IS THIS THE YEAR?
Bill Clinton wasn't supposed to win in 1992. After the first Gulf War, Bush-Daddy had such high approval numbers that a lot of potential Democratic candidates decided to wait four more years. It was left to an unknown governor from a small Southern state to take on the GOP - and win. The right wing was shocked and disgusted, but they behaved themselves for a while. They were sure that Clinton would fall on his face and fail to govern effectively. Remember poor Jimmy Carter?
Only he didn't fail. His pragmatic and responsible approach to governing actually started to make things better. After a year in office, after the dire wailing from the right about his first budget, after the idea of taxing people more who can afford to pay more started to make sense, they regrouped. They started a non-stop smear campaign that lasted seven more years. Sadly, it worked.
When Al Gore should have been elected President - and was, if you counted our votes instead of Scalia's one corrupt vote - our nation was stolen away from us by essentially a new political element in this country, the Fascists.
You may or may not know what fascism is. It is a political system that emphasizes nationalism and conformity and especially a unification of industrial, military, and political leadership. It is a totalitarian approach to government in which a powerful elite exercise power for the growth of the nation, a nation of loyal and subservient and usually white people.
This is exactly what the Republican Party has become. They promote defense policy to benefit defense companies - like the Star Wars boondoggle and the Halliburton/Blackwater/Etc. contractor army they sent to Iraq. They promote health policy to benefit the health corporations that use 1/6 of our national income to give us a life expectancy that ranks 49th in the world, just above Albania. Those darn Canadians, with a national health care system? Seventh.
And these traitorous fascists are now Obama's political opponents. But they have some problems of their own. Eight years of right wing power nearly destroyed our economy, produced unjustifiable wars that weakened our military defense and disgraced us before the world, and shredded our hallowed human rights, including a de facto suspension of any right to a fair trial and unchecked government surveillance of all our private communications. Anyone who was paying attention knows that Republicans can never be believed or trusted again.
Fortunately for the fascists, there are some people you CAN fool all of the time. Apparently they make up about 25% of the American electorate. Probably they are descendants of the American Loyalists, the folks who fought against the Founding Fathers to remain loyal to a King.
But Obama is working hard to do the right things. And the right things will eventually start to work - just as they did for Clinton. A final withdrawal from a stable Iraq. A final defeat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. An improving economy. Better financial regulations to protect our pocketbooks and our financial systems from Wall Street parasites. A strategy for national energy independence. A health care system motivated by providing health care instead of by profiting obscenely from the sick and the dying.
In time, things will get better, and it will become obvious that the scare tactics of the right wing were just self-serving lies. In time, the right wingers will be exposed as the democracy-hating, soulless, corrupt monsters they are.
Is this the year?
I certainly hope so.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Sunday, October 18, 2009
HOW QUICK WE FORGET
There are those - Stanley McChrystal are you listening? - who are whimpering about Obama's delay in committing to a new strategy (really an ACTUAL strategy) in Afghanistan.
How quick we forget.
A year ago, before the election, we were experiencing a total meltdown in the financial sector. I don't know how things were going for you, but the bank where I have my mortgage and checking account went bankrupt! Out of business! Sold to the highest bidder!
And dear old Iraq was still killing Americans despite McCain's devout mantra "The Surge Is Working!"
And the polar icecap was melting and the national deficit was exceeding $1 billion and the NSA was tapping all our phone calls and prisoners were being tortured at Gitmo, etc.
Obama inherited a HUGE mess to clean up.
He's stabilized the economy.
Our military troops in Iraq are relatively safe on their bases. (Support Our Troops!! Bring Them Home To Their Families!!)
And Obama is working to develop a successful and intelligent strategy in Afghanistan.
So chill out, dudes. Remember, the goddam GOP created a HUGE mess.
Or have you forgotten already?
There are those - Stanley McChrystal are you listening? - who are whimpering about Obama's delay in committing to a new strategy (really an ACTUAL strategy) in Afghanistan.
How quick we forget.
A year ago, before the election, we were experiencing a total meltdown in the financial sector. I don't know how things were going for you, but the bank where I have my mortgage and checking account went bankrupt! Out of business! Sold to the highest bidder!
And dear old Iraq was still killing Americans despite McCain's devout mantra "The Surge Is Working!"
And the polar icecap was melting and the national deficit was exceeding $1 billion and the NSA was tapping all our phone calls and prisoners were being tortured at Gitmo, etc.
Obama inherited a HUGE mess to clean up.
He's stabilized the economy.
Our military troops in Iraq are relatively safe on their bases. (Support Our Troops!! Bring Them Home To Their Families!!)
And Obama is working to develop a successful and intelligent strategy in Afghanistan.
So chill out, dudes. Remember, the goddam GOP created a HUGE mess.
Or have you forgotten already?
Monday, October 12, 2009
SARAH FOR SALE
The last time I posted, I said Sarah Palin might have decided to resign as governor so she could spend more time with her family. I also said she might be hooked on national politics and positioning herself for a 2010 candidacy.
But now I don't think either description really fits the facts.
After the McCain/Palin ticket went down in flames - an oddly appropriate description considering McCain's "Ace" status in losing five aircraft during his military service - Sarah had lucrative offers rolling in from wealthy right wing reptiles all over the country. But as Governor of Alaska she was legally prevented from accepting outside employment. On the other hand, she was incompetent and increasingly unpopular as Governor of Alaska. Why not just quit? Why not indeed.
Well, one might consider that election to a public office implies an obligation to serve if elected. One might consider that running for public office should be done to serve one's country and community. One might consider that promises made during an election campaign are moral obligations that must be kept. One might consider that a public office is a public trust.
"Oh the hell with that. I'm takin' the book deal."
At this point, it's not a question of whether Sarah will run for Pres in 2010. Sarah is not capable of organizing and planning such an effort. The question is whether the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - which apparently does exist - will choose to run her. They have already had spectacular success in electing idiot spokespersons to the White House. Reagan was a corporate shill doing radio promos and hosting "Death Valley Days" before rightwingers decided to rewrite his scripts and bankroll his TV ads all the way to the White House. They still get a certain thrill "down there" when they think about it. Dubya was a complete idiot, but they stole two elections from overly polite and underly patriotic Democrats to put him in the Oval Office. Didn't that work out well? It sure did, if you were a crony collecting federal dollars and chortling over federal tax cuts.
So the question is, will the right wing decide they can elect Sarah? She's infinitely pliable and gullible. Plus. She's unprincipled and self-centered. Plus. She's a whacked out revivalist rapture-lovin' so-called Christian. Plus for the nomination, but maybe a negative for normal voters. Who knows what they will decide?
But one thing we do know, if they do decide they want her.
Sarah is definitely For Sale.
The last time I posted, I said Sarah Palin might have decided to resign as governor so she could spend more time with her family. I also said she might be hooked on national politics and positioning herself for a 2010 candidacy.
But now I don't think either description really fits the facts.
After the McCain/Palin ticket went down in flames - an oddly appropriate description considering McCain's "Ace" status in losing five aircraft during his military service - Sarah had lucrative offers rolling in from wealthy right wing reptiles all over the country. But as Governor of Alaska she was legally prevented from accepting outside employment. On the other hand, she was incompetent and increasingly unpopular as Governor of Alaska. Why not just quit? Why not indeed.
Well, one might consider that election to a public office implies an obligation to serve if elected. One might consider that running for public office should be done to serve one's country and community. One might consider that promises made during an election campaign are moral obligations that must be kept. One might consider that a public office is a public trust.
"Oh the hell with that. I'm takin' the book deal."
At this point, it's not a question of whether Sarah will run for Pres in 2010. Sarah is not capable of organizing and planning such an effort. The question is whether the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - which apparently does exist - will choose to run her. They have already had spectacular success in electing idiot spokespersons to the White House. Reagan was a corporate shill doing radio promos and hosting "Death Valley Days" before rightwingers decided to rewrite his scripts and bankroll his TV ads all the way to the White House. They still get a certain thrill "down there" when they think about it. Dubya was a complete idiot, but they stole two elections from overly polite and underly patriotic Democrats to put him in the Oval Office. Didn't that work out well? It sure did, if you were a crony collecting federal dollars and chortling over federal tax cuts.
So the question is, will the right wing decide they can elect Sarah? She's infinitely pliable and gullible. Plus. She's unprincipled and self-centered. Plus. She's a whacked out revivalist rapture-lovin' so-called Christian. Plus for the nomination, but maybe a negative for normal voters. Who knows what they will decide?
But one thing we do know, if they do decide they want her.
Sarah is definitely For Sale.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
SARAH PALIN
Hmmm.
So Sarah is resigning because she doesn't want to "accept that lame duck status" and "draw a paycheck" and "kind of milk it" and "put Alaskans through that".
Ridiculous. You don't run for public office, particularly a powerful position like Governor of a state, and then resign when you decide not to run for re-election. You have a civic responsibility to serve out your term, to exercise the powers of your office according to the promises you made to the people who voted for you.
Only Sarah knows the real reasons she decided to resign.
It seems to me there are a few possibilities.
First, she may have gotten a taste of national politics and hated it. The timing of the recent Vanity Fair article would support that idea. She was asked to join the GOP ticket. She did. She did her best, and for a brief moment, enthusiasm for her choice lifted GOP poll numbers above the Democrats'. But, in the end, her ticket lost and her own inexperience was blamed as a factor in the loss. Sniping from ex-McCain personnel has been ugly and painful.
