.jpg)
"Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism."
- Hubert H. Humphrey -
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
- Franklin D. Roosevelt -
I can't, and will undoubtedly never be, a Republican. The Democratic Party has made its share of mistakes over the years to be sure, and it will do so again. It has not always been fully honest and forthright in its presentations to the voting public. But in my lifetime, and for the 40 or so years preceding my birth, the Democrats have striven to make government a beneficial force for the majority of the population, especially for the poor, working, and middle classes. The same cannot be said for the Republicans.
I COULD have been a Republican once: In Lincoln's day, or again in the Teddy Roosevelt era. In those all too brief times, encompassing a total of roughly 12 years, the Republicans were actually a progressive party, 180 degrees from the dinosaurs they are today. Both Lincoln and Roosevelt believed in a strong federal government, as do I. They believed government has the duty and moral obligation to protect average citizens from the excesses of greedy, self-serving reactionary forces and institutions. I share that belief. Lincoln's GOP abolished the evil institution of slavery. Teddy Roosevelt broke up the corrupt big business trusts of his day, which were then, much like now, exerting an undue stranglehold on government and the economy. He established numerous regulatory agencies like the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that business was operating under fair standards, and for the benefit of the people instead of just for itself. He made sure that concentrated capital did not reign supreme and that it was accountable to the public interest. An avid conservationist, he was also responsible for the establishment of our National Park system. I could and would have been an ardent Republican in each of those times, but not between them or since.
After Lincoln's assassination, the Democrats were in disarray. They had sympathized to a degree with the agrarian south and had derived their support there. With the south in ruins following the Civil War and many former Democrats or southern leaders now barred from holding public office, the Republicans became the prominent national political party. This marked the end of the first progressive and liberal bent of the Republican Party. The GOP allied itself with northern industrialists, big business, and bankers. It fell under the domination of often corrupt conservative business interests. Instead of a strong federal government, the GOP now favored the individual states having the greater say on issues, especially the economic ones. This continued from roughly 1868 until Roosevelt's presidency began in 1901, and resumed in about 1910 through the present day. Since the 1880s or so, the party has exhibited a distinct bias for big business rather than individuals, and has opposed and fought organized labor every step of the way. Republican administrations have been marked by repeated scandals, from 1872's Credit Mobilier example, to the early 1920s' Teapot Dome gem, to the Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, and mortgage banking scandals of the George W. Bush era. Though not caused exclusively by Republicans, the party's constant pressure for total freedom for big business has repeatedly bred a climate of business excess and corruption. In all cases, business benefitted and the mass public was victimized. I cannot support the Republican idea of a totally unregulated market. Such policies have failed us time and again. They have meant freedom for the wealthy and restricted economic gain for everyone else. They have consistently led to unfair economic repression for workers and the poor. Today, this has manifested itself in skyrocketing CEO salaries and benefits coupled with frozen or declining worker wages (even in the face of rising labor productivity and corporate profits) and the exporting of millions of good paying American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets overseas. This insistence on a hands-off policy for government regarding business has been disastrous time after time. In the 1800s, its hallmark was miserably low wages, very long hours, and near slave labor conditions for factory workers, women, and even young children. In the 1920s, these policies helped create the Great Depression, which in turn led to World War II. Today, they have resulted in a falling standard of living, collapse of financial markets, and may even lead to another depression. The net result of these laissez-faire economic policies is always the same: Redistribution of wealth upwards instead of evenly across the board. They also always mean hardship for all but a priviliged few wealthy elite. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans' use (or misuse) of government always benefits the few who need no benefit rather than the many, who do.
Republicans love to say they support free enterprise, but that is not at all true. What they REALLY practice is state-sponsored capitalism, a sort of fascism-lite. Corporate welfare could be another term used. They absolutely hate the idea of government giving economic aid to down-and-out individuals, but they are happy to accept government subsidies, government contracts, and even government bailouts for business, as well as huge, disproportionate tax cuts for big business and the wealthy. It's economic intercourse, to be sure, but all except the rich are the ones continually getting f_cked by it, all the time.
These are merely my ECONOMIC reasons for whi I can't be a Republican. My social and political reasons will follow in the next blog or two. Feel free to comment below if you like. Thank you.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Saturday, October 25, 2008
FOR PRESIDENT:
REMEMBER TO VISIT www.factcheck.org/ REGULARLY TO CHECK THE ACCURACY OF ALL POLITICAL ADS YOU SEE AND HEAR!
There is never a perfect candidate for President. No one candidate has all the correct answers. Once in office, he or she will invariably make mistakes. That is inevitable human nature. However, this year, there is a clear difference and choice between candidates for a number of compelling reasons, and I have made mine.
After 8 years of unrestricted free trade, economic policies brazenly favoring the wealthy and big business (including disastrous deregulation and much corporate welfare through numerous unquestioned, non-bid military contracts); a political and domestic policy based on fear, blatant partisanship, the curtailment of rights granted under our Constitution, and overreaching expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch; a foreign policy predicated on pre-emptive military strikes and non-communication with hostile powers, plus a very expensive, unnecessary, and unpopular war in Iraq, more than 80% of us correctly feel our country has been on the wrong track. We crave and are in desperate need of real change, not just the cosmetic type some would offer.
Unrestricted free trade has caused entire plants and millions of good paying American jobs to leave this country for China, India, Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, and other countries. It has led to wages in this country becoming stagnant or even declining. Productivity here has risen steadily in the past 8 years, but wages have not kept pace. The costs of energy, health care, pharmaceuticals, food, and education have skyrocketed, with no relief in sight. Huge tax breaks given to the wealthy and to large corporations have not resulted in the creation of millions of high paying new jobs here, as President Bush and his neoconservative Republican allies promised early in his first term. Instead, corporate excesses and greed have become rampant. Our overall standard of living has fallen, not risen. We are NOT better off today than we were 8 years ago! The "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive military strikes (that we have the right to attack other countries without provocation if we consider them to be a threat) has isolated us from the rest of the world and damaged our relations with them. As applied in Iraq, it has all but destroyed any moderate Arab or Muslim support we may have once had in the Middle East. It is shameful behavior more analogous to Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin than to that of Washington, Jefferson, or Wilson. It has proven to be economically unsustainable. Worse yet, it may encourage similar future action from countries like Russia or China.
John McCain is a passionate man who tremendously loves this country. He is a true-life hero, having suffered greatly but having stood firm during years of torture and captivity in North Vietnam as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam conflict. He is a staunch supporter of the right to life for the innocent unborn. Yet he is also very militaristic and an avowed advocate of the Bush doctrine. He is viewed as bellicose and pushy by those outside our border. On QUALITY OF LIFE issues, he usually sides with the wealthy and big business, whose policies and practices the past 8 years have diminished the quality of life for the majority of us, who are in the categories of middle class or poor. He advocates more huge tax cuts for the rich and large corporations. His tax plan gives only very, very minimal tax cuts for those earning less than $111,646 per year (which is where the overwhelming majority of us in the country are). FOR A DETAILED TABLE OF BOTH CANDIDATES' TAX PLANS, jot down and go to this website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html.
McCain himself has often looked tired, crotchety, and confused during the course of his campaign, He has mixed up important details like the history of and differences between Iraq's Sunni and Shia populations. He has shown an impulsive erraticness in his approach toward dealing with the recent mortgage banking collapse, first "suspending" his campaign to fly to Washington for a meaningless conference with Bush, and then resuming it. His campaign has not been managed well. Early on, it was virtually broke and today its fundraising is still dwarfed by his opponent's. His campaign has been mainly a series of negative attacks and misstatements about his opponent. He has done liitle to sell himself or his policies other than manufacture numerous silly distractions, like "lipstick on a pig" and "Joe the (fake) Plumber.". McCain's choice of a running mate showed very poor judgment on his part. It has been roundly criticized even by members of his own party. Sarah Palin is nowhere near educated enough for the job of Vice President. She is far too partisan, impulsive, provincial, divisive and undignified for the job, and doesn't even understand its constitutional role. She is naive and recklessly ambitious. She lacks vitally important foreign policy background. McCain is 72 years old and has already gone through four bouts of cancer (the highly malignant and often recurrent melanoma variety). Should he die in office, the woefully-unprepared Palin would become President. The thought of Sarah Palin running our economy, our military, conducting negotiations with seasoned adversaries like Putin, Ahmedinijad, Chavez or Kim Jong Il, and having her fingers on our nuclear trigger, is absolutely terrifying. For advice and guidance, she would be relying on the same neocon economic, domestic, and foreign policy staff who have driven our country into the ditch over the past 8 years. McCain professes to be a reformer offering change but his campaign is run by ex-Bush aides and 7 key advisers who are, or have been, powerful lobbyists. With that in mind, it is doubtful he would enact the real change this country so badly needs. For this and for all the other reasons I have already listed above, I CANNOT support John McCain's candidacy for the presidency.
