Tuesday, March 23, 2004
From the Past to the Future...
OK, it may have seemed corny and surreal back in the 80's, but here's a definition from the Max Headroom show:
Tele-elections:
A mix between a beauty contest and a political election, this is how politicians are selected in the future. Every network has a candidate, and whoever has the highest ratings wins the political office.
Uhm... not too far from the truth. Who'd of thunk it?
OK, it may have seemed corny and surreal back in the 80's, but here's a definition from the Max Headroom show:
Tele-elections:
A mix between a beauty contest and a political election, this is how politicians are selected in the future. Every network has a candidate, and whoever has the highest ratings wins the political office.
Uhm... not too far from the truth. Who'd of thunk it?
Friday, March 19, 2004
Bush vs. The Free World
Let's see, was it a year ago already that the US and its coalition allies began their pre-emptive war against Iraq? Wow. Today, Bush will get on tv and talk about how great everything is going, but how we must remain determined and committed to fighting terrorism. I'm sure he'll blab on about how it was necessary to invade Iraq, and he'll talk about how the Iraqi people are now free. You know, the familiar sound bytes that Mr. Bush consistenly has been coughing up for the past year since the invasion.
I'm guessing the media will gush all over itself and will beat the war drums a little more, as we pat ourselves on the back for whipping Iraq's butt a year ago. Never mind, we have an unsteady peace in the present, and who even wants to speculate about the near future of Iraq. (How long do you think any new government will last in Iraq, unless its a brutal dictatorship? It's a politically volatile area that can go up in flames like a proverbial oil fire.)
A year ago, the Bush administration had been beating the war drums to invade Iraq. They were hell bent on taking out Iraq and Saddam Hussein. They warned about the horrible threat of Iraq. We couldn't appease Hussein, they warned and likened him to Hitler. The Bush Administration used fear mongering to warrant the justification for pre-emptive war, going so far as to use imagery of nuclear weapons and mushroom clouds dropping on Main St., USA.
I didn't buy into the bullsh*t then, and I still don't buy into their crap.
The right-wing "chicken-hawks" were squawking loudly for the invasion, and saying that protestors were un-American, un-patriotic, spineless, cowardly, and many other derogatory things. Bush called protestors, "a special interest group." Hundreds of thousands of American protestors are a little more than a "special interest group." Not to mention millions of protestors globally opposed the US invasion of Iraq. I even heard one chicken-hawk right winger on a talk show aired on WLS in Chicago say that a radical communist group was behind the protests urging for the overthrow of the US government.
Radical communists urging revolution were not behind the protests. The protests came from many different kinds of people with divergent backgrounds. Sure you had your hippie wanna-bes, but you also had war veterans, moms, kids, the elderly, young, old, Bush haters, peace marchers, religious groups and so on.
I remember the media airing both pro- and anti-war protests on the news. You'd see more protestors at anti-war rallies than pro-war rallies. I'd doubt such division has been seen in America since the days of Vietnam.
The thing is, Bush tried to tie the Iraq invasion to September 11th. Tried to pin Hussein as the mastermind behind 9/11. He couldn't catch Osama bin Laden, and there was a perfect little target. Really, Hussein is/was not a guy anyone could really stand by. He was an evil SOB! Still, the sabre-rattling of Bush didn't sway a lot of Americans and a lot of people around the world to support the US. Bush squandered the world's sympathy, and vast popular support in the US to invade Iraq.
Now, its an election year. Bush has been photo-opping all over the country for the past two years. (The aircraft carrier, the Thanksgiving turkey, the Daytona 500, and so on...) Being an election year, the spectre of the 2000 election is still lingering in the minds of many Americans that were cheated out of who they elected. September 11th saved Bush's butt from what would have been a mediocre presidency at best. Now all the guy has to do is get in front of a microphone, talk tough against terrorism, and very little public scrutiny will follow.
The thing is, Bush campaigned on being a "uniter, not a divider" and being a "compassionate conservative." Looking at his domestic record, he's got tons of question marks, and a trail of unfulfilled promises to all but the rich supporters that helped him to get elected. (Note** as of this writing, Ken Lay is still walking around free as a bird.) His foreign policy is even worse. He's a danger and a menace to America, and America's ability to remain a free society. (Bush loves the Patriot Act, for example. re: the 2004 State of the Union Address.)
I had the fortune of being an election judge. Its my guess that there are people that have already made up their minds about the 2004 election. For some strange reason its almost 50/50. I can't understand how anyone can support Bush as president. I can see Republicans standing by their party. I can see them hating and disliking Democrats, but Bush really isn't the kind of guy you want to back. He's poison to a free society. There is also the Bush hater camp. They'd vote for a ham sandwich if it ran against Bush. Wow, Bush is some uniter, eh? You'd think that 9/11 would have galvanized the US. If Bush could have looked beyond his narrow minded world view, he could have rallied the people of the US to do great things. He was more interested in playing cronyist politics, got lucky with 9/11 because nobody would question his policies, and the media would play softball with him.
Clinton got skewered for a "hummer" in the Oval Office. Bush has lied in much greater ways than that, and 50% of the population supports him? Nobody died because of Clinton's lie, how many will die for Bush's? I really hope we don't have to find out what four more years of Bush will mean for America. I think most Americans are sick and tired of the extremist bending of the news being either too conservative or too liberal. We need to unite together. Although I really don't like Bush or his administration, he is correct that these terrorists cannot be appeased.
Can we afford four more years of a president that wants to use "tough guy," America will go it alone diplomacy? Sure, we could question how Kerry will do with the war on terrorism. I'm willing to bet he'll do better than Bush. Granted, Bush could do worse, but I doubt he'll do better than he already has. Really, does anyone picture Bush sitting down and actually talking to anyone? He just likes to travel around posing for photo-ops rather than really working on defeating these rat-bastard terrorists.
How many more countries can America afford to invade? How long can we afford to fight a US vs. the World kind of war without international support from the UN. Yeah, Bush named nations that supported the US invasion in his State of the Union address, but really 1,500 soldiers from Spain? or 1,500 from Poland? Many of the countries are not military powerhouses. Its nice to have the delusion that we've got world support, but the reality is we don't.
