And so it's confirmed, she was shot before the bombing. This is not the normal MO of a suicide bombing. Another shocking surprise!
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
What is Happening?
A major competitor for the first democratic elections since a military coup in the country of a prominent American "ally" was assassinated on Thursday night.
On Friday, it as announced that a major player (as far as fund raising and support of growth go) among the Repulican candidates for President will be excluded from the next round table discussion involving his parties candidates.
A prominent Democratic leader vying for the Presidency has stopped answering questions from the audience after speaking.
A guy wrote an article using the phrase "What's the Ding-Dang-Deelio?" and it made a lot of sense.
In what is being sold to us as a time of extreme danger to "the homeland," prominent police departments run sting operations to entrap innocent civillians for petty crimes.
And all this begs the questions. Just what the hell is going on around here these days? Bhutto's assassination presents questions that we know will likely never be fully answered, because all that ever happens in cases like this is that al-Qaeda is blamed initially and then everybody just forgets about it. Who knows what will happen there now? The general election will likely be canceled ("postponed") and Musharraf will continue to hold power. What a volatile country Pakistan is right now. Remember, Musharraf took over in a coup. The general public there is not exactly enamored with him. Now, someone who had a great chance to unseat him has just been killed a week before the election and it will likely go unsolved. Not only that, but the fact that it didn't go down like a "normal" suicide bombing (Bhutto was shot twice before the bomb exploded) just raises more questions. I have read about many, many suicide bombings but I don't remember ever reading one in which the attacker shot a specific victim and then detonated a bomb. I'm not saying it means anything specific or that it is completely unprecedented, just that it's weird and will raise questions. And what about theories that Bhutto was assassinated partly because of her chance of becoming a prominent world leader who holds the view that Osama bin Laden is dead? Read more about theories regarding the death of bin Laden here. I mean, it makes sense, doesn't it? It seems mighty unlikely that he's hauling that dialysis machine back and forth around caves in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and has been for 5 years. And you know, many world powers can hold the specter of bin Laden over their people to exert further control over them, giving those countries a lot to gain by perpetuating his legend. You know, what gets the media and the threat levels more riled up than a "new" bin Laden tape?
The major media has tried extra hard to ignore Ron Paul lately, but with his unprecedented fundraising success for a candidate of his stature (far behind the elite mass-media "frontrunners"), his one-day record for online contributions, (though notice they throw in a Howard Dean "Yeeeeeaawwww!" just so Paul doesn't get too full of himself) and the fact that his message reaches across the political spectrum, it is getting harder and harder to sweep him under the rug. Compounding what Paul is doing right, the Republicans are stuck with a bevy of lackluster candidates this year, none who have proven to be particularly strong at anything. They bicker, spew one-liners and talk about how great they did during 9/11 but none of them can handle a direct question, and come on...Look at Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee (the "frontrunners"). Those are 3 terrible options and I think Republicans are starting to recognize that. Not only that, but could either of those 3 beat Hilary Clinton in a general election? Take that in to account, Republicans out there. Romney....No (he's a mormon and he flip-flops more than Kerry was accused of doing in '04). Huckabee...No (religious conservatives won't out-vote women). Giuliani...No (he's gay and abortion friendly, plus all Democrats absolutely despise him). Hell,if Hilary were the Democratic nominee and one of those 3 were on the other side, even I would have to vote for Hilary. However, even as a democrat, I would vote for Paul over Hilary in an instant. Oh, and for you "Support our troops!"ers out there, Paul has gotten more contributions from military members than any other Republican candidate.
We have been taught that there are only 2 ways of thinking and we have to pick 1 of them. That is not true! There are infinite ways of thinking, and if we want to see change in our society we need to accept that and commit to it.
On Friday, it as announced that a major player (as far as fund raising and support of growth go) among the Repulican candidates for President will be excluded from the next round table discussion involving his parties candidates.
A prominent Democratic leader vying for the Presidency has stopped answering questions from the audience after speaking.
A guy wrote an article using the phrase "What's the Ding-Dang-Deelio?" and it made a lot of sense.
In what is being sold to us as a time of extreme danger to "the homeland," prominent police departments run sting operations to entrap innocent civillians for petty crimes.
And all this begs the questions. Just what the hell is going on around here these days? Bhutto's assassination presents questions that we know will likely never be fully answered, because all that ever happens in cases like this is that al-Qaeda is blamed initially and then everybody just forgets about it. Who knows what will happen there now? The general election will likely be canceled ("postponed") and Musharraf will continue to hold power. What a volatile country Pakistan is right now. Remember, Musharraf took over in a coup. The general public there is not exactly enamored with him. Now, someone who had a great chance to unseat him has just been killed a week before the election and it will likely go unsolved. Not only that, but the fact that it didn't go down like a "normal" suicide bombing (Bhutto was shot twice before the bomb exploded) just raises more questions. I have read about many, many suicide bombings but I don't remember ever reading one in which the attacker shot a specific victim and then detonated a bomb. I'm not saying it means anything specific or that it is completely unprecedented, just that it's weird and will raise questions. And what about theories that Bhutto was assassinated partly because of her chance of becoming a prominent world leader who holds the view that Osama bin Laden is dead? Read more about theories regarding the death of bin Laden here. I mean, it makes sense, doesn't it? It seems mighty unlikely that he's hauling that dialysis machine back and forth around caves in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and has been for 5 years. And you know, many world powers can hold the specter of bin Laden over their people to exert further control over them, giving those countries a lot to gain by perpetuating his legend. You know, what gets the media and the threat levels more riled up than a "new" bin Laden tape?
The major media has tried extra hard to ignore Ron Paul lately, but with his unprecedented fundraising success for a candidate of his stature (far behind the elite mass-media "frontrunners"), his one-day record for online contributions, (though notice they throw in a Howard Dean "Yeeeeeaawwww!" just so Paul doesn't get too full of himself) and the fact that his message reaches across the political spectrum, it is getting harder and harder to sweep him under the rug. Compounding what Paul is doing right, the Republicans are stuck with a bevy of lackluster candidates this year, none who have proven to be particularly strong at anything. They bicker, spew one-liners and talk about how great they did during 9/11 but none of them can handle a direct question, and come on...Look at Romney, Giuliani and Huckabee (the "frontrunners"). Those are 3 terrible options and I think Republicans are starting to recognize that. Not only that, but could either of those 3 beat Hilary Clinton in a general election? Take that in to account, Republicans out there. Romney....No (he's a mormon and he flip-flops more than Kerry was accused of doing in '04). Huckabee...No (religious conservatives won't out-vote women). Giuliani...No (he's gay and abortion friendly, plus all Democrats absolutely despise him). Hell,if Hilary were the Democratic nominee and one of those 3 were on the other side, even I would have to vote for Hilary. However, even as a democrat, I would vote for Paul over Hilary in an instant. Oh, and for you "Support our troops!"ers out there, Paul has gotten more contributions from military members than any other Republican candidate.
We have been taught that there are only 2 ways of thinking and we have to pick 1 of them. That is not true! There are infinite ways of thinking, and if we want to see change in our society we need to accept that and commit to it.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
The Fresh Prince and Hitler
First off, Ron Paul leads AOL Online Poll. No surprise since he wins most online polls but at 4am PST today he lead in every state except Utah (guess who?), New York and New Jersey (Giuliani of course). Not bad. You might want to consider looking in to it yourself, you know.
But mainly, Will Smith recently had to respond to a comment he made about Adolf Hitler that was interpreted completely incorrectly by some gossip magazines/shows/whatever. I think the funniest thing about this though was how hard he had to jump on the Holocaust angle. Laying it on a little thick there Will? I don't think you're in danger of being blacklisted or anything.
Nice Snopes reminder about the WWI Christmas Truce but the end is waaaaaaay sappy.
But mainly, Will Smith recently had to respond to a comment he made about Adolf Hitler that was interpreted completely incorrectly by some gossip magazines/shows/whatever. I think the funniest thing about this though was how hard he had to jump on the Holocaust angle. Laying it on a little thick there Will? I don't think you're in danger of being blacklisted or anything.
Nice Snopes reminder about the WWI Christmas Truce but the end is waaaaaaay sappy.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
The Martial Plan
From Rolling Stone, "How America Lost the War on Drugs." One of the most interesting articles I've read in some time. Quite a bit of research must've been done here. And just remember folks, $500 Billion down the drain already with $50 billion more being burned every year. At least drugs are pretty much non-existent now though. Money well spent!
US Claims Right to Kidnap Citizens of Other Nations. Extradition agreements are not enough, apparently. Have we really become so arrogant? I guess maybe it's stupid for me to ask that question. Can you imagine what the response would be from our government if this kind of thing started happening to American corporate executives and/or their families?
Surprisingly enough, it turns out that Iran wasn't as much of a threat as we were initially lead to believe. I am shocked. Shocked! Well, I'm sure an apology will be coming promptly from the Bush administration. The saddest thing is that one of the main points of the next Presidential election is still going to be candidates willingness to attack Iran.
The Thought Police are back! And you thought it was 2007...Nope, check again, it's 1984.
Tom Tomorrow: Mr. 9/11 Man .
Yet another case of a police officer using a taser with no justification has come to light, and yet again, it's been captured on video. The frequency of these incidents have been building and building of late and while the officer was given a three day suspension, it must scare the people of Austin to know that someone so volatile is still on the streets. I also can't say enough about the increase of incidents like this. It seems to me like a big first step towards the possibility of martial law. Officers are seemingly being instructed to taser people indiscriminately, and an extreme crackdown by police on the ordinary citizenry is the first step towards fascism.
