August 19, 2007

  • Personal Responsibility

    My readers seem to be deserting me.  I don't know if it's because I persist in trying to be a voice crying in the wilderness, politically speaking, or because I've had less time and energy recently to read THEIR blogs.  Precious  few have messaged me and said, "How are you, John?  Are you all right?  I miss you."  Perhaps that's the nature of the internet.  Actually, it's not too different from real life.

    Anyway, there's quite a thought provoking interview of Noam Chomsky at
    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=105&ItemID=13555.


    The title of the interview is "Responsibility and War
    Guilt: A Culture-setting Intelligentsia".  Here's an excerpt of the interview:
    …

    What about degrees of
    responsibility and shared burdens of guilt on an individual level? What can we
    learn about how one views oneself often in positions of power or
    authority?
     
    You almost never find anyone,
    whether it’s in a weapons plant, or planning agency, or in corporate management,
    or almost anywhere, who says, ‘I’m really a bad guy, and I just want to do
    things that benefit myself and my friends.’  Almost invariably you get noble
    rhetoric like: ‘We’re working for the benefit of the people.’ The corporate
    executive who is slaving for the benefit of the workers and community; the
    friendly banker who just wants to help everybody start their business; the
    political leader who’s trying to bring freedom and justice to the world—and they
    probably all believe it. I’m not suggesting that they’re lying. There’s an array
    of routine justifications for whatever you’re doing. And it’s easy to believe
    them. It’s very hard to look into the mirror and say, ‘Yeah, that guy looking at
    me is a vicious criminal.’ It’s much easier to say, ‘That guy looking at me is
    really very benign, self-sacrificing, and he has to do these things because it’s
    for the benefit of everyone.’

     

    Or you get respected moralists
    like Reinhold Niebuhr, who was once called ‘the theologian of the
    establishment’. And the reason is because he presented a framework which,
    essentially, justified just about anything they wanted to do. His thesis is
    dressed up in long words and so on (it’s what you do if you’re an intellectual).
    But what it came down to is that, ‘Even if you try to do good, evil’s going to
    come out of it; that’s the paradox of grace’. —And that’s wonderful for war
    criminals. ‘We try to do good but evil necessarily comes out of it.’ And it’s
    influential. So, I don’t think that people in decision-making positions are
    lying when they describe themselves as benevolent. —Or people working on more
    advanced nuclear weapons. Ask them what they’re doing, they’ll say: ‘We’re
    trying to preserve the peace of the world.’ People who are devising military
    strategies that are massacring people, they’ll say, ‘Well, that’s the cost you
    have to pay for freedom and justice’, and so on.

     

    But, we don’t take those
    sentiments seriously when we hear them from enemies, say, from Stalinist
    commissars. They’ll give you the same answers. But, we don’t take that seriously
    because they     can
    know what they’re doing if they
    choose to. If they choose not to, that’s their choice. If they choose to believe
    self-satisfying propaganda, that’s their choice. But it doesn’t change the moral
    responsibility. We understand that perfectly well with regard to others. It’s
    very hard to apply the same reasoning to ourselves.

     

    In fact, one of the—maybe the
    most—elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If
    something’s right for me, it’s right for you; if it’s wrong for you, it’s wrong
    for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core
    somehow. But that principle is overwhelmingly disregarded all the time. If you
    want to run through examples we can easily do it. Take, say, George W. Bush,
    since he happens to be president. If you apply the standards that we applied to
    Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, he’d be hanged. Is it an even conceivable
    possibility? It’s not even discussable. Because we don’t apply to ourselves the
    principles we apply to others.

     

    There’s a lot of talk about
    ‘terror’ and how awful it is. Whose terror? Our terror against them? I mean, is
    that considered reprehensible? No, it’s considered highly moral; it’s considered
    self-defense, and so on. Now, their terror against us, that’s awful, and
    terrible, and so on.

     

    But, to try to rise to the level
    of becoming a minimal moral agent, and just enter in the domain of moral
    discourse is very difficult. Because that means accepting the principle of
    universality. And you can experiment for yourself and see how often that’s
    accepted, either in personal or political life. Very
    rarely.

August 11, 2007

  • Grown-up Needed To Clean Up After Pres. Bam Bam

    Since we can't seem to get that shit-eater impeached....