Sarah has five children, and Bristol has a newborn Palin grandchild she can't support. I don't know if you've been in a similar situation. I've helped raise four kids, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Sarah Palin has decided that her young family needs her more than Anchorage does these days. She may really have decided to leave public life for a while and to stay home with her kids.
But there are other possibilites.
Sarah may have gotten a taste of national politics and LOVED it! It's quite possible she has offers to do national fundraisers or to be a Fox fake news spokesperson that would get her out of Alaska and onto a national stage. She may simply be quitting her present job because she got a better offer. It would be typical of the faux patriotism displayed by many on the right. Country First -and by Country I mean ME!
Only Sarah really knows what's going on. But it will be easy for the rest of us to tell if either of these guesses is right. Three months from now Sarah will either be (1) in Wasila taking care of her kids while her name fades away from the news or (2) somewhere else - Los Angeles, New York, Dallas - trying to get ready for 2012 candidacy.
I hope she gets the nomination. It would be even better if the 20% of Americans who vote for her in 2012 decide to move to Alaska after she loses.
There's another possibility, considering the moral depravity of the GOP these days. She may be facing some terrible legal or personal crisis. Will she be arrested for leaking classified information to the media? - no, that's Karl Rove's nightmare. Is she facing charges for reaching under a bathroom stall seeking gay sex? - no, that was ex-Senator Larry Craig. Did she disappear on National Nude Hiking Day, with a cover story that she was hiking the Appalachian trail, and then surface tearfully with a confession that she had an Argentinian lover? Are you making this up? No, really, that happened, but it didn't involve Sarah Palin. Still, with GOP lowlifes, it's always a possibility.
Let's see if Sarah ends up spending October 1, 2009 in Wasila or elsewhere. Is she a devoted mother? Or something else?
Hmmm.
So Sarah is resigning because she doesn't want to "accept that lame duck status" and "draw a paycheck" and "kind of milk it" and "put Alaskans through that".
Ridiculous. You don't run for public office, particularly a powerful position like Governor of a state, and then resign when you decide not to run for re-election. You have a civic responsibility to serve out your term, to exercise the powers of your office according to the promises you made to the people who voted for you.
Only Sarah knows the real reasons she decided to resign.
It seems to me there are a few possibilities.
First, she may have gotten a taste of national politics and hated it. The timing of the recent Vanity Fair article would support that idea. She was asked to join the GOP ticket. She did. She did her best, and for a brief moment, enthusiasm for her choice lifted GOP poll numbers above the Democrats'. But, in the end, her ticket lost and her own inexperience was blamed as a factor in the loss. Sniping from ex-McCain personnel has been ugly and painful.
Sarah has five children, and Bristol has a newborn Palin grandchild she can't support. I don't know if you've been in a similar situation. I've helped raise four kids, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Sarah Palin has decided that her young family needs her more than Anchorage does these days. She may really have decided to leave public life for a while and to stay home with her kids.
But there are other possibilites.
Sarah may have gotten a taste of national politics and LOVED it! It's quite possible she has offers to do national fundraisers or to be a Fox fake news spokesperson that would get her out of Alaska and onto a national stage. She may simply be quitting her present job because she got a better offer. It would be typical of the faux patriotism displayed by many on the right. Country First -and by Country I mean ME!
Only Sarah really knows what's going on. But it will be easy for the rest of us to tell if either of these guesses is right. Three months from now Sarah will either be (1) in Wasila taking care of her kids while her name fades away from the news or (2) somewhere else - Los Angeles, New York, Dallas - trying to get ready for 2012 candidacy.
I hope she gets the nomination. It would be even better if the 20% of Americans who vote for her in 2012 decide to move to Alaska after she loses.
There's another possibility, considering the moral depravity of the GOP these days. She may be facing some terrible legal or personal crisis. Will she be arrested for leaking classified information to the media? - no, that's Karl Rove's nightmare. Is she facing charges for reaching under a bathroom stall seeking gay sex? - no, that was ex-Senator Larry Craig. Did she disappear on National Nude Hiking Day, with a cover story that she was hiking the Appalachian trail, and then surface tearfully with a confession that she had an Argentinian lover? Are you making this up? No, really, that happened, but it didn't involve Sarah Palin. Still, with GOP lowlifes, it's always a possibility.
Let's see if Sarah ends up spending October 1, 2009 in Wasila or elsewhere. Is she a devoted mother? Or something else?
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
YOU MIGHT BE A CONSERVATIVE IF ...
How times have changed.
A "conservative" once meant someone who wanted to "conserve" things, to keep things from changing, to preserve things the way they were, especially to limit the size and powers of government. Now so-called "conservatives" are recklessly gambling with the earth's environment despite the clamor of alarm bells from all over the world; smiling in agreement at universal, unsupervised, unconstitutional monitoring of all forms of electronic communication by the federal government; and consenting to spending deficits and shady corruption that truly boggles the mind.
I don't really think they should call themselves "conservatives" any more, or that we should call them "conservatives" either. It isn't fair to the reputations of real conservatives who have something valid to say - and actual ideas.
We should call them by their own term, one that summarizes their intellectual traits and reasoning processes.
Dittoheads.
Let's put it this way: If you haven't caught on yet that Fox News and AM radio are owned and operated by big-money people, who pursue their own interests by lying and especially by distracting ordinary people from reasonable discussion about our own welfare, well, now would be a good time to wake up and smell the stuff that Limbaugh and Savage and Beck and Hannity and Coulter and the rest of the crew are dishing out. They are protecting big-money interests like coal and oil by casting doubt on the truth about global warming.
You might remember how the cigarette companies reacted to the 1965 Surgeon General's Report about smoking. It's deja vu all over again.
Dittoheads, please wake up. The last eight years did happen, and your "conservative" leaders did exercise virtually unlimited powers to implement their destructive ideas. It's time to realize that you have been betrayed by those who knew what lies it would take to ensnare you, and who are absolutely shameless liars.
Wake up, already.
How times have changed.
A "conservative" once meant someone who wanted to "conserve" things, to keep things from changing, to preserve things the way they were, especially to limit the size and powers of government. Now so-called "conservatives" are recklessly gambling with the earth's environment despite the clamor of alarm bells from all over the world; smiling in agreement at universal, unsupervised, unconstitutional monitoring of all forms of electronic communication by the federal government; and consenting to spending deficits and shady corruption that truly boggles the mind.
I don't really think they should call themselves "conservatives" any more, or that we should call them "conservatives" either. It isn't fair to the reputations of real conservatives who have something valid to say - and actual ideas.
We should call them by their own term, one that summarizes their intellectual traits and reasoning processes.
Dittoheads.
Let's put it this way: If you haven't caught on yet that Fox News and AM radio are owned and operated by big-money people, who pursue their own interests by lying and especially by distracting ordinary people from reasonable discussion about our own welfare, well, now would be a good time to wake up and smell the stuff that Limbaugh and Savage and Beck and Hannity and Coulter and the rest of the crew are dishing out. They are protecting big-money interests like coal and oil by casting doubt on the truth about global warming.
You might remember how the cigarette companies reacted to the 1965 Surgeon General's Report about smoking. It's deja vu all over again.
Dittoheads, please wake up. The last eight years did happen, and your "conservative" leaders did exercise virtually unlimited powers to implement their destructive ideas. It's time to realize that you have been betrayed by those who knew what lies it would take to ensnare you, and who are absolutely shameless liars.
Wake up, already.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
VICE PRESIDENT HILARY CLINTON?
Yesterday Oprah Winfrey - following in the sly gotcha-journalism footsteps of Katie "Velvet Fist" Couric - exposed a shocking secret in O's interview of Dr. Jill Biden, wife of new Veep Joe Biden. "Joe Biden had been offered a choice of positions in the new Obama Administration: either Vice President or Secretary of State." Whoa!
Joe quickly tried to shush her up, but it was too late. Now the secret is out.
So Joe could have had Hilary's new job. But think about it. What if he had wanted that job?
It makes sense to me that Obama picked Biden first. Obama was expecting that the main campaign against him would highlight his relative lack of experience in Washington. Although he had spent eight years in the Illinois state senate, he had only been elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. Joe Biden had already been there for 32 years when Barack arrived.
What about Hilary? First elected to the Senate in 2000, she was the junior senator from New York, not as experienced in government as she portrayed herself. And having been demonized for so many years by the right wing, she would face her own questions - unfair and biased questions, to be sure - about her own readiness to lead.
I think Biden was a good choice. No one ever questioned that he would be ready to serve as President if needed. (By the way, Sarah, that's what the Vice President's job is. He's not "in charge of the U.S. Senate". He or she is supposed to be ready to serve as President. Give Colin Powell a call; he'll explain it to you.)
I think things worked out really well. Joe Biden, as Vice President, will return to the Senate chambers, working with his friends and colleagues to achieve the goals of the new Administration. Hilary Clinton will be a dedicated and energetic Secretary of State, working to bring peace to the Middle East, holding the respect of both Israelis and Arabs, resurrecting a peace process started by President Clinton and abandoned by the neocon warmongers.
But what if Joe had wanted to be Secretary of State?
It seems clear from his later actions that Barack Obama tries to reach out to political opponents, and to build unity and consensus wherever possible.
It seems clear that there was a time when Obama was reaching out to his rivals for the Democratic nomination in the same way.
He offered the positions of Vice President and Secretary of State to Joe Biden. Joe decided to stay in Washington and on the Senate floor as Vice President.