According to a story from Editor and Publisher, a new Harvard University survey shows that 64% of those polled do not trust press coverage of the debates, 84% believe that media coverage has too much influence on peoples' voting choices and 88% believe that campaign coverage focuses on trivial issues. BUT, 79% believe that the next president is going to be "good for the country." Do you see how this makes no sense?
The dumbing down of society continues, as students in Arkansas are prevented from learning about evolution. Tons of jokes to be made here, but really, it's just sad. Huckabee for President!
US Claims Right to Kidnap Citizens of Other Nations. Extradition agreements are not enough, apparently. Have we really become so arrogant? I guess maybe it's stupid for me to ask that question. Can you imagine what the response would be from our government if this kind of thing started happening to American corporate executives and/or their families?
Surprisingly enough, it turns out that Iran wasn't as much of a threat as we were initially lead to believe. I am shocked. Shocked! Well, I'm sure an apology will be coming promptly from the Bush administration. The saddest thing is that one of the main points of the next Presidential election is still going to be candidates willingness to attack Iran.
The Thought Police are back! And you thought it was 2007...Nope, check again, it's 1984.
Tom Tomorrow: Mr. 9/11 Man .
Yet another case of a police officer using a taser with no justification has come to light, and yet again, it's been captured on video. The frequency of these incidents have been building and building of late and while the officer was given a three day suspension, it must scare the people of Austin to know that someone so volatile is still on the streets. I also can't say enough about the increase of incidents like this. It seems to me like a big first step towards the possibility of martial law. Officers are seemingly being instructed to taser people indiscriminately, and an extreme crackdown by police on the ordinary citizenry is the first step towards fascism.
According to a story from Editor and Publisher, a new Harvard University survey shows that 64% of those polled do not trust press coverage of the debates, 84% believe that media coverage has too much influence on peoples' voting choices and 88% believe that campaign coverage focuses on trivial issues. BUT, 79% believe that the next president is going to be "good for the country." Do you see how this makes no sense?
The dumbing down of society continues, as students in Arkansas are prevented from learning about evolution. Tons of jokes to be made here, but really, it's just sad. Huckabee for President!
Friday, November 30, 2007
"Theories"
We need answers. There are still too many questions. Will we ever get them to our satisfaction? Likely not, but if we are going to, it must be within these next few years. The further away we get from 9/11/01, the easier it is for people to forget about it. Look at what happened after the JFK assassination.
See, people did question whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon DIRECTLY AFTER it happened. I've heard good arguments from both sides about what hit or did not hit the Pentagon that day, and I'm really not sure what to believe myself, but I was certainly surprised to see this footage. And it gets better (or worse?):
So what really happened? I'll write out exactly what I think here at a later date, but in the meantime, I'll say that there certainly seems to be a lot of merit in the theory of Globalhawks being used. However, if this was indeed a conspiracy I think a more likely scenario springs from the theory that the planes that had supposedly been hijacked by 19 arabs were in fact hijacked by Global Hawk technology. Don't get confused, a Globalhawk is a Northrop-Grumman unmanned missile drone, while "Global Hawk" is the name given to technology used by a pilot on the ground to take over control of a plane that is already in the air. There is nearly indisputable evidence that an Air Force E4B (described in the video below as "a state of the art flying command post") was in the air above the White House on the morning of 9/11, though the military/FAA/etc. of course will not confirm or deny what it was:
Equipped with Global Hawk technology, this "state of the art flying command post" would certainly be capable of taking over and controlling the planes that were "hijacked" and crashing them in to the WTC that day. If a plane did hit the Pentagon, I believe this also lends credence to the Global Hawk technology theory, because a plane being controlled remotely is much more capable of the flight pattern taken directly before the impact at the Pentagon than supposed pilot Hani Hanjour. In the end, I imagine it is likely a combination of the two theories but like I said, I'll write more on that later.
Robert M. Bowman was Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, and is a former United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. He holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from the California Institute of Technology. He believes 9/11 was an "inside job" and that Dick Cheney is the main suspect, but why should we listen to someone with credentials like that?
Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001--2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an "inside job" (link to that article is dead but here is another one by Reynolds discussing False Flag terrorism, etc), but again, why would we listen to such a crazy kook?
See, no prominent figures or former/current military/government agents are questioning the official story. Oh, wait...(plenty more where that came from, actually).
Wake up and let's save the country, k?
See, people did question whether a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon DIRECTLY AFTER it happened. I've heard good arguments from both sides about what hit or did not hit the Pentagon that day, and I'm really not sure what to believe myself, but I was certainly surprised to see this footage. And it gets better (or worse?):
So what really happened? I'll write out exactly what I think here at a later date, but in the meantime, I'll say that there certainly seems to be a lot of merit in the theory of Globalhawks being used. However, if this was indeed a conspiracy I think a more likely scenario springs from the theory that the planes that had supposedly been hijacked by 19 arabs were in fact hijacked by Global Hawk technology. Don't get confused, a Globalhawk is a Northrop-Grumman unmanned missile drone, while "Global Hawk" is the name given to technology used by a pilot on the ground to take over control of a plane that is already in the air. There is nearly indisputable evidence that an Air Force E4B (described in the video below as "a state of the art flying command post") was in the air above the White House on the morning of 9/11, though the military/FAA/etc. of course will not confirm or deny what it was:
Equipped with Global Hawk technology, this "state of the art flying command post" would certainly be capable of taking over and controlling the planes that were "hijacked" and crashing them in to the WTC that day. If a plane did hit the Pentagon, I believe this also lends credence to the Global Hawk technology theory, because a plane being controlled remotely is much more capable of the flight pattern taken directly before the impact at the Pentagon than supposed pilot Hani Hanjour. In the end, I imagine it is likely a combination of the two theories but like I said, I'll write more on that later.
Robert M. Bowman was Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations, and is a former United States Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions. He holds a Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from the California Institute of Technology. He believes 9/11 was an "inside job" and that Dick Cheney is the main suspect, but why should we listen to someone with credentials like that?
Dr. Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D, is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the United States Department of Labor during 2001--2002, George W. Bush's first term. In 2005, he gained public attention as the first prominent government official to publicly claim that 9/11 was an "inside job" (link to that article is dead but here is another one by Reynolds discussing False Flag terrorism, etc), but again, why would we listen to such a crazy kook?
See, no prominent figures or former/current military/government agents are questioning the official story. Oh, wait...(plenty more where that came from, actually).
Wake up and let's save the country, k?
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
How Giuliani Treats His Constituents
What a jerk.
"You accuse me of corruption and committing a crime and I do not talk to you! (Especially when you have proof)."
This was before 9/11, so he couldn't lean on that. Nice to see he has such tact though.
"You accuse me of corruption and committing a crime and I do not talk to you! (Especially when you have proof)."
This was before 9/11, so he couldn't lean on that. Nice to see he has such tact though.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
News of the Day
Rolling Stone interview with Ron Paul. Ignore the potshots in the intro stating that Paul has "a goofy nostalgia for the gold standard," (wanting our paper money to be backed by something real is goofy?) and "a medieval view on abortion," (he is pro-life, but he would not use federal power to repeal Roe v. Wade, favoring leaving the decision up to the individual states as per the....Constitution of the United States of America). I'm a little surprised a publication like Rolling Stone, who still has a shred of credibility would throw crap like that in, but I think all major publications are required to take shots at him before publishing what he has to say, which is, of course, 100% correct.
George W. Bush still hasn't made a mistake as President. Or at least, he can't think of one. Funny, with all the bafflingly stupid decisions made by the White House since Bush took over, it's still impossible for anyone within the administration to name one. I'm surprised he didn't just go with the standard "I can't comment on that due to national security," or "I don't fully understand the question, so I can't answer it," like we've heard over and over lately from Alberto Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove et al.
The Airline Terrorist Hoax. Makes sense, don't it? Think about this next time you're singled out for an "extra security check" by TSA.
Huge bailout coming for Citigroup. Yep, another billion dollar bailout is on it's way, courtesy of good ol' you and me! Though the writer makes a good point about the fact that the shareholders should have to pay for this, you KNOW that is not about to happen. The taxpayers are going to be stuck with this, just like we were after the Savings and Loan scandal. Citigroup made some bad decisions by buying up Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS) at the same time that Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM's) were being promoted hard to the poor and middle class by the Government, the Federal Reserve (not actually a Federal institution, remember) and tons of mortgage/investment firms. Citigroup bought up a ton of the debt that had been taken on via ARM's by the poor and middle class, and now that it turns out a large percentage of those debts can't be paid back (surprise, surprise), Citigroup stands to lose billions of dollars. Instead of letting this happen, the Government will bail them out (a friend of my who works at the Fed called it a "Too big to fail scenario,") and there is a 99.9% chance they'll do it with our tax dollars. So, here's the breakdown: Citigroup makes a bad decision by buying up assets that end up failing and instead of making money on what they bought, they stand to lose billions. But, instead of having to pay the debilitating circumstances since they are one of the world's biggest banks, those costs are going to be foisted on the taxpayers, the same people that Citigroup was trying to make money off of when they bought up RMBS in the first place. Sounds fair, huh?
What We Choose To Ignore: A rundown of Executive Orders that effectively strip American Citizens of all their rights if the President declares and undefined "State of Emergency." This is pretty chilling stuff, and if you're somebody whose been paying attention to the viral rumors regarding the possibility of an American Police State, here's confirmation that it's possible. If you haven't been paying attention to stuff like this, well, now is the time.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier." Yes, that is a quote from George W. Bush in December of 2000. Another video highlighting our loss of freedom and our spiral towards authoritarian rule.
And, finally, something to brighten your day. A skydiving pug!
I wonder, when we're living under the iron fist of dictatorship, will pugs still be allowed to sky dive?