I think with Kerry as president, the US will have a chance to get the world on its side again. We'll never totally eradicate terrorism from human history. Maybe we can contain it and minimize it, but you can't control the minds and will of people. If sinister forces want to do harm, they'll find a way, but crushing our freedoms at home and throwing our military around the globe is not the best policy. It's time for a new change.
Let's see, was it a year ago already that the US and its coalition allies began their pre-emptive war against Iraq? Wow. Today, Bush will get on tv and talk about how great everything is going, but how we must remain determined and committed to fighting terrorism. I'm sure he'll blab on about how it was necessary to invade Iraq, and he'll talk about how the Iraqi people are now free. You know, the familiar sound bytes that Mr. Bush consistenly has been coughing up for the past year since the invasion.
I'm guessing the media will gush all over itself and will beat the war drums a little more, as we pat ourselves on the back for whipping Iraq's butt a year ago. Never mind, we have an unsteady peace in the present, and who even wants to speculate about the near future of Iraq. (How long do you think any new government will last in Iraq, unless its a brutal dictatorship? It's a politically volatile area that can go up in flames like a proverbial oil fire.)
A year ago, the Bush administration had been beating the war drums to invade Iraq. They were hell bent on taking out Iraq and Saddam Hussein. They warned about the horrible threat of Iraq. We couldn't appease Hussein, they warned and likened him to Hitler. The Bush Administration used fear mongering to warrant the justification for pre-emptive war, going so far as to use imagery of nuclear weapons and mushroom clouds dropping on Main St., USA.
I didn't buy into the bullsh*t then, and I still don't buy into their crap.
The right-wing "chicken-hawks" were squawking loudly for the invasion, and saying that protestors were un-American, un-patriotic, spineless, cowardly, and many other derogatory things. Bush called protestors, "a special interest group." Hundreds of thousands of American protestors are a little more than a "special interest group." Not to mention millions of protestors globally opposed the US invasion of Iraq. I even heard one chicken-hawk right winger on a talk show aired on WLS in Chicago say that a radical communist group was behind the protests urging for the overthrow of the US government.
Radical communists urging revolution were not behind the protests. The protests came from many different kinds of people with divergent backgrounds. Sure you had your hippie wanna-bes, but you also had war veterans, moms, kids, the elderly, young, old, Bush haters, peace marchers, religious groups and so on.
I remember the media airing both pro- and anti-war protests on the news. You'd see more protestors at anti-war rallies than pro-war rallies. I'd doubt such division has been seen in America since the days of Vietnam.
The thing is, Bush tried to tie the Iraq invasion to September 11th. Tried to pin Hussein as the mastermind behind 9/11. He couldn't catch Osama bin Laden, and there was a perfect little target. Really, Hussein is/was not a guy anyone could really stand by. He was an evil SOB! Still, the sabre-rattling of Bush didn't sway a lot of Americans and a lot of people around the world to support the US. Bush squandered the world's sympathy, and vast popular support in the US to invade Iraq.
Now, its an election year. Bush has been photo-opping all over the country for the past two years. (The aircraft carrier, the Thanksgiving turkey, the Daytona 500, and so on...) Being an election year, the spectre of the 2000 election is still lingering in the minds of many Americans that were cheated out of who they elected. September 11th saved Bush's butt from what would have been a mediocre presidency at best. Now all the guy has to do is get in front of a microphone, talk tough against terrorism, and very little public scrutiny will follow.
The thing is, Bush campaigned on being a "uniter, not a divider" and being a "compassionate conservative." Looking at his domestic record, he's got tons of question marks, and a trail of unfulfilled promises to all but the rich supporters that helped him to get elected. (Note** as of this writing, Ken Lay is still walking around free as a bird.) His foreign policy is even worse. He's a danger and a menace to America, and America's ability to remain a free society. (Bush loves the Patriot Act, for example. re: the 2004 State of the Union Address.)
I had the fortune of being an election judge. Its my guess that there are people that have already made up their minds about the 2004 election. For some strange reason its almost 50/50. I can't understand how anyone can support Bush as president. I can see Republicans standing by their party. I can see them hating and disliking Democrats, but Bush really isn't the kind of guy you want to back. He's poison to a free society. There is also the Bush hater camp. They'd vote for a ham sandwich if it ran against Bush. Wow, Bush is some uniter, eh? You'd think that 9/11 would have galvanized the US. If Bush could have looked beyond his narrow minded world view, he could have rallied the people of the US to do great things. He was more interested in playing cronyist politics, got lucky with 9/11 because nobody would question his policies, and the media would play softball with him.
Clinton got skewered for a "hummer" in the Oval Office. Bush has lied in much greater ways than that, and 50% of the population supports him? Nobody died because of Clinton's lie, how many will die for Bush's? I really hope we don't have to find out what four more years of Bush will mean for America. I think most Americans are sick and tired of the extremist bending of the news being either too conservative or too liberal. We need to unite together. Although I really don't like Bush or his administration, he is correct that these terrorists cannot be appeased.
Can we afford four more years of a president that wants to use "tough guy," America will go it alone diplomacy? Sure, we could question how Kerry will do with the war on terrorism. I'm willing to bet he'll do better than Bush. Granted, Bush could do worse, but I doubt he'll do better than he already has. Really, does anyone picture Bush sitting down and actually talking to anyone? He just likes to travel around posing for photo-ops rather than really working on defeating these rat-bastard terrorists.
How many more countries can America afford to invade? How long can we afford to fight a US vs. the World kind of war without international support from the UN. Yeah, Bush named nations that supported the US invasion in his State of the Union address, but really 1,500 soldiers from Spain? or 1,500 from Poland? Many of the countries are not military powerhouses. Its nice to have the delusion that we've got world support, but the reality is we don't.
I think with Kerry as president, the US will have a chance to get the world on its side again. We'll never totally eradicate terrorism from human history. Maybe we can contain it and minimize it, but you can't control the minds and will of people. If sinister forces want to do harm, they'll find a way, but crushing our freedoms at home and throwing our military around the globe is not the best policy. It's time for a new change.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
Get out and Vote!!!
