmanuel Kant called for the a society the allows for the most freedom possible, many enlightenment thinking (also known as "liberal" in theri time) have spoke on Liberty and Freedom. Here are a few worthy quotes on the subject:
"Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now we bleat like sheep for security."
- Norman Vincent Peale
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liverby nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable." - Theodore Roosevelt
"America will never be destroyes from the ouside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we desrtoyes ourselves." - Abrahan Lincoln
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
"Americans used to roar like lions for liberty. Now we bleat like sheep for security."
- Norman Vincent Peale
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liverby nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable." - Theodore Roosevelt
"America will never be destroyes from the ouside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we desrtoyes ourselves." - Abrahan Lincoln
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
Would the real Alpha Male please stand up?
Kerry Stategy: be the manliest candidate we've ever seen. In a media world that casts aggressive males in powerful, righteous positions, Kerry is trying to be and will continue to try to be the manliest mofo around. As seen from his agggressive rhetoric and his goal to make America "safer, stronger and more secure". Gee, strength a security, posing with vets, emphasis of his heroic war record, he sure is no Dukakis. According to the Washington Post even in the primaries Kerry's strategy had been to tout his alpha male status, and it worked.
The lead article in the January's The Nation, discussed Dean's strategy of "butching up for victory" with his puffed out chest and aggressive rhetoric as the correct strategy for the democrats.
Kerry has been snowbaording, riding a Harley and best of all hunting doves. Kerry's stature of 6'4" has also helped him establish his alpha male status. But Kerry may not be able to compete with Bush's alpha male status. Bush has spent the last for years beefing up his image. Bush has been sure to include constant media injection of testoseroine, and Bush has given most of his speeches and press conferences outside (such as his national forests proposal) in order to be the "one with the sun in his face," as Chirs Mathews would say. Bush Sr. and especially Jr. were smart to shed their northern Ivy-League boy image in exchange for a rugged Texas cowboy motif. Not to mention Bush's flight suit shots with his bulging (stuffed?) flight pants.
Unlike Gore's campaign, Bush and Kerry's teams have both been on top of the alpha male theme from the get-go. Watch their dress, mannerisms and rhetoric throughout the campiagn to see who wins the alpha male race.
We're left with the question, Will Kerry's alpha male status serve him best with an aggressive male VP or a female VP? I'm pulling for one of my absolute favorite politicians, Kathleen Sebelius as VP. But I predict a 30% chance of her getting picked.
The lead article in the January's The Nation, discussed Dean's strategy of "butching up for victory" with his puffed out chest and aggressive rhetoric as the correct strategy for the democrats.
Kerry has been snowbaording, riding a Harley and best of all hunting doves. Kerry's stature of 6'4" has also helped him establish his alpha male status. But Kerry may not be able to compete with Bush's alpha male status. Bush has spent the last for years beefing up his image. Bush has been sure to include constant media injection of testoseroine, and Bush has given most of his speeches and press conferences outside (such as his national forests proposal) in order to be the "one with the sun in his face," as Chirs Mathews would say. Bush Sr. and especially Jr. were smart to shed their northern Ivy-League boy image in exchange for a rugged Texas cowboy motif. Not to mention Bush's flight suit shots with his bulging (stuffed?) flight pants.
Unlike Gore's campaign, Bush and Kerry's teams have both been on top of the alpha male theme from the get-go. Watch their dress, mannerisms and rhetoric throughout the campiagn to see who wins the alpha male race.
We're left with the question, Will Kerry's alpha male status serve him best with an aggressive male VP or a female VP? I'm pulling for one of my absolute favorite politicians, Kathleen Sebelius as VP. But I predict a 30% chance of her getting picked.
June 16, 2004
Quote from primary race
This is something I wrote down when Dean was the front runner (Joe Trippi was his campaign manager).
"Jow Trippi may only be half the an that Karl Rove is, which says a lot, but Dean is twice the man that Bush is, which is not saying a lot." --Rob
"Jow Trippi may only be half the an that Karl Rove is, which says a lot, but Dean is twice the man that Bush is, which is not saying a lot." --Rob
Health Care
From the man, Mr. Dean,
As a doctor and a governor, there is no more important issue for me than ensuring quality, affordable health care for all. We did it in Vermont, and we must do it for our country. Your hard work and advocacy has made health care a top issue in this election -- but we cannot let up.
Our health care system is in crisis. Nationwide, 44 million people have no health insurance and 74 percent of those without coverage come from working families. We cannot allow this to continue.
So I am asking you to join tens of thousands of other Americans on June 19th for a national day of action to "Bridge the Gap in Health Care" between those who have coverage and those who don't. Americans for Health Care, Jobs With Justice, Rock the Vote and our friends at SEIU are sponsoring events from the Golden Gate to the Brooklyn Bridge.
To find an event near you, or to start your own event, go to:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/june19
This crisis affects everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, income, education, employment, or age. It is not just tragic -- it is immoral. At this moment, there are 8.5 million children in our country without health care.
Costs are rising uncontrollably and fewer people can afford to keep what coverage they do have. While you have been reading this letter three more people have lost their health care coverage. This is completely unacceptable. On June 19th we will demand action and tell our elected officials that we haven't forgotten about health care -- and neither should they:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/june19
If you can't attend an event, please tell your friends, family, and colleagues why you support this national day of action. You can also join me and more than 250,000 other Americans who have declared ourselves "Health Care Voters":
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/healthcarevoter
When you become a Health Care Voter, you pledge to support candidates who propose detailed, feasible plans for ensuring quality, affordable health care for all. When we speak with one voice on this issue we can make change happen:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/healthcarevoter
We ought not be the last industrialized country to guarantee health care to all its people. We can solve this problem, but only by working ogether. We must stand up and demand that our elected officials start orking for the 44 million Americans who are uninsured and the millions ore who are underinsured.
Please help ensure that all eyes remain focused on this crisis; the longer we wait to do something, the worse this problem gets. Please act now -- lives depend on it.
Thank you.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
P.S. -- We cannot win the fight on issues that matter if our votes aren't counted in November -- join more than 117,000 Americans who have signed the petition to ensure verifiable, accountable voting systems:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/counteveryvote
As a doctor and a governor, there is no more important issue for me than ensuring quality, affordable health care for all. We did it in Vermont, and we must do it for our country. Your hard work and advocacy has made health care a top issue in this election -- but we cannot let up.
Our health care system is in crisis. Nationwide, 44 million people have no health insurance and 74 percent of those without coverage come from working families. We cannot allow this to continue.
So I am asking you to join tens of thousands of other Americans on June 19th for a national day of action to "Bridge the Gap in Health Care" between those who have coverage and those who don't. Americans for Health Care, Jobs With Justice, Rock the Vote and our friends at SEIU are sponsoring events from the Golden Gate to the Brooklyn Bridge.
To find an event near you, or to start your own event, go to:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/june19
This crisis affects everyone regardless of race, ethnicity, income, education, employment, or age. It is not just tragic -- it is immoral. At this moment, there are 8.5 million children in our country without health care.
Costs are rising uncontrollably and fewer people can afford to keep what coverage they do have. While you have been reading this letter three more people have lost their health care coverage. This is completely unacceptable. On June 19th we will demand action and tell our elected officials that we haven't forgotten about health care -- and neither should they:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/june19
If you can't attend an event, please tell your friends, family, and colleagues why you support this national day of action. You can also join me and more than 250,000 other Americans who have declared ourselves "Health Care Voters":
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/healthcarevoter
When you become a Health Care Voter, you pledge to support candidates who propose detailed, feasible plans for ensuring quality, affordable health care for all. When we speak with one voice on this issue we can make change happen:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/healthcarevoter
We ought not be the last industrialized country to guarantee health care to all its people. We can solve this problem, but only by working ogether. We must stand up and demand that our elected officials start orking for the 44 million Americans who are uninsured and the millions ore who are underinsured.
Please help ensure that all eyes remain focused on this crisis; the longer we wait to do something, the worse this problem gets. Please act now -- lives depend on it.
Thank you.
Governor Howard Dean, M.D.
P.S. -- We cannot win the fight on issues that matter if our votes aren't counted in November -- join more than 117,000 Americans who have signed the petition to ensure verifiable, accountable voting systems:
http://www.democracyforamerica.com/counteveryvote
Bush Joke
While visiting England, George W. Bush is invited to tea with the Queen. He asks her what her leadership philosophy is. She says that it is to surround herself with intelligent people. He asks how she knows if they're intelligent.
"I do so by asking them the right questions," says the Queen. "Allow me to demonstrate."
She phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr. Prime Minister. Please answer this question: Your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister. Who is it?"
Tony Blair responds, "It's me, ma'am."