    Published on Thursday, August 2,
    2007 by The Times Herald-Record (New York)

    Grown-up Needed To Clean Up After Pres. Bam Bam

    by Beth Quinn

    A lot of readers tell me they assume I’ll be voting for either Hillary or
    Obama in the next election.

    That’s interesting because I have no idea who I’m voting for. The only thing
    I know for sure is this:

    The damage our nation has suffered these past 6½ years is so great that I am
    neither Democrat nor Republican in the coming election. I am an American.

    Both parties have been betrayed, and both should produce candidates willing
    to look at the vast wreckage President Bam Bam has wrought and say, “My job is
    to fix this mess.”

    I will vote for the candidate who says that. And I want my candidate to say
    these things, too:

    “I will fight a real fight against the terrorists without creating a rallying
    point for extremists.”

    “I will forbid torture, and I will not secretly send prisoners to countries
    that allow it.”

    “I will honor the Constitution, not subvert it.”

    “I will not give a damn whether gay people get married, nor conjure up
    similarly dumb non-issues to distract Americans from the real problems we
    face.”

    “I will say things of substance and send the vapid slogans packing with this
    vapid president.”

    “I will not spy on Americans without taking the steps required by law - and
    then only when it is in the interest of national security.”

    “I will honor my own God and worship in my own way without dragging religion
    into the national conversation. America is not a theocracy.”

    “I will not let my vice president run the country nor give government
    contracts to his company.”

    “I will leave women the hell alone on matters that are personal and
    private.”

    “I will support stem cell research and put to rest the idiocy that such cells
    are babies.”

    “I will close Guantanamo and ensure that all prisoners held there are
    immediately released or else charged with a crime and provided a lawyer.”

    “I will have an energy policy. A real one, not one crafted by the oil
    industry.”

    “I will put an end to mining in our national parks and logging in our
    national forests.”

    “I understand the complexities of our health-care crisis and, unlike my
    predecessor, I will avoid making infinitely stupid comments such as, ‘All
    Americans have access to health care because they can just go to the emergency
    room.’”

    “I will never smirk when I talk about the poor and the uninsured.”

    “I will try to restore America’s former stature, reputation and good will in
    the world.”

    “I will appoint competent, qualified people to the justice department, to
    head agencies such as FEMA, and to serve as my advisors, without regard to their
    political ideology.”

    “I will not require my high ranking appointees to say my name three times per
    page in every speech.”

    “I will acknowledge that there is such a thing as global warming and that it
    is the biggest threat we now face. I will work with other nations to control
    it.”

    “I will not use signing statements to ignore the law.”

    “I will allow the coffins of dead soldiers to be photographed, and I will
    make certain the wounded get the care they need and deserve.”

    “I will get us out of Iraq.”

    These requirements don’t call for an extraordinary person of extreme
    intelligence, nor even a person of vision or exceptional charisma.

    All I’m looking for is a grown-up. I want an adult in the White House,
    someone with common sense, know-how, and a solid set of ethics and
    priorities.

    Surely, such a person exists and is willing to begin undoing the damage done
    by this ignorant, arrogant, imperial child-president.

    If that person is willing to lead, I will follow.

    There are 540 days of damage left ’til Jan. 20, 2009.

    Beth’s column appears on Monday. Talk to her at bquinn@th-record.com.

July 27, 2007

  • A history lesson of a different sort

    While the megalomaniacal sociopaths Bush and Cheney continue to plot the invasion of Iran and further erosion of our fragile civil liberties, I thought a history lesson of a slightly different sort might be in order:

    In the 16th and 17th centuries,
    everything had to be transported by ship
    and     it was also before commercial
    fertilizer's     invention, so large shipments
    of manure were
    common.

    It was shipped dry, because
    in dry form it weighed a lot less than
    when     wet. However, once water (at sea) hit it, it not only became heavier but the
    process of fermentation began again, of which a by-product is methane gas.

    As the stuff was stored below decks in bundles you can see what could
    (and     did) happen. Methane began
    to build up below decks and the first
    time     someone came below at night with a lantern, BOOOOM!  Several ships were destroyed in this manner before it was determined just what was happening.

    After that, the bundles
    of manure were always stamped with the term
    "Ship     High In Transit" on them, which meant for the sailors to stow it
    high     enough off the lower decks
    so that any water that came into the hold
    would     not touch this volatile cargo and start the production
    of methane.