He then offered the position of Secretary of State to Hilary Clinton. It seems clear that she was next on his list after Biden.
If Joe had wanted to be Secretary of State, would Obama have offered the Vice Presidency to Hilary Clinton? We can only speculate, but it certainly does make sense.
Vice President Hilary Clinton?
I really think it worked out better this way.
I hope that everything the Obama Administration attempts works out as well.
Our nation and the world could use a change for the better right now.
Yesterday Oprah Winfrey - following in the sly gotcha-journalism footsteps of Katie "Velvet Fist" Couric - exposed a shocking secret in O's interview of Dr. Jill Biden, wife of new Veep Joe Biden. "Joe Biden had been offered a choice of positions in the new Obama Administration: either Vice President or Secretary of State." Whoa!
Joe quickly tried to shush her up, but it was too late. Now the secret is out.
So Joe could have had Hilary's new job. But think about it. What if he had wanted that job?
It makes sense to me that Obama picked Biden first. Obama was expecting that the main campaign against him would highlight his relative lack of experience in Washington. Although he had spent eight years in the Illinois state senate, he had only been elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. Joe Biden had already been there for 32 years when Barack arrived.
What about Hilary? First elected to the Senate in 2000, she was the junior senator from New York, not as experienced in government as she portrayed herself. And having been demonized for so many years by the right wing, she would face her own questions - unfair and biased questions, to be sure - about her own readiness to lead.
I think Biden was a good choice. No one ever questioned that he would be ready to serve as President if needed. (By the way, Sarah, that's what the Vice President's job is. He's not "in charge of the U.S. Senate". He or she is supposed to be ready to serve as President. Give Colin Powell a call; he'll explain it to you.)
I think things worked out really well. Joe Biden, as Vice President, will return to the Senate chambers, working with his friends and colleagues to achieve the goals of the new Administration. Hilary Clinton will be a dedicated and energetic Secretary of State, working to bring peace to the Middle East, holding the respect of both Israelis and Arabs, resurrecting a peace process started by President Clinton and abandoned by the neocon warmongers.
But what if Joe had wanted to be Secretary of State?
It seems clear from his later actions that Barack Obama tries to reach out to political opponents, and to build unity and consensus wherever possible.
It seems clear that there was a time when Obama was reaching out to his rivals for the Democratic nomination in the same way.
He offered the positions of Vice President and Secretary of State to Joe Biden. Joe decided to stay in Washington and on the Senate floor as Vice President.
He then offered the position of Secretary of State to Hilary Clinton. It seems clear that she was next on his list after Biden.
If Joe had wanted to be Secretary of State, would Obama have offered the Vice Presidency to Hilary Clinton? We can only speculate, but it certainly does make sense.
Vice President Hilary Clinton?
I really think it worked out better this way.
I hope that everything the Obama Administration attempts works out as well.
Our nation and the world could use a change for the better right now.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
EVOLUTION
Do you want to hear something really spooky?
Evolution is in the Bible. And so are a whole lot of modern scientific ideas.
Let's sum things up. In the ninteethth century, naturalists explored new ecosystems around the world, and Charles Darwin proposed the idea of species differentiation through natural evolution. In the early twentieth century, red shift measurements of star spectra by Edwin Hubble implied the notion of an expanding universe. And later ideas about nuclear and subnuclear particles defined a theory now known as The Big Bang. It kind of goes like this.
In the beginning, all of the matter and energy of the entire known universe was concentrated in an area of space smaller than an atom. We don't know or understand how this happened, but the evidence points to this as our reality. An explosion into empty space started in darkness, because the density was too great to allow light to propagate. Some time later, energy was converted into nuclear particles like protons and electrons, and some time after that stars formed from the hydrogen gas clouds. Planets formed from supernova debris ejected by early, massive stars. Our own Earth formed as a hot, rocky, impact-scarred planet, later covered with water oceans formed from icy asteroids. Primitive life originated in these oceans, and later developed into land animals.
Now suppose you are Moses. You were found in a reed basket along the river, and raised in the Pharoh's court. You have been educated by the most civilized, most powerful, most sophisticated culture in the Western world.
But you still don't know as much math and science as a typical third grader these days. You don't have numbers like billions and trillions, because you don't have the modern number system invented in the ninth century. You don't know the sun is a star or that planets like Earth move in orbits around stars. You don't know about deep ocean thermal vents or bacteria or kangaroos.
Just suppose that some other being comes to you in a dream, and shows you how the world began. Just suppose your words are passed by word of mouth for many centuries before being written down for the first time. Just suppose even the first hand-copied written Scriptures don't even agree exactly with each other. What would we be left with? Maybe this?
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, let there be Light, and there was light. And first He separated the light from darkness, craeting the stars in the sky. Then He created the Earth, and covered it with seas. Life began in the oceans, as fish. Later forms of life were the amphibians - who moved from the water to the land - and the reptiles. Then mammals appeared on Earth. And finally, last in the chain of life, most recent in the history of this planet, mankind appeared.
I think it's a pretty good description of Evolution, and a whole lot of other stuff. It's spooky.
Why do so-called Christians object to Evolution? It's not because they are defending the Bible. What they are defending is their own egotistical, self-worshiping, sanctimonious desire for the Bible to mean what THEY say it means.
It's one thing to believe in the Bible. Then you approach it with reverence and humility, believing it was inspired by a superhuman, immortal creature far beyond your comprehension. You seek to learn and understand, with the admission that your knowledge will always be limited and imperfect.
It's another thing to say you believe in "a literal interpretation of the Bible". That's just code for "The Bible means EXACTLY WHAT I SAY IT MEANS!" It's kind of a way for a sanctimonious creep to identify himself as a sanctimonious creep.
People who attack attack Evolution aren't defending the Bible or any legitimate religious belief. They are simply showing themselves to be one of two things. They may be timid sheep who do not dare to admit that they are responsible for their own choices, and desperately wish to yield that responsibility to some other authority. Or they may be arrogant, self-worshipping asses.
The Bible itself has no problem with Evolution. In fact, it's kind of amazing that Evolution appeared in it so many centuries before science figured it out.
Do you want to hear something really spooky?
Evolution is in the Bible. And so are a whole lot of modern scientific ideas.
Let's sum things up. In the ninteethth century, naturalists explored new ecosystems around the world, and Charles Darwin proposed the idea of species differentiation through natural evolution. In the early twentieth century, red shift measurements of star spectra by Edwin Hubble implied the notion of an expanding universe. And later ideas about nuclear and subnuclear particles defined a theory now known as The Big Bang. It kind of goes like this.
In the beginning, all of the matter and energy of the entire known universe was concentrated in an area of space smaller than an atom. We don't know or understand how this happened, but the evidence points to this as our reality. An explosion into empty space started in darkness, because the density was too great to allow light to propagate. Some time later, energy was converted into nuclear particles like protons and electrons, and some time after that stars formed from the hydrogen gas clouds. Planets formed from supernova debris ejected by early, massive stars. Our own Earth formed as a hot, rocky, impact-scarred planet, later covered with water oceans formed from icy asteroids. Primitive life originated in these oceans, and later developed into land animals.
Now suppose you are Moses. You were found in a reed basket along the river, and raised in the Pharoh's court. You have been educated by the most civilized, most powerful, most sophisticated culture in the Western world.
But you still don't know as much math and science as a typical third grader these days. You don't have numbers like billions and trillions, because you don't have the modern number system invented in the ninth century. You don't know the sun is a star or that planets like Earth move in orbits around stars. You don't know about deep ocean thermal vents or bacteria or kangaroos.
Just suppose that some other being comes to you in a dream, and shows you how the world began. Just suppose your words are passed by word of mouth for many centuries before being written down for the first time. Just suppose even the first hand-copied written Scriptures don't even agree exactly with each other. What would we be left with? Maybe this?
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, let there be Light, and there was light. And first He separated the light from darkness, craeting the stars in the sky. Then He created the Earth, and covered it with seas. Life began in the oceans, as fish. Later forms of life were the amphibians - who moved from the water to the land - and the reptiles. Then mammals appeared on Earth. And finally, last in the chain of life, most recent in the history of this planet, mankind appeared.
I think it's a pretty good description of Evolution, and a whole lot of other stuff. It's spooky.
Why do so-called Christians object to Evolution? It's not because they are defending the Bible. What they are defending is their own egotistical, self-worshiping, sanctimonious desire for the Bible to mean what THEY say it means.
It's one thing to believe in the Bible. Then you approach it with reverence and humility, believing it was inspired by a superhuman, immortal creature far beyond your comprehension. You seek to learn and understand, with the admission that your knowledge will always be limited and imperfect.
It's another thing to say you believe in "a literal interpretation of the Bible". That's just code for "The Bible means EXACTLY WHAT I SAY IT MEANS!" It's kind of a way for a sanctimonious creep to identify himself as a sanctimonious creep.
People who attack attack Evolution aren't defending the Bible or any legitimate religious belief. They are simply showing themselves to be one of two things. They may be timid sheep who do not dare to admit that they are responsible for their own choices, and desperately wish to yield that responsibility to some other authority. Or they may be arrogant, self-worshipping asses.
The Bible itself has no problem with Evolution. In fact, it's kind of amazing that Evolution appeared in it so many centuries before science figured it out.
LURKING IN THE SHADOWS
There are those who feel some sympathy for Dubya.
Matt Taibbi, for example, in his funny and sad article in Rolling Stone, describes Bush as "desperate" to fulfill expectations of "emotionally absent" parents, and lets Bush end a fictional interview by saying, "I really am sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry."