George W. Bush still hasn't made a mistake as President. Or at least, he can't think of one. Funny, with all the bafflingly stupid decisions made by the White House since Bush took over, it's still impossible for anyone within the administration to name one. I'm surprised he didn't just go with the standard "I can't comment on that due to national security," or "I don't fully understand the question, so I can't answer it," like we've heard over and over lately from Alberto Gonzales, Condoleeza Rice, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove et al.
The Airline Terrorist Hoax. Makes sense, don't it? Think about this next time you're singled out for an "extra security check" by TSA.
Huge bailout coming for Citigroup. Yep, another billion dollar bailout is on it's way, courtesy of good ol' you and me! Though the writer makes a good point about the fact that the shareholders should have to pay for this, you KNOW that is not about to happen. The taxpayers are going to be stuck with this, just like we were after the Savings and Loan scandal. Citigroup made some bad decisions by buying up Residential Mortgage Backed Securities (RMBS) at the same time that Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARM's) were being promoted hard to the poor and middle class by the Government, the Federal Reserve (not actually a Federal institution, remember) and tons of mortgage/investment firms. Citigroup bought up a ton of the debt that had been taken on via ARM's by the poor and middle class, and now that it turns out a large percentage of those debts can't be paid back (surprise, surprise), Citigroup stands to lose billions of dollars. Instead of letting this happen, the Government will bail them out (a friend of my who works at the Fed called it a "Too big to fail scenario,") and there is a 99.9% chance they'll do it with our tax dollars. So, here's the breakdown: Citigroup makes a bad decision by buying up assets that end up failing and instead of making money on what they bought, they stand to lose billions. But, instead of having to pay the debilitating circumstances since they are one of the world's biggest banks, those costs are going to be foisted on the taxpayers, the same people that Citigroup was trying to make money off of when they bought up RMBS in the first place. Sounds fair, huh?
What We Choose To Ignore: A rundown of Executive Orders that effectively strip American Citizens of all their rights if the President declares and undefined "State of Emergency." This is pretty chilling stuff, and if you're somebody whose been paying attention to the viral rumors regarding the possibility of an American Police State, here's confirmation that it's possible. If you haven't been paying attention to stuff like this, well, now is the time.
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier." Yes, that is a quote from George W. Bush in December of 2000. Another video highlighting our loss of freedom and our spiral towards authoritarian rule.
And, finally, something to brighten your day. A skydiving pug!
I wonder, when we're living under the iron fist of dictatorship, will pugs still be allowed to sky dive?
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Around the World
It would be nice if the positive news outweighed the negative, but you know, we live on the planet Earth, so it'll be a while until that happens.
Roots of a False Confession. Stories like this are the reason that torture, and the threat of torture, do NOT work. It will be interesting to see what happens if this case actually ends up in front of a jury. Odd how there was absolutely no evidence against this guy (what the FBI had on him was discovered to be based on false testimony), yet an interrogator was still able to procure a confession. Why would he confess to something like this unless what he says is true, and he was made to think that himself and his family were in grave danger of being tortured by Egyptian security forces?
The Boss Has His New CD Banned By Clear Channel. Seems there's quite a bit of anti-war material on the disk. Could that have something to do with why the #1 CD in the country is being banned from major radio play?
Hillary Clinton Served on Wal-Mart Board from '86-'92. No matter what type of spin they try to put on this, it has to count as a strike against Hillary.
Cross dressing? Sex with male prostitutes? Just another day in the life of a homo-hating GOP state rep.
Harry Reid Admits he Could Block War Funding, but He Won't. Is this really what we voted the Democrats in to accomplish? Reid and Nancy Pelosi are doing a horrible job for us, and they're making the Democratic party look ridiculously weak.
Once Again, UN Asks USA to Stop Cuban Embargo. But guess who's not listening (just like the last 15 times)? It is absolutely ridiculous to see the US claim that Cuba has an "internal embargo on freedom." What a phrase...
Waxman Asks White House to Turn Over 600 Pages of Documents Relating to Abramoff. One guess as to what the answer will be.
Warren Buffet Says Himself and other Rich People Should Pay More Taxes. I don't see what the problem with that would be. All he seems to be asking for is that the percentages be equal among all Americans. Yes, he pays an astronomical amount more in actual money than his secretary, but the point is that he pays a 17% tax while those making literally millions of dollars less than himself are paying 30% or more, and the less you make, the more a higher tax percentage hurts. The commerce departments' rebuttal does not take this in to account; they look only at the actual revenue dollars, which has been the excuse of the rich for years now. Personally, I don't give two shits how much money you make, I think that we should all pay the same percentage in income taxes. Actually, I don't think we should have to pay an illegal and unconstitutional tax on our labor, but that's a story for another day.
Roots of a False Confession. Stories like this are the reason that torture, and the threat of torture, do NOT work. It will be interesting to see what happens if this case actually ends up in front of a jury. Odd how there was absolutely no evidence against this guy (what the FBI had on him was discovered to be based on false testimony), yet an interrogator was still able to procure a confession. Why would he confess to something like this unless what he says is true, and he was made to think that himself and his family were in grave danger of being tortured by Egyptian security forces?
The Boss Has His New CD Banned By Clear Channel. Seems there's quite a bit of anti-war material on the disk. Could that have something to do with why the #1 CD in the country is being banned from major radio play?
Hillary Clinton Served on Wal-Mart Board from '86-'92. No matter what type of spin they try to put on this, it has to count as a strike against Hillary.
Cross dressing? Sex with male prostitutes? Just another day in the life of a homo-hating GOP state rep.
Harry Reid Admits he Could Block War Funding, but He Won't. Is this really what we voted the Democrats in to accomplish? Reid and Nancy Pelosi are doing a horrible job for us, and they're making the Democratic party look ridiculously weak.
Once Again, UN Asks USA to Stop Cuban Embargo. But guess who's not listening (just like the last 15 times)? It is absolutely ridiculous to see the US claim that Cuba has an "internal embargo on freedom." What a phrase...
Waxman Asks White House to Turn Over 600 Pages of Documents Relating to Abramoff. One guess as to what the answer will be.
Warren Buffet Says Himself and other Rich People Should Pay More Taxes. I don't see what the problem with that would be. All he seems to be asking for is that the percentages be equal among all Americans. Yes, he pays an astronomical amount more in actual money than his secretary, but the point is that he pays a 17% tax while those making literally millions of dollars less than himself are paying 30% or more, and the less you make, the more a higher tax percentage hurts. The commerce departments' rebuttal does not take this in to account; they look only at the actual revenue dollars, which has been the excuse of the rich for years now. Personally, I don't give two shits how much money you make, I think that we should all pay the same percentage in income taxes. Actually, I don't think we should have to pay an illegal and unconstitutional tax on our labor, but that's a story for another day.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
When Politicians Aren't Doing What We Want, Why Not Make a Change?
In recent political conversations that I've had with friends and members of my family, I've tried to bring up the notion of a "fringe" candidate (Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich) having a chance to win the next Presidential election, and the uniform response is "There's no chance." They're all enamored with the "front runners" (it's funny, because the difference between "fringe" and "front runner" really has nothing to do with views, leadership or credibility and everything to do with "electability" and mass media support, yet I digress), people like Clinton, Obama, Giuliani and all the other candidates who will keep us on the same basic course we've been on for the last 40+ years.
It's odd though. These same friends and family, along with countless other people around the country, express their hearty discontent with how the government is run, yet they will not open their eyes and see the fact that what is needed is a change in the core of our government's operations and values, not just another meaningless change in the figurehead leading the party of their choosing. If you're a Democrat, do you really think just getting a Democrat elected is going to change anything? Statements by Obama and Clinton, as well as every other Democratic "front runner" say otherwise. Yes, yes, they all say they're against the war in Iraq, but none of them will commit to an immediate pull-out (the old "Well, since we're already there..." justification) or condemn possible military action against Iran. On the Republican side, do you really think a guy like Giuliani or the laughable Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will do anything to restore the prestige of America or the GOP? If you do, you're lying to yourself or you're uninformed.
Just look at our recent past and ask yourself if you would like it to continue in this manner. Before Bush, who is the worst President in the history of America, we had Clinton. Republicans hated Clinton and Democrats loved him, but outside of presiding over a relatively docile and inordinately prosperous 8 years, he didn't do much, and he certainly didn't do anything revolutionary. Before Clinton we had Bush the 1st, who Democrats hated and many Republicans also hated, and who in a somewhat surreal action considering what happened with his son, lied us in to a war with Iraq while also lying about many, many other subjects and actions. Before that we had Reagan, who is somehow held up as the most recent beacon of Republican success (though the Democrats hated him), when in fact he did nothing to advance us as a society besides wasting billions of dollars and trying empire-style nation building in Central/South American and the Middle East. Jimmy Carter was before Reagan, and while he did OK (though most Republicans hated him), he happened to preside over the Energy Crisis, and frankly I'm more impressed with what he's done since he left office than with anything he did while holding the position. Before that we had Gerald Ford (nobody really liked him that much), who was the first person never actually elected to either office to hold both the office of Vice President and President. He took over the VP spot after Spiro Agnew resigned in shame in 1973, then moved up to President when Nixon resigned in shame in 1974. He then pardoned Nixon, one of the biggest bastards in American political history, and after that basically did nothing for the rest of his presidency. Obviously before that was the aforementioned Nixon, (Democrats hated him but many Republicans loved him, at least at first) who has the distinguished honor of being the only President (so far) to resign from office under a cloud of corruption and shame. Nixon took over for Lyndon Johnson, a "Democrat" who was one of the most hawkish men ever to claim that title, whose most prominent political action was to lie us in to escalating the Vietnam war.