"Correct. Thank you and good-bye, sir," says the Queen. She hangs up and says, "Did you get that, Mr. Bush?"
"Yes ma'am. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!"
Upon returning to Washington, he decides he'd better put the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. He summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I wonder if you can answer a question for me."
"Why, of course, sir. What's on your mind?"
"Uh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"
Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get back to you?" Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. He immediately calls a meeting of other senior senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and explains his problem.
"Now look here Colin Powell, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother, or your sister. Who is it?" Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course, you dumb ass."
Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House and exclaims, "I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It's Colin Powell!" And Bush replies in disgust, "Wrong, you dumb ass, It's Tony Blair!"
"I do so by asking them the right questions," says the Queen. "Allow me to demonstrate."
She phones Tony Blair and says, "Mr. Prime Minister. Please answer this question: Your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or sister. Who is it?"
Tony Blair responds, "It's me, ma'am."
"Correct. Thank you and good-bye, sir," says the Queen. She hangs up and says, "Did you get that, Mr. Bush?"
"Yes ma'am. Thanks a lot. I'll definitely be using that!"
Upon returning to Washington, he decides he'd better put the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to the test. He summons Jesse Helms to the White House and says, "Senator Helms, I wonder if you can answer a question for me."
"Why, of course, sir. What's on your mind?"
"Uh, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother or your sister. Who is it?"
Helms hems and haws and finally asks, "Can I think about it and get back to you?" Bush agrees, and Helms leaves. He immediately calls a meeting of other senior senators, and they puzzle over the question for several hours, but nobody can come up with an answer. Finally, in desperation, Helms calls Colin Powell at the State Department and explains his problem.
"Now look here Colin Powell, your mother has a child, and your father has a child, and this child is not your brother, or your sister. Who is it?" Powell answers immediately, "It's me, of course, you dumb ass."
Much relieved, Helms rushes back to the White House and exclaims, "I know the answer, sir! I know who it is! It's Colin Powell!" And Bush replies in disgust, "Wrong, you dumb ass, It's Tony Blair!"
June 11, 2004
Reagan
I'd like to pause and pray for Ronald Reagan, his family and his friends.
After seeing John McCain, my boss at work, and so many other figures comment about Reagan and communism I'd like to fill in the "details" that a time-constrained press hasn't yet touched upon. McCain said that a lot of historians might disagree with him, but his opinion, and it's only his opinion as he said twice, was that the wall wouldn't have fallen if not for Reagan. This views has been repeated countless times, although I have not seen one historian comment on any of this. Well, I should say I haven't seen one historian comment on this in the news, luckily for everyone reading this I happen to know a historian who in East Germany during the 1980s, he might tell a different story:
Figures that ended communism besides Reagan:
1. Vaclav Havel- Playwright who spent the 1980s in soviet prison for his views. Became the first Czech President when it gained independence from the USSR.
2. The protestors at Leipzig. Every monday, thousands of people gathered at the formerly state-owned prodestant to protest the Berlin Wall and other infringements on freedoms. In the final weeks of the church meetings the Soviet government ordered the meetings illegal, sent tanks and troops to stop the post-service protests. This was very soon after Tiananmen square massacre and the Soviet government planned similar brutally violent responses. Despite the ban, 50,000 people stared down the barrels of tanks and guns and attended the meeting and then did a peaceful march. To this day, historians are trying to discover whether the order to kill the protestors was not given, given and not obeyed, or given and lost in transmission.
3. Reformist politicians in the Duma (parliament). I don't think anyone can argue that somehow Reagan proposed and got Perestroika and Glasnost (openness, reforms, the movement for an honest society) passed or was able to get more moderate leaders into power.
4. The sytem itself. The system had been falling apart for years. If you could simply lie and say you did a great job and then slack off, why do a good job? Pretty simple idea here that points out what led to Perestroika and the internal falling apart of the communist system. Totalitarinism and militarism had also been taking it's toll (I.E. the expensive Afghan war).
Faithfully,
Rob
After seeing John McCain, my boss at work, and so many other figures comment about Reagan and communism I'd like to fill in the "details" that a time-constrained press hasn't yet touched upon. McCain said that a lot of historians might disagree with him, but his opinion, and it's only his opinion as he said twice, was that the wall wouldn't have fallen if not for Reagan. This views has been repeated countless times, although I have not seen one historian comment on any of this. Well, I should say I haven't seen one historian comment on this in the news, luckily for everyone reading this I happen to know a historian who in East Germany during the 1980s, he might tell a different story:
Figures that ended communism besides Reagan:
1. Vaclav Havel- Playwright who spent the 1980s in soviet prison for his views. Became the first Czech President when it gained independence from the USSR.
2. The protestors at Leipzig. Every monday, thousands of people gathered at the formerly state-owned prodestant to protest the Berlin Wall and other infringements on freedoms. In the final weeks of the church meetings the Soviet government ordered the meetings illegal, sent tanks and troops to stop the post-service protests. This was very soon after Tiananmen square massacre and the Soviet government planned similar brutally violent responses. Despite the ban, 50,000 people stared down the barrels of tanks and guns and attended the meeting and then did a peaceful march. To this day, historians are trying to discover whether the order to kill the protestors was not given, given and not obeyed, or given and lost in transmission.
3. Reformist politicians in the Duma (parliament). I don't think anyone can argue that somehow Reagan proposed and got Perestroika and Glasnost (openness, reforms, the movement for an honest society) passed or was able to get more moderate leaders into power.
4. The sytem itself. The system had been falling apart for years. If you could simply lie and say you did a great job and then slack off, why do a good job? Pretty simple idea here that points out what led to Perestroika and the internal falling apart of the communist system. Totalitarinism and militarism had also been taking it's toll (I.E. the expensive Afghan war).
Faithfully,
Rob
June 04, 2004
Who could have seen 9-11 coming?
Now, a lot of the people criticizing pre-9-11 failures have probably been a little unfair against the administration. But the media coverage of post-9-11 failures has been amazingly unfair in the administrations favor. I've seen countless guests and interviewers pass of the idea 'nobody could have seen it coming' as a fact. Their simply repeat what the administration has beeen saying to save their butts. National security adviser Condoleeza Rice said on May 16, 2002, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." This idea is just rediculous. It's the media folks trying to make sure people don't think their liberal, because there are plenty of books out there that will tell you that people like Richard Clarke and others who were trying to prepare for things like that. Let's look at people who thought that somebody might hijack a plane:
1. One of the Columbine kids had written in his log that he was thinking about hijacking a plane and flying it into a building, WTC was on the top of his list. Footage of a reporter discussing the details of the student's diary describing the idea can be seen in Bowling for Columbine.
2. Tom Clancy wrote about a scenario with terrorists hijacking a plane and flying it into a building one of his books.
3. There was a movie in production in 2001 about terrorists hijacking a plane and flying it into the Pentagon! The production of the movie was then postponed indefinitely. I heard about this the week after 9-11 on msnbc in a story about how the movie just mentioned was canceled and of course how Spiderman was delayed because a scene in which a helicopter crashes into the WTC needed to be taken out.
4. At the last G8 summit (meeting of the top 8 nuclear powers) there were fighter planes flying around the building in case someone hijacked a plane and flew it into the building. Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them discusses this.
5. A memo sent to the president (while we was on vacation in Texas (of course)) was titled "Bin Laden to Attack Within the United States". The memo mentioned New York TWICE!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4710772/
6. Bill Clinton. Clinton "personally warned President-elect George W. Bush in a meeting during the transition that Osama bin Laden would be his No. 1 national-security problem". http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,612324,00.html
7. Richard Clarke. Who devoted so much time to researching a building intelligence agaisnt Al Qaeda. But Bush was more interested in nation building from the get-go and ignored Clark's suggestings for continuing anti-terrorist efforts. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
Or simply search google for Richard Clarke or read his book, Against All Enemies.
8. Jack Roche. A muslim convert from Australia knew the whereabouts of 9-11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others. "He had their phone numbers. He had their e-mail addresses. He knew where they lived. He knew how they worked." "But at the time — 14 months before the Sept. 11 attacks — no one was interested."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040607/ts_latimes/before911onewarningwentunheard
9. Gosh, I just keep adding stuff to this list. Here is another one. Mohammed Heikal is a highl repsected Egyptian journalist and foreign minister. He told the Guardian on October 10, 2001 "I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al Qa'eda has been penetrated by American Intelligence, Saudi Intelligence, Egyptian Intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organization and sophistication."