Barack Obama is a man of unproven quantity. He has a limited track record in national politics. His mother was white and raised in America, but his father, who left he and his mother when Obama was only 2, was a black non-practicing Muslim from Kenya. Obama was born in Hawaii (www.factcheck.org/, run by the conservative Republican Annenberg Foundation, has seen and verified the birth certificate as authentic), and was named after his father, including his middle name of Hussein. During his early youth, he briefly attended both Muslim and Catholic schools in Indonesia. He was partly raised in Kansas by his white grandparents, and was raised as a Christian. His name and unique background, plus his limited national track record, have caused some cynical and ignorant conservatives angst. They wrongly believe he is a Muslim and would compromise our national values or sell us out. These fearful, suspicion-laden types ignore the fact that he has done almost everything RIGHT in his life and his story embodies the American dream. He should be applauded rather than condemned for his life style and choices. He went through college, attended Harvard Law School, and was even President of the Harvard Law Review. Instead of grabbing an easily-obtainable cushy corporate law job after college, he decided instead to unselfishly help poor and minority victims of plant closings on Chicago's south side by becoming a community organizer. This was for very low pay, but it helped these people find other work and showed them ways to take part in and get the system to work for them. In the mid '90s, he ran for Illinois state office, was elected, and in 2004 was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he has continued his fight for "the little guy," a fight he is now attempting to wage from the White House. He married and fathered two young girls and became a member of a Christian church in Chicago. His then-pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is well known in religious circles for a long and distinguished career in Christian charity. But this minister made some remarks critical of the United States, its role in the world, and its inaction on poverty which were controversial and at times over the top. This unfortunately cast a shadow on Obama himself, particularly among cynical right-wingers, who were looking for something negative to throw at him anyway, and has made them question his patriotism. But no one can question Obama's devotion to help those without a real voice. Like JFK in the 1960s, Obama has reached out to the young and disenfranchised and has inspired a huge wave of them to become involved in our political process. He is tremendously reasoned, articulate, and an inspirational and charismatic speaker. His economic policies aim to provide opportunity from the bottom up and stand in stark contrast to the neocon Republican preference for aiding the wealthy while basically ignoring everyone else. With roughly 1 in 7 of us uninsured or underinsured and health costs steadily rising, he has developed a national health insurance plan to get EVERYBODY insured. He has demonstrated broad vision amd tremendous understanding of economic, military, and world affairs strategy. He prefers to build consensus and be inclusive rather than resorting to divisiveness and exclusion. His economic plan provides much-needed tax relief for the middle class and poor, the backbone of our economy, and his health care plan aims at universality and cost control, much like the rest of the industrialized world has enjoyed for many years. He was absolutely correct in his initial opposition to the Iraq war, and for all the right reasons. He draws advice from a wide array of superb, proven sources like Warren Buffett, Robert Reich, Joe Biden, Robert Rubin, and many others. Republican military and foreign affairs expert COLIN POWELL HAS EVEN ENDORSED HIM, as have Republicans like Susan Eisenhower, Scott McClellan, and a number of others. All cite his intellect and steady, composed manner of studying and dealing with problems as an important reason for their support. Were OBAMA to die in office, he would, unlike McCain, leave the country in very good hands. Experienced and competent Joe Biden would become President, and the cabinet would be filled with able and proven producers not of the disastrous neocon realm.
Obama has expressed the strong desire to revamp our federal government, cut out inefficient programs, and greatly reduce the power and influence of special interests lobbyists. He has pledged to return the Judicial branch to its pre-Bush nonpartisan status. Obama is pro-choice, which concerns me because I view abortion on demand as a form of murder for convenience. But I am encouraged greatly by the fact that he is pledged to provide much better sex education and will push strongly for other alternatives to abortion. He is devoted to important quality of life issues like higher wages, better educational opportunities, and health care for all, not just the privileged few. I find that, for all of these reasons, Barack Obama is the better choice for President, and so I hereby endorse BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT. But there is one more very important reason I do this.
The United States, more often than any other country in the world, is looked up to for its opportunity and moral leadership. How, I ask, can we rightfully and convincingly claim to be bastion of morality and opportunity if we deny a candidate the office of President solely because of his or her ancestry, race, gender, or creed? We demonstrated religious tolerance by electing a Catolic, JFK, President in 1960. After a past history of slavery, bigotry, and civil rights strife, we can now demonstrate racial tolerance by electing our first black President. I CHOOSE BARACK OBAMA NOT JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, BUT BECAUSE HE IS A VERY COMPETENT, INTELLIGENT, FAIR-MINDED AND ENERGETIC PERSON WHO JUST HAPPENS TO BE BLACK.
Electing a qualified black man President will send a powerful signal across the entire globe: The United States is TRULY an open and desirable country, where freedom, opportunity, and equality really DO exist for ALL! Though Christian and American, Obama is viewed with curiosity and interest by many moderates throughout the Muslim world. What better way to demonstrate to the Muslim peoples that America is NOT the "great Satan" which many of their extremists portray us as, than to elect Obama President? As evidenced in my blog from last week, Europeans and others view Obama as a unique type of "world citizen" which appeals to them. But last, and definitely not least, electing Obama will prove a powerful blessing to our own black citizens. It will prove they are NOT automatically shut out of our system. It will raise the bar for them and inspire them to take part in and contribute to America as never before. It will show they really BELONG are truly VALUED for their intelligence and vision, not merely for their athletic ability or entertainment purposes.
This is why I say "ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT ON NOVEMBER 4!" Thank you.
There is never a perfect candidate for President. No one candidate has all the correct answers. Once in office, he or she will invariably make mistakes. That is inevitable human nature. However, this year, there is a clear difference and choice between candidates for a number of compelling reasons, and I have made mine.
After 8 years of unrestricted free trade, economic policies brazenly favoring the wealthy and big business (including disastrous deregulation and much corporate welfare through numerous unquestioned, non-bid military contracts); a political and domestic policy based on fear, blatant partisanship, the curtailment of rights granted under our Constitution, and overreaching expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch; a foreign policy predicated on pre-emptive military strikes and non-communication with hostile powers, plus a very expensive, unnecessary, and unpopular war in Iraq, more than 80% of us correctly feel our country has been on the wrong track. We crave and are in desperate need of real change, not just the cosmetic type some would offer.
Unrestricted free trade has caused entire plants and millions of good paying American jobs to leave this country for China, India, Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, and other countries. It has led to wages in this country becoming stagnant or even declining. Productivity here has risen steadily in the past 8 years, but wages have not kept pace. The costs of energy, health care, pharmaceuticals, food, and education have skyrocketed, with no relief in sight. Huge tax breaks given to the wealthy and to large corporations have not resulted in the creation of millions of high paying new jobs here, as President Bush and his neoconservative Republican allies promised early in his first term. Instead, corporate excesses and greed have become rampant. Our overall standard of living has fallen, not risen. We are NOT better off today than we were 8 years ago! The "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive military strikes (that we have the right to attack other countries without provocation if we consider them to be a threat) has isolated us from the rest of the world and damaged our relations with them. As applied in Iraq, it has all but destroyed any moderate Arab or Muslim support we may have once had in the Middle East. It is shameful behavior more analogous to Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin than to that of Washington, Jefferson, or Wilson. It has proven to be economically unsustainable. Worse yet, it may encourage similar future action from countries like Russia or China.
John McCain is a passionate man who tremendously loves this country. He is a true-life hero, having suffered greatly but having stood firm during years of torture and captivity in North Vietnam as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam conflict. He is a staunch supporter of the right to life for the innocent unborn. Yet he is also very militaristic and an avowed advocate of the Bush doctrine. He is viewed as bellicose and pushy by those outside our border. On QUALITY OF LIFE issues, he usually sides with the wealthy and big business, whose policies and practices the past 8 years have diminished the quality of life for the majority of us, who are in the categories of middle class or poor. He advocates more huge tax cuts for the rich and large corporations. His tax plan gives only very, very minimal tax cuts for those earning less than $111,646 per year (which is where the overwhelming majority of us in the country are). FOR A DETAILED TABLE OF BOTH CANDIDATES' TAX PLANS, jot down and go to this website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html.
McCain himself has often looked tired, crotchety, and confused during the course of his campaign, He has mixed up important details like the history of and differences between Iraq's Sunni and Shia populations. He has shown an impulsive erraticness in his approach toward dealing with the recent mortgage banking collapse, first "suspending" his campaign to fly to Washington for a meaningless conference with Bush, and then resuming it. His campaign has not been managed well. Early on, it was virtually broke and today its fundraising is still dwarfed by his opponent's. His campaign has been mainly a series of negative attacks and misstatements about his opponent. He has done liitle to sell himself or his policies other than manufacture numerous silly distractions, like "lipstick on a pig" and "Joe the (fake) Plumber.". McCain's choice of a running mate showed very poor judgment on his part. It has been roundly criticized even by members of his own party. Sarah Palin is nowhere near educated enough for the job of Vice President. She is far too partisan, impulsive, provincial, divisive and undignified for the job, and doesn't even understand its constitutional role. She is naive and recklessly ambitious. She lacks vitally important foreign policy background. McCain is 72 years old and has already gone through four bouts of cancer (the highly malignant and often recurrent melanoma variety). Should he die in office, the woefully-unprepared Palin would become President. The thought of Sarah Palin running our economy, our military, conducting negotiations with seasoned adversaries like Putin, Ahmedinijad, Chavez or Kim Jong Il, and having her fingers on our nuclear trigger, is absolutely terrifying. For advice and guidance, she would be relying on the same neocon economic, domestic, and foreign policy staff who have driven our country into the ditch over the past 8 years. McCain professes to be a reformer offering change but his campaign is run by ex-Bush aides and 7 key advisers who are, or have been, powerful lobbyists. With that in mind, it is doubtful he would enact the real change this country so badly needs. For this and for all the other reasons I have already listed above, I CANNOT support John McCain's candidacy for the presidency.