And that brings us to John F. Kennedy, the last president who ever really seemed to be leading America in the right direction, but I'll digress for a moment to address the last paragraph. Did you see how we came full circle (even though it was a DAMNED small circle), from a President who lied us in to an illegal war in Vietnam to a President who lied us in to an illegal war in Iraq (aka Vietnam II)? 40 years and 8 Presidents ago, we sat on the cusp of monumental political and social change, but after JFK's assassination, we have slogged along with a laundry list of Presidents who, though they spew varied rhetoric and claim to be from different parties, have not done much to diverge us off the downward spiral we've been on, economically and socially, since the early 60's.
Do you see a pattern here? Neither side EVER likes the other side's candidate, and once whoever it is wins the election, they NEVER really follow their "campaign promises," and we've slowly seen our economy and American dollar falter and waste away, while our social policies and programs have made only marginal (if any) progress considering how long it's been. Is this the legacy handed down to us by our Founding Fathers and their greatest achievement, the Constitution of the United States of America? Did they envision a fiercely divided and partisan nation in which there was plutocratic rule and stagnant societal advancement? If you take a look at that document, it certainly doesn't appear to be so.
My question to the general public is the one that appears as the title to this post. Everyone on both sides of the table always bitches about how the President (whatever party he represents) doesn't get it done for the nation and doesn't follow up on his campaign promises, yet they are never willing to consider a "fringe" candidate who has always stuck to his guns on the issues, and who has been right about so many of them, such as Paul, Kucinich or even Mike Gravel. So, my question again, is why not bring in someone who doesn't just parrot on about the general issues of the day, always telling people what they want to hear but never actually doing anything about it; someone who can actually back up what they say with a consistent voting record and a consistent record of actually being RIGHT on the issues? I know change is scary, but consider that question, and if you have time, take a look at what Kucinich and Paul have to say on many of these issues:
Paul at the 1st GOP Presidential Debate
Paul at the most recent GOP Presidential Debate:
Kucinich at the Democratic Presidential Debate in South Carolina
(Look how Hilary just stares daggers at him):
Kucinich at the Democratic Presidential Debate on 8/7/07:
These guys know what they are talking about, they've been talking about it for a LONG time, and they don't stray from their ideas and convictions. Though they clash on some issues, they both have the right idea about what is right for America overall. PAY ATTENTION. The next 8 years will be paramount in American history, and we as a people need to make the right decision as to who will lead us. Ignore what the mass media spoon feeds to you and look at what the individual candidates have to say, how they say it, and why they say it. Please?
It's odd though. These same friends and family, along with countless other people around the country, express their hearty discontent with how the government is run, yet they will not open their eyes and see the fact that what is needed is a change in the core of our government's operations and values, not just another meaningless change in the figurehead leading the party of their choosing. If you're a Democrat, do you really think just getting a Democrat elected is going to change anything? Statements by Obama and Clinton, as well as every other Democratic "front runner" say otherwise. Yes, yes, they all say they're against the war in Iraq, but none of them will commit to an immediate pull-out (the old "Well, since we're already there..." justification) or condemn possible military action against Iran. On the Republican side, do you really think a guy like Giuliani or the laughable Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney will do anything to restore the prestige of America or the GOP? If you do, you're lying to yourself or you're uninformed.
Just look at our recent past and ask yourself if you would like it to continue in this manner. Before Bush, who is the worst President in the history of America, we had Clinton. Republicans hated Clinton and Democrats loved him, but outside of presiding over a relatively docile and inordinately prosperous 8 years, he didn't do much, and he certainly didn't do anything revolutionary. Before Clinton we had Bush the 1st, who Democrats hated and many Republicans also hated, and who in a somewhat surreal action considering what happened with his son, lied us in to a war with Iraq while also lying about many, many other subjects and actions. Before that we had Reagan, who is somehow held up as the most recent beacon of Republican success (though the Democrats hated him), when in fact he did nothing to advance us as a society besides wasting billions of dollars and trying empire-style nation building in Central/South American and the Middle East. Jimmy Carter was before Reagan, and while he did OK (though most Republicans hated him), he happened to preside over the Energy Crisis, and frankly I'm more impressed with what he's done since he left office than with anything he did while holding the position. Before that we had Gerald Ford (nobody really liked him that much), who was the first person never actually elected to either office to hold both the office of Vice President and President. He took over the VP spot after Spiro Agnew resigned in shame in 1973, then moved up to President when Nixon resigned in shame in 1974. He then pardoned Nixon, one of the biggest bastards in American political history, and after that basically did nothing for the rest of his presidency. Obviously before that was the aforementioned Nixon, (Democrats hated him but many Republicans loved him, at least at first) who has the distinguished honor of being the only President (so far) to resign from office under a cloud of corruption and shame. Nixon took over for Lyndon Johnson, a "Democrat" who was one of the most hawkish men ever to claim that title, whose most prominent political action was to lie us in to escalating the Vietnam war.
And that brings us to John F. Kennedy, the last president who ever really seemed to be leading America in the right direction, but I'll digress for a moment to address the last paragraph. Did you see how we came full circle (even though it was a DAMNED small circle), from a President who lied us in to an illegal war in Vietnam to a President who lied us in to an illegal war in Iraq (aka Vietnam II)? 40 years and 8 Presidents ago, we sat on the cusp of monumental political and social change, but after JFK's assassination, we have slogged along with a laundry list of Presidents who, though they spew varied rhetoric and claim to be from different parties, have not done much to diverge us off the downward spiral we've been on, economically and socially, since the early 60's.
Do you see a pattern here? Neither side EVER likes the other side's candidate, and once whoever it is wins the election, they NEVER really follow their "campaign promises," and we've slowly seen our economy and American dollar falter and waste away, while our social policies and programs have made only marginal (if any) progress considering how long it's been. Is this the legacy handed down to us by our Founding Fathers and their greatest achievement, the Constitution of the United States of America? Did they envision a fiercely divided and partisan nation in which there was plutocratic rule and stagnant societal advancement? If you take a look at that document, it certainly doesn't appear to be so.
My question to the general public is the one that appears as the title to this post. Everyone on both sides of the table always bitches about how the President (whatever party he represents) doesn't get it done for the nation and doesn't follow up on his campaign promises, yet they are never willing to consider a "fringe" candidate who has always stuck to his guns on the issues, and who has been right about so many of them, such as Paul, Kucinich or even Mike Gravel. So, my question again, is why not bring in someone who doesn't just parrot on about the general issues of the day, always telling people what they want to hear but never actually doing anything about it; someone who can actually back up what they say with a consistent voting record and a consistent record of actually being RIGHT on the issues? I know change is scary, but consider that question, and if you have time, take a look at what Kucinich and Paul have to say on many of these issues:
Paul at the 1st GOP Presidential Debate
Paul at the most recent GOP Presidential Debate:
Kucinich at the Democratic Presidential Debate in South Carolina
(Look how Hilary just stares daggers at him):
Kucinich at the Democratic Presidential Debate on 8/7/07:
These guys know what they are talking about, they've been talking about it for a LONG time, and they don't stray from their ideas and convictions. Though they clash on some issues, they both have the right idea about what is right for America overall. PAY ATTENTION. The next 8 years will be paramount in American history, and we as a people need to make the right decision as to who will lead us. Ignore what the mass media spoon feeds to you and look at what the individual candidates have to say, how they say it, and why they say it. Please?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
George W. Bush Warns of World War III
Can this really have happened? Is it possible that the President of the United States of America, after recently comparing Iraq to Vietnam ("Uhhh...We shouldn't have left there either!), has now openly mentioned a possible World War III if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon? I mean, not that we have any proven evidence of what they're doing, but you know, if we've gotta' nuke their asses we've gotta' nuke their asses....Right?
Is that our mentality these days?
I mean, really now, let's ramp up for World War III while we've still got Vietnam II on the front burner! That certainly sounds like a great idea. And while we're at it, how about a Cold War II? We're about 3/4 of the way there already. By God, it's brilliant! Let's make it a threesome! Not only will it allow us to take an even more gigantic stake in the Middle Eastern Oil businness, but we can also eliminate troops complaints about always having to leave home to go back to Iraq by constantly shuttling them between Iran and Iraq every 12 months (change of scenery ALWAYS helps) and finally we can also bring back the specter of Russia, allowing us to spend even more astronomical amounts of money on the Military-Industrial Complex while simultaneously reducing our own civil liberties in the wake of a new Red Scare! Rush Limbaugh and his ilk must be absolutely hyperventilating at the possibilities.
Now, back to the news at hand. Can you believe that we take things like the fact that "Condoleeza Rice recently asserted that Iran was lying to United Nations inspectors," at face value? No backup for those "assertions," by the way. UN Inspectors don't seem to think they're being lied to (they actually think we're lying about it), Russia does not believe Iran is lying (don't forget, they still have a massive intelligence community that is nearly as advanced as our own (thank Cold War I for that) if not equal, and yet somehow our allegations are all we need to justify launching another war of aggression? Have we forgotten how well that worked the first time? (It turned in to Vietnam II, remember?)
And to finish with something sad-but-humorous (which obviously holds great appeal to the cynical mind), see Bush saying "In terms of whether or not it’s possible to reprogram the kind of basic Russian DNA, which is a centralized authority, that’s hard to do," and wonder if he, or whoever is pulling the strings, is silently laughing at the thought of: "Yeah, just like it's hard to reprogram the kind of basic American DNA, which is rule by a thinly-veiled plutocracy! Gotcha, suckers!" Hmmmm, I just made myself sad.
Is that our mentality these days?