What can I say... I had the fortune and opportunity to be an election judge in the Illinois Primary election.
I'm sitting there and thinking how cool it is, and how lucky we are to live in a country where ordinary folks get to take a stand on issues by voting in an organized electoral process. It was good to see people voting. It was good to see the 12-14 year old kids eager to vote. It told me that there's hope for the democratic process in our country, despite the fact that more Republicans than Democrats came out to vote. See, I can't think those voting Republicans would be too happy when Bush or any president decides to cancel their vote. Democrats learned the sting of being scorned and denied the presidency in 2000. I suspect that Democrats may feel the sting again in a questionable manner. If the Dems lose to Bush in '04, it may be a long, long time before a Democrat anywhere wins a major election.
The Republicans will gain more political advantage, and they'll be able to push through a conservative, right-wing, neo-Christian agenda. It will be an era of regression for America.
All I can say to Bush haters, and Democrats is get off your butts, get your friends and family off their butts, and get out and vote. Otherwise those Republicans that think they're voting for an honest man in George Bush, will realize their mistake after the fact, and they may not be able to rectify it later on.
Really, Bush and Cheney are not fond of democracy. The Republican leaders are not fond of it either.
Now, not all Republicans are bad, vile and evil. The people voting in Illinois were not the spawn of Nazi Germany. They didn't seem like the fascista dittoheads of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter. They seemed like people that cared about democracy, and respected their right to vote. Sure, they hate tax increases. They got out and voted against them. If they win, in the local elections, at least 17 teachers will be hitting the streets and combing the want ads in my district. Not to mention other cuts in school spending and extra-curricular activities.
Now, I gather that some Republicans think of public school as a sign of the second coming of Vladimir Lenin, I can't imagine they all hate public schools. They can't all hate children that much. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, they love children. I can understand the thorniness of the "evolution" and "sex-ed" curriculum in public schools. Is that a good reason to destroy public education? I can understand wanting to cut taxes. (Especially in Chicagoland, whew!!) What happens when you degrade the quality of public education due to tax cuts? Larger classrooms, less individual attention for students, fewer or non-existent special ed programs, less extra-curricular activities, smaller salaries for teachers, less experienced teachers, less access to technology, and up-to-date information. In other words, the system gets worse.
Great, some Republicans would say!! Makes a strong case for school vouchers. Except that school vouchers would only help those that can afford access to quality education. Sure, people would save money on their property taxes, but they'd have to make up the difference by sending their kid to a private a school.
"It would give my kid a choice in what he/she learns! Who wants my kid learning about how people descended from monkeys?" Exactly. Why have a standard of education? Why don't we just let the market decide, and pander to the whims of consumer demand? Hell, you'd never have to have any teacher ever teach "evolution" or "sex-ed" again. Your kid could go into a school and learn all this comfortable, parent friendly, religion friendly stuff. No need for physics, chemistry, or mathematics. Just tell the kids that God decides things, and its all a matter of faith, anyways.
In a generation or two, other industrial nations will be invading America, the dim-witted. Market driven education is to quality as Mc Donald's is to nutrition.
Also, what about property values? If there are no public schools, what is my incentive to move into a suburb, or area. What will happen to property values if all the people ship their kids to private schools instead of going to a quality public school. No good local schools, diminishes property values. Not to mention lots of vagrant children running around with no adult supervision, probably would be prone to mischief in a neighborhood also.
See, once teachers get out on the open market and can market themselves like lawyers, instead of being the pawns of public policy, watch out. Why should any teacher work for less than $50/hour? The best teachers could command really high hourly wages. Again, we've removed the goal of public education, and replaced it with the demands of the market. Not good for poor people. You could say that's the way it should be. Teaching should be like a business. You could say, "Hey, my husband/wife could stay home and teach the kids." Yep, and you could also go into a courtroom and be your own attorney instead of hiring a lawyer. You could also be your own doctor and make medical decisions for yourself. Relying on professionals usually pays off. What I'm saying is, anybody could do something themself, but professionals tend to do things a lot better than amateurs. Hence, that's why they're professionals.
Secondly, parents have a hard time being objective about their kids needs. They do know their kids, and they have all the rights to make decisions for them, but they may not be looking out for their kids best interests. For example, say a family has a kid that really likes music, but mom and dad decide that the kid will be a doctor. If the parents are responsible for the kids education, the kid will be a doctor whether he/she likes it or not. And if the kid doesn't like the decision, that could get ugly for the kid later in life. (Same idea in reverse, say the parents want the kid to be the next musical sensation in America, but the kid really likes biology and has an eager fascination with how the human body works. The kid will be taking music lessons and hating every second of it.) There are plenty of examples of parents forcing and subjecting their kids to things that the kids would rather avoid, and would be better off without.
Ah, well... way off tangent. Get out and vote.
What can I say... I had the fortune and opportunity to be an election judge in the Illinois Primary election.
I'm sitting there and thinking how cool it is, and how lucky we are to live in a country where ordinary folks get to take a stand on issues by voting in an organized electoral process. It was good to see people voting. It was good to see the 12-14 year old kids eager to vote. It told me that there's hope for the democratic process in our country, despite the fact that more Republicans than Democrats came out to vote. See, I can't think those voting Republicans would be too happy when Bush or any president decides to cancel their vote. Democrats learned the sting of being scorned and denied the presidency in 2000. I suspect that Democrats may feel the sting again in a questionable manner. If the Dems lose to Bush in '04, it may be a long, long time before a Democrat anywhere wins a major election.
The Republicans will gain more political advantage, and they'll be able to push through a conservative, right-wing, neo-Christian agenda. It will be an era of regression for America.
All I can say to Bush haters, and Democrats is get off your butts, get your friends and family off their butts, and get out and vote. Otherwise those Republicans that think they're voting for an honest man in George Bush, will realize their mistake after the fact, and they may not be able to rectify it later on.