Barack Obama is a man of unproven quantity. He has a limited track record in national politics. His mother was white and raised in America, but his father, who left he and his mother when Obama was only 2, was a black non-practicing Muslim from Kenya. Obama was born in Hawaii (www.factcheck.org/, run by the conservative Republican Annenberg Foundation, has seen and verified the birth certificate as authentic), and was named after his father, including his middle name of Hussein. During his early youth, he briefly attended both Muslim and Catholic schools in Indonesia. He was partly raised in Kansas by his white grandparents, and was raised as a Christian. His name and unique background, plus his limited national track record, have caused some cynical and ignorant conservatives angst. They wrongly believe he is a Muslim and would compromise our national values or sell us out. These fearful, suspicion-laden types ignore the fact that he has done almost everything RIGHT in his life and his story embodies the American dream. He should be applauded rather than condemned for his life style and choices. He went through college, attended Harvard Law School, and was even President of the Harvard Law Review. Instead of grabbing an easily-obtainable cushy corporate law job after college, he decided instead to unselfishly help poor and minority victims of plant closings on Chicago's south side by becoming a community organizer. This was for very low pay, but it helped these people find other work and showed them ways to take part in and get the system to work for them. In the mid '90s, he ran for Illinois state office, was elected, and in 2004 was elected to the U.S. Senate, where he has continued his fight for "the little guy," a fight he is now attempting to wage from the White House. He married and fathered two young girls and became a member of a Christian church in Chicago. His then-pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is well known in religious circles for a long and distinguished career in Christian charity. But this minister made some remarks critical of the United States, its role in the world, and its inaction on poverty which were controversial and at times over the top. This unfortunately cast a shadow on Obama himself, particularly among cynical right-wingers, who were looking for something negative to throw at him anyway, and has made them question his patriotism. But no one can question Obama's devotion to help those without a real voice. Like JFK in the 1960s, Obama has reached out to the young and disenfranchised and has inspired a huge wave of them to become involved in our political process. He is tremendously reasoned, articulate, and an inspirational and charismatic speaker. His economic policies aim to provide opportunity from the bottom up and stand in stark contrast to the neocon Republican preference for aiding the wealthy while basically ignoring everyone else. With roughly 1 in 7 of us uninsured or underinsured and health costs steadily rising, he has developed a national health insurance plan to get EVERYBODY insured. He has demonstrated broad vision amd tremendous understanding of economic, military, and world affairs strategy. He prefers to build consensus and be inclusive rather than resorting to divisiveness and exclusion. His economic plan provides much-needed tax relief for the middle class and poor, the backbone of our economy, and his health care plan aims at universality and cost control, much like the rest of the industrialized world has enjoyed for many years. He was absolutely correct in his initial opposition to the Iraq war, and for all the right reasons. He draws advice from a wide array of superb, proven sources like Warren Buffett, Robert Reich, Joe Biden, Robert Rubin, and many others. Republican military and foreign affairs expert COLIN POWELL HAS EVEN ENDORSED HIM, as have Republicans like Susan Eisenhower, Scott McClellan, and a number of others. All cite his intellect and steady, composed manner of studying and dealing with problems as an important reason for their support. Were OBAMA to die in office, he would, unlike McCain, leave the country in very good hands. Experienced and competent Joe Biden would become President, and the cabinet would be filled with able and proven producers not of the disastrous neocon realm.
Obama has expressed the strong desire to revamp our federal government, cut out inefficient programs, and greatly reduce the power and influence of special interests lobbyists. He has pledged to return the Judicial branch to its pre-Bush nonpartisan status. Obama is pro-choice, which concerns me because I view abortion on demand as a form of murder for convenience. But I am encouraged greatly by the fact that he is pledged to provide much better sex education and will push strongly for other alternatives to abortion. He is devoted to important quality of life issues like higher wages, better educational opportunities, and health care for all, not just the privileged few. I find that, for all of these reasons, Barack Obama is the better choice for President, and so I hereby endorse BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT. But there is one more very important reason I do this.
The United States, more often than any other country in the world, is looked up to for its opportunity and moral leadership. How, I ask, can we rightfully and convincingly claim to be bastion of morality and opportunity if we deny a candidate the office of President solely because of his or her ancestry, race, gender, or creed? We demonstrated religious tolerance by electing a Catolic, JFK, President in 1960. After a past history of slavery, bigotry, and civil rights strife, we can now demonstrate racial tolerance by electing our first black President. I CHOOSE BARACK OBAMA NOT JUST BECAUSE HE IS BLACK, BUT BECAUSE HE IS A VERY COMPETENT, INTELLIGENT, FAIR-MINDED AND ENERGETIC PERSON WHO JUST HAPPENS TO BE BLACK.
Electing a qualified black man President will send a powerful signal across the entire globe: The United States is TRULY an open and desirable country, where freedom, opportunity, and equality really DO exist for ALL! Though Christian and American, Obama is viewed with curiosity and interest by many moderates throughout the Muslim world. What better way to demonstrate to the Muslim peoples that America is NOT the "great Satan" which many of their extremists portray us as, than to elect Obama President? As evidenced in my blog from last week, Europeans and others view Obama as a unique type of "world citizen" which appeals to them. But last, and definitely not least, electing Obama will prove a powerful blessing to our own black citizens. It will prove they are NOT automatically shut out of our system. It will raise the bar for them and inspire them to take part in and contribute to America as never before. It will show they really BELONG are truly VALUED for their intelligence and vision, not merely for their athletic ability or entertainment purposes.
This is why I say "ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT ON NOVEMBER 4!" Thank you.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
US ELECTION: A BRITISH VIEW
REMEMBER TO VISIT www.factcheck.org/ REGULARLY TO CHECK ON THE ACCURACY OF ALL THE POLITICAL ADS YOU SEE AND HEAR!
We don't often have a chance to see what others outside our country have to say about our elections. I thank my sharp young Canadian friend Erin Moneypenny for sharing this revealing and interesting editorial by Jonathan Freedland in a recent issue of the British newspaper, "The Guardian." This paper is read by a large number of their ruling Labour Party voters. Freedland writes...
"If Sarah Palin defies the conventional wisdom that says elections are determined by the top of the ticket, and somehow wins this for McCain, what will be the reaction? Yes, blue-state America will go into mourning once again, feeling estranged in its own country. A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African-Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama with all his conspicuous gifts could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president.
But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain, and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.
The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11.
Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was 'Drill, baby, drill,' as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.
If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cjeney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.
Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, this may well change.
Suddenly, Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is not with only one ruling clique, but with Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.
And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that 'the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race'.
Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likeable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, 'historical decline'. Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is 'not about the issues.'
Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the 'candidate of Europe' and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it."
WOW---pretty thought-provoking! What are your thoughts on this, readers?
NEXT WEEK: MY ENDORSEMENT FOR PRESIDENT!
We don't often have a chance to see what others outside our country have to say about our elections. I thank my sharp young Canadian friend Erin Moneypenny for sharing this revealing and interesting editorial by Jonathan Freedland in a recent issue of the British newspaper, "The Guardian." This paper is read by a large number of their ruling Labour Party voters. Freedland writes...
"If Sarah Palin defies the conventional wisdom that says elections are determined by the top of the ticket, and somehow wins this for McCain, what will be the reaction? Yes, blue-state America will go into mourning once again, feeling estranged in its own country. A generation of young Americans - who back Obama in big numbers - will turn cynical, concluding that politics doesn't work after all. And, most depressing, many African-Americans will decide that if even Barack Obama with all his conspicuous gifts could not win, then no black man can ever be elected president.
But what of the rest of the world? This is the reaction I fear most. For Obama has stirred an excitement around the globe unmatched by any American politician in living memory. Polling in Germany, France, Britain, and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama.
The crowd of 200,000 that rallied to hear him in Berlin in July did so not only because of his charisma, but also because they know he, like the majority of the world's population, opposed the Iraq war. McCain supported it, peddling the lie that Saddam was linked to 9/11.
Non-Americans sense that Obama will not ride roughshod over the international system but will treat alliances and global institutions seriously: McCain wants to bypass the United Nations in favour of a US-friendly League of Democracies. McCain might talk a good game on climate change, but a repeated floor chant at the Republican convention was 'Drill, baby, drill,' as if the solution to global warming were not a radical rethink of the US's entire energy system but more offshore oil rigs.
If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cjeney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.
Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, this may well change.
Suddenly, Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is not with only one ruling clique, but with Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for.
And the manner of that decision will matter, too. If it is deemed to have been about race - that Obama was rejected because of his colour - the world's verdict will be harsh. In that circumstance, Slate's Jacob Weisberg wrote recently, international opinion would conclude that 'the United States had its day, but in the end couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race'.
Even if it's not ethnic prejudice, but some other aspect of the culture wars, that proves decisive, the point still holds. For America to make a decision as grave as this one - while the planet boils and with the US fighting two wars - on the trivial basis that a hockey mom is likeable and seems down to earth, would be to convey a lack of seriousness, a fleeing from reality, that does indeed suggest a nation in, to quote Weisberg, 'historical decline'. Let's not forget, McCain's campaign manager boasts that this election is 'not about the issues.'
Of course I know that even to mention Obama's support around the world is to hurt him. Incredibly, that large Berlin crowd damaged Obama at home, branding him the 'candidate of Europe' and making him seem less of a patriotic American. But what does that say about today's America, that the world's esteem is now unwanted? If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it."
WOW---pretty thought-provoking! What are your thoughts on this, readers?