    Thus evolved the term
    "S.H.I.T " (Ship High In Transit), which
    has come      down through the centuries
    and is in use to this very day. You
    probably did     not know the true history of
    this word.

    Neither did I.  I had always thought it was a golf term.

July 19, 2007

  • Recent developments that you may not be aware of

    Here's what your Bush administration, with the partial complicity of a Democrat-controlled Congress, has been up to recently.  Since it appears that the Congress is not going to impeach Bush and Cheney, we Americans may as well bend over and kiss our collective asses good-bye.

    [1] SENATE: CORNYN AMENDMENT - ENDLESS WAR IN IRAQ

    On July 17 the Senate passed the Cornyn Amendment.  It is a "sense of the
    Senate" resolution that Iraq not become "a failed state and a safe haven for
    terrorists." Introduced by Republican John Cornyn (R-TX), the Amendment was
    immediately given a strong endorsement by Sen. Carl Levin and was supported by
    all leading Democrats (Clinton, Obama et al.). The final vote was 94-3, with
    only Robert Byrd, Tom Harkin, and Russ Feingold voting "no."

    The much-touted Levin-Reed "withdrawal" amendment, which failed the next
    day, said the administration shall begin a "reduction of the number of Armed
    Forces in Iraq beginning not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment
    of this Act and shall complete the reduction and transition to a limited
    presence of the Armed Forces [sic] in Iraq by not later than April 1, 2008." But
    it also listed as one of the continuing missions even after that date, "Engaging
    in actions to disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in
    Iraq."

    Since the administration says that all its actions in Iraq are against
    terrorists, such actions are supported by the Cornyn Amendment and included in
    the exceptions of the so-called withdrawal amendments, like
    Levin-Reed.

    Meanwhile, there has been talk of a vote to "deauthorize" the war
    (including by Byrd and Clinton). Of course all the original rationales for the
    war have evaporated, so rescinding the original authorization might make sense. 
    The Cornyn Amendment reauthorizes the war under a new rationale -- preventing
    Iraq from becoming "a safe haven for terrorists." And the Democrats have signed
    on.

    Furthermore, if Iraq "must not become a failed state," U.S. troops must
    stay in Iraq until it is stable and can defend itself -- a prescription for
    indefinite occupation, endorsed overwhelmingly by the Senate.
    [2] ADMINISTRATION: LETTER TO CHAIRMAN LEVIN - VETOES ON IRAQ *AND
    IRAN*

    On July 10 the administration sent a long and little-noticed letter to
    Senator Levin (D-MI), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The
    letter begins with a threat to veto any changes to the military tribunals and
    the MCA (especially "habeas corpus provisions"), "which passed with a bipartisan
    majority last fall." It goes on to say that Bush will veto any and all measures
    put forth by Congressional Democrats limiting the Iraq War.  It also says that
    the White House will veto any measure that would tie its hands on *Iran* --
    including on military action inside that country.

    The Democrats are comfortably aware that they can affect the war positively
    only with a veto-proof majority.  And they have forsworn (as Durbin did
    yesterday) the negative route of simply not voting funding. Unless they do that,
    they can proclaim that they want to end the war (as Durbin did) without having
    to do it.

    The Iran section of the letter says the White House will veto any
    Congressional effort to either "direct or prohibit" any military, intelligence
    or diplomatic action regarding Iran. (They figure they've got the money,
    especially for naval and air strikes.)

    Here's what the administration is ruling out for Iraq:

            "The Administration strongly opposes any provision
    that sets an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of American troops
    without regard to the conditions on the ground or the recommendations of
    commanders. Precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would not bring peace to the region
    or make our people safe at home. Withdrawal could embolden our enemies and
    confirm their belief that America will not stand behind its commitments. Setting
    a date for withdrawal is equivalent to setting a date for failure and could lead
    to a safe haven in Iraq for terrorism that could be used to attack America and
    freedom-loving people around the world. It is likely to unleash chaos in Iraq
    that could spread across the region. In addition to infringing on the
    President's constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief, the provision would
    require a precipitous withdrawal of troops that itself could increase the
    probability that American troops would one day have to return to Iraq -- to
    confront an even more dangerous enemy. If the President were presented a bill
    that includes such provisions, he would veto the bill."