I mean, really now, let's ramp up for World War III while we've still got Vietnam II on the front burner! That certainly sounds like a great idea. And while we're at it, how about a Cold War II? We're about 3/4 of the way there already. By God, it's brilliant! Let's make it a threesome! Not only will it allow us to take an even more gigantic stake in the Middle Eastern Oil businness, but we can also eliminate troops complaints about always having to leave home to go back to Iraq by constantly shuttling them between Iran and Iraq every 12 months (change of scenery ALWAYS helps) and finally we can also bring back the specter of Russia, allowing us to spend even more astronomical amounts of money on the Military-Industrial Complex while simultaneously reducing our own civil liberties in the wake of a new Red Scare! Rush Limbaugh and his ilk must be absolutely hyperventilating at the possibilities.
Now, back to the news at hand. Can you believe that we take things like the fact that "Condoleeza Rice recently asserted that Iran was lying to United Nations inspectors," at face value? No backup for those "assertions," by the way. UN Inspectors don't seem to think they're being lied to (they actually think we're lying about it), Russia does not believe Iran is lying (don't forget, they still have a massive intelligence community that is nearly as advanced as our own (thank Cold War I for that) if not equal, and yet somehow our allegations are all we need to justify launching another war of aggression? Have we forgotten how well that worked the first time? (It turned in to Vietnam II, remember?)
And to finish with something sad-but-humorous (which obviously holds great appeal to the cynical mind), see Bush saying "In terms of whether or not it’s possible to reprogram the kind of basic Russian DNA, which is a centralized authority, that’s hard to do," and wonder if he, or whoever is pulling the strings, is silently laughing at the thought of: "Yeah, just like it's hard to reprogram the kind of basic American DNA, which is rule by a thinly-veiled plutocracy! Gotcha, suckers!" Hmmmm, I just made myself sad.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
More Articles
While I wait for the inspiration to actually write something...
"Second Earth" found? From what I know about Astronomy, this certainly sounds like the planet most likely to support life that we've found so far. Now all we need to do is develop that warp speed propulsion drive.
The Democrats showed the tiniest amount of balls possible in this recent stare down with President Bush. Don't get excited though, this means nothing when we still have people like Nancy Pelosi saying that war protesting (when it brings any anti-democratic sentiment) is "a waste of time," and also "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment." Oh and lest we forget, she even pulled out one right from the George W. Bush playbook, responding to a question about what her greatest mistake so far was, with: "Why don't you tell me? 'Cause I think we're doing just great." Well done, ma'am. The Speaker of the House, everybody! (And we wonder why nothing has changed with "Democrats" in "control" of the house and senate.)
How can the Daily Show continue to be the most accurate TV news source we have for what is really going on around here? I love the show, but I mean, really. Come on now. It's a comedy show! This is the kind of segment that should be shown on every major news channel, and perhaps would be if every major news channel wasn't just a tool of ultra-rich conglomerates trying to push their personal agendas.
Ron Paul continues to gain support. Let's stop the Buchanan comparisons though. Like, right now. And the whole "tinfoil hats" thing. That is just an invention of the media. An extremely diverse array of people support Ron Paul, and you can too. Listen to what he has to say, whether you lean left or right. I bet you'll be surprised.
"Second Earth" found? From what I know about Astronomy, this certainly sounds like the planet most likely to support life that we've found so far. Now all we need to do is develop that warp speed propulsion drive.
The Democrats showed the tiniest amount of balls possible in this recent stare down with President Bush. Don't get excited though, this means nothing when we still have people like Nancy Pelosi saying that war protesting (when it brings any anti-democratic sentiment) is "a waste of time," and also "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment." Oh and lest we forget, she even pulled out one right from the George W. Bush playbook, responding to a question about what her greatest mistake so far was, with: "Why don't you tell me? 'Cause I think we're doing just great." Well done, ma'am. The Speaker of the House, everybody! (And we wonder why nothing has changed with "Democrats" in "control" of the house and senate.)
How can the Daily Show continue to be the most accurate TV news source we have for what is really going on around here? I love the show, but I mean, really. Come on now. It's a comedy show! This is the kind of segment that should be shown on every major news channel, and perhaps would be if every major news channel wasn't just a tool of ultra-rich conglomerates trying to push their personal agendas.
Ron Paul continues to gain support. Let's stop the Buchanan comparisons though. Like, right now. And the whole "tinfoil hats" thing. That is just an invention of the media. An extremely diverse array of people support Ron Paul, and you can too. Listen to what he has to say, whether you lean left or right. I bet you'll be surprised.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
What's Going on Out There?
I don't pretend to understand much about calculus, but a recent discovery shows that during his lifetime, Greek mathematician Archimedes was working on principles that Newton and Leibniz wouldn't fully flesh out until 1900 years later. Talk about being ahead of your time. The whole "anonymous buyer" thing is kind of cool too, but that's really just a side note.
Rudy Giuliani just wants to be clear: The answer is 9/11.
"Just looking for a knife to cut this here tension."
Is Jurassic Park closer than we think? I didn't even know it was possible for soft tissue to exist for so long.
Ed and Elaine Brown were finally arrested, and if you don't know who they are that's just a great example of the mass media basically ignoring what perhaps should have been quite a story. And, if you see them as just a couple of no-good tax dodgers, do some research in to the legality of the Federal Income Tax and realize that you're wrong, and we're all getting screwed.
Here is the result of the politicization of the Justice Department under the rule of our current regime. Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, et al want exactly what is described in the article, and that is why we had the US Attorney firing scandal. The scary thing is, their methods are working.
Around the world in 13 years. Just an amazing story. What an experience it must have been.
Rudy Giuliani just wants to be clear: The answer is 9/11.
"Just looking for a knife to cut this here tension."
Is Jurassic Park closer than we think? I didn't even know it was possible for soft tissue to exist for so long.
Ed and Elaine Brown were finally arrested, and if you don't know who they are that's just a great example of the mass media basically ignoring what perhaps should have been quite a story. And, if you see them as just a couple of no-good tax dodgers, do some research in to the legality of the Federal Income Tax and realize that you're wrong, and we're all getting screwed.
Here is the result of the politicization of the Justice Department under the rule of our current regime. Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, et al want exactly what is described in the article, and that is why we had the US Attorney firing scandal. The scary thing is, their methods are working.
Around the world in 13 years. Just an amazing story. What an experience it must have been.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
9/11 Coincidences
How many coincidences do we need before we start to ask questions?
(Mostly short videos, all very interesting and backed in facts, but some are tough to watch. I've seen a lot of this footage literally hundreds of times in the last 5+ years and it still gets to me.)
What has happened to the Great Society?
Get Angry.
(Mostly short videos, all very interesting and backed in facts, but some are tough to watch. I've seen a lot of this footage literally hundreds of times in the last 5+ years and it still gets to me.)
What has happened to the Great Society?
Get Angry.
Winning the Hearts and Minds
Why can't we ever tell who the insurgents are and who they aren't? In yet another case of mistaken identity recently, US forces gunned down 7 Iraqi citizens who were playing a traditional Ramadan game. Or, if you'd prefer to believe the military account, they killed 2 or 3 people who may have been insurgents. In fact, in the words of a Major speaking on behalf of the army, “We were not able to get an accurate assessment.” However, although they were unable to get an accurate assessment, they did know that the people they were attacking were insurgents (the Major also stated that "If some innocents were killed, we regret that,” which I'm sure is much appreciated).
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Aiiieeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
Democracy in action....Please, say it ain't so...
So, how often do you think this happens throughout the country? The integrity of the voting system has been SERIOUSLY compromised here in America.
So, how often do you think this happens throughout the country? The integrity of the voting system has been SERIOUSLY compromised here in America.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Another Day, Another Death
Today I came across an interesting but disturbing article regarding the total number of dead U.S. Gulf War veterans, as noted by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The number is quite shocking, over 73,000. The PDF linked comes directly from the Veterans Affairs website, so it's hard to refute. It is also quite disturbing to see the number of troops killed during the "conflict" (Desert Storm/Desert Shield), which is pegged at over 13,000. From what I remember of that whole affair, we were told a whole hell of a lot less troops died during that war. However, with only 17,000+ troops killed in the "conflict" and the "theater" (non Desert Storm/Desert Shield operations), that still leaves more than 55,000 more who have died between now and 17 years ago. Perhaps all that depleted uranium wan't such a good idea after all? I bet the media will be all over this one in a heartbeat. Just watch.
Let's foster an environment of intolerance and hate at one of our nation's premier universities! Yep, that's right, the legislatures in New York have threatened to cut funding, among other forms of retribution, to Columbia University for their refusal to cancel a speaking engagement by Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Score one for democracy, higher learning and freedom! Let's make sure our best and brightest are as close minded a poible! You know what? Here's an idea. If Ahmadinejad is being allowed in to this country, he can't be as much of a threat as they say he is, can he? If so, you'd think he'd be dead before he ever set foot on the Columbia campus. I don't advocate that kind of activity, but this is the fucking United States of America, and you'd think we could pull off one little assassination on our own turf if the man visiting was really literally a threat to the entire world. The thing is, Ahmadinejad is nothing of the sort. In fact, it is integral for our government that he stay alive and unharmed, as lies and slander thrown at him are some of the strongest motivating factors behind another pointless mid-east conflict. As long as our government can sell him as a crazy nuke-loving jew-hater, they'll continue to muster some support for Vietnam Part III. They need him so they can start their war.
Meanwhile, take a look at what Ahmadinejad had to say at the UN last week, it's quite interesting stuff. And I bet it's a little different than how you may have heard it out on the mass media circuit. If you've got a few minutes, you really should at least read a couple of paragraphs.