10. Sibel Edmonds. Edmonds is a former FBI translator whose testimony before the 9-11 commission helped force Condalezza Rice to testify before Congress. "We had several specific information as early as April, 2001." "The FBI had information that an attack using airplanes was being planned before Sept. 11 and calls Condoleezza Rice's claim the White House had no specific information on a domestic threat or one involving planes an outrageous lie."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/04/1353259
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Sibel+Edmonds&btnG=Google+Search
11. Kenneth Williams. An FBI agents that wrote the famous 'Phoenix Memo' warning that supporters of Osama bin Laden were "attending civil aviation universities/colleges in Arizona." The memo apparently never reached the highest levels of the FBI, the CIA or the Justice Department until after September 11.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/21/phoenix.memo/
12. According to the NY Times Sept 9, 2002 as early as 1996, Pakistani terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to federal agents that he was "learning to fly an aircraft in order to crash a plane into CIA HG"
13. A briefing in July of 2001 warned of "a significant terrorist attack against the U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attacks with be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities and interests. Attacks will occur with little or no warning."
14. We also now know that at least 2 FBI agents warned their superiors that AlQa'eda was planning a "kamakazi strike against New York and Washington". They were told that if they were to come public with this information, they would be prosecuted under the National Security Act. (Dreaming War p.14)
In conclusion, I'll leave you with the conclusion that will be written in history which is the conclusion of the 9-11 commission which said "9/11 could have and should have been prevented."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml
I don't want anybody to be unfair and blame it all on Bush, let's just be honest about the American Neo-conservative agenda: they love nation-building and ignored terrorism.
-Rob
1. One of the Columbine kids had written in his log that he was thinking about hijacking a plane and flying it into a building, WTC was on the top of his list. Footage of a reporter discussing the details of the student's diary describing the idea can be seen in Bowling for Columbine.
2. Tom Clancy wrote about a scenario with terrorists hijacking a plane and flying it into a building one of his books.
3. There was a movie in production in 2001 about terrorists hijacking a plane and flying it into the Pentagon! The production of the movie was then postponed indefinitely. I heard about this the week after 9-11 on msnbc in a story about how the movie just mentioned was canceled and of course how Spiderman was delayed because a scene in which a helicopter crashes into the WTC needed to be taken out.
4. At the last G8 summit (meeting of the top 8 nuclear powers) there were fighter planes flying around the building in case someone hijacked a plane and flew it into the building. Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them discusses this.
5. A memo sent to the president (while we was on vacation in Texas (of course)) was titled "Bin Laden to Attack Within the United States". The memo mentioned New York TWICE!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4710772/
6. Bill Clinton. Clinton "personally warned President-elect George W. Bush in a meeting during the transition that Osama bin Laden would be his No. 1 national-security problem". http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,612324,00.html
7. Richard Clarke. Who devoted so much time to researching a building intelligence agaisnt Al Qaeda. But Bush was more interested in nation building from the get-go and ignored Clark's suggestings for continuing anti-terrorist efforts. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml
Or simply search google for Richard Clarke or read his book, Against All Enemies.
8. Jack Roche. A muslim convert from Australia knew the whereabouts of 9-11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others. "He had their phone numbers. He had their e-mail addresses. He knew where they lived. He knew how they worked." "But at the time — 14 months before the Sept. 11 attacks — no one was interested."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20040607/ts_latimes/before911onewarningwentunheard
9. Gosh, I just keep adding stuff to this list. Here is another one. Mohammed Heikal is a highl repsected Egyptian journalist and foreign minister. He told the Guardian on October 10, 2001 "I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance for years: every telephone call was monitored and al Qa'eda has been penetrated by American Intelligence, Saudi Intelligence, Egyptian Intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a degree of organization and sophistication."
10. Sibel Edmonds. Edmonds is a former FBI translator whose testimony before the 9-11 commission helped force Condalezza Rice to testify before Congress. "We had several specific information as early as April, 2001." "The FBI had information that an attack using airplanes was being planned before Sept. 11 and calls Condoleezza Rice's claim the White House had no specific information on a domestic threat or one involving planes an outrageous lie."
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/04/1353259
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Sibel+Edmonds&btnG=Google+Search
11. Kenneth Williams. An FBI agents that wrote the famous 'Phoenix Memo' warning that supporters of Osama bin Laden were "attending civil aviation universities/colleges in Arizona." The memo apparently never reached the highest levels of the FBI, the CIA or the Justice Department until after September 11.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/21/phoenix.memo/
12. According to the NY Times Sept 9, 2002 as early as 1996, Pakistani terrorist Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to federal agents that he was "learning to fly an aircraft in order to crash a plane into CIA HG"
13. A briefing in July of 2001 warned of "a significant terrorist attack against the U.S. and/or Israeli interests in the coming weeks. The attacks with be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against US facilities and interests. Attacks will occur with little or no warning."
14. We also now know that at least 2 FBI agents warned their superiors that AlQa'eda was planning a "kamakazi strike against New York and Washington". They were told that if they were to come public with this information, they would be prosecuted under the National Security Act. (Dreaming War p.14)
In conclusion, I'll leave you with the conclusion that will be written in history which is the conclusion of the 9-11 commission which said "9/11 could have and should have been prevented."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/17/eveningnews/main589137.shtml
I don't want anybody to be unfair and blame it all on Bush, let's just be honest about the American Neo-conservative agenda: they love nation-building and ignored terrorism.
-Rob
June 02, 2004
G. Dubya Quotes
Yeah, it's time for some quotes from G. W. Bush.
"Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." [Source: White House Web site] [American Progress.org]
"For lower-income families, my tax plan restores basic fairness." [Source: White House Web site] [American Progress.org]
"I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him
[Osama Bin Laden]." 3-13-2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Then there's the whole messing up Abu Grahib pronunciation big time, and Bush asking, "Is our children learning?"
Accually, there are hundreds if not thousands. I give up because I'd rather spend my time reading them. There are a lot at http://www.dubyaspeak.com/
For some of Bush's flip-flops, you should visit here http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263
"Tax relief is central to my plan to encourage economic growth and we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." [Source: White House Web site] [American Progress.org]
"For lower-income families, my tax plan restores basic fairness." [Source: White House Web site] [American Progress.org]
"I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him
[Osama Bin Laden]." 3-13-2002 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Then there's the whole messing up Abu Grahib pronunciation big time, and Bush asking, "Is our children learning?"
Accually, there are hundreds if not thousands. I give up because I'd rather spend my time reading them. There are a lot at http://www.dubyaspeak.com/
For some of Bush's flip-flops, you should visit here http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263
June 01, 2004
Definitions of Political Terms that get distorted in the media.
This is from WordWeb dictionary and Webster's New World. Roget's and others say the same things.
Fascism: 1. An adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views. 2. A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism) Fascist: 1. An adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views.
Liberal: n 1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties 2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets. adj: 1. Showing or characterized by broad-mindedness 2. Having political or social views favoring reform and progress, 3. Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition.
Conservative: adj 1. Resistant to change, 2. Opposed to liberal reforms, 3. Avoiding excess, 4. Unimaginatively conventional, 5. Conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
Reactionary: 1. An extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism, 2. Extremely conservative.
Communism: 1. any theory or system of common ownership of property. 2, socialism as formulated by Marx, Lenin, etc. Communist: 1. A socialist who advocates communism.
Socialism: 1. a theory by which the means of production and distribution are owned by society rather than by individuals.
So what conclusions can we draw from this?
1. Liberals favor "an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets". Sound like Jefferson, thats right, he was one of the biggest Liberals of his time. Research the foundations of liberalism and you'll find thats what America was founded on. You'll also realize how much the word 'liberal' has been distorted to label and reject anyone who is working for progress on any issue.
2. I've heard people of Faux News and others claim that the Nazis were "Liberals". This is so laughable. This idea is based upon the idea that the Nazis persecuted Christians and the Nazi party has "socialist" in their name. Liberals at the time with their laissez-faire policies and so forth would have never been confused with 'socialists' as the words may be blurred together today. This idea that the Nazis were 'liberals' because they persecuted Christians is so laughable. There were blatent Christian themes in dozens of Hitler's speeches. If one reads the Nuremberg Laws or orders sent to troops one will find similar Christian themese. For example, under the Nuremberg laws you were "Jewish" and hence lost all citenzenship and rights if your spouse attended or was a member of a Synagogue. The Nurumberg laws were a religious standard at least as much as an ethnic standard. Another example of Christian themes in fascist ideology comes from an order sent out by German Field-Marshal Walter von Reichenau to the Nazi troops on the German-Soviet border which stressed "just atonement required of the Jewish subhumans." A teacher at my sister's conservative Christian school told her that the Nazis persecuted Hindus, Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals because the Nazis believed too strongly in evolution. This idea that the Nazi's persecuted Christians I believe comes solely from events in which Polish Priests were persecuted, but they were persecuted for opposing Hitler, not for simply being Christian.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Christians. Tonight, I spent the evening as a volunteer actor for Summer Bible School for kids from area churches as well as kids from my church that I'm very active in. I'll be helping with Summer Bible School all next week. I am a Christian and I go to a Christian school. From my grandparents down you will find Christians active in churches, so obviously I'm not attacking Christians here. I am attacking the fascists in history who have manipulated, lied, distorted, and killed under the guise of Christianity. I am attacking those who fail the recognize the effects of fusing nationalism and Christianity. It it time for us to truthfully recognize these things.
