Where's The Balance?

In my last post, I gave a one-day sample of some major news corporations' websites top stories and compared them with other important stories published that same day.

The results from my little survey brought forth some interesting questions regarding what news corporations view as important and worthy of top-story recognition:

Worthy: Man gets out of jail with one-word blog

Not Worthy: Shops rations sales of rice as US buyers panic

Worthy: Man survives 500-foot fall into strip mine

Not Worthy: WWF warns Arctic ice melting faster than predicted


Which brings me to where I left off in the last post. With an agenda. Not mine, but the big news corporation's. What's their agenda? Why would a news company only present one side of a story?

Well, let's look at it this way. If I'm a researcher looking for answers to a specific question (and all I'm after is the truth), then I'm going to try and seek out all possible answers so that I may find out what the truth really is. Once I have all possible answers, I'll keep narrowing it down until I find one that fits best. I give all answers a fair shake at being the right one. It is only through testing, debate, discussion, retesting, etc., that I come to conclusions.

I don't want to favor one answer over another (unless evidence proves that's the correct one) because then I will taint my study and come to conclusions I want; not conclusions shown by independent verification.

Now, if someone has a vested interest in what is being studied, and therefore may desire a particular outcome, are they really the best person to conduct and/or report on this study?

If someone stands to make a lot of money if their product is deemed safe, and therefore to lose a lot of money if it is found unsafe, should they be the person, or have a hand in, testing or reporting the outcome of the tests? Isn't this called a conflict of interest? Bias?

Then why is it ok for the New York Times, one of our nations foremost newspapers, to show glaring evidence of bias? (After all - the were one of the biggest cheerleaders of the Iraq war, were they not?)



On Sunday, March 16, 2008, the NYT Sunday Opinion section published 9 articles on the Iraq War - five years on.

"To mark this week's fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the Op-Ed page asked 9 experts on military and foreign affairs to reflect on their attitudes in the spring of 2003 and to comment on the one aspect of the war that most surprised them or that they wished they had considered in the prewar debate."


Who are these 9 experts and what did they have to say?

• L. Paul Bremer, III - former presidential envoy to Iraq: "Our soldiers were magnificent in liberating Iraq.

• Anne-Marie Slaughter - dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton: "Our government knew how to destroy but not how to build."

• Kenneth M. Pollack - a former director of Persian Gulf affairs at the National Security Council and a fellow at the Brookings Institution: "If we leave behind an Iraq more stable and less threatening to its neighbors than the one we toppled, I think the intelligence community's (and my own) mistakes about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration's exaggerations of that threat and its baseless insistence on links between Iraq and Al Qaeda will all lose their edge - even though they will not, and should not, be forgotten."

• Paul D. Eaton - a retired Army major general who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004 and who is an advisor to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton: "Without hearings, the Army could not advance its case for increasing the number of troops and rearming the force."

• Richard Pearle - an assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute: "The right decision was made, and Baghdad fell in 21 days with few casualties on either side."

• Danielle Pletka - the Vice President for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute: "After all, for those of us who supported the war, rebutting arguments about weapons of mass destruction has become reflexive."

• Frederick Kagan - a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute: "I supported the 2003 invasion despite misgivings about how it would be executed, and those misgivings proved accurate."

• Anthony D. Cordesman - a fellow at the Center for Strategy and International Studies: "...I did not expect that we would discover no meaningful activity in rebuilding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and no Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda."

• Nathaniel Fick - a fellow at the Center for a New American Security and the author of "One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer." "We made bets not on whether it would happen, but when."

Eight out of the 9 commentaries are unarguably pro-war, with only Anne-Marie Slaughter's lone voice dissenting.

At least two of the 9 were in the Bush administration and had their hands deep in planning the war itself.

Two are from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, that " is associated with neoconservative domestic and foreign policy views" and "has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy" with "More than twenty AEI alumni and current visiting scholars and fellows have served either in a Bush administration policy post or on one of the government's many panels and commissions."

One is from the Brookings Institution, a liberal centrist (though some argue it is too supportive of Bush administration policies) think tank.

One from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which includes Henry Kissinger as one of its board members one from the Center for a New American Security, which includes Richard Armitage (the "primary" source for leaking the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame).



How is this an unbiased assessment of where we were and where we are now? Where are the thoughts, then and now, of those major figures who opposed and/or seriously questioned the war from the start, like: Ron Paul, Barak Obama, Dennis Kucinich, Phil Donahue, Brent Scowcroft, Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Ambassador Joesph Wilson, former Iraqi weapons inspector Scott Ritter...