My aunt, a lifelong Democrat and ardent Hilary supporter, said Bush was pathetic in his final press conference, that he just didn't seem to understand what people were saying about him.
I don't agree.
Bush and his administration are war criminals and thieves, shameless liars and contemptible hypocrites. They deserve to be tried for war crimes by an Iraqi jury - one chosen from outside Baghdad, miles away from the Green Zone. I have no sympathy for them. They are traitors to my country, enemies of the People of These United States.
But they're not failures.
Their goal, from the beginning, was to expand Presidential powers to seek their own ends. They waited until the warnings of a terrorist attack came true, they created wars and a wartime environment to stifle dissent, and they ran rampant through eight years of unchecked power.
Their goal, from the beginning, was to subvert the powers of government to benefit their private sector allies. They created a foreign policy in Iraq designed for the benefit of the oil industry, with more private contractors on the ground than soldiers. Do you remember the Declaration of Principles Agreement promulgated by the White House in November 2007? Permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and preferential treatment for U.S. corporations. That's what it was all about from the beginning. That War On Terror thing? Pure propaganda for the gullible and the unwary. Pipsqueak Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., and the scheming, secular Hussein was never connected to any Islamic fundamentalist group, especially Al-Qaeda.
Their goal, from the beginning, was to protect the oil, gas, and coal industries from any actions to stem global warming. Done. Their goal, from the beginning, was to eviscerate government regulation of the financial industry. Done. Their goal, from the beginning, was to cripple enforcement of any environmental regulations. Done. Their goal, from the beginning, was to reward their backers with irresponsible tax cuts. Done.
Don't call these guys failures. They are spectacularly successful traitors and thieves. They are only failures if you consider that they intended to govern this country with honor and patriotism. Did you really believe that? You are an idiot.
The danger now is that the shady characters who distorted the media and perverted the political process to put these guys into power won't be going away on January 20. They've done pretty well for themselves during these eight years of corruption. And they want that power back.
We won a tremendous victory for our democracy and our nation's future by electing Barack Obama. But don't kid yourself. Bush, the tongue-tied fool, and Cheney, the delusional paranoid, were not the whole problem. The danger now is that the darkest monsters were the ones pulling the strings, manipulating public opinion, insinuating themselves into our government. They're still out there: unrepentant, ravenous, greedy for more.
Keep your eyes open. For there are still dangerous beasts lurking in the shadows.
There are those who feel some sympathy for Dubya.
Matt Taibbi, for example, in his funny and sad article in Rolling Stone, describes Bush as "desperate" to fulfill expectations of "emotionally absent" parents, and lets Bush end a fictional interview by saying, "I really am sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry."
My aunt, a lifelong Democrat and ardent Hilary supporter, said Bush was pathetic in his final press conference, that he just didn't seem to understand what people were saying about him.
I don't agree.
Bush and his administration are war criminals and thieves, shameless liars and contemptible hypocrites. They deserve to be tried for war crimes by an Iraqi jury - one chosen from outside Baghdad, miles away from the Green Zone. I have no sympathy for them. They are traitors to my country, enemies of the People of These United States.
But they're not failures.
Their goal, from the beginning, was to expand Presidential powers to seek their own ends. They waited until the warnings of a terrorist attack came true, they created wars and a wartime environment to stifle dissent, and they ran rampant through eight years of unchecked power.
Their goal, from the beginning, was to subvert the powers of government to benefit their private sector allies. They created a foreign policy in Iraq designed for the benefit of the oil industry, with more private contractors on the ground than soldiers. Do you remember the Declaration of Principles Agreement promulgated by the White House in November 2007? Permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and preferential treatment for U.S. corporations. That's what it was all about from the beginning. That War On Terror thing? Pure propaganda for the gullible and the unwary. Pipsqueak Iraq was never a threat to the U.S., and the scheming, secular Hussein was never connected to any Islamic fundamentalist group, especially Al-Qaeda.
Their goal, from the beginning, was to protect the oil, gas, and coal industries from any actions to stem global warming. Done. Their goal, from the beginning, was to eviscerate government regulation of the financial industry. Done. Their goal, from the beginning, was to cripple enforcement of any environmental regulations. Done. Their goal, from the beginning, was to reward their backers with irresponsible tax cuts. Done.
Don't call these guys failures. They are spectacularly successful traitors and thieves. They are only failures if you consider that they intended to govern this country with honor and patriotism. Did you really believe that? You are an idiot.
The danger now is that the shady characters who distorted the media and perverted the political process to put these guys into power won't be going away on January 20. They've done pretty well for themselves during these eight years of corruption. And they want that power back.
We won a tremendous victory for our democracy and our nation's future by electing Barack Obama. But don't kid yourself. Bush, the tongue-tied fool, and Cheney, the delusional paranoid, were not the whole problem. The danger now is that the darkest monsters were the ones pulling the strings, manipulating public opinion, insinuating themselves into our government. They're still out there: unrepentant, ravenous, greedy for more.
Keep your eyes open. For there are still dangerous beasts lurking in the shadows.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
SENATOR BILL CLINTON?
Hilary has apparently been invited to serve as Secretary of State, and if she accepts, she will have the opportunity to serve her country during an historic period.
It would be a bad idea to appoint Bill Clinton to fill her Senate seat. It would be too much of a temptation for Bill and Hilary to work both sides of the street, trying to create their own version of a foreign policy. But this would lead to mistrust and contention within the Obama administration - confusion that we do not need in these precarious times.
It would be better for Bill to take his turn at Hilary''s side, as a respected advisor within the next Administration, free to speak his mind within the private councils of the Executive Branch. In foreign policy, it is vital to show the world a clear and unified determination of purpose. For Hilary to be Secretary of State, Bill must play a supporting role this time.
I like Caroline Kennedy for the job, myself.
Hilary has apparently been invited to serve as Secretary of State, and if she accepts, she will have the opportunity to serve her country during an historic period.
It would be a bad idea to appoint Bill Clinton to fill her Senate seat. It would be too much of a temptation for Bill and Hilary to work both sides of the street, trying to create their own version of a foreign policy. But this would lead to mistrust and contention within the Obama administration - confusion that we do not need in these precarious times.
It would be better for Bill to take his turn at Hilary''s side, as a respected advisor within the next Administration, free to speak his mind within the private councils of the Executive Branch. In foreign policy, it is vital to show the world a clear and unified determination of purpose. For Hilary to be Secretary of State, Bill must play a supporting role this time.
I like Caroline Kennedy for the job, myself.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
SOME PERSPECTIVE
In the 1970's, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger began a series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, and enacted several SALT agreements with the Soviet Union.
The first, SALT I, limited defensive systems (ABMs) to small areas around capital cities and missile launching sites.
Later agreements brought actual arms reductions and supervised dismantling of nuclear missiles. Great, huh?
Unfortunately for us, the SALT I treaty included a provision that the President could unilaterally suspend it if he thought that would be in the national interest. And that is exactly what George W. Bush did, in December 2001.
Why?
Well, the deployment of a Star Wars system would be in violation of the SALT I treaty, and Star Wars was really, really important to the defense moguls pulling the strings of the Bush administration. They wanted Star Wars because it meant truckloads of money, and because it wouldn't work.
Even the hawkiest hawks had to admit we had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the world several times over. They just couldn't sell Minuteman III, where we put nuclear missiles on trucks and trains and kept them circling around our prairies to keep them from being targeted. They just couldn't sell the N-bomb, which killed people by enhanced neutron radiation but would be detonated high enough to leave buildings standing. Our European allies wouldn't allow it. Sure, it would kill invading Russians in their tanks, with minimized collateral damage. But that collateral damage included our own allies in their own houses, and they just didn't like the idea.
But defensive systems can still be sold. And defensive systems that don''t work are even better. Once you get a few billions invested, you can go back to Congress year after year, exposing vulnerabilities, scaring people, asking for a few billions more. You'll get it.
That's why.
Star Wars has no chance of working. It's a 21st century Maginot Line. It's pork barrel politics combined with the utter insanity of Dr. Strangelove (a character rumored to be based on dear Dr. Kissinger himself).
So why are we doing this? Because it means billions and billions of dollars of federal spending, and it won''t work. It's a scam, and what's worse, it's a deadly threat to our national security.
If you''re a defense contractor, these are the good times. If you're a loyal American, or even a decent human being, you have to ask Why are we doing this to ourselves?, Why have we sabotaged the SALT treaties?, Why are we reigniting the Cold War and stimulating nuclear proliferation around the world?
Why?
The conflict in Georgia is only the first bloody mess we face unless we stop the Star Wars madness.
In the 1970's, Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger began a series of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, and enacted several SALT agreements with the Soviet Union.
The first, SALT I, limited defensive systems (ABMs) to small areas around capital cities and missile launching sites.
Later agreements brought actual arms reductions and supervised dismantling of nuclear missiles. Great, huh?
Unfortunately for us, the SALT I treaty included a provision that the President could unilaterally suspend it if he thought that would be in the national interest. And that is exactly what George W. Bush did, in December 2001.
Why?
Well, the deployment of a Star Wars system would be in violation of the SALT I treaty, and Star Wars was really, really important to the defense moguls pulling the strings of the Bush administration. They wanted Star Wars because it meant truckloads of money, and because it wouldn't work.