NEXT WEEK: MY ENDORSEMENT FOR PRESIDENT!
Saturday, October 11, 2008
BEWARE: THE FRUITCAKES ARE OUT!
REMEMBER TO VISIT www.factcheck.com/ REGULARLY TO CHECK THE ACCURACY OF ALL THE POLITICAL ADS YOU SEE AND HEAR!
Beware: The fruitcakes are out. In abundance. Now what am I talking about? Just look at some of the loony extremists attending recent Palin/McCain rallies. They are wackos! These are vicious, angry, mouthy, frustrated, thoughtless, intolerant, ill-informed people. They represent the worst, darkest, most fanatical elements of the far-right reactionary segment of today's much-too-socially-conservative Republican Party. These people are fearful and full of hate. They are on a hunt for scapegoats and are hungry for persecution. They are suspicious and mistrustful, and are irrationally focusing their sights on Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other prominent Democrats. These hard-hearted misfits are reminiscent of Hitler's brown-shirted SA Storm Troopers in Nazi Germany, circa early-mid 1930s. They are the types of small-minded and fearful individuals who have burned books, and even their opponents at the stake in previous eras. Many call themselves Christians and believe it is their sacred duty to combat all that they view as evil. I question the authenticity of their Christianity, though, for Christ NEVER advocated attacking or killing other people! The strongest action HE ever undertook was overturning the money-changers' tables at the Temple. The rage today's far-right fanatics express is psychotic. They must be held in check before they begin widespread attacks on those not meeting their approval. In effect, they advocate a new Dark Ages in American politics. But they are UN-American and MUST be defeated on November 4 and kept out of power!
Immature, irresponsible, and cynical politicians like the ever-opportunistic demagogue Sarah Palin, and her now mean-spirited running mate John McCain, are recklessly stirring up these fanatics with non-stop negative campaigning. They infer Barack Obama associates with "domestic terrorists" and is funded by Palestinian radicals. They say he follows preachers who "hate America", and many of these McCain/Palin followers make a point of mentioning Obama's middle name, Hussein, as though that in itself makes him suspect and somehow less American. Whereas Obama's approach has been to rightfully attack on issues and positions, the McCain camp has been practicing a deliberate and coordinated use of the politics of personal attack and character assassination. This repeated fanning of the flames of fear and hatred has incited their crowds to extreme reactions. This is the politics of witchhunt and destruction, not honest discussion and consensus-building. Just this week, after Palin made her ridiculous "domestic terrorist" charge at Obama, cries of "terrorist!" and "kill him!" were heard coming from the crowd. At a McCain rally in Lakeville, MN, a raging misguided man shouted out, "I'm MAD! Obama and Pelosi are pushing us down the road to socialism"! Another one asked, "Why can't we just line these people up"? One idiot woman even said, "I don't trust Obama. He's an Arab"! That very same crowd even BOOED McCain when he tried to set the matter straight on Obama! And, at a re-election rally in Georgia for Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss (the same one who unseated paraplegic war hero Max Cleland a few years ago by claiming that Cleland was "soft on terrorism"), one crazy woman yelled out, "Bomb Obama"! Clearly, this calculated use of negative campaigning by the McCain camp has gotten way out of control.
Occurrences like these appear to lend a lot of credence to my claim 2 weeks ago that we may be heading down the path to FASCISM rather than socialism. I seem to be hearing the march of jack boots coming ever closer. What are YOUR thoughts on this out there, people? Just click on comments right below this blog. You don't have to identify yourself. Use a pseudonym if you like. Thank you.
Beware: The fruitcakes are out. In abundance. Now what am I talking about? Just look at some of the loony extremists attending recent Palin/McCain rallies. They are wackos! These are vicious, angry, mouthy, frustrated, thoughtless, intolerant, ill-informed people. They represent the worst, darkest, most fanatical elements of the far-right reactionary segment of today's much-too-socially-conservative Republican Party. These people are fearful and full of hate. They are on a hunt for scapegoats and are hungry for persecution. They are suspicious and mistrustful, and are irrationally focusing their sights on Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and other prominent Democrats. These hard-hearted misfits are reminiscent of Hitler's brown-shirted SA Storm Troopers in Nazi Germany, circa early-mid 1930s. They are the types of small-minded and fearful individuals who have burned books, and even their opponents at the stake in previous eras. Many call themselves Christians and believe it is their sacred duty to combat all that they view as evil. I question the authenticity of their Christianity, though, for Christ NEVER advocated attacking or killing other people! The strongest action HE ever undertook was overturning the money-changers' tables at the Temple. The rage today's far-right fanatics express is psychotic. They must be held in check before they begin widespread attacks on those not meeting their approval. In effect, they advocate a new Dark Ages in American politics. But they are UN-American and MUST be defeated on November 4 and kept out of power!
Immature, irresponsible, and cynical politicians like the ever-opportunistic demagogue Sarah Palin, and her now mean-spirited running mate John McCain, are recklessly stirring up these fanatics with non-stop negative campaigning. They infer Barack Obama associates with "domestic terrorists" and is funded by Palestinian radicals. They say he follows preachers who "hate America", and many of these McCain/Palin followers make a point of mentioning Obama's middle name, Hussein, as though that in itself makes him suspect and somehow less American. Whereas Obama's approach has been to rightfully attack on issues and positions, the McCain camp has been practicing a deliberate and coordinated use of the politics of personal attack and character assassination. This repeated fanning of the flames of fear and hatred has incited their crowds to extreme reactions. This is the politics of witchhunt and destruction, not honest discussion and consensus-building. Just this week, after Palin made her ridiculous "domestic terrorist" charge at Obama, cries of "terrorist!" and "kill him!" were heard coming from the crowd. At a McCain rally in Lakeville, MN, a raging misguided man shouted out, "I'm MAD! Obama and Pelosi are pushing us down the road to socialism"! Another one asked, "Why can't we just line these people up"? One idiot woman even said, "I don't trust Obama. He's an Arab"! That very same crowd even BOOED McCain when he tried to set the matter straight on Obama! And, at a re-election rally in Georgia for Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss (the same one who unseated paraplegic war hero Max Cleland a few years ago by claiming that Cleland was "soft on terrorism"), one crazy woman yelled out, "Bomb Obama"! Clearly, this calculated use of negative campaigning by the McCain camp has gotten way out of control.
Occurrences like these appear to lend a lot of credence to my claim 2 weeks ago that we may be heading down the path to FASCISM rather than socialism. I seem to be hearing the march of jack boots coming ever closer. What are YOUR thoughts on this out there, people? Just click on comments right below this blog. You don't have to identify yourself. Use a pseudonym if you like. Thank you.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
ARE WE SOCIALIST?
REMEMBER TO VISIT www.factcheck.org/ REGULARLY TO CHECK ON THE ACCURACY OF ALL THE POLITICAL ADS YOU SEE AND HEAR!
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."
- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875
"The needs of the many far outweigh the wants of the few."
- Star Trek's Mr. Spock
Is the United States a socialist country? Are we heading in the direction of socialism? We hear claims of this from time to time, but is it true? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, socialism is defined as "1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a system...in which there is no private property 3 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."
Karl Marx, the father of communism, outlined a number of changes in humankind's economic and governmental development. His advocated goal, communism, would be achieved when humankind would live in peace and harmony and would work together for the common good to share equally all that was produced. In other words, people would work according to their strength, talent, and education or skill level, and do so with the mindset that what they were working on or producing would be for everybody's benefit instead of only their own individual wealth or standing. Everybody would take from the goods produced according to their own needs. Because everyone was working toward and looking out for everyone's benefit as a whole, everybody would have all that they need and no one would try to hoard, or dominate or control anyone else. All would be provided for and happy with this utopic heaven on earth. Marx condemned our current state of capitalism for its way of having the rich dominate and control the poor and even use them so as to make money off of them. He pointed out that wealthy land and business owners created laws for their own benefit and even used religion to keep those beneath them docile, in an effort to maintain control over these poor and working people. He predicted that the poor and workers would eventually rise up to overcome the rich and take power from them. He said this long process would first develop into socialism (an in-between stage), and then, finally, communism. Writing in the mid-to-late 19th century, Marx was undeniably a brilliant observer and analyst of his time. I have always maintained that, had he been a physician, he would have been an excellent diagnostician. But I have also maintained that history has proven him to have been a rather questionable pharmacist, as the prescriptions he recommended to cure the evils of capitalism were based on faulty notions and were excessively harsh and repressively implemented. Marx's goal was beautiful, but the path to it taken by his followers like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, was less than desirable. In fact, it was unnecessarily brutal and bloody. In fairness to Marx, writing when he did, there is no way he could possibly have forseen this, nor the kinder and gentler changes capitalism later underwent (i.e. its evolution into present-day welfare state form) Marx was never able to take into account humankind's inherent individuality and degrees of self-interest. That is why his theory is fundamentally flawed, albeit in many ways a very good and desirable blueprint for building on.