    And then there's this on Iran:

            "The Administration strongly opposes amendments to
    the bill that to restrict the ability of the United States to deal effectively
    with the threats to regional security posed by the conduct of Iran, including
    Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The Administration also notes that
    provisions of law that purport to direct or prohibit international negotiations,
    covert action, or the use of the armed forces are inconsistent with the
    Constitution's commitment exclusively to the presidency of the executive power,
    the function of Commander-in-Chief, and the authority to conduct the Nation's
    foreign policy. If the bill were presented to the President with provisions that
    would prevent the President from protecting America and allied and cooperating
    nations from threats posed by Iran, the President's senior advisers would
    recommend he veto the bill."

    [3] EXECUTIVE ORDER --

    Bush signed an executive order while the Senate Democrats were playing
    please-don't-throw-me-into-that-filibuster-briar-patch.  It's about United
    States citizens who act against the war in Iraq:

            July 17, 2007
            Executive Order: Blocking Property of Certain
    Persons
            Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq

            By the authority vested in me as President by the
    Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the
    International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et
    seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and
    section 301 of title 3, United States Code,

            I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of
    America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national
    security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence
    threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote
    economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian
    assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to
    take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in
    Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of
    August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order
    13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby
    order:

    Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and
    (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders,
    directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and
    notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior
    to the date of this order,

            ...all property and interests in property of the
    following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the
    United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of
    United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported,
    withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the
    Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
    Defense,

            (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk
    of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect
    of:
                    (A) threatening the peace or
    stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or

                    (B) undermining efforts to
    promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide
    humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;

            (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or
    provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or
    services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose
    property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order;
    or

            (iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted
    or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person
    whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this
    order...

    Will we see federal police (FBI, Treasury) going after the property of
    anti-war groups on the grounds that their activities "pose a significant risk of
    ... an act or acts of violence that have the purpose *or effect* [good
    intentions don't matter] of ... threatening the ... stability of ... the
    Government of Iraq [by withdrawing US troops?] or undermining efforts to promote
    ... political reform in Iraq" [guess whose efforts]?

June 8, 2007

  • This just in...

    CONGRESS VOTES TO OUTSOURCE THE PRESIDENCY
    May 31, 2007
    Washington, DC (AP) --

    Congress today announced that the office of President of the United
    States of America will be outsourced to India as of July 1, 2008. The move is
    being made in order to save the President's $500,000 yearly salary, and also a
    record $521 Billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead the office has
    incurred during the last 5 years.  "We believe this is a wise financial move. 
    The cost savings are huge." stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-WA).  "We
    cannot remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash
    outlay." Reynolds noted.

    Mr.  Bush was informed by e-mail this morning of his termination.
    Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time.

    Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai , India will assume the
    office of President as of July 1, 2008.  Mr. Singh was born in the United
    States while his Indian parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, thus making
    him eligible for the position.  He will receive a salary of $320 (USD) a month
    but with no health coverage or other benefits.  It is believed that Mr. Singh
    will be able to handle his job responsibilities without a support staff.  Due to
    the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at
    night, when few offices of the U.S. Government will be open.  "Working nights will
    allow me to keep my day job at the Dell Computer call center," stated Mr. Singh
    in an exclusive interview.  "I am excited about this position.  I always hoped I
    would be President."

    A Congressional spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be
    fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this should
    not be a problem as President Bush was not familiar with the issues either. 
    Mr.  Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond
    effectively to most topics of concern.  Using these canned responses, he can
    address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issue at
    all.  "We know these scripting tools work," stated the spokesperson.  "President
    Bush has used them successfully for years."

    Bush will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final
    day of employment.  Following a two week waiting period, he will be eligible for
    $140 a week unemployment for 13 weeks. Unfortunately he will not be eligible for
    Medicaid, as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit.  Mr. Bush
    has been provided the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write
    a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition.  According to Manpower,
    Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a new position due to limited
    practical or successful work experience. A Greeter position at Wal-Mart was
    suggested due to Bush's extensive experience shaking hands, as well as his
    special smile.  "We are confident that he will find something he can do on his
    own," said his case worker.

June 3, 2007

  • Random Factoid

    According to Barmeister.com, five of the 20 most popular bars in the United States and Canada are located in Illinois.  Of those five, three can be found in the Peoria area.