Even the hawkiest hawks had to admit we had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the world several times over. They just couldn't sell Minuteman III, where we put nuclear missiles on trucks and trains and kept them circling around our prairies to keep them from being targeted. They just couldn't sell the N-bomb, which killed people by enhanced neutron radiation but would be detonated high enough to leave buildings standing. Our European allies wouldn't allow it. Sure, it would kill invading Russians in their tanks, with minimized collateral damage. But that collateral damage included our own allies in their own houses, and they just didn't like the idea.
But defensive systems can still be sold. And defensive systems that don''t work are even better. Once you get a few billions invested, you can go back to Congress year after year, exposing vulnerabilities, scaring people, asking for a few billions more. You'll get it.
That's why.
Star Wars has no chance of working. It's a 21st century Maginot Line. It's pork barrel politics combined with the utter insanity of Dr. Strangelove (a character rumored to be based on dear Dr. Kissinger himself).
So why are we doing this? Because it means billions and billions of dollars of federal spending, and it won''t work. It's a scam, and what's worse, it's a deadly threat to our national security.
If you''re a defense contractor, these are the good times. If you're a loyal American, or even a decent human being, you have to ask Why are we doing this to ourselves?, Why have we sabotaged the SALT treaties?, Why are we reigniting the Cold War and stimulating nuclear proliferation around the world?
Why?
The conflict in Georgia is only the first bloody mess we face unless we stop the Star Wars madness.
THE WAR ON TERROR
America can not afford to lose the War on Terrorism.
Our problem right now is that the Bush administration has always treated the War on Terrorism as a political program, like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. They have used it shamelessly as a political tool to advance their own agenda, and especially as a source of nearly limitless money to pour into the pockets of their cronies.
We have MORE private contractors in Iraq than troops, getting paid princely sums that far exceed what a poor reservist gets. We spend $BILLIONS in contracts to build bases, to operate oil facilities, to protect civilian personnel. Why is the administration negotiating with the government of Iraq for permission to STAY LONGER? Because it''s worth $BILLIONS to them for us to stay there!!!
A REAL War on Terror would be over by now, if we had used the worldwide sympathy and good will that followed 9/11 to build alliances and intelligence networks and international police agencies to combat terrorism. All legitimate governments fear terrorism, and would cooperate to allow terrorism no safe haven.
But, sickeningly, this corrupt administration has been willing to terrorize its own population in order to advance its right wing dreams: a vast expansion of executive powers, huge sums of money showered on their cronies in the name of national security, occupation of the second largest oil reserves in the world.
We need to win the War on Terror. And to do that we need to get these neocon war criminals out of our government.
America can not afford to lose the War on Terrorism.
Our problem right now is that the Bush administration has always treated the War on Terrorism as a political program, like the War on Poverty or the War on Drugs. They have used it shamelessly as a political tool to advance their own agenda, and especially as a source of nearly limitless money to pour into the pockets of their cronies.
We have MORE private contractors in Iraq than troops, getting paid princely sums that far exceed what a poor reservist gets. We spend $BILLIONS in contracts to build bases, to operate oil facilities, to protect civilian personnel. Why is the administration negotiating with the government of Iraq for permission to STAY LONGER? Because it''s worth $BILLIONS to them for us to stay there!!!
A REAL War on Terror would be over by now, if we had used the worldwide sympathy and good will that followed 9/11 to build alliances and intelligence networks and international police agencies to combat terrorism. All legitimate governments fear terrorism, and would cooperate to allow terrorism no safe haven.
But, sickeningly, this corrupt administration has been willing to terrorize its own population in order to advance its right wing dreams: a vast expansion of executive powers, huge sums of money showered on their cronies in the name of national security, occupation of the second largest oil reserves in the world.
We need to win the War on Terror. And to do that we need to get these neocon war criminals out of our government.
GOODBYE SANTA
There's not really an argument about one fact: in the absence of other factors, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will raise the surface temperature of the earth. And we have been increasing the concentration of one greenhouse gas - carbon dioxide - since the Industrial Revolution caused humankind to switch from firewood to fossil fuels like coal and oil.
(If you disagree with this, please try your own little greenhouse experiment. Park your car in the summer sunshine, roll up all your windows, and sit there for a while. Your car windows absorb infrared energy even more effectively than carbon dioxide gas does, and you've just put yourself inside a little greenhouse. Wait there for a while. See what happens. Please don't bring any pets or small children with you.)
However, since a planetary climate system IS complicated by so many other factors, and since the future is ALWAYS uncertain, it becomes possible for vested interests to confuse any reasonable discussion of the issue. That doesn't change the facts, or the future we face. It only protects those vested interests by delaying the pressure they would face from an informed public.
What vested interests?
Why the Blood for Oil people of course. The ones controlling the present Republican administration and right wing media machine. They've sold out their country and our children''s future - for record profits, though!
It won't be this summer. It might be next summer. But it won't be long now.
The North Polar Ice Cap is going to melt away completely during some summertime in the next few decades. There will be open seas at the North Pole.
Goodbye, Santa.
There's not really an argument about one fact: in the absence of other factors, increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will raise the surface temperature of the earth. And we have been increasing the concentration of one greenhouse gas - carbon dioxide - since the Industrial Revolution caused humankind to switch from firewood to fossil fuels like coal and oil.
(If you disagree with this, please try your own little greenhouse experiment. Park your car in the summer sunshine, roll up all your windows, and sit there for a while. Your car windows absorb infrared energy even more effectively than carbon dioxide gas does, and you've just put yourself inside a little greenhouse. Wait there for a while. See what happens. Please don't bring any pets or small children with you.)
However, since a planetary climate system IS complicated by so many other factors, and since the future is ALWAYS uncertain, it becomes possible for vested interests to confuse any reasonable discussion of the issue. That doesn't change the facts, or the future we face. It only protects those vested interests by delaying the pressure they would face from an informed public.
What vested interests?
Why the Blood for Oil people of course. The ones controlling the present Republican administration and right wing media machine. They've sold out their country and our children''s future - for record profits, though!
It won't be this summer. It might be next summer. But it won't be long now.
The North Polar Ice Cap is going to melt away completely during some summertime in the next few decades. There will be open seas at the North Pole.
Goodbye, Santa.
Monday, February 18, 2008
WHY IRAQ?
There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
Years of effort - and human torture - have produced no evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession or close to possessing nuclear weapons. And the "weapons of mass destruction" obfuscation, designed to allow liars in the Bush administration to talk about poison gas in one sentence and mushroom clouds in the next, didn't even save them. No stockpiles of nerve gas were ever found; no weaponized infectious agents were ever discovered. That hasn't stopped right wingers from continuing to spew lies like "The nerve gas was hidden in Syria!" But sane people realize that there was no imminent threat from Iraq.
Years of effort -and human torture - have produced no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Al Qaeda attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. This makes perfect sense. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, who remained in power only by intimidation and violence. He was a ruthless murderer, and although that is not a technical disqualification from being a religious zealot these days, he was not, in fact, connected with any religious movements. For him to be working with Al Qaeda would be like Ralph Reed to be working with Jack Abramoff - oops, bad example. But, despite the vicious and criminal efforts of the Bush administration to manufacture evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, there has been nothing added to the false claims that were being made many years ago. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11.
Well, there is a connection, now. The tragic attacks of 9/11 have been used - cynically and falsely - as an excuse by the Bush administration to pursue their own fascist agenda and to expand executive powers far beyond all legal and Constitutional limits. It is worth asking whether the utter failure of the Bush administration to protect our nation from these attacks was the result of incompetence - certainly supported by an abundance of other examples - or treason - if warnings were ignored so that greater powers could be seized in a crisis.
So what was the reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq?
It wasn't retaliation for the attacks of 9/11. Our intelligence services knew then - as we all know now - that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
It wasn't protection of our national interest from a rogue state. Our intelligence services knew then - as we all know now - that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq and that there was no cooperation between the atheistic dictator and the religious mujadeen.
The answer can be found, finally, now http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html
Here is another Bush administration attempt to subvert the Constitution, this time by writing a treaty that isn't a treaty, that somehow binds our country to an agreement with Iraq that will never be ratified by Congress.
What does it say?
Permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and preferential treatment for U.S. corporations.
That's what it was all about.
First, relocation of American military forces out of Europe where they are no longer needed and out of Saudi Arabia where they are endangering a friendly Saudi government. Second, as always with the corporate whores of the Bush administration, protection of the economic interests of their corporate sponsors.
Blood for oil; government of, by, and for people who have sold themselves out to Halliburton or Blackwater or other corporate criminals.
That's what is was all about. That's what it has always been about.
Disgrace is too mild a word.
There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
Years of effort - and human torture - have produced no evidence that Saddam Hussein was in possession or close to possessing nuclear weapons. And the "weapons of mass destruction" obfuscation, designed to allow liars in the Bush administration to talk about poison gas in one sentence and mushroom clouds in the next, didn't even save them. No stockpiles of nerve gas were ever found; no weaponized infectious agents were ever discovered. That hasn't stopped right wingers from continuing to spew lies like "The nerve gas was hidden in Syria!" But sane people realize that there was no imminent threat from Iraq.
Years of effort -and human torture - have produced no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Al Qaeda attack on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. This makes perfect sense. Saddam Hussein was a dictator, who remained in power only by intimidation and violence. He was a ruthless murderer, and although that is not a technical disqualification from being a religious zealot these days, he was not, in fact, connected with any religious movements. For him to be working with Al Qaeda would be like Ralph Reed to be working with Jack Abramoff - oops, bad example. But, despite the vicious and criminal efforts of the Bush administration to manufacture evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, there has been nothing added to the false claims that were being made many years ago. There was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11.