Because of the repression and excesses which have occurred under previous governments espousing socialism (notably those of the Soviet Union, Red China, and North Korea), the term "socialist" has taken on a negative meaning here in the United States. It is stereotyped as meaning high taxes, no private property, and government control. As such, most things labeled as socialist have usually been given the kiss of death. This is unfortunate, because the method of labeling things socialist is not always accurate and has been used repeatedly by fearful conservative or reactionary groups to stifle change and kill or delay new or progressive ideas. Labor unions were first called socialist by those business owners favoring low wages, long hours, and child labor. Unions were thus unable to gain a foothold here until the 1930s, many decades after they came into prominence in Europe. We would never have developed a massive middle class without these unions. So, "socialist" or not, they were a good thing and the country prospered tremendously by adopting them. Social Security and Unemployment Compensation were once labeled socialist too because they were funded by taxes and administered by the government. I would hate to think of this country without these programs today! Medicare was inferred to be socialist by fearful, ignorant conservatives with no vision (like Ronald Reagan in 1964), and it has helped millions of seniors since its adoption in 1965. Today, every single western industrialized country but the United States provides universal health care for its citizens. Even poor Cuba does this! But here, National Health Insurance is being inaccurately called "socialized medicine" by paranoid and self-centered members of the far right who see nothing wrong with corporate bailouts but hate the very thought of any taxpayer funded program for regular people. Special interest groups profiting off health care products and services (and therefore off of human suffering and misery) also join in on the labeling. These conservatives are using this unfair and inaccurate name of "socialized", of course, to scare off voter support for the plan. Nothing could be further from the truth than this allegation of socialism, as both insurance companies and private companies are included in it.
Hardcore conservative Republican right-wingers, free trade and free market advocates, as well as highly self-centered and overly individualistic people love to call almost anything or anybody they oppose, or that has any amount of government regulation, socialist. They do this out of fear, selfishness, desire to make unrestricted profit, and to get others to support keeping the government out of it altogether. According to the definition of socialism I have previously listed, are government laws regulating vehicle speed limits socialistic? Of course not. They are common sense laws put in place for safety and the common good. Are vehicle seat belt or seat belt usage requirements socialistic? Of course not. Once again, while they may seem a nuisance, they are in place for safety and common good. Is our public education, our postal system, or our military socialistic? Absolutely NOT! While mainly government run, they are again in place for the common good. Are Medicare, Medicaid, or even Barack Obama's proposed National Health Insurance plan socialistic? Absolutely NOT! They too are, and will be, in place for the common good. Yes, all of these programs cost money, and all are funded by tax dollars. But to not have them in place would unfairly deprive millions of people of things nobody should be without. The bellyaching conservatives don't realize it, but it is their own excessive selfishness which CREATES the types of government-run or even socialist programs they hate and fear so much! They are, in effect, their own worst enemy! What it boils down to, plain and simple, is that some people are just too damn selfish, foolish, uncooperative, and overly individualistic, period.
So is the United States a socialist country? Are we heading in the direction of socialism? ABSOLUTELY NOT, and don't let ANY liar or fool tell you otherwise!!!
"From each according to his ability; to each according to his need."
- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875
"The needs of the many far outweigh the wants of the few."
- Star Trek's Mr. Spock
Is the United States a socialist country? Are we heading in the direction of socialism? We hear claims of this from time to time, but is it true? According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, socialism is defined as "1 any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a system...in which there is no private property 3 a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done."
Karl Marx, the father of communism, outlined a number of changes in humankind's economic and governmental development. His advocated goal, communism, would be achieved when humankind would live in peace and harmony and would work together for the common good to share equally all that was produced. In other words, people would work according to their strength, talent, and education or skill level, and do so with the mindset that what they were working on or producing would be for everybody's benefit instead of only their own individual wealth or standing. Everybody would take from the goods produced according to their own needs. Because everyone was working toward and looking out for everyone's benefit as a whole, everybody would have all that they need and no one would try to hoard, or dominate or control anyone else. All would be provided for and happy with this utopic heaven on earth. Marx condemned our current state of capitalism for its way of having the rich dominate and control the poor and even use them so as to make money off of them. He pointed out that wealthy land and business owners created laws for their own benefit and even used religion to keep those beneath them docile, in an effort to maintain control over these poor and working people. He predicted that the poor and workers would eventually rise up to overcome the rich and take power from them. He said this long process would first develop into socialism (an in-between stage), and then, finally, communism. Writing in the mid-to-late 19th century, Marx was undeniably a brilliant observer and analyst of his time. I have always maintained that, had he been a physician, he would have been an excellent diagnostician. But I have also maintained that history has proven him to have been a rather questionable pharmacist, as the prescriptions he recommended to cure the evils of capitalism were based on faulty notions and were excessively harsh and repressively implemented. Marx's goal was beautiful, but the path to it taken by his followers like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, was less than desirable. In fact, it was unnecessarily brutal and bloody. In fairness to Marx, writing when he did, there is no way he could possibly have forseen this, nor the kinder and gentler changes capitalism later underwent (i.e. its evolution into present-day welfare state form) Marx was never able to take into account humankind's inherent individuality and degrees of self-interest. That is why his theory is fundamentally flawed, albeit in many ways a very good and desirable blueprint for building on.
Because of the repression and excesses which have occurred under previous governments espousing socialism (notably those of the Soviet Union, Red China, and North Korea), the term "socialist" has taken on a negative meaning here in the United States. It is stereotyped as meaning high taxes, no private property, and government control. As such, most things labeled as socialist have usually been given the kiss of death. This is unfortunate, because the method of labeling things socialist is not always accurate and has been used repeatedly by fearful conservative or reactionary groups to stifle change and kill or delay new or progressive ideas. Labor unions were first called socialist by those business owners favoring low wages, long hours, and child labor. Unions were thus unable to gain a foothold here until the 1930s, many decades after they came into prominence in Europe. We would never have developed a massive middle class without these unions. So, "socialist" or not, they were a good thing and the country prospered tremendously by adopting them. Social Security and Unemployment Compensation were once labeled socialist too because they were funded by taxes and administered by the government. I would hate to think of this country without these programs today! Medicare was inferred to be socialist by fearful, ignorant conservatives with no vision (like Ronald Reagan in 1964), and it has helped millions of seniors since its adoption in 1965. Today, every single western industrialized country but the United States provides universal health care for its citizens. Even poor Cuba does this! But here, National Health Insurance is being inaccurately called "socialized medicine" by paranoid and self-centered members of the far right who see nothing wrong with corporate bailouts but hate the very thought of any taxpayer funded program for regular people. Special interest groups profiting off health care products and services (and therefore off of human suffering and misery) also join in on the labeling. These conservatives are using this unfair and inaccurate name of "socialized", of course, to scare off voter support for the plan. Nothing could be further from the truth than this allegation of socialism, as both insurance companies and private companies are included in it.
Hardcore conservative Republican right-wingers, free trade and free market advocates, as well as highly self-centered and overly individualistic people love to call almost anything or anybody they oppose, or that has any amount of government regulation, socialist. They do this out of fear, selfishness, desire to make unrestricted profit, and to get others to support keeping the government out of it altogether. According to the definition of socialism I have previously listed, are government laws regulating vehicle speed limits socialistic? Of course not. They are common sense laws put in place for safety and the common good. Are vehicle seat belt or seat belt usage requirements socialistic? Of course not. Once again, while they may seem a nuisance, they are in place for safety and common good. Is our public education, our postal system, or our military socialistic? Absolutely NOT! While mainly government run, they are again in place for the common good. Are Medicare, Medicaid, or even Barack Obama's proposed National Health Insurance plan socialistic? Absolutely NOT! They too are, and will be, in place for the common good. Yes, all of these programs cost money, and all are funded by tax dollars. But to not have them in place would unfairly deprive millions of people of things nobody should be without. The bellyaching conservatives don't realize it, but it is their own excessive selfishness which CREATES the types of government-run or even socialist programs they hate and fear so much! They are, in effect, their own worst enemy! What it boils down to, plain and simple, is that some people are just too damn selfish, foolish, uncooperative, and overly individualistic, period.
So is the United States a socialist country? Are we heading in the direction of socialism? ABSOLUTELY NOT, and don't let ANY liar or fool tell you otherwise!!!
Saturday, September 27, 2008
THE FASCIST STATES OF AMERICA?
REMEMBER TO VISIT www.factcheck.org/ REGULARLY TO CHECK THE ACCURACY OF ALL THE POLITICAL ADS YOU SEE AND HEAR!
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
-George Santayana
Back in the Vietnam War era, I remember hearing members of the "New Left" referring to the United States as being a "fascist" state. They did so for our having waged an imperialistic war, for the benefit of our military/industrial complex, in a small Asian country whose people we looked down upon, using a large number of poor white and minority soldiers to do the job, with Wall Street profiting handsomely off the venture. They claimed the government was lying to the people, withholding and distorting information on the war. Though much of the New Left's claims were borne out with the publication of "The Pentagon Papers" in 1971, I still regarded the allegation that we were a fascist country as having been a bit over the top. But events in our country over the past 8 years have now led myself and others to begin asking: Has the United States of America now become, or is it now becoming, in actuality, the Fascist States of America? There is disturbing evidence to suggest we may, in fact, be undergoing, a troubling transformation.
In a recent study entitled "The Puzzle of Fascism", Eric Williams examines the possibilities we may indeed be sliding into fascism. He lists the definition of fascism as being, "...an authoritarian and nationalistic system of government, intolerant, vicious in practice..." The World Book Encyclopedia defines fascism as "...a form of government headed, in most cases, by a dictator. It involves total government control of political, economic, cultural, religious, and social activities...Fascism allows industry to remain in private ownership, though under government control. Other important features...include extreme patriotism, warlike policies, and persecution of minorities."