But then again, we can just all become reactionaries and blame everything we don't like on any people working for progess. After all, it worked for Hitler, whos first victims were political enemies in the worker's party (second largest) in Germany, which was purged from Parliament after Hitler was given power by the conservatives.
Faithfully,
--Rob
Fascism: 1. An adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views. 2. A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism) Fascist: 1. An adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views.
Liberal: n 1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties 2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets. adj: 1. Showing or characterized by broad-mindedness 2. Having political or social views favoring reform and progress, 3. Tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition.
Conservative: adj 1. Resistant to change, 2. Opposed to liberal reforms, 3. Avoiding excess, 4. Unimaginatively conventional, 5. Conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class.
Reactionary: 1. An extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism, 2. Extremely conservative.
Communism: 1. any theory or system of common ownership of property. 2, socialism as formulated by Marx, Lenin, etc. Communist: 1. A socialist who advocates communism.
Socialism: 1. a theory by which the means of production and distribution are owned by society rather than by individuals.
So what conclusions can we draw from this?
1. Liberals favor "an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets". Sound like Jefferson, thats right, he was one of the biggest Liberals of his time. Research the foundations of liberalism and you'll find thats what America was founded on. You'll also realize how much the word 'liberal' has been distorted to label and reject anyone who is working for progress on any issue.
2. I've heard people of Faux News and others claim that the Nazis were "Liberals". This is so laughable. This idea is based upon the idea that the Nazis persecuted Christians and the Nazi party has "socialist" in their name. Liberals at the time with their laissez-faire policies and so forth would have never been confused with 'socialists' as the words may be blurred together today. This idea that the Nazis were 'liberals' because they persecuted Christians is so laughable. There were blatent Christian themes in dozens of Hitler's speeches. If one reads the Nuremberg Laws or orders sent to troops one will find similar Christian themese. For example, under the Nuremberg laws you were "Jewish" and hence lost all citenzenship and rights if your spouse attended or was a member of a Synagogue. The Nurumberg laws were a religious standard at least as much as an ethnic standard. Another example of Christian themes in fascist ideology comes from an order sent out by German Field-Marshal Walter von Reichenau to the Nazi troops on the German-Soviet border which stressed "just atonement required of the Jewish subhumans." A teacher at my sister's conservative Christian school told her that the Nazis persecuted Hindus, Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals because the Nazis believed too strongly in evolution. This idea that the Nazi's persecuted Christians I believe comes solely from events in which Polish Priests were persecuted, but they were persecuted for opposing Hitler, not for simply being Christian.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Christians. Tonight, I spent the evening as a volunteer actor for Summer Bible School for kids from area churches as well as kids from my church that I'm very active in. I'll be helping with Summer Bible School all next week. I am a Christian and I go to a Christian school. From my grandparents down you will find Christians active in churches, so obviously I'm not attacking Christians here. I am attacking the fascists in history who have manipulated, lied, distorted, and killed under the guise of Christianity. I am attacking those who fail the recognize the effects of fusing nationalism and Christianity. It it time for us to truthfully recognize these things.
But then again, we can just all become reactionaries and blame everything we don't like on any people working for progess. After all, it worked for Hitler, whos first victims were political enemies in the worker's party (second largest) in Germany, which was purged from Parliament after Hitler was given power by the conservatives.
Faithfully,
--Rob
Reading List
Here is a list of books I've read recently or plan on reading this summer. Feel free to comment on any of them, or pick them up yourselves:
Chris Mathews' 'Hardball' and 'Now Let Me Tell You What I Really Think'.
James W. Loewen's 'Lies My Teacher Told Me' or 'Lies Accross America'.
Marx's 'Communist Manifesto' or 'Early Writings'
Edmund Burke's 'Relfection on the Revolution in France' and any of the various collective writings of Burke.
Aristotle's 'The Art Rhetoric' and 'The Politics'
Immanuel Kant's 'Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals' and 'What is the Enlightenment?'
Plato's 'The Republic'
Thomas Hobbes' 'Leviaton'
After Leviathon read 'The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit' by Melvin Konner to learn about more recent ideas than Hobbes' on human nature.
Voltaire's 'Candide'!
Chaim Potok's 'My Name is Asher Lev' and 'The Chosen'
Eric Schlosser's 'Fast Food Nation'
Barry Glassner. I read 'The Culture of Fear', but his more academic stuff is much better.
Ferdinand Oyono's 'Houseboy'
Al Franken's 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'. I just finished this, and he has written 6 or 7 other books that I haven't read.
I'm about to finish Michael Moore's 'Downsize This,' but haven't read any of his other books. I beleive they are 'Stupid White Men' and 'Dude, Where's My Country'.
I've read 14 of the above books in the last 9 months, and the other few are what I plan to read this summer. Now you folks reading can see my influences. Any comments, criticism, or suggestions for further reading?
Chris Mathews' 'Hardball' and 'Now Let Me Tell You What I Really Think'.
James W. Loewen's 'Lies My Teacher Told Me' or 'Lies Accross America'.
Marx's 'Communist Manifesto' or 'Early Writings'
Edmund Burke's 'Relfection on the Revolution in France' and any of the various collective writings of Burke.
Aristotle's 'The Art Rhetoric' and 'The Politics'
Immanuel Kant's 'Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals' and 'What is the Enlightenment?'
Plato's 'The Republic'
Thomas Hobbes' 'Leviaton'
After Leviathon read 'The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit' by Melvin Konner to learn about more recent ideas than Hobbes' on human nature.
Voltaire's 'Candide'!
Chaim Potok's 'My Name is Asher Lev' and 'The Chosen'
Eric Schlosser's 'Fast Food Nation'
Barry Glassner. I read 'The Culture of Fear', but his more academic stuff is much better.
Ferdinand Oyono's 'Houseboy'
Al Franken's 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'. I just finished this, and he has written 6 or 7 other books that I haven't read.
I'm about to finish Michael Moore's 'Downsize This,' but haven't read any of his other books. I beleive they are 'Stupid White Men' and 'Dude, Where's My Country'.
I've read 14 of the above books in the last 9 months, and the other few are what I plan to read this summer. Now you folks reading can see my influences. Any comments, criticism, or suggestions for further reading?
May 29, 2004
Fox News supports anti-family values
A study conducted by the Parents Television Council sought "to learn which companies are sponsoring the best and worst 8-to-9-p.m. television programming in the 2001-2002 season. Raunchy series survive only because advertisers support them; without the advertising, the raunch would disappear. A point system was used to rank the best and worst advertisers. Companies received one point for each ad appearing on a family-friendly show, and lost a point for each ad placed on a show from our “worst” list."
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/advertisersstudy/main.asp
Advertiser Points
1. Sony -32
2. News Corp. -26
3. Viacom -18
4. Honda -16
Tricon Global Restaurants -16
6. Capcom -14
Volkswagen -14
8. Victoria Secret -13
U.S. Government -13
Greyhound -13
That's right, News Corp, the company that owns Foxnews has the second worst record for supporting vulgarity and violence on television. By the way, Rupert Murdoch, owner of NewsCorp is a very evil man. He owns newspaper and stations in USA, UK and Australia, making him the largest english-language media mogul in the world. He also runs propaganda for China's communist state-run "news" station. Like most right-wingers, money becomes much more important than values.
http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/publications/reports/advertisersstudy/main.asp
Advertiser Points
1. Sony -32
2. News Corp. -26
3. Viacom -18
4. Honda -16
Tricon Global Restaurants -16
6. Capcom -14
Volkswagen -14
8. Victoria Secret -13
U.S. Government -13
Greyhound -13
That's right, News Corp, the company that owns Foxnews has the second worst record for supporting vulgarity and violence on television. By the way, Rupert Murdoch, owner of NewsCorp is a very evil man. He owns newspaper and stations in USA, UK and Australia, making him the largest english-language media mogul in the world. He also runs propaganda for China's communist state-run "news" station. Like most right-wingers, money becomes much more important than values.