Well, there is a connection, now. The tragic attacks of 9/11 have been used - cynically and falsely - as an excuse by the Bush administration to pursue their own fascist agenda and to expand executive powers far beyond all legal and Constitutional limits. It is worth asking whether the utter failure of the Bush administration to protect our nation from these attacks was the result of incompetence - certainly supported by an abundance of other examples - or treason - if warnings were ignored so that greater powers could be seized in a crisis.
So what was the reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq?
It wasn't retaliation for the attacks of 9/11. Our intelligence services knew then - as we all know now - that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
It wasn't protection of our national interest from a rogue state. Our intelligence services knew then - as we all know now - that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq and that there was no cooperation between the atheistic dictator and the religious mujadeen.
The answer can be found, finally, now http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/11/20071126-11.html
Here is another Bush administration attempt to subvert the Constitution, this time by writing a treaty that isn't a treaty, that somehow binds our country to an agreement with Iraq that will never be ratified by Congress.
What does it say?
Permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq and preferential treatment for U.S. corporations.
That's what it was all about.
First, relocation of American military forces out of Europe where they are no longer needed and out of Saudi Arabia where they are endangering a friendly Saudi government. Second, as always with the corporate whores of the Bush administration, protection of the economic interests of their corporate sponsors.
Blood for oil; government of, by, and for people who have sold themselves out to Halliburton or Blackwater or other corporate criminals.
That's what is was all about. That's what it has always been about.
Disgrace is too mild a word.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
WHAT REALLY MATTERS
Have you noticed it too?
We live in a world that bombards us with information - images, noise, logos, celebrities, pundits, graphics, jingles, on and on and on.
And yet, it feels empty.
Over the past few months, we have been treated to the usual sports coverage of the election process by prating fools who cover polls and percentages more than the real choices facing us.
Over the next few months, we will be treated to show trials from Guantanamo, leading to death penalties just before election day, just as Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death three days before the last national election.
And in the meantime, our national leaders send our jobs and especially our children's jobs overseas, as our industrial base is modernized and rebuilt on foreign shores. And in the meantime, the nuclear arms race is being rekindled as our country pursues billion dollar boondoggles to pour federal dollars into the pockets of defense contractors. And in the meantime, any realistic plans to seek energy independence and respond to global warming threats are thwarted by cynical oil company connections within the government. And in the meantime, our American ideals and heritage - freedom, human dignity, government of the people, by the people, and for the people - are being savaged by the intellectual heirs of Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
And yet, our media still finds time for OJ and Britney and Paris and, still, once in a while, poor Princess Di.
What really matters anyway?
What matters to me is that we humans could make this world a better place to live if we all agreed to seek peace through justice, and prosperity through fairness. Sadly, there are predators among us who seek power by intimidation and violence, and wealth by conquest and theft.
It may be that the decent among us will ultimately prevail; that the meek will truly inherit the earth. Or it may be that the sky is darkening and the future we are about to experience will be fearsome indeed.
Perhaps it would help if those of us who care about peace and justice and decency and honor decided to focus our thoughts on finding a hopeful vision for the future, and to join forces in moving towards this dream. Whether we succeed or fail, it might make our brief journey through this life a little brighter, and in some small ways the world that we live in a better place. It might make the time we spend on this earth worthwhile.
And isn't that what really matters?
Have you noticed it too?
We live in a world that bombards us with information - images, noise, logos, celebrities, pundits, graphics, jingles, on and on and on.
And yet, it feels empty.
Over the past few months, we have been treated to the usual sports coverage of the election process by prating fools who cover polls and percentages more than the real choices facing us.
Over the next few months, we will be treated to show trials from Guantanamo, leading to death penalties just before election day, just as Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death three days before the last national election.
And in the meantime, our national leaders send our jobs and especially our children's jobs overseas, as our industrial base is modernized and rebuilt on foreign shores. And in the meantime, the nuclear arms race is being rekindled as our country pursues billion dollar boondoggles to pour federal dollars into the pockets of defense contractors. And in the meantime, any realistic plans to seek energy independence and respond to global warming threats are thwarted by cynical oil company connections within the government. And in the meantime, our American ideals and heritage - freedom, human dignity, government of the people, by the people, and for the people - are being savaged by the intellectual heirs of Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest.
And yet, our media still finds time for OJ and Britney and Paris and, still, once in a while, poor Princess Di.
What really matters anyway?
What matters to me is that we humans could make this world a better place to live if we all agreed to seek peace through justice, and prosperity through fairness. Sadly, there are predators among us who seek power by intimidation and violence, and wealth by conquest and theft.
It may be that the decent among us will ultimately prevail; that the meek will truly inherit the earth. Or it may be that the sky is darkening and the future we are about to experience will be fearsome indeed.
Perhaps it would help if those of us who care about peace and justice and decency and honor decided to focus our thoughts on finding a hopeful vision for the future, and to join forces in moving towards this dream. Whether we succeed or fail, it might make our brief journey through this life a little brighter, and in some small ways the world that we live in a better place. It might make the time we spend on this earth worthwhile.
And isn't that what really matters?
Monday, September 03, 2007
A NAUGHTY BOY
I watched the Kieth Olbermann "Countdown" reenactment of the Senator Craig bathroom incident. When I saw the details of the police report, and when I heard his "wide stance" explanation, I thought it would be obvious to everyone that he was lying. I mean, we've all used stalls in public restrooms. And we know that our feet and the feet of others don't just go wandering around underneath the partitions. Wide stance or not, you just don't stick your feet into somebody else's stall. Craig was lying.
This bothered the Republican Party, of course. For, after all, they are the world's most dedicated and professional liars, and Craig had not consulted with them first. His inferior lying had put the GOP in a bad light. Perhaps, with help from above, Craig could have kept things hidden a while longer, as Mark Foley was helped to win several more elections to Congress after the first allegations against him surfaced in 1996. He had important work to do, after all, serving as chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
So now Craig has gone. He's not "gay". He just likes to be "naughty" once in a while. What's the difference? Well, if he were gay, he would approve of such behavior, and defend it as a private, personal choice. Since he's not gay, he opposes such behavior and encourages others to condemn it and even use political powers to harass "gay" people. It's a big difference, the difference between saying "naughty" and "nice".
Craig is definitely a wierd, twisted little creature, like many Republicans.
Still, my wife has raised the question of what was the crime that Craig actually committed? And why was a police officer working to apprehend such offenders?
I admit, I made the assumption that the Minneapolis police were just doing their duty. I figured there must have been some complaints made. Perhaps the place had become notorious among travelers and was giving visitors to the city a distorted impression of Minneapolis. Perhaps straight men were getting creeped out by the frequent sight of eyeballs staring at them through the crack by the door. Perhaps there were never any stalls left any more. I don't know. I just assumed that the police had what they considered to be a good reason to take action.
I wouldn't make that assumption about Los Angeles, by the way.
Now I'm feeling a little concerned. It's clear there are some laws on the books that don't belong there.
But it was nice to see a Republican tell a lie and actually get caught. It was a dumb lie, and obviously didn't come from the pros in the propaganda department. The last time we saw this happen was on Super Bowl Sunday in 2002. Sure, he "choked on a pretzel", lost consciousness, fell down, and came to by himself - during the Super Bowl. Or could it be that he sipped half way through a bottle of Southern Comfort, was seriously out of practice in heavy drinking, tripped on his own feet in the bathroom, and came up with a ridiculous story before any of his staff could whip up a better one?
You be the judge.
I watched the Kieth Olbermann "Countdown" reenactment of the Senator Craig bathroom incident. When I saw the details of the police report, and when I heard his "wide stance" explanation, I thought it would be obvious to everyone that he was lying. I mean, we've all used stalls in public restrooms. And we know that our feet and the feet of others don't just go wandering around underneath the partitions. Wide stance or not, you just don't stick your feet into somebody else's stall. Craig was lying.
This bothered the Republican Party, of course. For, after all, they are the world's most dedicated and professional liars, and Craig had not consulted with them first. His inferior lying had put the GOP in a bad light. Perhaps, with help from above, Craig could have kept things hidden a while longer, as Mark Foley was helped to win several more elections to Congress after the first allegations against him surfaced in 1996. He had important work to do, after all, serving as chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children.
So now Craig has gone. He's not "gay". He just likes to be "naughty" once in a while. What's the difference? Well, if he were gay, he would approve of such behavior, and defend it as a private, personal choice. Since he's not gay, he opposes such behavior and encourages others to condemn it and even use political powers to harass "gay" people. It's a big difference, the difference between saying "naughty" and "nice".
Craig is definitely a wierd, twisted little creature, like many Republicans.
Still, my wife has raised the question of what was the crime that Craig actually committed? And why was a police officer working to apprehend such offenders?
I admit, I made the assumption that the Minneapolis police were just doing their duty. I figured there must have been some complaints made. Perhaps the place had become notorious among travelers and was giving visitors to the city a distorted impression of Minneapolis. Perhaps straight men were getting creeped out by the frequent sight of eyeballs staring at them through the crack by the door. Perhaps there were never any stalls left any more. I don't know. I just assumed that the police had what they considered to be a good reason to take action.
I wouldn't make that assumption about Los Angeles, by the way.
Now I'm feeling a little concerned. It's clear there are some laws on the books that don't belong there.