WorldNet Daily article regarding the unconstitutional federal income tax. This is an intriguing (though pointedly depressing, considering what it means to America) story that has been underground for quite a while, and I would be remiss not to mention the great documentary by Aaron Russo - America: Freedom to Fascism (Director's Approved Edition, don't worry) in the same breath as this article. Hopefully resources like these will start waking people up, and we can get out from under the thumb of this super-oppressive form of government in to which we've stumbled. Oh, and you know what just gives away the whole damn game? An IRS spokesman responding to questions about the specific citation in the tax code that allows a federal tax on income said...c'mon, you can guess this one..."I can't comment." Hmmmm, why can't they show us the law? Perhaps because it doesn't exist? It really is that easy. Read up and watch that movie. You will be shocked.
There's danger on the edge of town
Ride the kings highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby
Let's foster an environment of intolerance and hate at one of our nation's premier universities! Yep, that's right, the legislatures in New York have threatened to cut funding, among other forms of retribution, to Columbia University for their refusal to cancel a speaking engagement by Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Score one for democracy, higher learning and freedom! Let's make sure our best and brightest are as close minded a poible! You know what? Here's an idea. If Ahmadinejad is being allowed in to this country, he can't be as much of a threat as they say he is, can he? If so, you'd think he'd be dead before he ever set foot on the Columbia campus. I don't advocate that kind of activity, but this is the fucking United States of America, and you'd think we could pull off one little assassination on our own turf if the man visiting was really literally a threat to the entire world. The thing is, Ahmadinejad is nothing of the sort. In fact, it is integral for our government that he stay alive and unharmed, as lies and slander thrown at him are some of the strongest motivating factors behind another pointless mid-east conflict. As long as our government can sell him as a crazy nuke-loving jew-hater, they'll continue to muster some support for Vietnam Part III. They need him so they can start their war.
Meanwhile, take a look at what Ahmadinejad had to say at the UN last week, it's quite interesting stuff. And I bet it's a little different than how you may have heard it out on the mass media circuit. If you've got a few minutes, you really should at least read a couple of paragraphs.
WorldNet Daily article regarding the unconstitutional federal income tax. This is an intriguing (though pointedly depressing, considering what it means to America) story that has been underground for quite a while, and I would be remiss not to mention the great documentary by Aaron Russo - America: Freedom to Fascism (Director's Approved Edition, don't worry) in the same breath as this article. Hopefully resources like these will start waking people up, and we can get out from under the thumb of this super-oppressive form of government in to which we've stumbled. Oh, and you know what just gives away the whole damn game? An IRS spokesman responding to questions about the specific citation in the tax code that allows a federal tax on income said...c'mon, you can guess this one..."I can't comment." Hmmmm, why can't they show us the law? Perhaps because it doesn't exist? It really is that easy. Read up and watch that movie. You will be shocked.
There's danger on the edge of town
Ride the kings highway, baby
Weird scenes inside the gold mine
Ride the highway west, baby
Monday, September 24, 2007
"Baiting" Authorized by Pentagon
Interesting article from the Washington Post.
Capt. Matthew P. Didier: "Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy."
Spec. Joshua L. Michaud: "It's our job out here to lay people down who are doing bad things." "I don't want to call it revenge, but we needed to find a way so that we could get the bad guys the right way and still maintain the right military things to do."
Why do you think we alway hear about "suspected insurgents?"
Capt. Matthew P. Didier: "Baiting is putting an object out there that we know they will use, with the intention of destroying the enemy."
Spec. Joshua L. Michaud: "It's our job out here to lay people down who are doing bad things." "I don't want to call it revenge, but we needed to find a way so that we could get the bad guys the right way and still maintain the right military things to do."
Why do you think we alway hear about "suspected insurgents?"
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Interesting Articles
Now that I can go back to scouring news sources for articles again, here's a few that caught my eye...
An excerpt from Jonathan Chait's "The Big Con." This is exactly what I'm trying to say about the homogenization of American political parties and the emergence of the far right. I'd like to read this book.
Scott Adams' Dilbert Blog. Just...wow. Wow.
Israel asks that Aid be Paid in Euros! Yikes.
Oh and I have to mention: (Condi) "In the spirit of Yom Kippur, the United States will not hold Israel to any agreements obligating them to accept Dollars as payment for their foreigh aid. We will translate our obligations into Euros or whatever currency that best fits Israel's needs."
Well, in the spirit of Yom Kippur, can I get my next paycheck in Euro's?
New York Times: "Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?" Yes, how far did they go? An interesting breakdown of the language but unfortunately not much insight in to why this quote was blown so far out of proportion.
Yahoo: "Cheney mulled Israeli strike on Iran." Wow, what a gigantic surprise.
And, lastly:
Generals Opposing Iraq War Break with Military Tradition. More than 20 retired generals come out against their own government's actions in Iraq. This is something that's NEVER happened in US history. Read about who these guys are...they know what they're talking about. Where is the mainstream media on this? Shouldn't something like this just shatter any further doubt that what we are doing is a massive mistake? Policy change, please.
An excerpt from Jonathan Chait's "The Big Con." This is exactly what I'm trying to say about the homogenization of American political parties and the emergence of the far right. I'd like to read this book.
Scott Adams' Dilbert Blog. Just...wow. Wow.
Israel asks that Aid be Paid in Euros! Yikes.
Oh and I have to mention: (Condi) "In the spirit of Yom Kippur, the United States will not hold Israel to any agreements obligating them to accept Dollars as payment for their foreigh aid. We will translate our obligations into Euros or whatever currency that best fits Israel's needs."
Well, in the spirit of Yom Kippur, can I get my next paycheck in Euro's?
New York Times: "Just How Far Did They Go, Those Words Against Israel?" Yes, how far did they go? An interesting breakdown of the language but unfortunately not much insight in to why this quote was blown so far out of proportion.
Yahoo: "Cheney mulled Israeli strike on Iran." Wow, what a gigantic surprise.
And, lastly:
Generals Opposing Iraq War Break with Military Tradition. More than 20 retired generals come out against their own government's actions in Iraq. This is something that's NEVER happened in US history. Read about who these guys are...they know what they're talking about. Where is the mainstream media on this? Shouldn't something like this just shatter any further doubt that what we are doing is a massive mistake? Policy change, please.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Iran/Israel Clash on Nukes
Sometimes things seem so overwhelming, but I realize I must re-double my efforts. I have to focus myself on something, sometime. This seems important enough for now, and at least it keeps my mind moving.
On Friday, for the first time in IAEA history, rival nations engaged each other on the floor when Iran called for IAEA inspectors to do their jobs and investigate Israel's rumored nuclear arsenal. This came in the wake of Israel's accusations that Iran has been lying about the purpose of their atomic energy program. While Iran has constantly been drug through the mud recently for refusing to halt their nuclear program, Israel has (predictably) faced far less criticism regarding their assumed possession of nuclear weapons.
Israel has constantly avoided the spotlight regarding the nuclear issue, even when things seemingly came to a head more than 9 months ago when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert apparently admitted to his country's possession of nuclear weapons in an interview with a German television station. While the words "Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?" appear to be impossible to take "out of context," that was of course the excuse given by Israel after the admission. In fact, they now deny that he said it at all, with Israel Michaeli (Israel's UN ambassador) saying "Some speakers continue to lie about the statement of the Israeli prime minister, who did not say what they say he did," and then smartly following that up with "Those who call for the elimination of Israel have no moral standing when they criticize Israeli policies aimed at defending Israel's very existence." So, in effect, "We never said we have nukes and we don't have them, but if we do, which we might, you don't have any place in criticizing us for it because you're jerks anyway." Brilliant!
The evil Iranian ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh just spouted off crazy accusations as usual, saying "The only way for the international community to know the truth is to authorize the IAEA to send inspectors to Israel and verify the truth." Now, where's the sanity in that? And oh, by the way, guess which one of these countries is in on the IAEA Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? I'll give you one guess, and the answer isn't Israel. Now, remember who the bad guy is here. It's Iran! Isn't it? Or are things getting a little more murky now? Why do we rail against a country that, for all intents and purposes, has followed the letter of the law when it comes to nuclear research and production while turning a completely blind eye to a country that has circumvented nearly every rule in the book when it comes to military weapons, nuclear or otherwise? Have we forgotten that Israel, time and time again, has refused to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty? How can we, as a world power, try to deny one poor country the right to legally use one of our greatest inventions for the good of their society, while allowing another (ally or not) to disregard all treaties and safeguards regarding that very same invention even when they are receiving literally BILLIONS of dollars every year in "aid" from our own government?
If Israel really wants a peaceful resolution in the Middle East (they DO NOT), they would comply with the standards to which they hold the rest of the region instead of flexing their American muscle (don't think a Washington veto isn't coming if there's any action against Israel by the security council) every time they are questioned. We are already stuck in this mess, and until we learn to deal with manipulative regimes like Israel we will just continue to be the big dumb bully on the field. All brawn and no brains, capitulating to the whim of the weaker, but craftier influence.
On Friday, for the first time in IAEA history, rival nations engaged each other on the floor when Iran called for IAEA inspectors to do their jobs and investigate Israel's rumored nuclear arsenal. This came in the wake of Israel's accusations that Iran has been lying about the purpose of their atomic energy program. While Iran has constantly been drug through the mud recently for refusing to halt their nuclear program, Israel has (predictably) faced far less criticism regarding their assumed possession of nuclear weapons.