    Ten Illinois bars are included in the top 50.   I've never been to any of them.  The closest I've come to greatness is Big Al's in Peoria, #66, and Murphy's Pub in Champaign, a student bar, at #78.  Big Al's is a strip joint, known more for its lap dances than for its margaritas.  And Murphy's is...well, a student bar.  Who votes for these things??

    Anyway, eat your hearts out, all you other states.

    http://www.barmeister.com/bars/top100/

May 29, 2007

  • Two exceptionally inspiring women who are truth-bearers

    I had a guest for two hours on my world music radio show last Thursday.  She composes her own highly unique music - a blend of reggae, Native American, jazz, and more recently Brazilian influences - and plays keyboards and sings.  She lives in California, but was visiting her mother in Illinois.  We had an absolutely delightful time, and bonded, I think, on a deep spiritual level.  Her chosen name, Tchiya Amet, is Hebrew for "Rise Again Truth", the name of her first CD.  Her second CD is called "Black Turtle Island".  The third CD, recorded mostly in Brazil and due out soon, will be called "Celestial Folk Music".  If you can get ahold of any of her music, I strongly recommend it.  Her music is "transcendant"...that's my word for it.  It transcends boundaries and neat categorical labels, and it is spiritually transcendant as well.  It will bless you.  SHE will bless you.

    She doesn't list her music with Amazon.com any more because Amazon basically rips artists off.  So I couldn't do the usual Xanga "Currently Listening" thing.  But here is her photo:

    Tchiya1

    And you can find her music online at CDbaby.com, among other places.

    **********

    Now....

    If you faithfully read "The Daily Kos" or Theologian Dan's blog then you've probably already seen the article below.  But I thought it was worth sharing on Memorial Day (or the day after, actually).  Though I haven't paid even remotely the price that Cindy Sheehan has paid, I've walked a portion of the way down her path, and her  thoughts basically mirror my own.

    "Good Riddance Attention Whore"

    by CindySheehan

    Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:57:01 AM PDT

    I
    have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and
    especially since I became the so-called "Face" of the American anti-war
    movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with
    the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such "liberal
    blogs" as the Democratic Underground. Being called an "attention whore"
    and being told "good riddance" are some of the more milder rebukes.

    I
    have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning.
    These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been
    meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly
    and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

    The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left
    as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican
    Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a "tool"
    of the Democratic Party.  This label was to marginalize me and my
    message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working
    outside of our "two-party" system?

    However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same
    standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause
    started to erode and the "left" started labeling me with the same slurs
    that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said
    that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter
    of "right or left", but "right and wrong."

    I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics
    should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are
    dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and
    Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues
    and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and
    political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it
    in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it
    occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we
    allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t
    find alternatives to this corrupt "two" party system our Representative
    Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending
    into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am
    demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I
    look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses,
    acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve
    support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

    I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am
    doing because I am an "attention whore" then I really need to be
    committed. I have invested everything I have into trying to bring peace
    with justice to a country that wants neither. If an individual wants
    both, then normally he/she is not willing to do more than walk in a
    protest march or sit behind his/her computer criticizing others. I have
    spent every available cent I got from the money a "grateful" country
    gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in
    speaking or book fees since then. I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage
    and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s
    brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills
    from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have
    used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering
    innocent human beings. I have been called every despicable name that
    small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

    The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning,
    however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious
    lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves
    him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war
    machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he
    died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which
    cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many
    people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and
    Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to
    know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid
    the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

    I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts
    personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with
    that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and
    why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work
    for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many
    divisions.

    Our brave young men and women in Iraq have been abandoned there
    indefinitely by their cowardly leaders who move them around like pawns
    on a chessboard of destruction and the people of Iraq have been doomed
    to death and fates worse than death by people worried more about
    elections than people. However, in five, ten, or fifteen years, our
    troops will come limping home in another abject defeat and ten or
    twenty years from then, our children’s children will be seeing their
    loved ones die for no reason, because their grandparents also bought
    into this corrupt system. George Bush will never be impeached because
    if the Democrats dig too deeply, they may unearth a few skeletons in
    their own graves and the system will perpetuate itself in perpetuity.

    I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to
    go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some
    of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very
    positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was
    forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that
    have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and
    change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable,
    unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

    Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy
    five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ? I will consider any
    reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon,
    too...which makes the property even more valuable.