May 19, 2004
Screw Disney
In case anybody wanted an example of the Ownership filter in the media here is an example of how vast it has expanded. You know what, screw the FCC too for allowing this conglomerated fiasco to happen. Of course, when companies were giving Michael Powell that much money and FCC commisioners took 1400 trips paid in full by broadcasters, what do you expect?
Anyways, screw Disney. They won't show Moore's movie, well at least not until after the election. They say it's because they want to keep their "family image". If you beleive that you are retarded. It is Miramax that is putting it in theatres, nobody even understands that Disney owns Miramax so it won't reflect on Disney at all. Furthermore, Miramax is the company that put out KILL BILL VOL 1 and 2! the most violent movies ever, well, surely the first one. Sometimes I think everybody has died and been relocated to Celebration, Florida.
May 6, 2004 – Editorial, New York Times
Disney's Craven Behavior
Give the Walt Disney Company a gold medal for cowardice for blocking its Miramax division from distributing a film that criticizes President Bush and his family. A company that ought to be championing free _expression has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.
The documentary was prepared by Michael Moore, a controversial filmmaker who likes to skewer the rich and powerful. As described by Jim Rutenberg yesterday in The Times, the film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden. It describes financial ties that go back three decades and explores the role of the government in evacuating relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The film was financed by Miramax and was expected to be released this summer.
Mr. Moore's agent said that Michael Eisner, Disney's chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor. If that is the reason for Disney's move, it would underscore the dangers of allowing huge conglomerates to gobble up diverse media companies.
On the other hand, a senior Disney executive says the real reason is that Disney caters to families of all political stripes and that many of them might be alienated by the film. Those families, of course, would not have to watch the documentary.
It is hard to say which rationale for blocking distribution is more depressing. But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/opinion/06THU4.html?ex=1084420800&en=dd695e1433b69ff3&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Anyways, screw Disney. They won't show Moore's movie, well at least not until after the election. They say it's because they want to keep their "family image". If you beleive that you are retarded. It is Miramax that is putting it in theatres, nobody even understands that Disney owns Miramax so it won't reflect on Disney at all. Furthermore, Miramax is the company that put out KILL BILL VOL 1 and 2! the most violent movies ever, well, surely the first one. Sometimes I think everybody has died and been relocated to Celebration, Florida.
May 6, 2004 – Editorial, New York Times
Disney's Craven Behavior
Give the Walt Disney Company a gold medal for cowardice for blocking its Miramax division from distributing a film that criticizes President Bush and his family. A company that ought to be championing free _expression has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.
The documentary was prepared by Michael Moore, a controversial filmmaker who likes to skewer the rich and powerful. As described by Jim Rutenberg yesterday in The Times, the film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden. It describes financial ties that go back three decades and explores the role of the government in evacuating relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The film was financed by Miramax and was expected to be released this summer.
Mr. Moore's agent said that Michael Eisner, Disney's chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor. If that is the reason for Disney's move, it would underscore the dangers of allowing huge conglomerates to gobble up diverse media companies.
On the other hand, a senior Disney executive says the real reason is that Disney caters to families of all political stripes and that many of them might be alienated by the film. Those families, of course, would not have to watch the documentary.
It is hard to say which rationale for blocking distribution is more depressing. But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/opinion/06THU4.html?ex=1084420800&en=dd695e1433b69ff3&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Propaganda Model of the Media
This model for the media was proposed in 1995. It says that the media serves only as a tool for the established order. Stage two did some comprehensive content analysis of mainstream news and the data fit almost perfectly into the model. This kind of theory stuff might cost you $100-$250 at places like http://www.mediaed.org/ which is an awesome organization, but I'll fill you guys in on the Propaganda Model for free.
News organizations get tons of stories, leads and events that hey have to sift through to determine what is newsworthy. There are four filters that news goes through: The Ownership Filter, The Advertising Filter, The Source Filter, and the Flak Filter.
A. Ownership. If one takes an hour or so to study who owns the media they will find a very small group os extremely rich, white guys. Eisner, Turner, Murdoch, John Malone, Conrad Black, Microsoft, Time Warner, Viacom, The News Corporation, Disney, etc. Ted Turner is the only big media owner that is not confirmed to be way conservative. Anyone with money can start a news station, and you can get on TV with the approval of John Malone (conservative). Murdoch controls stations in UK, Australia, China (state propaganda), and America and he specifically sets a right-wing, pro-business agenda on his American newscasts (Fox News). The news is slanted to fit the owner's worldview. And it works, because, after all, rick white guys buy more luxury cars and investment protfolios. Which leads me to my next filter:
B. The Advertisement Filter. Magazines and newspapers get much closer to 50% of their money from ads, but television news gets nearly 100% of their funding from advertisements, about $200 billion a year. The media therefore must solicit things that don't offend advertisers, because if they don't they get pulled faster than Bill Maher. Sometimes the less truth you tell, the better off you are such as with the San-Jose Mercury News when after they ran an article on how to deal with car dealers, the car dealers in the area boycotted the station, pulled all their ads, and the newspaper had to issue formal apologies and rebuke the truth in the article. Or ABC after being sued by Phillip Morris for reporting cigarettes are bad. That's right, not to long ago it was illegal to say on the news that cigarettes were addictive, because the cigarette companies that are killing people, had better lawyers and would sue the parent company of the news company and take them over. For more on this watch the great movie The Insider. Another example of the advertising filter at work is that Chrysler has papers that they advertise in send their editorials to them in advance to check for "accuracy". If there is anything they don't like they pull the ads from the paper in advance.
C. Source Filter. Next we look at who makes the news. 73% of Americans demand objectivity in their news. This is why the only way Fox news can continue to exist is to scream that the rest of the news is slanted to the left even though there is absolutely zip, zero zilch evidence for that and anyone why actually studies it will feel quite stupid quite fast if they think the media is "liberal". So in order to appear non-biased but still put in bias in the media, you get an "expert" to say it for you. All you have to do is choose you favorite biased "expert". Luckily, corporations have pumped billions of dollars into "think tanks" to provide the "experts" for the news media. Out of the top five most cited think tanks four of them were created with corporate money with a conservative agenda (1. Heritage (2000+ times in 1995) 3. American Enterprise Institute, 4. CATO, 5. Georgetown Center for International Policy Studies) and one is centrist, (2. Brookings institute), although a few see it as left of center. The sources for our news comes from an intricate web of government, business, think tanks and the media itself. All reporting with the worldview of an elite.
C. Flak Filters. Flak filters are created by media watchgroups that complain and protest media outlets that they don't like. There are strong liberal and conservative media watch groups. The conservative ones happen to get tons of money from corporations and thus become more effective. For example, the organization "Accuracy in Media" recieved money from eight oil companies. Flak also comes from PR offices of the Pentagon, big defense contractors and big business in general. PR efforts from defence contractors and the Pentagon were even able to get David Evans, a lifetime marine who knew how the Pentagon worked, fired for reporting on defense spending waste.
I'm now going to go read the labor section in my local newspaper. Wait, there is no labor section, I suppose I'll just read the business section and see how the stocks are doing, because people who buy stocks also buy more from advertisers. Damn, I'm hosed.
Faithfully,
--CC
http://www.igc.org/
http://www.mediaed.org/
News organizations get tons of stories, leads and events that hey have to sift through to determine what is newsworthy. There are four filters that news goes through: The Ownership Filter, The Advertising Filter, The Source Filter, and the Flak Filter.
A. Ownership. If one takes an hour or so to study who owns the media they will find a very small group os extremely rich, white guys. Eisner, Turner, Murdoch, John Malone, Conrad Black, Microsoft, Time Warner, Viacom, The News Corporation, Disney, etc. Ted Turner is the only big media owner that is not confirmed to be way conservative. Anyone with money can start a news station, and you can get on TV with the approval of John Malone (conservative). Murdoch controls stations in UK, Australia, China (state propaganda), and America and he specifically sets a right-wing, pro-business agenda on his American newscasts (Fox News). The news is slanted to fit the owner's worldview. And it works, because, after all, rick white guys buy more luxury cars and investment protfolios. Which leads me to my next filter:
B. The Advertisement Filter. Magazines and newspapers get much closer to 50% of their money from ads, but television news gets nearly 100% of their funding from advertisements, about $200 billion a year. The media therefore must solicit things that don't offend advertisers, because if they don't they get pulled faster than Bill Maher. Sometimes the less truth you tell, the better off you are such as with the San-Jose Mercury News when after they ran an article on how to deal with car dealers, the car dealers in the area boycotted the station, pulled all their ads, and the newspaper had to issue formal apologies and rebuke the truth in the article. Or ABC after being sued by Phillip Morris for reporting cigarettes are bad. That's right, not to long ago it was illegal to say on the news that cigarettes were addictive, because the cigarette companies that are killing people, had better lawyers and would sue the parent company of the news company and take them over. For more on this watch the great movie The Insider. Another example of the advertising filter at work is that Chrysler has papers that they advertise in send their editorials to them in advance to check for "accuracy". If there is anything they don't like they pull the ads from the paper in advance.