Really, Bush and Cheney are not fond of democracy. The Republican leaders are not fond of it either.
Now, not all Republicans are bad, vile and evil. The people voting in Illinois were not the spawn of Nazi Germany. They didn't seem like the fascista dittoheads of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter. They seemed like people that cared about democracy, and respected their right to vote. Sure, they hate tax increases. They got out and voted against them. If they win, in the local elections, at least 17 teachers will be hitting the streets and combing the want ads in my district. Not to mention other cuts in school spending and extra-curricular activities.
Now, I gather that some Republicans think of public school as a sign of the second coming of Vladimir Lenin, I can't imagine they all hate public schools. They can't all hate children that much. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, they love children. I can understand the thorniness of the "evolution" and "sex-ed" curriculum in public schools. Is that a good reason to destroy public education? I can understand wanting to cut taxes. (Especially in Chicagoland, whew!!) What happens when you degrade the quality of public education due to tax cuts? Larger classrooms, less individual attention for students, fewer or non-existent special ed programs, less extra-curricular activities, smaller salaries for teachers, less experienced teachers, less access to technology, and up-to-date information. In other words, the system gets worse.
Great, some Republicans would say!! Makes a strong case for school vouchers. Except that school vouchers would only help those that can afford access to quality education. Sure, people would save money on their property taxes, but they'd have to make up the difference by sending their kid to a private a school.
"It would give my kid a choice in what he/she learns! Who wants my kid learning about how people descended from monkeys?" Exactly. Why have a standard of education? Why don't we just let the market decide, and pander to the whims of consumer demand? Hell, you'd never have to have any teacher ever teach "evolution" or "sex-ed" again. Your kid could go into a school and learn all this comfortable, parent friendly, religion friendly stuff. No need for physics, chemistry, or mathematics. Just tell the kids that God decides things, and its all a matter of faith, anyways.
In a generation or two, other industrial nations will be invading America, the dim-witted. Market driven education is to quality as Mc Donald's is to nutrition.
Also, what about property values? If there are no public schools, what is my incentive to move into a suburb, or area. What will happen to property values if all the people ship their kids to private schools instead of going to a quality public school. No good local schools, diminishes property values. Not to mention lots of vagrant children running around with no adult supervision, probably would be prone to mischief in a neighborhood also.
See, once teachers get out on the open market and can market themselves like lawyers, instead of being the pawns of public policy, watch out. Why should any teacher work for less than $50/hour? The best teachers could command really high hourly wages. Again, we've removed the goal of public education, and replaced it with the demands of the market. Not good for poor people. You could say that's the way it should be. Teaching should be like a business. You could say, "Hey, my husband/wife could stay home and teach the kids." Yep, and you could also go into a courtroom and be your own attorney instead of hiring a lawyer. You could also be your own doctor and make medical decisions for yourself. Relying on professionals usually pays off. What I'm saying is, anybody could do something themself, but professionals tend to do things a lot better than amateurs. Hence, that's why they're professionals.
Secondly, parents have a hard time being objective about their kids needs. They do know their kids, and they have all the rights to make decisions for them, but they may not be looking out for their kids best interests. For example, say a family has a kid that really likes music, but mom and dad decide that the kid will be a doctor. If the parents are responsible for the kids education, the kid will be a doctor whether he/she likes it or not. And if the kid doesn't like the decision, that could get ugly for the kid later in life. (Same idea in reverse, say the parents want the kid to be the next musical sensation in America, but the kid really likes biology and has an eager fascination with how the human body works. The kid will be taking music lessons and hating every second of it.) There are plenty of examples of parents forcing and subjecting their kids to things that the kids would rather avoid, and would be better off without.
Ah, well... way off tangent. Get out and vote.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Bush's Tax Strategy
I figured it out!! Why, it's pure genius, really.
Here: Bush claimed that his tax cut would 'reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax.'
Now, you may be thinking, "Wait a minute. The bastard gave a huge tax cut to the upper 1%. How does that help me, the little guy?"
Here's how. You lose your job to someone in India, China, or some other poor nation. You get a job that pays significantly less. You'll pay less in income tax. Genius, eh?
So simple, even a dittohead could figure it out. Lower wages = lower taxes.
*** A side not for the humor impaired *** This observation is pure sarcastic , snarky, Gen-X cynicism regarding our blueblood president's tax strategy. Lower wages do not benefit American workers. That would include about 80% of Americans that work for a living. The continued erosion of wages, will stagnate the purchasing power of American consumers, and stifle domestic economic growth. That's bad for business, and bad for consumers.
I figured it out!! Why, it's pure genius, really.
Here: Bush claimed that his tax cut would 'reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax.'
Now, you may be thinking, "Wait a minute. The bastard gave a huge tax cut to the upper 1%. How does that help me, the little guy?"
Here's how. You lose your job to someone in India, China, or some other poor nation. You get a job that pays significantly less. You'll pay less in income tax. Genius, eh?
So simple, even a dittohead could figure it out. Lower wages = lower taxes.
*** A side not for the humor impaired *** This observation is pure sarcastic , snarky, Gen-X cynicism regarding our blueblood president's tax strategy. Lower wages do not benefit American workers. That would include about 80% of Americans that work for a living. The continued erosion of wages, will stagnate the purchasing power of American consumers, and stifle domestic economic growth. That's bad for business, and bad for consumers.
Monday, March 08, 2004
Diebold and Computer Voting
The 2000 Presidential Election was a fiasco. Outraged voters demanded a new and improved, streamlined, election system that accurately counts voters votes. Diebold's computer voting system is not the answer. 2004's Presidential Election looks like it could be as much of a debacle.
Diebold is an Ohio based computer company that is making the computer systems for voting. The voting machines are skewed to say the least. The source code is hidden and not available to the government. There is no written record or means of showing proof of voting. Validation of votes is fuzzy at best. The system is prone to crashes and internet hackers. Not to mention,the CEO of Diebold all but guaranteed the presidential election to the Republicans. Great.