But it was nice to see a Republican tell a lie and actually get caught. It was a dumb lie, and obviously didn't come from the pros in the propaganda department. The last time we saw this happen was on Super Bowl Sunday in 2002. Sure, he "choked on a pretzel", lost consciousness, fell down, and came to by himself - during the Super Bowl. Or could it be that he sipped half way through a bottle of Southern Comfort, was seriously out of practice in heavy drinking, tripped on his own feet in the bathroom, and came up with a ridiculous story before any of his staff could whip up a better one?
You be the judge.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
NOSTALGIA
It's been a while since I last posted. I've been busy. And I haven't been inspired by much that's happening these days.
I was an optimist, once. I felt lucky. I have been lucky, in many respects, but I felt that good fortune would always be a part of my future. I don't feel that way any more.
I could never have imagined some of the things I have witnessed in the past decade. The stolen elections. The phony reasons for war. The trashing of the Constitution.
And, what's worse, the pathetic weakness in the defense of this nation and its principles.
This generation of Americans has failed, so far, to defend America from its enemies: Bush, Cheney, and their corporate masters. Our government, our media, our future have been sold out. We have been sold out. And most of us just sit, helpless.
It's depressing.
Is there hope?
It would be nice to think so.
As a nation, we've been through tough times before, and we have prevailed. There's reason to believe that we will do so again. Real democracy may survive here - if we are determined.
In the words of a non-corrupt Republican: "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Those were terrible times. But at least we had an honest President.
It's been a while since I last posted. I've been busy. And I haven't been inspired by much that's happening these days.
I was an optimist, once. I felt lucky. I have been lucky, in many respects, but I felt that good fortune would always be a part of my future. I don't feel that way any more.
I could never have imagined some of the things I have witnessed in the past decade. The stolen elections. The phony reasons for war. The trashing of the Constitution.
And, what's worse, the pathetic weakness in the defense of this nation and its principles.
This generation of Americans has failed, so far, to defend America from its enemies: Bush, Cheney, and their corporate masters. Our government, our media, our future have been sold out. We have been sold out. And most of us just sit, helpless.
It's depressing.
Is there hope?
It would be nice to think so.
As a nation, we've been through tough times before, and we have prevailed. There's reason to believe that we will do so again. Real democracy may survive here - if we are determined.
In the words of a non-corrupt Republican: "It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Those were terrible times. But at least we had an honest President.
Monday, May 21, 2007
DON IMUS AND THE PERILS OF COMEDY
Bye-bye, Mr. Imus.
I won't miss him. I don't listen to radio very much, and I've only seen him growling on air during his cable TV broadcasts. As I was switching through the channels, sometimes I'd see him in his cowboy hat with his studio full of doo-wah backup fellas. But I wouldn't stay long. He wasn't worth much.
He must have been a funny guy long ago. But now he's 67 years old and running on empty.
Still, he has become a cause celebre of sorts, for insulting a woman's college basketball team.
So what is there to say about this guy?
I think of a Knights of Columbus dinner for good old Father O'Malley. At the podium, all night long, there are guys making fun of good old Father O'Malley. His golf game, his thinning hair, his bad eyes, that time he called out the wrong bingo number and had two charming old ladies ready to go nuclear - these are all fair game and get plenty of laughs.
But what happens when that comic down at the local club starts telling the same jokes, and Father O'Malley and the Knights of Columbus hear about it? It's not funny any more. That comic, he's not even Catholic. Where does he get off, making fun of good old Father O'Malley? That really pisses us off, goddamn it. Let's get that guy!
It's the same thing with poor Don. If he had been perceived as a long time supporter of the black community, and was known to be speaking only in fun, he would still be babbling over the airwaves. But the problem for Don is that he wasn't seen as sympathetic or supportive of the black community. In fact, insulting a group of young women who were seen as brilliant success stories within the black community - smart and successful - only proves how completely inept and out of touch poor Don was.
He was trying to be funny.
But he wasn't funny any more.
Bye-bye, Don.
Good riddance.
Bye-bye, Mr. Imus.
I won't miss him. I don't listen to radio very much, and I've only seen him growling on air during his cable TV broadcasts. As I was switching through the channels, sometimes I'd see him in his cowboy hat with his studio full of doo-wah backup fellas. But I wouldn't stay long. He wasn't worth much.
He must have been a funny guy long ago. But now he's 67 years old and running on empty.
Still, he has become a cause celebre of sorts, for insulting a woman's college basketball team.
So what is there to say about this guy?
I think of a Knights of Columbus dinner for good old Father O'Malley. At the podium, all night long, there are guys making fun of good old Father O'Malley. His golf game, his thinning hair, his bad eyes, that time he called out the wrong bingo number and had two charming old ladies ready to go nuclear - these are all fair game and get plenty of laughs.
But what happens when that comic down at the local club starts telling the same jokes, and Father O'Malley and the Knights of Columbus hear about it? It's not funny any more. That comic, he's not even Catholic. Where does he get off, making fun of good old Father O'Malley? That really pisses us off, goddamn it. Let's get that guy!
It's the same thing with poor Don. If he had been perceived as a long time supporter of the black community, and was known to be speaking only in fun, he would still be babbling over the airwaves. But the problem for Don is that he wasn't seen as sympathetic or supportive of the black community. In fact, insulting a group of young women who were seen as brilliant success stories within the black community - smart and successful - only proves how completely inept and out of touch poor Don was.
He was trying to be funny.
But he wasn't funny any more.
Bye-bye, Don.
Good riddance.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
DIVIDE AND CONQUER
The Romans had a saying, Divide et Impera. Thank you, Wikipedia.
It means Divide and Rule Over, Dominate, Conquer, Own.
It's what we have today in American politics, practiced by the American Right Wing.
They have a deliberate strategy to find and promote divisiveness in our political discourse.
It helps too, if you've bought up the mass media and can fire anybody who's not a media whore. Goodbye, Peter Arnett, Dan Rather, Bill Maher. Hello, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reillly, Tucker Carlson.
We won't talk about how American corporate interests killed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and reignited the nuclear arms race, so that billions of dollars could be spent in deployment of a Star Wars system in Alaska that is completely doomed to failure.
We won't talk about how American corporate interests greedy to get their hands on oil fields in Iraq and greedy to build permanent military bases in Iraq perverted American foreign policy to send our military to set up a puppet govenment (with those lovely corrupt officials) in Iraq.
(Of course, the Iraqis aren't that dumb. This whole perverse scheme is also doomed.)
We won't talk about how the War on Terror has led to unprecedented and illegal invasions of privacy of ordinary Americans, by liars and crooks and degenerates who can't be trusted with any authority under any circumstances.
We were going to talk about gay marriage and abortion rights and illegal immigrants.
Anything but governance and public policy and our future as a nation.
Perhaps, one by one, Americans are waking up.
Not listening to Right Wing liars.
We are a mighty people if we remain true to our Constitution and our fundamental beliefs : "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Inalienable means undeniable, absolute, sacred, protected from interference ESPECIALLY BY FASCIST RIGHT WING GOVERNMENTS LIKE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!
Let's agree on that.
Because, undivided, we will prevail.
The Romans had a saying, Divide et Impera. Thank you, Wikipedia.
It means Divide and Rule Over, Dominate, Conquer, Own.
It's what we have today in American politics, practiced by the American Right Wing.
They have a deliberate strategy to find and promote divisiveness in our political discourse.
It helps too, if you've bought up the mass media and can fire anybody who's not a media whore. Goodbye, Peter Arnett, Dan Rather, Bill Maher. Hello, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reillly, Tucker Carlson.
We won't talk about how American corporate interests killed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and reignited the nuclear arms race, so that billions of dollars could be spent in deployment of a Star Wars system in Alaska that is completely doomed to failure.
We won't talk about how American corporate interests greedy to get their hands on oil fields in Iraq and greedy to build permanent military bases in Iraq perverted American foreign policy to send our military to set up a puppet govenment (with those lovely corrupt officials) in Iraq.
(Of course, the Iraqis aren't that dumb. This whole perverse scheme is also doomed.)
We won't talk about how the War on Terror has led to unprecedented and illegal invasions of privacy of ordinary Americans, by liars and crooks and degenerates who can't be trusted with any authority under any circumstances.
We were going to talk about gay marriage and abortion rights and illegal immigrants.
Anything but governance and public policy and our future as a nation.
Perhaps, one by one, Americans are waking up.
Not listening to Right Wing liars.
We are a mighty people if we remain true to our Constitution and our fundamental beliefs : "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Inalienable means undeniable, absolute, sacred, protected from interference ESPECIALLY BY FASCIST RIGHT WING GOVERNMENTS LIKE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!
Let's agree on that.
Because, undivided, we will prevail.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
PREDATORS
One might consider the human condition.
One of us humans might consider it, anyway. Who else / What else would care? Have you ever considered the parrot condition? The moray eel condition? The Vulcan condition?
Well, perhaps you have. Now I'm starting to wonder about them myself. But back to business.
We are the dominant species of this planet. Why?
We don't have the horrible crushing jaws of the shark, or the stealth and power of the tiger, or the breathless speed and piercing vision of the eagle. And yet they are endangered. By us.
How?
Intelligence? It would be nice to think so. But you can't turn on a television and still feel that way for long. Britney Spears? Anna-Nicole? George W? Pul-eeese! It's not that they exist. The horribly disgraceful thing is that ANYONE IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM!
I think the strength of humanity is in the "we" part of humanity.
"We" are stronger, smarter, and more capable than any single one of us.