Laura Dawn Lewis, a one-time writer for the L.A. Business Journal, is a devout Lutheran who founded the Couples Co., Inc., has lived here, in the United Kingdom, and in Saudi Arabia. She has written a number of pieces on the Middle East and is the author of "Laid Off, Now What?" She has also published a piece called "What Is Fascism?" which outlines and defines it very succinctly. She lists several characteristics of a fascist country, beginning with its REACTIONARY nature (it responds to current circumstances rather than making policy to prevent problems. It puts lies on top of repeated lies until truth becomes unrecognizable, changed, or forgotten altogether). We see ample evidence of this all around us with deceptive advertising in business as well as continual Bush administration and Congressional spin. Specific examples of these are far, far too numerous to mention here, but you and I both know they are plentiful. Another characteristic is CHAUVINISM, where the state has a two-tiered legal system whereby one group receives preferential treatment or more rights than the other, often based on matters of race, creed, or origin. We have seen a number of examples of this over the years. To this criteria I would also add economic standing, as in our system, clearly there is one set of justice for the haves and yet quite another for the have-nots. Another characteristic of these countries is IMPERIALISM, establishing a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by setting up economic and political domination of another state. Definitely, our recent history in Iraq falls under this heading. After all, we blatantly conquered the country without having been attacked by it, destroyed its infrastructure, and then rebuilt it OUR way with OUR contractors so as to ensure we would always have access to and/or influence over its oil. This nifty little plan was first conceived and developed under the auspices of an extreme right-wing think tank, The Project for a New American Century, whose charter members included none other than war criminals Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and a number of other diabolically familiar faces.
Ms. Lewis also lists a number of conditions which foster and nurture fascism within a country. Included among these is INSTABILITY OF CAPITALIST MARKETS. Surely our recent mortgage crises and capital meltdowns fit this bill. Also included is the STRIPPING OF RIGHTS AND WEALTH FROM A SEGMENT OF SOCIETY. Bush and the neocon Republican Party's huge tax cuts for the wealthy, their exporting of good paying American jobs overseas, and their push for tort reform (weakening or removing the public's right or ability to sue major corporations or the government for damages) have all wrenched wealth and rights from the middle class and especially the poor and have given them to the rich. Another condition we have present in abundance is GREED. The trend toward cutting workers' benefits, freezing or lowering wages, exporting jobs, encouraging illegal immigration to keep wages low, the skyrocketing CEO salaries and benefits packages, as well as the fraudulent excesses by corporate giants like Enron, Tyco, World Con, and especially the mortgage meltdown are ample proof of the corruption and greed inherent in our business and government today. Then there is the phenomenon of ORGANIZED PROPAGANDA. We saw and heard mounds of manufactured "evidence" we were barraged with to get us to go to war in Iraq. FOX "News" has become the de facto propaganda arm of the Bush White House, parroting its every pronouncement. Major oil companies and mortgage bankers have all deluged us with widespread ad campaigns to push public opinion in their favor. Need I say more?
Ms. Lewis goes on to list a number of fascism's defining characteristics. First is the meshing of government and business. We see that not only in Iraq but also in the way corporations dominate and work with our government, getting preferential legislative and judicial consideration, lobbying and effectively blackmailing much of Congress, and in some cases even authoring legislation itself, for its own benefit. The recent attempt by Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is another case in point. The demand that Paulson receive an immediate $700 BILLION to spend as he sees fit to prop up the economy WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OR LEGAL REVIEW is the height of arrogance. It was designed to benefit big business and shut the people out of the process altogether. It was a clear present-day attempt to tax WITHOUT REPRESENTATION for the benefit of the few at a cost to nearly all. Another characteristic of fascism is creating or identifying scapegoats to unify a cause. In recent years, Muslims and liberals have been the Bush regime's favorite whipping boys for this purpose in the misleadingly named "war on terror". Yet another is the disdain for human rights. Clearly Bush's excessive Patriot Act allowing for illegal wiretaps and the eventual suspension of habeas corpus easily fit this category. Habeas corpus, the right of an accused to know charges brought against him, and to receive adequate defense and a fair trail, has been a fixture of western law since England's King John first granted it back in 1215. Bush and his paranoid neocon Republican followers (and even that "independent" turncoat Joe LIEberman) have effectively trashed the concept. Their use of torture as well as the unlawful kidnapping and detention of foreign nationals, as well as their decision to implement provisions of the Geneva Convention arbitrarily as they see fit, are glaring examples of their authoritarian nature and total disregard for human rights. Still another characteristic is obsession with national security. We have heard Bush and his cronies use this excuse dozens of times in attempts to withhold information or obstruct justice. One more characteristic is the protection of corporate power. Bush's insistence of retroactive immunity for telecom companies who illegally supplied the government with wiretapping and private email data fit in nicely here, as does Bush's attempt to privatize the Iraq War by awarding non-bid contracts worth bilions to murderous corporate campaign donors like Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater, and then allowing them free reign in Iraq. Another defining characteristic is the suppression of labor power. Bush's and the Republicans' advocacy and support of tort reform and outsourcing jobs cripple labor, as do Bush's support and encouragement for illegal immigration. Still another one is a controlled mass media. Bush tried his best to shut down PBS, declaring it to be too liberal. His White House has issued nothing but spin throughout his tenure and has even distributed talking points to its ever-friendly propaganda arm, FOX "News". Then there is the characteristic of corruption. It has been abundant in our federal government all throughout Bush's tenure. There has been rampant cronyism in the White House itself, with the appointments of Alberto Gonzales and Mike Brown to positions where they had no business being, in addition to the blatant ideological litmus tests in evidence over at Bush's Justice Department. But the most dangerous characteristic of all is fraudulent elections. There is strong evidence to suggest that Busah stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections. In 2000, it was "hanging chads", roads to polling places in heavily black and Democratic sections in Florida being closed down, and Bush's brother's Florida Secretary of State Kathleen Harris hurriedly certifying election results before all recounts had been completed. In 2004, it was the removal of voting machines in heavily black and Democratic areas of Ohio to new locations in the more Republican areas. This caused extremely long lines and therefore a falloff in voting in the Democratic areas. In both cases Bush "won" election by very narrow margins.
The classic example of a fascist state is Nazi Germany, with its strong authoritarian government, its arrogant nationalism, secret police, press censorship, persecution and murder of Jews and political opponents, collusion between Hitler and the Krupp industrial empire, and its aggressive war against Poland and the rest of the world. Thankfully, we in this country have not yet seen murderous excesses like those of Nazi Germany. But disturbing parallels between our government and industry are beginning to emerge. We must not slide into fascism, even if our variety of it IS milder than that of Hitler's Germany. There is a dangerous new militarism and intolerance of dissent creeping into our national psyche. These are unhealthy developments which must be reversed. There is a tendency for us to act unilaterally regarding other nations. There is a school of thought which says the President must have almost unlimited power and that the Legislative and Judicial branches of government should be subordinate to him. That paternalistic and authoritarian attitude must be rejected altogether, and is one in a growing list of reasons why the blustery, trigger-happy and militaristic John McCain must NOT be elected President November 4!!!
"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."
-George Santayana
Back in the Vietnam War era, I remember hearing members of the "New Left" referring to the United States as being a "fascist" state. They did so for our having waged an imperialistic war, for the benefit of our military/industrial complex, in a small Asian country whose people we looked down upon, using a large number of poor white and minority soldiers to do the job, with Wall Street profiting handsomely off the venture. They claimed the government was lying to the people, withholding and distorting information on the war. Though much of the New Left's claims were borne out with the publication of "The Pentagon Papers" in 1971, I still regarded the allegation that we were a fascist country as having been a bit over the top. But events in our country over the past 8 years have now led myself and others to begin asking: Has the United States of America now become, or is it now becoming, in actuality, the Fascist States of America? There is disturbing evidence to suggest we may, in fact, be undergoing, a troubling transformation.
In a recent study entitled "The Puzzle of Fascism", Eric Williams examines the possibilities we may indeed be sliding into fascism. He lists the definition of fascism as being, "...an authoritarian and nationalistic system of government, intolerant, vicious in practice..." The World Book Encyclopedia defines fascism as "...a form of government headed, in most cases, by a dictator. It involves total government control of political, economic, cultural, religious, and social activities...Fascism allows industry to remain in private ownership, though under government control. Other important features...include extreme patriotism, warlike policies, and persecution of minorities."
Laura Dawn Lewis, a one-time writer for the L.A. Business Journal, is a devout Lutheran who founded the Couples Co., Inc., has lived here, in the United Kingdom, and in Saudi Arabia. She has written a number of pieces on the Middle East and is the author of "Laid Off, Now What?" She has also published a piece called "What Is Fascism?" which outlines and defines it very succinctly. She lists several characteristics of a fascist country, beginning with its REACTIONARY nature (it responds to current circumstances rather than making policy to prevent problems. It puts lies on top of repeated lies until truth becomes unrecognizable, changed, or forgotten altogether). We see ample evidence of this all around us with deceptive advertising in business as well as continual Bush administration and Congressional spin. Specific examples of these are far, far too numerous to mention here, but you and I both know they are plentiful. Another characteristic is CHAUVINISM, where the state has a two-tiered legal system whereby one group receives preferential treatment or more rights than the other, often based on matters of race, creed, or origin. We have seen a number of examples of this over the years. To this criteria I would also add economic standing, as in our system, clearly there is one set of justice for the haves and yet quite another for the have-nots. Another characteristic of these countries is IMPERIALISM, establishing a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by setting up economic and political domination of another state. Definitely, our recent history in Iraq falls under this heading. After all, we blatantly conquered the country without having been attacked by it, destroyed its infrastructure, and then rebuilt it OUR way with OUR contractors so as to ensure we would always have access to and/or influence over its oil. This nifty little plan was first conceived and developed under the auspices of an extreme right-wing think tank, The Project for a New American Century, whose charter members included none other than war criminals Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, and a number of other diabolically familiar faces.