The American people deserve better. Go to www.truemajority.org's website and take action here. Sure, people say to the Gore voters just get over it. I say to them, imagine if the situation was reversed and the Supreme Court chose Al Gore? (The Supreme Court shouldn't be chosing any president. Its unconstitutional, but that's another blog.)
If voters don't believe their vote counts or matters, they stop voting. They get cynical. When citizens stop paying attention to our politicians, it leaves an open door for corruption. (See Clinton and the Dole Corporation and Tyson Chicken, or Bush/Cheney with Enron and Halliburton. Also check out Bush's days with Spectrum 7. He did what Martha Steward did, and made a bundle.) This corruption leads to an erosion of civil liberty and justice. In my opinion, Americans did not put their life on the line in any war to create a society that panders to a plutocratic minority.
Indifference, apathy, internal corruption and cynicism brought down the Roman Empire. It would and could do the same here. A lack of attention to those in charge could also lead to an America where there is no free speech, Bill of Rights, and other freedoms we take for granted. It is the duty of each citizen to pay attention, and give our politicians hell when they mess up. If you don't like the system, change it. Form your own political party. Meet up with other like minded individuals and start running candidates for office. Show the government that this country is a of the people, for the people, and by the people.
Right now, I'd concentrate on tossing Bush out of office. This is not an administration that likes democracy and democratic values (the 2000 election and lack of initiative to voter reform) very much, nor does it like freedom and liberty for all of American citizens. (Gay rights, and the Patriot Act for starters.) It doesn't care much for those that work for a living. (3 million jobs lost, and only a trickle of new jobs created.) It doesn't like the environment or science. (Clear Skies, curbing environmental restrictions, denies the threat of global warming, and does not believe in the theory of evolution.)
Bush is a one trick pony. All he can do is beat the drum about fighting terrorists because his administration can't hold water on any other subject. Its going to be a close election. The Bush camp as of now has over $200 million compared to Kerry's $40 million.
Here's what $200 million can buy. Last summer one of the Matrix movies cost $200 million to make. George Bush could create a campaign commerical where he's zipping around like Neo, dodging bullets and fighting Osama bin Laden in some suped up martial arts kind of fight. That $200 million will buy more air time than Kerry's $40 million. From a financial standpoint, Bush can mop the floor with Kerry, and I'm sure he means to do so.
Vote against Bush if you don't want Corporate America running the show. But if you support a faith based, pro-corporate, anti-labor, anti-living wage job, pro-militaristic guy, then pick Dubya. We'll get Patriot Act II, which includes secret arrests and further infringement on privacy and personal rights and freedom by the government. More tax cuts for the rich, strangulation of the public services, and a federal debt that will haunt America for generations.
Take action. Support True Majority. Get involved!
(For info about the 2000 presidential election go to www.gregpalast.com. Get the real story.)
The 2000 Presidential Election was a fiasco. Outraged voters demanded a new and improved, streamlined, election system that accurately counts voters votes. Diebold's computer voting system is not the answer. 2004's Presidential Election looks like it could be as much of a debacle.
Diebold is an Ohio based computer company that is making the computer systems for voting. The voting machines are skewed to say the least. The source code is hidden and not available to the government. There is no written record or means of showing proof of voting. Validation of votes is fuzzy at best. The system is prone to crashes and internet hackers. Not to mention,the CEO of Diebold all but guaranteed the presidential election to the Republicans. Great.
The American people deserve better. Go to www.truemajority.org's website and take action here. Sure, people say to the Gore voters just get over it. I say to them, imagine if the situation was reversed and the Supreme Court chose Al Gore? (The Supreme Court shouldn't be chosing any president. Its unconstitutional, but that's another blog.)
If voters don't believe their vote counts or matters, they stop voting. They get cynical. When citizens stop paying attention to our politicians, it leaves an open door for corruption. (See Clinton and the Dole Corporation and Tyson Chicken, or Bush/Cheney with Enron and Halliburton. Also check out Bush's days with Spectrum 7. He did what Martha Steward did, and made a bundle.) This corruption leads to an erosion of civil liberty and justice. In my opinion, Americans did not put their life on the line in any war to create a society that panders to a plutocratic minority.
Indifference, apathy, internal corruption and cynicism brought down the Roman Empire. It would and could do the same here. A lack of attention to those in charge could also lead to an America where there is no free speech, Bill of Rights, and other freedoms we take for granted. It is the duty of each citizen to pay attention, and give our politicians hell when they mess up. If you don't like the system, change it. Form your own political party. Meet up with other like minded individuals and start running candidates for office. Show the government that this country is a of the people, for the people, and by the people.
Right now, I'd concentrate on tossing Bush out of office. This is not an administration that likes democracy and democratic values (the 2000 election and lack of initiative to voter reform) very much, nor does it like freedom and liberty for all of American citizens. (Gay rights, and the Patriot Act for starters.) It doesn't care much for those that work for a living. (3 million jobs lost, and only a trickle of new jobs created.) It doesn't like the environment or science. (Clear Skies, curbing environmental restrictions, denies the threat of global warming, and does not believe in the theory of evolution.)
Bush is a one trick pony. All he can do is beat the drum about fighting terrorists because his administration can't hold water on any other subject. Its going to be a close election. The Bush camp as of now has over $200 million compared to Kerry's $40 million.
Here's what $200 million can buy. Last summer one of the Matrix movies cost $200 million to make. George Bush could create a campaign commerical where he's zipping around like Neo, dodging bullets and fighting Osama bin Laden in some suped up martial arts kind of fight. That $200 million will buy more air time than Kerry's $40 million. From a financial standpoint, Bush can mop the floor with Kerry, and I'm sure he means to do so.
Vote against Bush if you don't want Corporate America running the show. But if you support a faith based, pro-corporate, anti-labor, anti-living wage job, pro-militaristic guy, then pick Dubya. We'll get Patriot Act II, which includes secret arrests and further infringement on privacy and personal rights and freedom by the government. More tax cuts for the rich, strangulation of the public services, and a federal debt that will haunt America for generations.
Take action. Support True Majority. Get involved!
(For info about the 2000 presidential election go to www.gregpalast.com. Get the real story.)