Israel has constantly avoided the spotlight regarding the nuclear issue, even when things seemingly came to a head more than 9 months ago when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert apparently admitted to his country's possession of nuclear weapons in an interview with a German television station. While the words "Can you say that this is the same level, when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons, as France, America, Russia and Israel?" appear to be impossible to take "out of context," that was of course the excuse given by Israel after the admission. In fact, they now deny that he said it at all, with Israel Michaeli (Israel's UN ambassador) saying "Some speakers continue to lie about the statement of the Israeli prime minister, who did not say what they say he did," and then smartly following that up with "Those who call for the elimination of Israel have no moral standing when they criticize Israeli policies aimed at defending Israel's very existence." So, in effect, "We never said we have nukes and we don't have them, but if we do, which we might, you don't have any place in criticizing us for it because you're jerks anyway." Brilliant!
The evil Iranian ambassador Ali Asghar Soltanieh just spouted off crazy accusations as usual, saying "The only way for the international community to know the truth is to authorize the IAEA to send inspectors to Israel and verify the truth." Now, where's the sanity in that? And oh, by the way, guess which one of these countries is in on the IAEA Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? I'll give you one guess, and the answer isn't Israel. Now, remember who the bad guy is here. It's Iran! Isn't it? Or are things getting a little more murky now? Why do we rail against a country that, for all intents and purposes, has followed the letter of the law when it comes to nuclear research and production while turning a completely blind eye to a country that has circumvented nearly every rule in the book when it comes to military weapons, nuclear or otherwise? Have we forgotten that Israel, time and time again, has refused to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty? How can we, as a world power, try to deny one poor country the right to legally use one of our greatest inventions for the good of their society, while allowing another (ally or not) to disregard all treaties and safeguards regarding that very same invention even when they are receiving literally BILLIONS of dollars every year in "aid" from our own government?
If Israel really wants a peaceful resolution in the Middle East (they DO NOT), they would comply with the standards to which they hold the rest of the region instead of flexing their American muscle (don't think a Washington veto isn't coming if there's any action against Israel by the security council) every time they are questioned. We are already stuck in this mess, and until we learn to deal with manipulative regimes like Israel we will just continue to be the big dumb bully on the field. All brawn and no brains, capitulating to the whim of the weaker, but craftier influence.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Will the Hypocrisy Never Cease (or Even Slow Down)?
In a brilliant speech delivered at the American Legion convention earlier today, our oblivious "President" continued to deliver unabashedly hypocritical messages regarding Iran in what should be considered yet another piece of his administrations ramp-up to another unprovoked invasion. Bush had the (well, what is the right word? Audacity? Gaul? Arrogance? Plain ol' Thickheadedness?) to state that, and I quote, "Iran has arrested visiting American scholars who have committed no crimes and impose no threat to their regime," while accusing Iran of attempting to destabilize (like it's freaking stable) Iraq. Coming from a man who authorized the torture and extraordinary rendition of citizens of other sovereign nations without criminal charges and who has also made it possible for American citizens to be detained indefinitely without charge, his statement seems...confusing. I mean, America has been arresting and detaining people who have committed no crimes and pose no threat to our regime for going on 6 years now, but apparently it's unheard of that someone else might do the same thing. In fact, it's so out of line that we might just have to bomb them back to the stone age. I'm hoping that none of the countries where we've been frivolously arresting people feel the same way, or we might be in line for a suicide bombing or two here pretty soon.
I also find it funny that Bush accuses Iran of providing Iraq and the Taliban with weapons, when the weapons they've been fighting with this entire time were provided mostly by....whoops, the United States! Yup, a nice portion of those tax dollars we paid in the 80's to provide Saddam with weapons during his war with Iran and to help out Osama and the Taliban during their war with the USSR also paid for the lives of many US troops during the current occupations. But, you see, it's only bad when other people give those countries weapons. When we do it, it's just fine. Oh, not that we have any evidence that Iran is doing what we accuse them of doing, by the way. Notice that in all the attacks and accusations against Iran going around in our government right now, those doing the accusing and attacking don't actually provide concrete evidence, or in fact, any evidence at all. "We don't have any evidence, but we're damn sure it's those Iranian bastards!" Hmmmmm, is it just me or is this starting to sound like Saddam's WMD's all over again? Oh, it sounds EXACTLY like that, you say? Perhaps you're right.
Now, let's ride a little bit further on the hypocrisy train, shall we? Notice that Bush says "I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of radicalism and extremism were allowed to drive us out of the Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world." (they aren't civilized over there, by the way) I also want you to note that he makes no mention of the fact that we've just granted over $50 BILLION total in military aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. So, didn't we just GIVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to the "forces of radicalism and extremism?" Check out what the governments of the aforementioned countries have been up to, and...yeah, you'll have to agree. I mean, hmmmm, is there any possibility that one of those countries might eventually turn around and use all those weapons against us during a conflict with the US? I guess it's never happened before, not like almost every other time we've done it or anything, so we should be OK. Hypocrisy in general sickens me, but when it comes on such a grand scale and costs our country thousands of lives and BILLIONS of dollars, it's just exponentially worse. In fact, I can't write about this anymore right now.
Death to the dishonorable.
I also find it funny that Bush accuses Iran of providing Iraq and the Taliban with weapons, when the weapons they've been fighting with this entire time were provided mostly by....whoops, the United States! Yup, a nice portion of those tax dollars we paid in the 80's to provide Saddam with weapons during his war with Iran and to help out Osama and the Taliban during their war with the USSR also paid for the lives of many US troops during the current occupations. But, you see, it's only bad when other people give those countries weapons. When we do it, it's just fine. Oh, not that we have any evidence that Iran is doing what we accuse them of doing, by the way. Notice that in all the attacks and accusations against Iran going around in our government right now, those doing the accusing and attacking don't actually provide concrete evidence, or in fact, any evidence at all. "We don't have any evidence, but we're damn sure it's those Iranian bastards!" Hmmmmm, is it just me or is this starting to sound like Saddam's WMD's all over again? Oh, it sounds EXACTLY like that, you say? Perhaps you're right.
Now, let's ride a little bit further on the hypocrisy train, shall we? Notice that Bush says "I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of radicalism and extremism were allowed to drive us out of the Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world." (they aren't civilized over there, by the way) I also want you to note that he makes no mention of the fact that we've just granted over $50 BILLION total in military aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. So, didn't we just GIVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to the "forces of radicalism and extremism?" Check out what the governments of the aforementioned countries have been up to, and...yeah, you'll have to agree. I mean, hmmmm, is there any possibility that one of those countries might eventually turn around and use all those weapons against us during a conflict with the US? I guess it's never happened before, not like almost every other time we've done it or anything, so we should be OK. Hypocrisy in general sickens me, but when it comes on such a grand scale and costs our country thousands of lives and BILLIONS of dollars, it's just exponentially worse. In fact, I can't write about this anymore right now.
Death to the dishonorable.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Flour-based Terrorism
Remember to watch out for any suspicious...flour. Thank God the Connecticut Police were there, or else we could have a had a genuine Fun Run on our hands:
“You see powder connected by arrows and chalk, you never know,” she said. “It could be a terrorist, it could be something more serious. We’re thankful it wasn’t, but there were a lot of resources that went into figuring that out.”
I mean, seriously, who hasn't seen flour used to mark a trail for a race? I love that "there were a lot of resources that went in to figuring that out." Hooray, more of our tax dollars at work!
I know that next time I see someone buying flour or chalk in a grocery store, I'll immediately be calling the cops, and you should too. We can't have people participating in physical activity if we want to keep this nation free from the grasp of those terrorist bastards.
“You see powder connected by arrows and chalk, you never know,” she said. “It could be a terrorist, it could be something more serious. We’re thankful it wasn’t, but there were a lot of resources that went into figuring that out.”
I mean, seriously, who hasn't seen flour used to mark a trail for a race? I love that "there were a lot of resources that went in to figuring that out." Hooray, more of our tax dollars at work!
I know that next time I see someone buying flour or chalk in a grocery store, I'll immediately be calling the cops, and you should too. We can't have people participating in physical activity if we want to keep this nation free from the grasp of those terrorist bastards.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Iran: The New Iraq?
Now that 30 is the new 20, White is the new Black and Thursday is the new Friday, is Iran indeed the new Iraq? With rumors of the Bush Administration planning to add the Iranian Republican Guard to it's list of "terrorist organizations," that certainly seems to be the case. Remember how the administration got the public ramped up for Iraq? The biggest piece was the connection of Saddam Hussein with 9/11, something hammered in to us day after day by Bush & Co. (or is it Cheney INC.?). Remember how many times you heard the words "terror," "terrorist" or "terrorism?" Thousands. No matter whether you paid attention to the real news or got your information from sound bytes, you were constantly bombarded with those three words, and all nearly always in connection with these three little words: "Saddam" "Hussein" and "Iraq." Outside of the usual affections of Empire, I can't think of any reason invading Iran might be something the Government (not to mention "We the People") would even consider, but those in power don't seem to see anything wrong with it. Even "Democratic Frontrunners" Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama won't back down from the idea, nor will they even condemn it.
As for the mass media, the last bastion of the "liberal left," surprisingly most don't have much to say on the issue. Unless, of course, you count our beloved FOX News. I kind of thought it would be funny if a video like this existed, but now that one actually does, I'm not sure how I feel about it (notice the subtle connections between the invasion of Iraq and the future invasion of Iran):
Ignore the petition at the end, because if you know how things work you know that no matter how many people sign it, those who run the media will report whatever they like, in whatever way they please. But I do want you to note the close resemblance of the pre-Iraq footage to what can now be considered the pre-Iran footage. If it quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, and looks like a duck, and feels like a duck...well, you get the point. In my estimation it is only a matter of time before networks like CNN are "intimidated" in to jumping on the band wagon, just like they have been doing for the past 7 years with every little thing you can imagine. I've got an idea; this time let's not listen to them! And remember, no matter what they do, the current administration is coming in to their home stretch and they can only hurt us so much until the next election (assuming there is one at all, which is a whole other chilling story in itself). In 2006 "We the People" got angry enough at Congress and the Senate to basically completely shift the power structure, so even though the new power structure did exactly the same thing as the old one, we should take heart in the fact that we can still at least somewhat control by whom we are governed. The extreme facets of Democrat and Republican are not the only choice that we have, and since they both seem to do the same thing anyway, perhaps it's time for you to consider actually analyzing who you are voting for instead of the (R) or (D) next to their name.