C. Source Filter. Next we look at who makes the news. 73% of Americans demand objectivity in their news. This is why the only way Fox news can continue to exist is to scream that the rest of the news is slanted to the left even though there is absolutely zip, zero zilch evidence for that and anyone why actually studies it will feel quite stupid quite fast if they think the media is "liberal". So in order to appear non-biased but still put in bias in the media, you get an "expert" to say it for you. All you have to do is choose you favorite biased "expert". Luckily, corporations have pumped billions of dollars into "think tanks" to provide the "experts" for the news media. Out of the top five most cited think tanks four of them were created with corporate money with a conservative agenda (1. Heritage (2000+ times in 1995) 3. American Enterprise Institute, 4. CATO, 5. Georgetown Center for International Policy Studies) and one is centrist, (2. Brookings institute), although a few see it as left of center. The sources for our news comes from an intricate web of government, business, think tanks and the media itself. All reporting with the worldview of an elite.
C. Flak Filters. Flak filters are created by media watchgroups that complain and protest media outlets that they don't like. There are strong liberal and conservative media watch groups. The conservative ones happen to get tons of money from corporations and thus become more effective. For example, the organization "Accuracy in Media" recieved money from eight oil companies. Flak also comes from PR offices of the Pentagon, big defense contractors and big business in general. PR efforts from defence contractors and the Pentagon were even able to get David Evans, a lifetime marine who knew how the Pentagon worked, fired for reporting on defense spending waste.
I'm now going to go read the labor section in my local newspaper. Wait, there is no labor section, I suppose I'll just read the business section and see how the stocks are doing, because people who buy stocks also buy more from advertisers. Damn, I'm hosed.
Faithfully,
--CC
http://www.igc.org/
http://www.mediaed.org/
May 18, 2004
Nick Berg
So I heard rumors about Nick Berg's father saying some bad things about America this week. Now what’s sad about this is that I had to hear this from http://nicedoggie.net a pro-fascist blog. Finally, today I read an article about what Michael Berg said on May 15th.
Nick Berg
The father of slain American Nick Berg is comparing the men who killed his son to the Bush administration.
Nick Berg
By Amanda Burge
KDLT-TV May 15 - Michael Berg took a few minutes to speak with reporters today outside his home in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
His son was kidnapped in Iraq last month and later beheaded, an incident seen on videotape.
Berg said he didn't want revenge because it wouldn't bring his son back.
He said the killers weren't any better or worse than the people in the White House who called for the invasion of Iraq.
Berg called on Americans to pray for peace.
He said he plans to participate in a peace march in Washington, DC in June.
Gosh, this shows how pathetic mainstream news is these days. Due to right-wing flak filters that would go off on them if they actually pursued this story we get to hear what Hannity has to say about the video all day and not what the actual fucking father of the slain person thinks about it.
So we know Michael Berg is religious and anti-war. In fact, before this whole fiasco Michael Berg's name was posted on Free Republic under an "enemies list". http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092851/posts
Hopefully, you know that the government keeps files on every anti-war protestor. I wonder if Nick Berg ever joined his father at a protest? I'm sure you have seen the articles about how Nick Berg was in US custody.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=nick+berg& id=3053419&action=fulltext&searchfromtoc.x=11&searchfromtoc.y=22
My question is: WHY WAS NICK BERG WEARING AN ORANGE PRISONER JUMPSUIT WHEN IN THE VIDEO?
He was in Al-Qaida's custody a while before he was killed. But how long was it between when he was in US custody and Al-Qaida custody?
The US had been on this guy's ass before: Reports reveal that the FBI questioned Berg two years ago after finding his e-mail address had been used by an acquaintance of 9/11 suspect Zacarias Moussaoui. It happened in 1999 when Berg was a student at the University of Oklahoma. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4979262/
And then there's the whole strange story that US officials told his family he was found with his throat slashed on the side of the road, probably while he was trying to repair communications towers. Like some terrorist just came by and killed him. Well, we know that story wasn't true. It was much more organized than that.
The US Army arrested Nick Berg, transported him, and then released him off in a terrorist infested area where he was unfamiliar with in Iraq. Now, things like this just happen, the chances of low-level soldiers recognizing him is freaking minimal. What I'm saying is that there was sufficient amount of neglect in caring for an American citizen by the US Army in Iraq.
I think the media will further investigate exactly what happened, and I look forward to reading it. For now, the mainstream media can't look too left-wing, that doesn't sell car commercials very well.
Nick Berg
The father of slain American Nick Berg is comparing the men who killed his son to the Bush administration.
Nick Berg
By Amanda Burge
KDLT-TV May 15 - Michael Berg took a few minutes to speak with reporters today outside his home in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
His son was kidnapped in Iraq last month and later beheaded, an incident seen on videotape.
Berg said he didn't want revenge because it wouldn't bring his son back.
He said the killers weren't any better or worse than the people in the White House who called for the invasion of Iraq.
Berg called on Americans to pray for peace.
He said he plans to participate in a peace march in Washington, DC in June.
Gosh, this shows how pathetic mainstream news is these days. Due to right-wing flak filters that would go off on them if they actually pursued this story we get to hear what Hannity has to say about the video all day and not what the actual fucking father of the slain person thinks about it.
So we know Michael Berg is religious and anti-war. In fact, before this whole fiasco Michael Berg's name was posted on Free Republic under an "enemies list". http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1092851/posts
Hopefully, you know that the government keeps files on every anti-war protestor. I wonder if Nick Berg ever joined his father at a protest? I'm sure you have seen the articles about how Nick Berg was in US custody.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?querytext=nick+berg& id=3053419&action=fulltext&searchfromtoc.x=11&searchfromtoc.y=22
My question is: WHY WAS NICK BERG WEARING AN ORANGE PRISONER JUMPSUIT WHEN IN THE VIDEO?
He was in Al-Qaida's custody a while before he was killed. But how long was it between when he was in US custody and Al-Qaida custody?
The US had been on this guy's ass before: Reports reveal that the FBI questioned Berg two years ago after finding his e-mail address had been used by an acquaintance of 9/11 suspect Zacarias Moussaoui. It happened in 1999 when Berg was a student at the University of Oklahoma. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4979262/
And then there's the whole strange story that US officials told his family he was found with his throat slashed on the side of the road, probably while he was trying to repair communications towers. Like some terrorist just came by and killed him. Well, we know that story wasn't true. It was much more organized than that.
The US Army arrested Nick Berg, transported him, and then released him off in a terrorist infested area where he was unfamiliar with in Iraq. Now, things like this just happen, the chances of low-level soldiers recognizing him is freaking minimal. What I'm saying is that there was sufficient amount of neglect in caring for an American citizen by the US Army in Iraq.
I think the media will further investigate exactly what happened, and I look forward to reading it. For now, the mainstream media can't look too left-wing, that doesn't sell car commercials very well.
May 17, 2004
If you don't think they we're planning to take over Iraq before 9-11, you are ill-informed
For the 2001 debate season the topic was Weapons of Mass Destruction and I was reading every single non-classified intelligence brief that came out of American Think Tanks. There was never anything conclusive on Iraq. For every brief taht said he was developing WMDs, there was one saying their wasn't. Teams typically stayed away from Sadam because there was a pretty weak case for taking action against him in order to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. However, there were forces printing briefs warning of Iraq's capabilities. Documents like the blatantly forged Niger Uranium document that the UN laughed at seemed to pop up a lot and then get discredited. Most of the briefs I read were from conservative think tanks. How it works is corporations fund people to do research and pass that on to lawmakers, debaters, and political parties.
There are very powerful forces at work and you should know how they work. The Project for A New American Century (PNAC) is essentially an openly imperialistic organization that pushes policies for an stonger America, an empire is their goal. Their website puts it nicely: PNAC "is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."They put out briefs like Pax America in 1993 that you should research. In this brief they recommended $6 billion more for the military and a "permanent militray base in the middle-east". During the first two years in office, Bush requested from congress, can you guess how much more for the military? Thats rightm six billion dollars. According to the PNAC they would need a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" in order for the plans to go through. The military base in the middle-east had to wait until after 9-11. See, here's how it works. We've been buddy-buddy with Saudi royal family for a long time, and the Saudis are very rich and very Islamic. Islamic factions withint the country essentially run the school system in exchange for the Monarchy to rule the country. This produces a lot of militants because we have a military base in Saudi Arabia and assholes like Osama Bin Laden are able to brainwash young Saudis who have been taught in their Islamic schools how evil the hethens are and how muslim territory should be for muslims only. So, one way to solve this problem is to establish another base of operation in the Middle East, because pulling out of Saudi Arabia wouldn't be good for us and would be appeasing Muslim tensions. So first we need a base in the middle-east before we can shift our power out of Saudi Arabia.