"We" can do things no other species can, because we remember much of all previous human experience and build on it. Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." He was a clever dude. He taught himself calculus. By inventing it.
I believe that our greatest strength as the human species is that we can work together, and that we can learn from each other. That is what has allowed us to develop vaccines by learning from the French (Louis Pasteur) , and to create computers by learning from the British (Alan Turing), and to send men to the moon by learning from the Nazis (Werner Von Braun).
But there is a fly in this ointment.
There is a predatory streak in human nature. Of course, this was a good thing when we were hunting wild boars and buffalo. But it is a bad thing when we are being predatory towards ourselves. And, unfortunately, we make good targets.
Slavery? Imagine that you stick a pistol in someone's ribs and take his wallet. That's bad. But imagine you overpower him and demand everything he ever owns, everything he ever earns, even his children. That's slavery. And that's the kind of crap that the right wing Bible Bangers are on record as supporting.
Don't believe me?
Hey look at this:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/answers.html
So we have a problem.
Some people believe that it is acceptable to be predators of their own kind.
This, of course, is treason for any decent, patriotic American.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That's us. That's Americans. That's from our own Declaration of Independence.
But that's not the ideal that right wing degenerates are living by.
For them, divisiveness and hate are a way of life. And when it comes to Us versus Them, public floggings and lynchings (pre-desegregation) and (lately) Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and CIA renditions are just a normal part of their perverse belief system.
They are unashamed enemies of mankind, of decency, and of what is best about humanity.
They are predators.
But "We" are stronger, smarter, and more capable than they are.
"We" are going to defeat them.
After all, even Jesus said "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled. "
Goodness will prevail.
One might consider the human condition.
One of us humans might consider it, anyway. Who else / What else would care? Have you ever considered the parrot condition? The moray eel condition? The Vulcan condition?
Well, perhaps you have. Now I'm starting to wonder about them myself. But back to business.
We are the dominant species of this planet. Why?
We don't have the horrible crushing jaws of the shark, or the stealth and power of the tiger, or the breathless speed and piercing vision of the eagle. And yet they are endangered. By us.
How?
Intelligence? It would be nice to think so. But you can't turn on a television and still feel that way for long. Britney Spears? Anna-Nicole? George W? Pul-eeese! It's not that they exist. The horribly disgraceful thing is that ANYONE IS PAYING ATTENTION TO THEM!
I think the strength of humanity is in the "we" part of humanity.
"We" are stronger, smarter, and more capable than any single one of us.
"We" can do things no other species can, because we remember much of all previous human experience and build on it. Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." He was a clever dude. He taught himself calculus. By inventing it.
I believe that our greatest strength as the human species is that we can work together, and that we can learn from each other. That is what has allowed us to develop vaccines by learning from the French (Louis Pasteur) , and to create computers by learning from the British (Alan Turing), and to send men to the moon by learning from the Nazis (Werner Von Braun).
But there is a fly in this ointment.
There is a predatory streak in human nature. Of course, this was a good thing when we were hunting wild boars and buffalo. But it is a bad thing when we are being predatory towards ourselves. And, unfortunately, we make good targets.
Slavery? Imagine that you stick a pistol in someone's ribs and take his wallet. That's bad. But imagine you overpower him and demand everything he ever owns, everything he ever earns, even his children. That's slavery. And that's the kind of crap that the right wing Bible Bangers are on record as supporting.
Don't believe me?
Hey look at this:
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0401/answers.html
So we have a problem.
Some people believe that it is acceptable to be predators of their own kind.
This, of course, is treason for any decent, patriotic American.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
That's us. That's Americans. That's from our own Declaration of Independence.
But that's not the ideal that right wing degenerates are living by.
For them, divisiveness and hate are a way of life. And when it comes to Us versus Them, public floggings and lynchings (pre-desegregation) and (lately) Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and CIA renditions are just a normal part of their perverse belief system.
They are unashamed enemies of mankind, of decency, and of what is best about humanity.
They are predators.
But "We" are stronger, smarter, and more capable than they are.
"We" are going to defeat them.
After all, even Jesus said "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be filled. "
Goodness will prevail.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
GERALD R. FORD
I voted for him.
On June 17, 1972, police apprehended five men who were attempting to burglarize the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. A little more than two years later, on August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency and Gerald R. Ford was sworn into office as our thirty-eighth President.
One of Ford's first official acts was to issue a pardon for Nixon, protecting him from prosecution for any crimes Nixon committed while in office and effectively ending the ongoing Congressional investigations that were gathering evidence for his impeachment.
There are those who believed this pardon was the result of a deal between Nixon and Ford. Suspicion about this possible act of political corruption was one of the reasons Gerald Ford became our first unelected President, losing to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Personally, I didn't suspect Ford of doing anything shady. I assumed that Nixon people had been sniffing around the Hill and that they had decided that Ford was likely to end the Watergate spectacle with a pardon if given the opportunity. Ford was well known around Washington after 25 years in Congress, and his opinions on the eventual conclusion of the Watergate proceedings were probably widely circulated.
When Nixon left office, and Ford pardoned him, I thought that was fine. I thought the worst punishment that Nixon could face would be removal from office, and that had already happened. I thought the nation had been paralyzed by the continuing Constitutional crisis of Watergate for almost two years, and it was time to move on.
So in 1976, I voted for Ford. I don't even regret that, since the better candidate won anyway.
But now I wonder about that pardon.
On the night of Nixon's resignation, I was walking across a college campus and saw a security guard I recognized. I said, "Hey, did you hear the news? Nixon has resigned!" I was surprised by his reaction. He seemed irritated and said, "Yep, they hounded him out of office."
I wonder how many other people still supported Nixon at that point, and might still believe today that he deserved to remain in office.
For me, Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg. I thought sleazy Nixon campaign aides had planned the breakin to spy on the Democrats , and that Nixon had just bungled his way into a failed coverup.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for carrying on an illegal and unapproved war run by the CIA outside the borders of Vietnam, in Laos and Cambodia.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for his doctrine of "impoundment", when he asserted the authority to ignore laws passed by Congress by "impounding" the funds authorized for programs he didn't like.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for extortion and corruption in raising millions of dollars of cash contributions from donors who were promised favors if they did and punishment if they didn't support his 1972 re-election campaign.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for many serious Constitutional issues, and I was glad to see him go no matter how he went.
But with the pardon, the investigations stopped, and the full extent of the criminal acts of his administration were never exposed. And a whole host of sleazy criminals were left to continue their traitorous assault on our democracy. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz were all working for Nixon at the time of his resignation.
If the investigations had proceeded, if all the facts had come out then, maybe the Nixon Administration would have become universally disgraced and discredited before the American public. Maybe those who served in it would have become political pariahs, forever deemed unfit for public service.
And the world would be at peace today.
I voted for him.
On June 17, 1972, police apprehended five men who were attempting to burglarize the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate complex in Washington, D.C. A little more than two years later, on August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency and Gerald R. Ford was sworn into office as our thirty-eighth President.
One of Ford's first official acts was to issue a pardon for Nixon, protecting him from prosecution for any crimes Nixon committed while in office and effectively ending the ongoing Congressional investigations that were gathering evidence for his impeachment.
There are those who believed this pardon was the result of a deal between Nixon and Ford. Suspicion about this possible act of political corruption was one of the reasons Gerald Ford became our first unelected President, losing to Jimmy Carter in 1976.
Personally, I didn't suspect Ford of doing anything shady. I assumed that Nixon people had been sniffing around the Hill and that they had decided that Ford was likely to end the Watergate spectacle with a pardon if given the opportunity. Ford was well known around Washington after 25 years in Congress, and his opinions on the eventual conclusion of the Watergate proceedings were probably widely circulated.
When Nixon left office, and Ford pardoned him, I thought that was fine. I thought the worst punishment that Nixon could face would be removal from office, and that had already happened. I thought the nation had been paralyzed by the continuing Constitutional crisis of Watergate for almost two years, and it was time to move on.
So in 1976, I voted for Ford. I don't even regret that, since the better candidate won anyway.
But now I wonder about that pardon.
On the night of Nixon's resignation, I was walking across a college campus and saw a security guard I recognized. I said, "Hey, did you hear the news? Nixon has resigned!" I was surprised by his reaction. He seemed irritated and said, "Yep, they hounded him out of office."
I wonder how many other people still supported Nixon at that point, and might still believe today that he deserved to remain in office.
For me, Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg. I thought sleazy Nixon campaign aides had planned the breakin to spy on the Democrats , and that Nixon had just bungled his way into a failed coverup.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for carrying on an illegal and unapproved war run by the CIA outside the borders of Vietnam, in Laos and Cambodia.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for his doctrine of "impoundment", when he asserted the authority to ignore laws passed by Congress by "impounding" the funds authorized for programs he didn't like.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for extortion and corruption in raising millions of dollars of cash contributions from donors who were promised favors if they did and punishment if they didn't support his 1972 re-election campaign.
I thought Nixon SHOULD have been impeached for many serious Constitutional issues, and I was glad to see him go no matter how he went.
But with the pardon, the investigations stopped, and the full extent of the criminal acts of his administration were never exposed. And a whole host of sleazy criminals were left to continue their traitorous assault on our democracy. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz were all working for Nixon at the time of his resignation.
If the investigations had proceeded, if all the facts had come out then, maybe the Nixon Administration would have become universally disgraced and discredited before the American public. Maybe those who served in it would have become political pariahs, forever deemed unfit for public service.
And the world would be at peace today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)