The only way we can build our country back to some semblance of our perceived past glory (or at lest financial stability) and independence is by working together, and putting people in office who will work for us instead of fighting over petty labels and thinking we've won just because the party labeled "ours" is in control. Both sides have a lot to offer, but currently the majority of people from both factions are corporate bootlickers and pawns who care more about the money others stuff in their "war chests" than about what's best for you and me on a Thursday night in August. The proletariat still hold the power of numbers, and if we don't want them to take that from us, we need to use it. Let's get off the oil train and realize that it's not worth the trillions of dollars it's cost US over the years. Let's stop policing the world and doing things because other countries want us to, and start doing what's best for us. If we follow this president and his administration blindly in to Iran just like we did with Iraq, I fear our time is shorter than we think. Whatever you can do to prevent it....DO IT.
Also, if you'd like to see an example of why it is a HORRIBLE idea to invade Iran (much like it was a HORRIBLE idea to invade Iraq, but that's nether here nor there) , start watching this Daily Show 5:42 in. Simply brilliant. The Obama interview is simple politicking, but the "America to the Rescue" bit is exceptional and, sadly, ALL true:
Let's wake up.
As for the mass media, the last bastion of the "liberal left," surprisingly most don't have much to say on the issue. Unless, of course, you count our beloved FOX News. I kind of thought it would be funny if a video like this existed, but now that one actually does, I'm not sure how I feel about it (notice the subtle connections between the invasion of Iraq and the future invasion of Iran):
Ignore the petition at the end, because if you know how things work you know that no matter how many people sign it, those who run the media will report whatever they like, in whatever way they please. But I do want you to note the close resemblance of the pre-Iraq footage to what can now be considered the pre-Iran footage. If it quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, and looks like a duck, and feels like a duck...well, you get the point. In my estimation it is only a matter of time before networks like CNN are "intimidated" in to jumping on the band wagon, just like they have been doing for the past 7 years with every little thing you can imagine. I've got an idea; this time let's not listen to them! And remember, no matter what they do, the current administration is coming in to their home stretch and they can only hurt us so much until the next election (assuming there is one at all, which is a whole other chilling story in itself). In 2006 "We the People" got angry enough at Congress and the Senate to basically completely shift the power structure, so even though the new power structure did exactly the same thing as the old one, we should take heart in the fact that we can still at least somewhat control by whom we are governed. The extreme facets of Democrat and Republican are not the only choice that we have, and since they both seem to do the same thing anyway, perhaps it's time for you to consider actually analyzing who you are voting for instead of the (R) or (D) next to their name.
The only way we can build our country back to some semblance of our perceived past glory (or at lest financial stability) and independence is by working together, and putting people in office who will work for us instead of fighting over petty labels and thinking we've won just because the party labeled "ours" is in control. Both sides have a lot to offer, but currently the majority of people from both factions are corporate bootlickers and pawns who care more about the money others stuff in their "war chests" than about what's best for you and me on a Thursday night in August. The proletariat still hold the power of numbers, and if we don't want them to take that from us, we need to use it. Let's get off the oil train and realize that it's not worth the trillions of dollars it's cost US over the years. Let's stop policing the world and doing things because other countries want us to, and start doing what's best for us. If we follow this president and his administration blindly in to Iran just like we did with Iraq, I fear our time is shorter than we think. Whatever you can do to prevent it....DO IT.
Also, if you'd like to see an example of why it is a HORRIBLE idea to invade Iran (much like it was a HORRIBLE idea to invade Iraq, but that's nether here nor there) , start watching this Daily Show 5:42 in. Simply brilliant. The Obama interview is simple politicking, but the "America to the Rescue" bit is exceptional and, sadly, ALL true:
Let's wake up.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Our Tax Dollars at Work
With the skyrocketing national debt and the weak dollar, one might think that there might be more of a resistance to things like giving Israel another $30 BILLION to help load them up with weapons. Seeing as how they already posses nuclear bombs and one of the most powerful/sophisticated army's in the middle-east (all backed, powered and provided by America, mind you), maybe we could cut down on the "Military aid" huh? Oh, and a nice fat cherry on top: 74% of that money is required to be pumped right back in to the American Military-Industrial Complex. Well, that's certainly not suspicious at all, is it?
And if that wasn't enough, an American company recently fleeced the Government out of over $20 million mostly due, it seems, to a lack of any oversight:
It's like people forget, when they see numbers like that, that it's OUR money they're throwing away, not theirs. Is this what you want the taxes you pay to support?
And the beat goes on....
And if that wasn't enough, an American company recently fleeced the Government out of over $20 million mostly due, it seems, to a lack of any oversight:
It's like people forget, when they see numbers like that, that it's OUR money they're throwing away, not theirs. Is this what you want the taxes you pay to support?
And the beat goes on....
Thursday, August 9, 2007
The Idiocy of Republicans and Democrats
Of late, I've been thinking heavily about the idiocy of both parties. Not only have they both strayed far from their traditional values (everyone's a centrist or a "fundamental" extremist these days), but with an election looming in the near future, both parties have decided to completely ignore candidates who espouse their core values. Those candidates? Republican Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Democrat Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio). Both speak truth to power on the current issues of the day, both were smart enough to vote against the Iraq War Resolution, the USA PATRIOT Act (both times) and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Both have level-headed views on abortion; Kucinich is pro-choice and Paul is pro-life, but believes strongly in the separation of church and state (remember that one, everybody?) and would leave the issue for individual states to decide. How can you disagree with that? Paul is also anti-income tax and anti-Federal Reserve, recognizing both to be illegal and un-American. Kucinich is no friend to the Federal Reserve, but he does hold the true "liberal" idea regarding the income tax. Though I disagree with the tax myself, I would much rather see the system that Kucinich envisions, one where all are taxed equally, as opposed to our current system where the poor and middle class pay out a larger percentage of their income than the rich. Paul is a true conservative and a genuine constitutionalist, which we have not seen in office for perhaps 200 years. Kucinich is a true liberal who has a proven election record against Republicans, which I tend to doubt we've ever seen in office.
So, why aren't these two the front runners? Why isn't the talk about a Paul vs. Kucinich battle in '08? The simple fact is that people who call themselves Republicans and Democrats have forgotten their true values and beliefs. We have become so polarized as a nation that the only thing we find important is Winning. As a Democrat (for lack of a better word) I saw firsthand over the last year plus that a party change will do absolutely nothing for the country overall. I voted Democrat up and down in '06 and urged others to do likewise. So what happened? Sweeping Democratic victories! And what's happened since? Not a damn thing. We've watched our Dem dominated House and Senate kowtow to Bush and Co. on every issue under the sun, puffing up their chests for a fight at first, only to deflate faster than a balloon that lands on a porcupine's quills when the going got tough. NOTHING has changed. In fact, things have gotten even worse. Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, is that what we really want as a country? Continued acquiescence to a power elite bent on money, power and Empire? It's certainly not what I want, and if you're not in the tiny percentage of rich bastards who've run things since before most of us can remember, I doubt it's what you want either. If you are a true Republican or a true Democrat, Paul and Kucinich must be the only choices in '08. Look at what both men are saying. Look at both of their voting records. How can you deny it? We have a chance to change the face of American politics, and we have that chance right now. If you call yourself a true member of your party, and a true advocate of the America our forefathers dreamed of, but find yourself backing Clinton or Giuliani or Obama or Romney or Dodd or Thompson or any of those others who are backed by the same people who have bankrolled countless previous "leaders," look at what's going on, look at what they say and how they've voted, and change your mind. The time for change is now, and we must take advantage of it or continue to suffer the consequences of political extremism. Can we survive that? Let's not find out.
So, why aren't these two the front runners? Why isn't the talk about a Paul vs. Kucinich battle in '08? The simple fact is that people who call themselves Republicans and Democrats have forgotten their true values and beliefs. We have become so polarized as a nation that the only thing we find important is Winning. As a Democrat (for lack of a better word) I saw firsthand over the last year plus that a party change will do absolutely nothing for the country overall. I voted Democrat up and down in '06 and urged others to do likewise. So what happened? Sweeping Democratic victories! And what's happened since? Not a damn thing. We've watched our Dem dominated House and Senate kowtow to Bush and Co. on every issue under the sun, puffing up their chests for a fight at first, only to deflate faster than a balloon that lands on a porcupine's quills when the going got tough. NOTHING has changed. In fact, things have gotten even worse. Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, is that what we really want as a country? Continued acquiescence to a power elite bent on money, power and Empire? It's certainly not what I want, and if you're not in the tiny percentage of rich bastards who've run things since before most of us can remember, I doubt it's what you want either. If you are a true Republican or a true Democrat, Paul and Kucinich must be the only choices in '08. Look at what both men are saying. Look at both of their voting records. How can you deny it? We have a chance to change the face of American politics, and we have that chance right now. If you call yourself a true member of your party, and a true advocate of the America our forefathers dreamed of, but find yourself backing Clinton or Giuliani or Obama or Romney or Dodd or Thompson or any of those others who are backed by the same people who have bankrolled countless previous "leaders," look at what's going on, look at what they say and how they've voted, and change your mind. The time for change is now, and we must take advantage of it or continue to suffer the consequences of political extremism. Can we survive that? Let's not find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