Saturday, March 06, 2004
The Passion of the Christ Review
My advice: Don't take the kids.
It's a brutal depiction of the torture and crucifixion of Jesus. Not as brutal as I imagined it would be, but it's really brutal. Of course, the world 2000 years ago was a brutal place. Rome was the dominant civilization on Earth. This film does not paint them in a positive light. The Jews that lived back then must have lived in difficult situation, and in very harsh circumstances.
Watching it, I couldn't imagine how nobody would stand up and defend the poor guy.
I do have an issue with the film, though. It's actually a pet peeve I have with some beliefs of Christianity. There are some churches that focus too much on the crucifixion of Jesus, and few that focus on the resurrection of Jesus. Sure there's Easter Sunday, but the miracle of Jesus is his return. Secondly, the film does not focus too much on the teachings of Jesus. It does have some of the famous quotations from The New Testament, but the film is really about Jesus's last day on Earth as a man.
I think the teachings of Jesus are the things that have brought hope and salvation to the world, but I think that there have been many skewed and distorted teachings of Jesus's words that have also brought much misfortune on the world. (The Bible does not condemn slavery for example, and the Inquisition was an example of the church run amok.)
Overall, I'd say the film shows Jesus as a very sympathetic figure. It paints the Romans and Jewish priests as villainous, but I felt they should be forgiven for their sins, especially when Jesus asked God to forgive them. (Which is hard to do, since they're so vicious to Jesus.) They weren't aware of their savagery because they had not been taught compassion, love, and forgiveness. As I wrote earlier, the film shows the brutality of the ancient world.
Thankfully, we live in a world that has the message of compassion, love, and forgiveness. It's hard to remember those lessons these days, with a war mongering president in the White House, and crazed Muslim terrorists plotting evil. Human history has been filled with evil, but we've been given hope in the teachings of Jesus. I think now is a case of really trying to love our enemies, as much as our friends. I think this lesson of Jesus will help us to really solve the problems in the Middle East, and in our own lives.
So, I'd say the film is not light Sunday School fair. It's left me thinking about brutality, fear, and evil. How could any people act so severe, violent, and sinister to any one person? Fear and ignorance play a big part in that. Historically speaking, those have always been the most violent elements in any society. Hopefully, the movie gets people to think about Jesus's teachings of love and peace, and reminds us that it doesn't take much for humanity to regress back to being vicious animals.
The movie has left me thinking, which in my opinion makes it a good movie. Hopefully you'll gain something from it.
My advice: Don't take the kids.
It's a brutal depiction of the torture and crucifixion of Jesus. Not as brutal as I imagined it would be, but it's really brutal. Of course, the world 2000 years ago was a brutal place. Rome was the dominant civilization on Earth. This film does not paint them in a positive light. The Jews that lived back then must have lived in difficult situation, and in very harsh circumstances.
Watching it, I couldn't imagine how nobody would stand up and defend the poor guy.
I do have an issue with the film, though. It's actually a pet peeve I have with some beliefs of Christianity. There are some churches that focus too much on the crucifixion of Jesus, and few that focus on the resurrection of Jesus. Sure there's Easter Sunday, but the miracle of Jesus is his return. Secondly, the film does not focus too much on the teachings of Jesus. It does have some of the famous quotations from The New Testament, but the film is really about Jesus's last day on Earth as a man.
I think the teachings of Jesus are the things that have brought hope and salvation to the world, but I think that there have been many skewed and distorted teachings of Jesus's words that have also brought much misfortune on the world. (The Bible does not condemn slavery for example, and the Inquisition was an example of the church run amok.)
Overall, I'd say the film shows Jesus as a very sympathetic figure. It paints the Romans and Jewish priests as villainous, but I felt they should be forgiven for their sins, especially when Jesus asked God to forgive them. (Which is hard to do, since they're so vicious to Jesus.) They weren't aware of their savagery because they had not been taught compassion, love, and forgiveness. As I wrote earlier, the film shows the brutality of the ancient world.
Thankfully, we live in a world that has the message of compassion, love, and forgiveness. It's hard to remember those lessons these days, with a war mongering president in the White House, and crazed Muslim terrorists plotting evil. Human history has been filled with evil, but we've been given hope in the teachings of Jesus. I think now is a case of really trying to love our enemies, as much as our friends. I think this lesson of Jesus will help us to really solve the problems in the Middle East, and in our own lives.
So, I'd say the film is not light Sunday School fair. It's left me thinking about brutality, fear, and evil. How could any people act so severe, violent, and sinister to any one person? Fear and ignorance play a big part in that. Historically speaking, those have always been the most violent elements in any society. Hopefully, the movie gets people to think about Jesus's teachings of love and peace, and reminds us that it doesn't take much for humanity to regress back to being vicious animals.
The movie has left me thinking, which in my opinion makes it a good movie. Hopefully you'll gain something from it.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Who Gives a Damn about Vietnam?
I'm writing in response to this news article. Vietnam Veterans were protesting Hanoi John, aka John Kerry, democratic nominee hopeful in the running to be the Democratic Candidate for President of the US.
Hanoi John. Cute. Sort of like Hanoi Jane. Cute.Ha ha... snicker...
Well, the thing is... veterans that came back from the war and began to protest it were not responsible for the loss in Vietnam. Neither were the protestors. The veterans were not commies, or American haters, they wanted an unjust war to come to an end.
See, these vets of Vietnam that believe that protestors or the vets against the war caused them harm are wrong. Its part of right-wing mythology.
Take the stories about anti-war protestors spitting on veterans when they came back from the war. Didn't happen. At least according to Jerry Lembcke, veteran of the Vietnam conflict. (The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam by Jerry Lembcke) See the "spitting myth" was perpetuated by Hollywood and the right-wingers of this country. Now, it wouldn't surprise me if he's right. Since Vietnam, America has been reluctant to commit ground troops to fight in wars around the world enforcing American foreign policy. It's called the "Vietnam Syndrome."