Shifting power out of Saudi Arabia would appease the very rich oil traders that American is fond of. Such as the bin Laden family. Now remember Osama was one of 52 children (thats gotta be a rough child-hood), and his oldest brother and head of the very wealthy family likes to do business with Texas oil companies such as Bush. Those powerful people in American who are in charge of keeping our oil cheap have long had to love Saudi's like the ones in Osama's family. That is why when 9-11 happened, there were 8 planes that flew powerful Saudi's out of the country so that they would be safe.
I remember reading briefs from these conservative think tanks calling Osama bin Laden "the longtime boogeyman of US foreign policy". Research it! Thats what he was dismissed as by many in the intelligence community. Many, whom were more interested in nation building, said that terrorist training camps in Afghanistan did not exist.
Now it's important to know who the PNAC are. Paul Wolfowitz, a VERY aggressive Reagan era policy-maker. He has been a leader in the PNAC and is now the Undersecretary of Defense. Richard Perle, is another leader for the PNAC, he recently resigned as chairman of an Administrative Advisory Board. It goes on and on, and this group known and "neo-conservatives" set the foreign policy for our country. While PNAC is a "non-profit" organization, they use CATO Institue and Heritage Foundation, which is funded by billions in corporate money to research conservative policy for them.
The aim has always been nation-building. From the beginning the neo-conservatives did not give a shit about terrorists and that is why Clinton went after Osama and 9-11 happened on Bush's watch. Proof of this is seen onc you understand that the CIA has been the machanism for nation-building and Richard Clarke was the top counter-terrorism guy in the White house. If Bush really wasn't interested in nation building like he said he wasn't when he ran for office, then he would have been getting his iltelligence from Richard Clark, instead George Tenet briefed the President DAILY. After finally setting up Clarke's counter-terrorism force, netiehr of them ever met with Clark to dicuss counterterrorism.
You can see where priorities of the people making the foreign policy for this administration are. These people and thier intricate web of nation-building rather than counter-terrorism one could argue are responsible for 9-11. Now, many could argue these groups are (or at least were) legitimate in ignoring non-state actors (terrorists) and focusing on "rogue nations" as they have labeled them to gain support for military action against them. This is because far worse abuses occur under the hands of military dictators and state action than terrorists.
Let's us just be honest about our foreign policy though, it was the neo-conservatives that have been ignoring terrorism all along and to show this I will quote Robert Oakley, ambassadar of counterterrorism under Reagan who said "Overall I give Clinton very high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger."
And why would Clinton be going after terrorist which protected Americans and the neo-cons, Rumsefled, Cheney, Powell and Bush be focused on nation-building. Because the neo-conservatives listen to corporate backed "think tanks" and nation-building requires more money for defense which then goes directly to the companies that fund those think tanks, and got to companies such as Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Haliburton, which Cheney was the CEO of.
This is how foreign policy works.
Faithfully,
--Rob
There are very powerful forces at work and you should know how they work. The Project for A New American Century (PNAC) is essentially an openly imperialistic organization that pushes policies for an stonger America, an empire is their goal. Their website puts it nicely: PNAC "is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."They put out briefs like Pax America in 1993 that you should research. In this brief they recommended $6 billion more for the military and a "permanent militray base in the middle-east". During the first two years in office, Bush requested from congress, can you guess how much more for the military? Thats rightm six billion dollars. According to the PNAC they would need a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" in order for the plans to go through. The military base in the middle-east had to wait until after 9-11. See, here's how it works. We've been buddy-buddy with Saudi royal family for a long time, and the Saudis are very rich and very Islamic. Islamic factions withint the country essentially run the school system in exchange for the Monarchy to rule the country. This produces a lot of militants because we have a military base in Saudi Arabia and assholes like Osama Bin Laden are able to brainwash young Saudis who have been taught in their Islamic schools how evil the hethens are and how muslim territory should be for muslims only. So, one way to solve this problem is to establish another base of operation in the Middle East, because pulling out of Saudi Arabia wouldn't be good for us and would be appeasing Muslim tensions. So first we need a base in the middle-east before we can shift our power out of Saudi Arabia.
Shifting power out of Saudi Arabia would appease the very rich oil traders that American is fond of. Such as the bin Laden family. Now remember Osama was one of 52 children (thats gotta be a rough child-hood), and his oldest brother and head of the very wealthy family likes to do business with Texas oil companies such as Bush. Those powerful people in American who are in charge of keeping our oil cheap have long had to love Saudi's like the ones in Osama's family. That is why when 9-11 happened, there were 8 planes that flew powerful Saudi's out of the country so that they would be safe.
I remember reading briefs from these conservative think tanks calling Osama bin Laden "the longtime boogeyman of US foreign policy". Research it! Thats what he was dismissed as by many in the intelligence community. Many, whom were more interested in nation building, said that terrorist training camps in Afghanistan did not exist.
Now it's important to know who the PNAC are. Paul Wolfowitz, a VERY aggressive Reagan era policy-maker. He has been a leader in the PNAC and is now the Undersecretary of Defense. Richard Perle, is another leader for the PNAC, he recently resigned as chairman of an Administrative Advisory Board. It goes on and on, and this group known and "neo-conservatives" set the foreign policy for our country. While PNAC is a "non-profit" organization, they use CATO Institue and Heritage Foundation, which is funded by billions in corporate money to research conservative policy for them.
The aim has always been nation-building. From the beginning the neo-conservatives did not give a shit about terrorists and that is why Clinton went after Osama and 9-11 happened on Bush's watch. Proof of this is seen onc you understand that the CIA has been the machanism for nation-building and Richard Clarke was the top counter-terrorism guy in the White house. If Bush really wasn't interested in nation building like he said he wasn't when he ran for office, then he would have been getting his iltelligence from Richard Clark, instead George Tenet briefed the President DAILY. After finally setting up Clarke's counter-terrorism force, netiehr of them ever met with Clark to dicuss counterterrorism.
You can see where priorities of the people making the foreign policy for this administration are. These people and thier intricate web of nation-building rather than counter-terrorism one could argue are responsible for 9-11. Now, many could argue these groups are (or at least were) legitimate in ignoring non-state actors (terrorists) and focusing on "rogue nations" as they have labeled them to gain support for military action against them. This is because far worse abuses occur under the hands of military dictators and state action than terrorists.
Let's us just be honest about our foreign policy though, it was the neo-conservatives that have been ignoring terrorism all along and to show this I will quote Robert Oakley, ambassadar of counterterrorism under Reagan who said "Overall I give Clinton very high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which made him stronger."
And why would Clinton be going after terrorist which protected Americans and the neo-cons, Rumsefled, Cheney, Powell and Bush be focused on nation-building. Because the neo-conservatives listen to corporate backed "think tanks" and nation-building requires more money for defense which then goes directly to the companies that fund those think tanks, and got to companies such as Kellogg, Brown and Root, a subsidiary of Haliburton, which Cheney was the CEO of.
This is how foreign policy works.
Faithfully,
--Rob
May 16, 2004
I own conservatives who don't even take their own advice before they insult me.
Here is a string the comes from http://nicedoggie.net a good conservative blog that is known for it's tendency to be imperialistic and anti-muslim. I replied to an article entitled "Oh, the Lovely Spectacle of Paleswinian Murderers Drowning in Their Own Blood..." with the post:
I noticed that Misha talks about the media over 25 times in his recent posts. I was wondering if any conservatives could show me your sources, ya know, some stuff based in academia, to back up these claims your spewing off. I searched EBSCO host intensely and couldn't find studies supporting this claim. A little help please?
Posted by lowercase rob at May 14, 2004 01:20 AM
To which I got several replies that read like this:
"You need a study to show you that certain of the media isn't reporting on important things that are happening? Wow, I usually manage to determine this all by myself by watching, listening and reading from multiple sources. Maybe you should try that sometime, instead of expecting someone to put together a committee to research it.
People like you are the reason we have studies on how fast ketchup pours."
"Yes, you obviously need it. There's a little thing called "Google"...you just type in what you want to find and hit "Search". If you are unable to do it for yourself then far be it for us to humiliate you by doing it for you. As for the "Acadamia" snoozle....Puuhleez. Acadamia is about as useless as tits on a Boar Hog."