Ms. Lewis also lists a number of conditions which foster and nurture fascism within a country. Included among these is INSTABILITY OF CAPITALIST MARKETS. Surely our recent mortgage crises and capital meltdowns fit this bill. Also included is the STRIPPING OF RIGHTS AND WEALTH FROM A SEGMENT OF SOCIETY. Bush and the neocon Republican Party's huge tax cuts for the wealthy, their exporting of good paying American jobs overseas, and their push for tort reform (weakening or removing the public's right or ability to sue major corporations or the government for damages) have all wrenched wealth and rights from the middle class and especially the poor and have given them to the rich. Another condition we have present in abundance is GREED. The trend toward cutting workers' benefits, freezing or lowering wages, exporting jobs, encouraging illegal immigration to keep wages low, the skyrocketing CEO salaries and benefits packages, as well as the fraudulent excesses by corporate giants like Enron, Tyco, World Con, and especially the mortgage meltdown are ample proof of the corruption and greed inherent in our business and government today. Then there is the phenomenon of ORGANIZED PROPAGANDA. We saw and heard mounds of manufactured "evidence" we were barraged with to get us to go to war in Iraq. FOX "News" has become the de facto propaganda arm of the Bush White House, parroting its every pronouncement. Major oil companies and mortgage bankers have all deluged us with widespread ad campaigns to push public opinion in their favor. Need I say more?
Ms. Lewis goes on to list a number of fascism's defining characteristics. First is the meshing of government and business. We see that not only in Iraq but also in the way corporations dominate and work with our government, getting preferential legislative and judicial consideration, lobbying and effectively blackmailing much of Congress, and in some cases even authoring legislation itself, for its own benefit. The recent attempt by Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is another case in point. The demand that Paulson receive an immediate $700 BILLION to spend as he sees fit to prop up the economy WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OR LEGAL REVIEW is the height of arrogance. It was designed to benefit big business and shut the people out of the process altogether. It was a clear present-day attempt to tax WITHOUT REPRESENTATION for the benefit of the few at a cost to nearly all. Another characteristic of fascism is creating or identifying scapegoats to unify a cause. In recent years, Muslims and liberals have been the Bush regime's favorite whipping boys for this purpose in the misleadingly named "war on terror". Yet another is the disdain for human rights. Clearly Bush's excessive Patriot Act allowing for illegal wiretaps and the eventual suspension of habeas corpus easily fit this category. Habeas corpus, the right of an accused to know charges brought against him, and to receive adequate defense and a fair trail, has been a fixture of western law since England's King John first granted it back in 1215. Bush and his paranoid neocon Republican followers (and even that "independent" turncoat Joe LIEberman) have effectively trashed the concept. Their use of torture as well as the unlawful kidnapping and detention of foreign nationals, as well as their decision to implement provisions of the Geneva Convention arbitrarily as they see fit, are glaring examples of their authoritarian nature and total disregard for human rights. Still another characteristic is obsession with national security. We have heard Bush and his cronies use this excuse dozens of times in attempts to withhold information or obstruct justice. One more characteristic is the protection of corporate power. Bush's insistence of retroactive immunity for telecom companies who illegally supplied the government with wiretapping and private email data fit in nicely here, as does Bush's attempt to privatize the Iraq War by awarding non-bid contracts worth bilions to murderous corporate campaign donors like Halliburton, KBR, and Blackwater, and then allowing them free reign in Iraq. Another defining characteristic is the suppression of labor power. Bush's and the Republicans' advocacy and support of tort reform and outsourcing jobs cripple labor, as do Bush's support and encouragement for illegal immigration. Still another one is a controlled mass media. Bush tried his best to shut down PBS, declaring it to be too liberal. His White House has issued nothing but spin throughout his tenure and has even distributed talking points to its ever-friendly propaganda arm, FOX "News". Then there is the characteristic of corruption. It has been abundant in our federal government all throughout Bush's tenure. There has been rampant cronyism in the White House itself, with the appointments of Alberto Gonzales and Mike Brown to positions where they had no business being, in addition to the blatant ideological litmus tests in evidence over at Bush's Justice Department. But the most dangerous characteristic of all is fraudulent elections. There is strong evidence to suggest that Busah stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections. In 2000, it was "hanging chads", roads to polling places in heavily black and Democratic sections in Florida being closed down, and Bush's brother's Florida Secretary of State Kathleen Harris hurriedly certifying election results before all recounts had been completed. In 2004, it was the removal of voting machines in heavily black and Democratic areas of Ohio to new locations in the more Republican areas. This caused extremely long lines and therefore a falloff in voting in the Democratic areas. In both cases Bush "won" election by very narrow margins.
The classic example of a fascist state is Nazi Germany, with its strong authoritarian government, its arrogant nationalism, secret police, press censorship, persecution and murder of Jews and political opponents, collusion between Hitler and the Krupp industrial empire, and its aggressive war against Poland and the rest of the world. Thankfully, we in this country have not yet seen murderous excesses like those of Nazi Germany. But disturbing parallels between our government and industry are beginning to emerge. We must not slide into fascism, even if our variety of it IS milder than that of Hitler's Germany. There is a dangerous new militarism and intolerance of dissent creeping into our national psyche. These are unhealthy developments which must be reversed. There is a tendency for us to act unilaterally regarding other nations. There is a school of thought which says the President must have almost unlimited power and that the Legislative and Judicial branches of government should be subordinate to him. That paternalistic and authoritarian attitude must be rejected altogether, and is one in a growing list of reasons why the blustery, trigger-happy and militaristic John McCain must NOT be elected President November 4!!!
Saturday, September 20, 2008
TIME TO PUT 9/11 BEHIND US!
REMEMBER TO VISIT www.factcheck.org/ REGULARLY TO CHECK ON THE ACCURACY OF THE POLITICAL ADS YOU SEE AND HEAR!
It has now been more than 7 full years since the dastardly 9/11 attacks. The time has come to finally put 9/11 permanently behind us.
We must never forget that 2,975 innocent people lost their lives that fateful day. We must never forget that a small but growing band of fundamentalist Islamic extremists is dedicated to our destruction, and we must continue to be vigilant against future attacks. We must always remember that the attack was conceived and executed by Osama Bin Laden's terrorist group, al Qaeda. But it is high time for us to end our paranoia resulting from the attack, as it has led us to neglect our real focus and has prompted us to embark on a number of expensive and mistaken other ventures.
Joe Biden nailed it perfectly when he chastised fearmongerer Rudy Giuliani for being obsessed with the attack and only having "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" to say about public policy. Cheap, self-serving, unstable, and paranoid politicians like Giuliani have had a field day with 9/11, most of them being conservatives and members of the neocon faction of the Republican Party which has dominated that party and much of public debate ever since George W. Bush took office. Since 2002, the GOP/conservative bloc has passed or attempted to pass unnecessarily repressive and invasive laws like the slyly-named Patriot Act to legalize wiretapping and email, library, and bank account surveillence. The writ of habeas corpus (the right of an accused to have actual charges brought against him, to have an adequate defense, and the right to have an actual fair trial) has even been suspended for those suspected of being terrorists. This means, of course, that by accusing you of terrorism, the government can arrest you, lock you up and detain you indefinitely, and you are powerless to do anything about it. Habeas corpus was first created in 1215 by England's King John, and has been the basis for western law ever since! In one fell swoop, then, this rash Republican -led action overturned nearly 800 years of established democratic and constitutional law. A generation ago, this same bloc were warning us of the dangers of George Orwell's "Big Brother", the all-knowing, pervasive and invasive government in the novel 1984. By 2002, these same paranoidal elements had BECOME Big Brother! They went to such excess, in fact, the Supreme Court even overturned parts of the Patriot Act as being unconstitutional and way over the top.
The Republicans didn't just stop with infringing on our rights, though. They have not hesitated to use the fear generated by 9/11 again and again to pass their agenda and for their own political gain. By accusing opponents of their platform or candidates of the other party of being unpatriotic or soft on terrorism, these renegade Republicans were able to pass a number of controversial tax-breaks-for-the-rich and military appropriations bills and non-bid military contracts worth billions for corporate campaign donors. They were also able to scare voters into electing their candidates, for a time. These paranoid neocon Republicans still exert a strong grip on their party, and they're simply not happy unless they're bullying someone or depriving us of our constitutional rights. The time has come for this insanity to end.