Here's part of the synopsis of Lembcke's book at Amazon.com:
"Lembcke (sociology, Holy Cross Univ.), a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, here presents a stunning indictment of this myth?an illusion created, he maintains, by the Nixon-Agnew administration and an unwitting press to attribute America's loss in Vietnam to internal dissension. In fact, the antiwar movement and many veterans were closely aligned, and the only documented incidents show members of the VFW and American Legion spitting on their less successful Vietnam peers."
Nixon and Agnew. Hmm... I'm sure you may have heard of them and something regarding a break-in at the Watergate Hotel.
Anyway, this revisionist history about the protestors of the Vietnam War is quite Orwellian. Today, the media and and the on-going myth in contemporary culture is that the protesting students and veterans were somehow responsible for the loss in Vietnam.
We lost Vietnam because we were fighting an indigenous people that were determined not to lose at any cost. The Vietnamese were fighting for their independence from any foreign power. The Americans went into the fight to "preserve democracy" and fight the spread of communism. Americans were pretty gung-ho about the fight initially. Subsequent generations had "their war." Vietnam was just the next war for the Baby Boom generation.
The thing is, the Vietnamese didn't just roll over and play dead or get scared when the superior American military machine set up its forces in South Vietnam. There's a good degree of history about the lead in to the war. I'd recommend reading several books on the subject. I'll try to summarize the best that I can.
Essentially, the split of North and South Vietnam was a political invention of the Soviets and Americans and other European powers about what to do with Vietnam after the natives kicked out their French oppressors. The two Vietnams were created around the time of the end of the Korean War. North Vietnam was communist, led by Ho Chi Minh. South Vietnam was a democracy in name only, led by Ngo Dinh Diem. The North was allied to the Soviet Union, the south was allied to the United States.
Diem did not like democracy and was a brutal dictator. He knew if he held elections, the communists would win. The US wasn't too keen on Diem, but they tolerated him because he was anti-communist. The US put up with him, at least until '63 when Kennedy had the CIA take him out and put in another US friendly, anti-communist government under another brutal thug named Nguyen Van Thieu. Nguyen survives in power until 1975.
How could we lose? We had the superior soldiers, we had superior technology, and we were Americans. Well, strategically we lost because of political limitations. We couldn't invade into North Vietnam with soldiers. We did however bomb the beejezus out of Indo-China. We dropped several times the amount of bombs on 'Nam and Indo-China than all of the bombs dropped in World War II combined. We killed over 2 million Vietnamese and only lost around 58,000 soldiers doing so.
Vietnam was a war that sapped the innocence out of the American people. We lost the war because the Vietnamese wanted to win, and the politicians that lead us to the war did so to promote an illusion of America as a strong and powerful nation. America wanted to show how tough it was with its powerful military.
America's technological capacity was certainly there. The initial desire to fight was there. It was the fact that we commited US ground troops and an extensive bombing campaign against peasant farmers wanting to be free. The war sucked out our soul. It was demeaning for American soldiers to be used as stooges for American military and corporate interests. The American people figured that out watching Americans fight in combat on the nightly news.
The veterans coming back from the war, and standing against it with protestors were welcomed by protestors. The myth of spitting anti-war protestors helps to create a stereotype about the protestors in the 60's. They were nothing but stoned, long haired, commies that hated America is the stereotype. Sure, some of them were stoned, there were definitely long-haired hippies too, but there were also fairly conservatively dressed young people, and other that protested the war in Vietnam.
Look at events today. People in the US are against American troops being in Iraq? Why? Do they hate America? Are they just some hippie-wannabees, wishing they could be back at Woodstock or Haight-Ashbury? No. They disagree with the principle of using American troops in a war that is not in the best interest of the American people, nor do they agree with the ideal that US troops should be thrown around the globe as the world's police force. Also, Bush and his adminsitration was so gung-ho for war with Iraq, they fudged data to get enough support for a war in Iraq.
Vietnam was seen as imperialistic by the world and by Americans. Americans do not want to support an empire. (Well, some do, but I think they're the exception to the rule.) In Iraq, its the same thing. Bush wanted to use the US forces against a dicatorship that posed no clear and present danger to the US. Now he proclaims it was all about setting up democracy in the Middle East.
Yeah, right. Why do you think the Bush clan is delaying the turn over of sovereign power to Iraq? As soon as we turn over power to the Iraqis they'll start ripping into each other. How long until a civil war breaks out? Here's the guy to watch out for: Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He's the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iraq. I don't think a secular state will sit too well with this guy or his fundamentalist followers. Here's our puppet: Ahmed Chalabi. Hand picked by American special interests. (Particularly corporate and oil.) It's going to be tough road for the Sunni Muslims and Kurds in the new and improved Iraq.
Anyway, the ghost of Vietnam still haunts American foreign policy. But too many swift military victories, like the brief war with Iraq, my exorcise that ghost, and it could be back to business as usual for a militaristic and interventionist America. We'll see. We lost the Vietnam War because our leaders failed us and lied to us. They told us it was about democracy, freedom, and fighting communism. It wasn't. It was about America playing empire, and attempting to enforce its will on a peasant class of people for the benefit of American businesses.
In the long run, the US won, and Vietnam is a loser. The US changes its history, and tries to smear those that protested an unjust war. No war is good. Some are necessary. The purpose of defense is the only rational basis for war. Trumping up lies about threats to the American way of life is usually the language of politicians trying to persuade another generation to sacrifice its sons and daughters to the military political machine.
Peaceful co-existence should be our primary goal as Americans. It provides for our safety, and heck... its good for business.
-Peace.
I'm writing in response to this news article. Vietnam Veterans were protesting Hanoi John, aka John Kerry, democratic nominee hopeful in the running to be the Democratic Candidate for President of the US.
Hanoi John. Cute. Sort of like Hanoi Jane. Cute.
Well, the thing is... veterans that came back from the war and began to protest it were not responsible for the loss in Vietnam. Neither were the protestors. The veterans were not commies, or American haters, they wanted an unjust war to come to an end.
See, these vets of Vietnam that believe that protestors or the vets against the war caused them harm are wrong. Its part of right-wing mythology.