"When you're willing to engage in (perform, DO) some due diligence, your efforts will be rewarded with many sources converging on reality, and then you'll understand and agree on how others (mentioned above) can see eye to eye so often..."
"Come now, folks, you KNOW the left only does 2 things; wait for someone to do reseach for them since they're incapable of their own and stop as soon as they discover the one place that supports only their points. They wouldn't know due diligence if it bit them in the ass. "
Here is my reply:
Ok. I won't respond to the baseless personal attacks, I will only politely request that you do not continue them beacuse none of you evne know me and becuase I HAVE studied this issue for myself.
But, I decided to take you advice and do some google searching searches since I had already read up on it a lot (including many, many, many articles from Ann Coulter and William F. Buckley).
Here are the top ten hits for the search "Liberal Media". eight out of ten of them refer to the ""liberal media"" as a "myth".
What Liberal Media? --Eric AltermanContinue... "'What Liberal Media' is bold, counterintuitive and cathartic." --The New York Times Book Review. ... What Liberal Media? ...
www.whatliberalmedia.com/ - 23k - May 13, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Oh, That Liberal MediaOh, That Liberal Media! ... Bizarrely (to me) "liberal media" is being accused of suppressing the link to the full video of Nick Berg's beheading. ...
www.thatliberalmedia.com/ - 101k - May 13, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: Books: What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and ...... The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/ detail/-/0465001769?v=glance - 91k - May 14, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim-- Journalists' Views on ...A Report. Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim. Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage. ... IV. Conclusion: Beyond the "Liberal Media" Myth. ...
www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html - 74k - Cached - Similar pages
What Liberal Media?... article | Posted February 6, 2003. What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman. This article was adapted from Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? ...
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2 - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
The Consortium... Editorials. Price of the 'Liberal Media' Myth. By Robert Parry January 1, 2003. ... [See "The Myth of the Liberal Media," Extra!, July/August 1998.]. ...
www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
Today's BartCop Rants... Olson is dead, OK? The Myth of the "liberal" media. Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one. I think it's ...
www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
The US has a liberal mediaMyth: The US has a liberal media. Fact: The ... liberal. Argument Conservatives often promote the myth that the US media are liberal. This ...
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
Liberal Slant - Watching the Conservative Corporate Owned Liberal ...... The so-called Liberal Media are owned by large Conservative corporations that dictate control over biased news reporting in major newspapers and on major ...
www.liberalslant.com/ - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Media Bias - Fight The Bias - Liberal Media BiasMedia Bias - Help fight liberal media bias. ... Media Bias Exposed - Liberal Media Bias. CBS Veteran Exposes Liberal Media Bias. We Will Not Shrink From War. ...
www.fightthebias.com/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Amazing how you can tell me to look into it for myself (which is what my original post said that I had just done) and not even do the same thign yourself. So I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say "There's a little thing called "Google"...you just type in what you want to find and hit "Search"."
Why don't you do the same, no seriously, go research.
Start by researching the words Eisner, Murdock, Viacom, "flak filter", Media Education Foundation, teaching media literact, research trends in pro-profit media, etc. No really, please do.
Because none of you accually must have done the google search, otherwise it would have led to you doing some more research and reading. My guess is that your ideas are coming more from an organization like say Fox News, than from a google search.
I conclude with the idea that liberal elements of the media will tell you that the media overall is conservative, which you know isn't true. So if you and many people believe the media is liberal, you must be watching a ___________ media? (fill in the blank with conservative or liberal media and then research how and why Fox news and others were started.)
BTW, I'm not saying the media is conservative that would be making the issue way too simple, just simply research trends and see how things work.
Posted by lowercase rob at May 15, 2004 08:21 PM
I love it when people don't do the basic investigative research that they expect others to do.
I noticed that Misha talks about the media over 25 times in his recent posts. I was wondering if any conservatives could show me your sources, ya know, some stuff based in academia, to back up these claims your spewing off. I searched EBSCO host intensely and couldn't find studies supporting this claim. A little help please?
Posted by lowercase rob at May 14, 2004 01:20 AM
To which I got several replies that read like this:
"You need a study to show you that certain of the media isn't reporting on important things that are happening? Wow, I usually manage to determine this all by myself by watching, listening and reading from multiple sources. Maybe you should try that sometime, instead of expecting someone to put together a committee to research it.
People like you are the reason we have studies on how fast ketchup pours."
"Yes, you obviously need it. There's a little thing called "Google"...you just type in what you want to find and hit "Search". If you are unable to do it for yourself then far be it for us to humiliate you by doing it for you. As for the "Acadamia" snoozle....Puuhleez. Acadamia is about as useless as tits on a Boar Hog."
"When you're willing to engage in (perform, DO) some due diligence, your efforts will be rewarded with many sources converging on reality, and then you'll understand and agree on how others (mentioned above) can see eye to eye so often..."
"Come now, folks, you KNOW the left only does 2 things; wait for someone to do reseach for them since they're incapable of their own and stop as soon as they discover the one place that supports only their points. They wouldn't know due diligence if it bit them in the ass. "
Here is my reply:
Ok. I won't respond to the baseless personal attacks, I will only politely request that you do not continue them beacuse none of you evne know me and becuase I HAVE studied this issue for myself.
But, I decided to take you advice and do some google searching searches since I had already read up on it a lot (including many, many, many articles from Ann Coulter and William F. Buckley).
Here are the top ten hits for the search "Liberal Media". eight out of ten of them refer to the ""liberal media"" as a "myth".
What Liberal Media? --Eric AltermanContinue... "'What Liberal Media' is bold, counterintuitive and cathartic." --The New York Times Book Review. ... What Liberal Media? ...
www.whatliberalmedia.com/ - 23k - May 13, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Oh, That Liberal MediaOh, That Liberal Media! ... Bizarrely (to me) "liberal media" is being accused of suppressing the link to the full video of Nick Berg's beheading. ...
www.thatliberalmedia.com/ - 101k - May 13, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Amazon.com: Books: What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and ...... The incredulity begins with the title What Liberal Media?, journalist Eric Alterman's refutation of widely flung charges of left-wing bias, and never lets up. ...
www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/ detail/-/0465001769?v=glance - 91k - May 14, 2004 - Cached - Similar pages
Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim-- Journalists' Views on ...A Report. Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim. Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage. ... IV. Conclusion: Beyond the "Liberal Media" Myth. ...
www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html - 74k - Cached - Similar pages
What Liberal Media?... article | Posted February 6, 2003. What Liberal Media? by Eric Alterman. This article was adapted from Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? ...
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030224&s=alterman2 - 25k - Cached - Similar pages
The Consortium... Editorials. Price of the 'Liberal Media' Myth. By Robert Parry January 1, 2003. ... [See "The Myth of the Liberal Media," Extra!, July/August 1998.]. ...
www.consortiumnews.com/2002/123102a.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages
Today's BartCop Rants... Olson is dead, OK? The Myth of the "liberal" media. Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one. I think it's ...
www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
The US has a liberal mediaMyth: The US has a liberal media. Fact: The ... liberal. Argument Conservatives often promote the myth that the US media are liberal. This ...
www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
Liberal Slant - Watching the Conservative Corporate Owned Liberal ...... The so-called Liberal Media are owned by large Conservative corporations that dictate control over biased news reporting in major newspapers and on major ...
www.liberalslant.com/ - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
Media Bias - Fight The Bias - Liberal Media BiasMedia Bias - Help fight liberal media bias. ... Media Bias Exposed - Liberal Media Bias. CBS Veteran Exposes Liberal Media Bias. We Will Not Shrink From War. ...
www.fightthebias.com/ - 18k - Cached - Similar pages
Amazing how you can tell me to look into it for myself (which is what my original post said that I had just done) and not even do the same thign yourself. So I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say "There's a little thing called "Google"...you just type in what you want to find and hit "Search"."
Why don't you do the same, no seriously, go research.
Start by researching the words Eisner, Murdock, Viacom, "flak filter", Media Education Foundation, teaching media literact, research trends in pro-profit media, etc. No really, please do.
Because none of you accually must have done the google search, otherwise it would have led to you doing some more research and reading. My guess is that your ideas are coming more from an organization like say Fox News, than from a google search.
I conclude with the idea that liberal elements of the media will tell you that the media overall is conservative, which you know isn't true. So if you and many people believe the media is liberal, you must be watching a ___________ media? (fill in the blank with conservative or liberal media and then research how and why Fox news and others were started.)
BTW, I'm not saying the media is conservative that would be making the issue way too simple, just simply research trends and see how things work.
Posted by lowercase rob at May 15, 2004 08:21 PM
I love it when people don't do the basic investigative research that they expect others to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