    This is my resignation letter as the "face" of the American anti-war
    movement. This is not my "Checkers" moment, because I will never give
    up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of
    the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this
    system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the
    people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes
    me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.

    Good-bye America ...you are not the country that I love and I
    finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be
    that country unless you want it.

    It’s up to you now.

May 27, 2007

May 20, 2007

  • "Free Market" Madness

    I've just finished reading the book above.  The author also wrote Fast Food Nation.  Here's what it says on the cover of Reefer Madness:

    "Sex, Drugs,
    and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market. 
    What happens in the black market is worth examining because of the way
    fortunes are made there, lives are often ruined there, and the vicissitudes of
    the law can deem one man a gangster or a chief executive (or both).  If the market does indeed embody the sum of
    all human wishes, then the secret ones are just as important as the ones that
    are openly displayed."

    The author explores three areas of America's "underground economy" - marijuana, migrant workers, and pornography - and the interaction in each case between the law, the economics, and the human impact on those who engage in them.  Here's how he concludes his section on migrant workers:

    "Driving back to my motel that
    night, I thought about the people of Orange County, one of the richest counties
    in the nation – big on family values, yet bankrupt from financial speculation,
    unwilling to raise taxes to pay for their own children’s education, unwilling
    to pay off their debts, whining about the injustice of it, and blaming all
    their problems on illegal immigrants. 
    And I thought about Francisco, their bogeyman, their scapegoat, working
    ten hours a day at one of the hardest jobs imaginable, and sleeping on the ground
    every night, for months, so that he could save money and send it home to his parents."

    "We have been told for years to bow
    down before ‘the market’.  We have placed
    our faith in the laws of supply and demand. 
    What has been forgotten, or ignored, is that the market rewards only
    efficiency.  Every other human value gets
    in its way.  The market will drive wages
    down like water, until they reach the lowest possible level.  Today that level is being set not in Washington
    or New York or Sacramento
    but in the fields of Baja California
    and the mountain villages of Oaxaca.  That level is about five dollars a day.  No deity that men have every worshipped is
    more ruthless and more hollow than the free market unchecked; there is no reason
    why shantytowns should not appear on the outskirts of every American city.  All those who now consider themselves
    devotees of the market should take a good look at what is happening in California.  Left to its own devices, the free market
    always seeks a work force that is hungry, desperate, and cheap – a work force
    that is anything but free."

    - pages 107-108

    There's a passage at the very end of the book, where the author more or less summarizes all he's learned, that I'd love to post for your edification.  But it's quite long, and I know you blog readers have relatively short attention spans.    I may just have to commend you to your own reading of Reefer Madness.

    Thanks for reading my humble posts.  God bless you.

May 12, 2007

  • Steven Seagal and Rube Goldberg

    Once again I've been remiss in my posting and commenting.  Mea culpa!  What can I say?  I'm out here trying to save the world, one person at a time. 

    Despite my pretensions at intellectualism, I really, really like Steven Seagal movies once in a while as a change of pace.  I never rent movies, but last night I was able to watch two Steven Seagal movies back to back on TNT: "The Glimmer Man" and "Exit Wounds".  Seagal always, and virtually single-handedly, fights and eliminates corruption: in this case the Russian mafia, a sleazy Senator, and a whole bunch of rogue cops.  Seagal is all about fighting corruption, and for just a short while he makes me believe in the possibility of good triumphing over evil.  He's sort of a film version of the Messiah I've been waiting for practically my entire life.

    What I'd absolutely love to see is a Steven Seagal movie where Seagal takes on the Bush administration, one of the sleaziest and most corrupt administrations ever to rule the American Empire, and totally kicks their collective asses. I wonder what Seagal's politics are.  I do know that he is apparently pro-environment and pro-Native American...at least if one can judge from his film "On Deadly Ground", where he foils the Alaskan oil refinery plans of the evil Michael Caine, while preserving the natural beauty of Alaska for the Inuit way of life.  Lord, how I'd like to see Seagal reduce the sneering Shrub and his even more sneering mentor Dickhead Cheney into gibbering idiots.  Oh, wait...they already are!  Snivelling, gibbering idiots, then.

    Well, anyway, one can dream.  Meanwhile here's a little something to amuse a few of you:

    Does any of you know who Rube Goldberg was?