The Lies We Love

One of the biggest things I have learned about my country, and what so many seem to shrug off by saying, "that's just the way it is," is that what matters most - above health and human wellness, above happiness, above morality and care for out neighbors -- is profit.

The fogginess surrounding my thoughts of a country that has not only held up the enlightened ideals forged over two hundred years ago by men of heart and soul, but carried them forward into ever new and promising visions of "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," is only growing more dark and dim.

What is the reason NASA has chosen not to release a study to the public about airline and air traffic safety (which shows twice as many bird-strikes and near mid-air collisions)? "A senior NASA official, associate administrator Thomas S. Luedtke, said revealing the findings could damage the public's confidence in airlines and affect airline profits." (Emphasis is mine).

In other words - people may demand something be done! In the meantime, they just might take the train. If something must be fixed, that's going to cost money. And if less people fly, that's less money the airlines (and corporations like Boeing) make. Our safety doesn't matter as much as profits, so NASA won't tell us the truth in order to protect bottom lines. Countries that put their citizens (the true holders of governmental power) first are great countries. At least it's something we used to be.




Remember, President Bush vetoed the S-chip bill that would have given health insurance to poor children. He said that $35 million was too much money to spend on something like this. Thankfully, today he came to his senses and asked Congress for $46 billion - with a B - for war. "To date, Congress has already provided more than $455 billion for the Iraq war, with stepped-up military operations running about $10 billion a month."

In saying why he vetoed S-chip, "Mr. Bush argue[d] that the expansion is too costly..."

Kudos to Rep. David Obey (D-OH), here.





We're all in really big trouble. Everything we use runs on oil: our cars; the machines that make our cars; the trucks and ships that get our cars and good to the stores; the machines that make the machines that make the ships and trucks; the combines and harvest our food, the plants that process our food - everything. Our entire life-support system is based on oil.




As if undermining out life support system wasn't enough; we're REALLY stabbing ourselves in the back with this: "...an alarming new study finds that warming signals are stronger, and happening sooner than expected, due to increased human emissions of carbon dioxide and an Earth less able to absorb them."





P.S. Glenn Beck is an idiot.

Word Definition

According to Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, the word "condemn" means, "to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation."

According to the United States Constitution, the First Amendment says that, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Today, the House of Representatives voted to condemn - to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil - MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad that was in the New York Times. Last week, the Senate voted to condemn - to declare to be reprehensible, wrong, or evil - MoveOn.org's Petraeus ad.

In effect, what we have here is Congress saying that - because they did not like the ad - it is wrong. Since when did freedom of speech become wrong? When did it become so important for Congress to stop work on actually running this country (Iraq war, health care, infrastructure), to find time to condemn freedom of speech?

And not once - not once - was this idea of condemning free speech brought up when the republicans placed an ad in Georgia where Sen. Max Cleland, a veteran who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, was placed in a TV ad with Saddam and Osama.

There are numerous ads, both on television and in print, that I have seen and read and in no way, shape, or form like or agree with. Yet I do all I can to ensure that they are able to say what they believe and have a viable avenue to express it.

The actions by the House and the Senate I condemn. This is something one would expect from China or Stalinist Russia; not from the supposed "leader" of the free world. Not from the country who invades other countries to bring "liberty" and "freedom."



But then again, this same country engages in revising history. Compare what the White House website says Bush said yesterday here with what he actually said here. One may say they were just fixing a mispronunciation, but that is still changing the official record of what was said. If you can fix it in print, why not edit it out of the video as well? When does it stop?

I barely know what to say...how can this be allowed to happen? And this isn't the first time. Look here. The official White House press transcript has words purportedly said by the President that were NOT said by the President! Why doesn't the House and Senate condemn this?

Is this not what Winston did in 1984, for Big Brother?

"Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record."

How soon will it be before the White House changes what facts and figures Bush (or any president) said? How long before the president has always been correct and said the right things?



It is actions like this that make me truly proud to be an American. There is hope -- better 6 years late than never.



Here we have devoutly peaceful monks staging protests against a military junta (government by a committee of military leaders). In 1990, the military junta called a general election, which the National League for Democracy won decisively. Being the NLD's candidate, Aung San Suu Kyi under normal circumstances would have assumed the office of Prime Minister. Instead, the results were nullified, and the military refused to hand over power. Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest - and is still there today.

Why isn't President Bush sending into troops to Burma? Here is a total crackdown on peaceful, nonviolent protesters demonstrating for democracy (which was stolen from them); something Bush loves to say he is bringing to the world.

Why, then, are we doing nothing for these people? Sorry noble citizens of Burma, maybe if you weren't so geographically close to China or maybe if you had some oil under your land, we'd actually care about you.



Here are true American patriots. In a time of war, in a time of need, they show us what sacrifice really means.

Things that go bump in the day

Under the United States Constitution, citizens are given "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

In other words - we can protest, write, call, petition, etc., our representatives (Senators, Congressmen and women, the President, Vice President: those people that we hire to represent us) in order to persuade them change laws, policies, and the like.

How are we to do this if they can't see or hear us? How can we get proper redress if peaceably protesting American citizens are arrested? How can we persuade our leaders if they never see or hear that a large segment of citizens, let alone other democratic countries, disagree with their (our) policies?

You expect me to believe that our goal is to bring democracy and liberty to Iraq, when it's slowly being eroded here? When Bush & Co. can't even export our First Amendment to Australia, how am I to believe they're going to do that in Iraq? John F. Kennedy said it best:

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."



I do not know how true this is - and the author readily admits as much. However, they did it for the Iraq War and there are telltale signs of it starting up up again, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least. What with General Petraeus's report coming up next week, it makes sense. The Iraqi government is now the fall guy for our disaster there, but do not be surprised if they start saying, or some other mouthpiece for them (read that: a Bush Administration official), starts saying that it's not their fault after all. If Iran would just stop interfering, then the Iraqi government could get their act together. It's all Iran's fault now. The evidence will be there, just like the WMDs.


This one is for all of those people who still trust Bush to tell us the truth. And if he honestly just doesn't remember something so vitally important about the invasion of a sovereign nation, among all other things, he doesn't deserve to be President.

Privatization

It's when privately owned corporations increasingly buy things the government used to own. For example, the "privatization of Social Security" means that the government sells its shares and control of our national pensions to people who run the stock market. Another example of privatization is when corporations buy the water supply in communities. The public no longer owns them, the public no longer has a say in how they are run; and the services that were bought become the means to a profit-driven end.

This is not good for America. Or any society for that matter. The people, communally, should have stakes and a say in how common necessities like water, sewer, roads and our wars are run and organized. For a good take on this and the privatization of our military, read this.


Close to 7 years later, "9/11 changed everything" is still being used as political smoke and mirrors to justify the legal destruction of our rights, liberty, and democracy. We have held American citizens in jail with no access to a lawyer. This is against the constitution. We have held American citizens in jail and not presented any evidence as to why. This is against the constitution. Where is our collective outrage? This man killed no one - but is being killed by the American government. (Updated). Where is our concern? An "Impeach Bush" sign-waving man is arrested. Who are we? If you are not yet awake, maybe this will help you.

Just remember, this is nothing new.


One last thing. In case you haven't heard, the family-loving, job-creating President Bush is trying to allow trucks from Mexico into our country to deliver goods. What about American trucking jobs? What about the safety of those trucks - mechanically and insurance-wise? Whose side is he on? Yours, mine - or those companies that will get to pay Mexican truck drivers much lower wages than they can pay American truck drivers. If you don't believe that, ask yourself -- why else would they do it?