This use of 9/11 for political gain by the Republicans has been highly hypocritical in a number of ways. First, their claim to be the party best suited to provide our national security is absolute, 100% nonsense. It was THEY who controlled the Congress and White House on 9/11 when we were attacked, NOT the Democrats. In fact, the outgoing Clinton administration had even foiled an attempted attack on the L.A. International airport in early 2000, and had provided warning about Bin Laden planning an attack on our soil to the incoming Bush administration. This warning went ignored. The morning of August 6, 2001, Bush was briefed that intelligence had detected an imminent Bin Laden attack, possibly using airplanes. This, too, was not acted upon. One month later came 9/11. In light of this background, the Republican claim that they are best suited for our protection and that the Democrats are soft on terrorism is an absolute lie. Second, were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocon Republicans REALLY interested in protecting us from another attack on our soil, they would have sealed and strengthened our port and border security ON 9/11, and that is something THEY HAVE NEVER DONE THEN OR SINCE! To this very day, our southern border remains wide open, a place where virtually anyone or anything can cross it unnoticed and unopposed. Plus, to this very day, only 1% of all the cargo ships unloading goods in our country receive a customs inspection. Why? Because Bush and his big business multinational corporate allies want to ensure a steady stream of cheap illegal immigrant labor floods into the country. This ensures that wage levels will remain low and breaks the back of un ion labor. This also proves the GOP's and Bush's rhetoric on national security is a lie. These people would have us believe that al Qaeda was a monolithic, all-powerful force on the verge of destroying us. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are a ragtag, disunited group of small, separate entities united only in their hatred of America. At no point were they in collusion withSaddam Hussein's Iraq and they are not in league with Ahmedinijad's Iran now. WERE they the all-powerful group Bush and Cheney always infer, our borders would have been properly tightened up on 9/11 AFTERNOON! But Bush and Cheney used 9/11 as an excuse to go after what they really wanted in the first place: Iraqi OIL. $1 trillion later, the rest is history. In view of all this missinformation and these missteps, how can ANYONE accept the Republican Party's assertion that they are the only ones capable of protecting us from terrorism?
This Friday night, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain will hold their first Presidential Debate, on the topic of Foreign Affairs. Obama will undoubtedly outline his broad, strategic vision, much of which has been directly or indirectly endorsed by many former Secretaries of State serving both Republican and Democratic past administrations. John McCain will undoubtedly try to convince us that due to his 26 year tenure in Washington, he has a better grip on foreign policy than Obama. As a militaristic and combative tactician cut from the Bush mold, it is highly doubtful he will be able to convince voters that his stale and imperfect strategy is the best course to follow. Fearmongering and jingoism are not tactics the public will buy any more.
2,975 innocents died on 9/11. 2,350 died in the bloody attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, but people weren't saying "Remember 12/7" a full 7 years after THAT attack. Nor did that attack lead to the suspension of habeas corpus, or cause us to attack another country with absolutely no ties to the Pearl Harbor attack. Have we overreacted, or acted inappropriately because of 9/11? Since we have all but abandoned the search for Bin Laden, have not destroyed al Qaeda, and invaded Iraq for her oil, it would certainly seem so!
We must remain vigilant and strong to prevent another 9/11-style occurrence, but we do not have to attack other countries, erect prison camps, torture prisoners, or trample the Constitution to do so. It is downright unpatriotic for the Republicans, including Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, to continue using 9/11 to mislead the public, and to selfishly and hypocritically continue using that terrible tragedy for their own perceived political benefit. We must stop playing political games with our anti-terrorism effort. We must bring our troops HOME from the immoral and costly Iraq debacle and strengthen them in Afghanistan, so as to finish the job on Bin Laden and al Qaeda we should have finished six years ago. Above and beyond all else, though, it is high time we put 9/11 BEHIND US once and for all!
It has now been more than 7 full years since the dastardly 9/11 attacks. The time has come to finally put 9/11 permanently behind us.
We must never forget that 2,975 innocent people lost their lives that fateful day. We must never forget that a small but growing band of fundamentalist Islamic extremists is dedicated to our destruction, and we must continue to be vigilant against future attacks. We must always remember that the attack was conceived and executed by Osama Bin Laden's terrorist group, al Qaeda. But it is high time for us to end our paranoia resulting from the attack, as it has led us to neglect our real focus and has prompted us to embark on a number of expensive and mistaken other ventures.
Joe Biden nailed it perfectly when he chastised fearmongerer Rudy Giuliani for being obsessed with the attack and only having "a noun, a verb, and 9/11" to say about public policy. Cheap, self-serving, unstable, and paranoid politicians like Giuliani have had a field day with 9/11, most of them being conservatives and members of the neocon faction of the Republican Party which has dominated that party and much of public debate ever since George W. Bush took office. Since 2002, the GOP/conservative bloc has passed or attempted to pass unnecessarily repressive and invasive laws like the slyly-named Patriot Act to legalize wiretapping and email, library, and bank account surveillence. The writ of habeas corpus (the right of an accused to have actual charges brought against him, to have an adequate defense, and the right to have an actual fair trial) has even been suspended for those suspected of being terrorists. This means, of course, that by accusing you of terrorism, the government can arrest you, lock you up and detain you indefinitely, and you are powerless to do anything about it. Habeas corpus was first created in 1215 by England's King John, and has been the basis for western law ever since! In one fell swoop, then, this rash Republican -led action overturned nearly 800 years of established democratic and constitutional law. A generation ago, this same bloc were warning us of the dangers of George Orwell's "Big Brother", the all-knowing, pervasive and invasive government in the novel 1984. By 2002, these same paranoidal elements had BECOME Big Brother! They went to such excess, in fact, the Supreme Court even overturned parts of the Patriot Act as being unconstitutional and way over the top.
The Republicans didn't just stop with infringing on our rights, though. They have not hesitated to use the fear generated by 9/11 again and again to pass their agenda and for their own political gain. By accusing opponents of their platform or candidates of the other party of being unpatriotic or soft on terrorism, these renegade Republicans were able to pass a number of controversial tax-breaks-for-the-rich and military appropriations bills and non-bid military contracts worth billions for corporate campaign donors. They were also able to scare voters into electing their candidates, for a time. These paranoid neocon Republicans still exert a strong grip on their party, and they're simply not happy unless they're bullying someone or depriving us of our constitutional rights. The time has come for this insanity to end.
This use of 9/11 for political gain by the Republicans has been highly hypocritical in a number of ways. First, their claim to be the party best suited to provide our national security is absolute, 100% nonsense. It was THEY who controlled the Congress and White House on 9/11 when we were attacked, NOT the Democrats. In fact, the outgoing Clinton administration had even foiled an attempted attack on the L.A. International airport in early 2000, and had provided warning about Bin Laden planning an attack on our soil to the incoming Bush administration. This warning went ignored. The morning of August 6, 2001, Bush was briefed that intelligence had detected an imminent Bin Laden attack, possibly using airplanes. This, too, was not acted upon. One month later came 9/11. In light of this background, the Republican claim that they are best suited for our protection and that the Democrats are soft on terrorism is an absolute lie. Second, were Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocon Republicans REALLY interested in protecting us from another attack on our soil, they would have sealed and strengthened our port and border security ON 9/11, and that is something THEY HAVE NEVER DONE THEN OR SINCE! To this very day, our southern border remains wide open, a place where virtually anyone or anything can cross it unnoticed and unopposed. Plus, to this very day, only 1% of all the cargo ships unloading goods in our country receive a customs inspection. Why? Because Bush and his big business multinational corporate allies want to ensure a steady stream of cheap illegal immigrant labor floods into the country. This ensures that wage levels will remain low and breaks the back of un ion labor. This also proves the GOP's and Bush's rhetoric on national security is a lie. These people would have us believe that al Qaeda was a monolithic, all-powerful force on the verge of destroying us. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are a ragtag, disunited group of small, separate entities united only in their hatred of America. At no point were they in collusion withSaddam Hussein's Iraq and they are not in league with Ahmedinijad's Iran now. WERE they the all-powerful group Bush and Cheney always infer, our borders would have been properly tightened up on 9/11 AFTERNOON! But Bush and Cheney used 9/11 as an excuse to go after what they really wanted in the first place: Iraqi OIL. $1 trillion later, the rest is history. In view of all this missinformation and these missteps, how can ANYONE accept the Republican Party's assertion that they are the only ones capable of protecting us from terrorism?
This Friday night, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain will hold their first Presidential Debate, on the topic of Foreign Affairs. Obama will undoubtedly outline his broad, strategic vision, much of which has been directly or indirectly endorsed by many former Secretaries of State serving both Republican and Democratic past administrations. John McCain will undoubtedly try to convince us that due to his 26 year tenure in Washington, he has a better grip on foreign policy than Obama. As a militaristic and combative tactician cut from the Bush mold, it is highly doubtful he will be able to convince voters that his stale and imperfect strategy is the best course to follow. Fearmongering and jingoism are not tactics the public will buy any more.
2,975 innocents died on 9/11. 2,350 died in the bloody attack at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, but people weren't saying "Remember 12/7" a full 7 years after THAT attack. Nor did that attack lead to the suspension of habeas corpus, or cause us to attack another country with absolutely no ties to the Pearl Harbor attack. Have we overreacted, or acted inappropriately because of 9/11? Since we have all but abandoned the search for Bin Laden, have not destroyed al Qaeda, and invaded Iraq for her oil, it would certainly seem so!
We must remain vigilant and strong to prevent another 9/11-style occurrence, but we do not have to attack other countries, erect prison camps, torture prisoners, or trample the Constitution to do so. It is downright unpatriotic for the Republicans, including Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, to continue using 9/11 to mislead the public, and to selfishly and hypocritically continue using that terrible tragedy for their own perceived political benefit. We must stop playing political games with our anti-terrorism effort. We must bring our troops HOME from the immoral and costly Iraq debacle and strengthen them in Afghanistan, so as to finish the job on Bin Laden and al Qaeda we should have finished six years ago. Above and beyond all else, though, it is high time we put 9/11 BEHIND US once and for all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