Take the stories about anti-war protestors spitting on veterans when they came back from the war. Didn't happen. At least according to Jerry Lembcke, veteran of the Vietnam conflict. (The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam by Jerry Lembcke) See the "spitting myth" was perpetuated by Hollywood and the right-wingers of this country. Now, it wouldn't surprise me if he's right. Since Vietnam, America has been reluctant to commit ground troops to fight in wars around the world enforcing American foreign policy. It's called the "Vietnam Syndrome."
Here's part of the synopsis of Lembcke's book at Amazon.com:
"Lembcke (sociology, Holy Cross Univ.), a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, here presents a stunning indictment of this myth?an illusion created, he maintains, by the Nixon-Agnew administration and an unwitting press to attribute America's loss in Vietnam to internal dissension. In fact, the antiwar movement and many veterans were closely aligned, and the only documented incidents show members of the VFW and American Legion spitting on their less successful Vietnam peers."
Nixon and Agnew. Hmm... I'm sure you may have heard of them and something regarding a break-in at the Watergate Hotel.
Anyway, this revisionist history about the protestors of the Vietnam War is quite Orwellian. Today, the media and and the on-going myth in contemporary culture is that the protesting students and veterans were somehow responsible for the loss in Vietnam.
We lost Vietnam because we were fighting an indigenous people that were determined not to lose at any cost. The Vietnamese were fighting for their independence from any foreign power. The Americans went into the fight to "preserve democracy" and fight the spread of communism. Americans were pretty gung-ho about the fight initially. Subsequent generations had "their war." Vietnam was just the next war for the Baby Boom generation.
The thing is, the Vietnamese didn't just roll over and play dead or get scared when the superior American military machine set up its forces in South Vietnam. There's a good degree of history about the lead in to the war. I'd recommend reading several books on the subject. I'll try to summarize the best that I can.
Essentially, the split of North and South Vietnam was a political invention of the Soviets and Americans and other European powers about what to do with Vietnam after the natives kicked out their French oppressors. The two Vietnams were created around the time of the end of the Korean War. North Vietnam was communist, led by Ho Chi Minh. South Vietnam was a democracy in name only, led by Ngo Dinh Diem. The North was allied to the Soviet Union, the south was allied to the United States.
Diem did not like democracy and was a brutal dictator. He knew if he held elections, the communists would win. The US wasn't too keen on Diem, but they tolerated him because he was anti-communist. The US put up with him, at least until '63 when Kennedy had the CIA take him out and put in another US friendly, anti-communist government under another brutal thug named Nguyen Van Thieu. Nguyen survives in power until 1975.
How could we lose? We had the superior soldiers, we had superior technology, and we were Americans. Well, strategically we lost because of political limitations. We couldn't invade into North Vietnam with soldiers. We did however bomb the beejezus out of Indo-China. We dropped several times the amount of bombs on 'Nam and Indo-China than all of the bombs dropped in World War II combined. We killed over 2 million Vietnamese and only lost around 58,000 soldiers doing so.
Vietnam was a war that sapped the innocence out of the American people. We lost the war because the Vietnamese wanted to win, and the politicians that lead us to the war did so to promote an illusion of America as a strong and powerful nation. America wanted to show how tough it was with its powerful military.
America's technological capacity was certainly there. The initial desire to fight was there. It was the fact that we commited US ground troops and an extensive bombing campaign against peasant farmers wanting to be free. The war sucked out our soul. It was demeaning for American soldiers to be used as stooges for American military and corporate interests. The American people figured that out watching Americans fight in combat on the nightly news.
The veterans coming back from the war, and standing against it with protestors were welcomed by protestors. The myth of spitting anti-war protestors helps to create a stereotype about the protestors in the 60's. They were nothing but stoned, long haired, commies that hated America is the stereotype. Sure, some of them were stoned, there were definitely long-haired hippies too, but there were also fairly conservatively dressed young people, and other that protested the war in Vietnam.
Look at events today. People in the US are against American troops being in Iraq? Why? Do they hate America? Are they just some hippie-wannabees, wishing they could be back at Woodstock or Haight-Ashbury? No. They disagree with the principle of using American troops in a war that is not in the best interest of the American people, nor do they agree with the ideal that US troops should be thrown around the globe as the world's police force. Also, Bush and his adminsitration was so gung-ho for war with Iraq, they fudged data to get enough support for a war in Iraq.
Vietnam was seen as imperialistic by the world and by Americans. Americans do not want to support an empire. (Well, some do, but I think they're the exception to the rule.) In Iraq, its the same thing. Bush wanted to use the US forces against a dicatorship that posed no clear and present danger to the US. Now he proclaims it was all about setting up democracy in the Middle East.
Yeah, right. Why do you think the Bush clan is delaying the turn over of sovereign power to Iraq? As soon as we turn over power to the Iraqis they'll start ripping into each other. How long until a civil war breaks out? Here's the guy to watch out for: Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. He's the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iraq. I don't think a secular state will sit too well with this guy or his fundamentalist followers. Here's our puppet: Ahmed Chalabi. Hand picked by American special interests. (Particularly corporate and oil.) It's going to be tough road for the Sunni Muslims and Kurds in the new and improved Iraq.
Anyway, the ghost of Vietnam still haunts American foreign policy. But too many swift military victories, like the brief war with Iraq, my exorcise that ghost, and it could be back to business as usual for a militaristic and interventionist America. We'll see. We lost the Vietnam War because our leaders failed us and lied to us. They told us it was about democracy, freedom, and fighting communism. It wasn't. It was about America playing empire, and attempting to enforce its will on a peasant class of people for the benefit of American businesses.
In the long run, the US won, and Vietnam is a loser. The US changes its history, and tries to smear those that protested an unjust war. No war is good. Some are necessary. The purpose of defense is the only rational basis for war. Trumping up lies about threats to the American way of life is usually the language of politicians trying to persuade another generation to sacrifice its sons and daughters to the military political machine.
Peaceful co-existence should be our primary goal as Americans. It provides for our safety, and heck... its good for business.
-Peace.