Why were none of these people asked to write for the New York Times' Op-Ed commentary?

Unbalanced, biased, pro-Bush, pro-war - and this is what many on the right call the bastion of liberal newspapers?

Truth, Liars, and a Very Lonely Girl

"If we could share our time, would I disappoint your fantasies?"


Why is it so hard for people to tell the truth, to be honest with one another; especially those we say we love? What propels one to lead people on, gain their trust and confidence, only to throw up brick walls after they've abruptly changed course?

While I in no way condone it, I can understand why President Bush felt he needed to lie to the American people about the real reasons for attacking Iraq: American hegemony, further military expansion, and disaster capitalism; you can't just tell ordinary citizens that these are the reasons hundreds of thousands of innocent people and, as of this week, almost 4,000 American soldiers are going to die. No, evil-doers, people who hate you, your country, and your religion work much better to stoke the fires of fear.

Especially because Bush put his rationale in writing, and especially because all reasons have since been proven false, it angers me even more that Congress, and we as a nation, let him get away with it. Bush earned impeachment 5 years ago today.



Is there some unknown law that engenders the masses to lie to each other as well? Like some trickle-down theory of wayward, selfish thinking? If the president is put on a pedestal and allowed to lie, cheat, and steal (from American taxpayers with no-bid contracts to his friends) and allowed to get away with it, then maybe we should all just give up this silly notion of being honest with each other. Lie as you must, betray those you will, hurt those you may. It's the American way, right?

Lies about the My Lai Massacre

Lies about the Iraq War reversed

Lies by Bush about the economy uncovered



The Jones' can keep up with themselves. It's time for a new paradigm in thinking, a new understanding of who and what we are. There's a Hindu salutation: Namaste, that loosely translated means: the Divinity in me sees and acknowledges the Divinity in you. It means We. It means Us. It means we are One.

And “when you come from ‘we are all One,’ it is virtually impossible to find that hurting another ‘feels good.’ So-called ‘irresponsible behavior’ vanishes. It is within these parameters that evolving beings seek to experience life. "

Drug Free America

No one knows what the long-term effects of drinking tiny amounts of pharmaceuticals will have on the human body. According to a recent study that analyzed the drinking water in 28 out of 62 water suppliers, a sex hormone was detected in San Francisco's drinking water and antiepileptic and antianxiety medications were found in parts of southern California's water supply. The study also showed that if you live in Philadelphia, you're drinking tiny amounts of at least 56 pharmaceuticals or byproducts "including medicines for pain, infection, high cholesterol, asthma, epilepsy, mental illness, and heart problems." I guess if you have chronic pain, an infection, high cholesterol, respiratory problems, or other ailments, this could be welcome news.

Or could it? And what if you don't have any of these illnesses and are a healthy human being? Why is marijuana so evil, even with its medicinal properties, yet every three minutes a commercial has me wondering if I need to go ask my doctor for a pill to cure blindness, baldness, asthma, erectile dysfunction, hearing loss, heartburn, sleep problems and a host of other issues; never mind the fast-speaking voice that says side effects may include dizziness, drowsiness, loss of appetite, temporary blindness, cramps, pain, and in some cases death. And now many of these drugs are ending up in our drinking water and "the federal government doesn’t require any testing and hasn’t set safety limits for drugs in water." Why are we ok with this?





There was coast-to-coast Republican uproar over Bill Clinton's infidelity while in the Oval Office. Never-ending calls for impeachment were shown on every news cast, written about in every paper, and continually spoke of inside Congress.

Yet, after nearly 4,000 soldiers and close to 900,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, and a host of reports and studies show outright lies and fabrications on the rationale the Bush Administration gave for the Iraq War, barely a blip of incredulity, disgust or outrage appears on the radar of the MSM or Congress.

A review of more than 600,000 documents captured during the United States' invasion of Iraq have shown absolutely no evidence of any connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. "The new study of the Iraqi regime's archives found no documents indicating a "direct operational link" between Hussein's Iraq and al Qaida before the invasion, according to a U.S. official familiar with the report." Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers has the story here.

It is interesting to take a look back and see just exactly what members of the Bush Administration have said regarding their insistence of a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda. These quotes are all from the BBC here:

• "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda." (17 June 2004 - President Bush)
• "There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq". (January 2004 - Vice President Cheney)
• "Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qaeda." (November 2002 - Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld)

How much money, time, energy, and blathering was spent and wasted on an oral fixation that should have been much more important to his wife and daughter than an entire nation? And how much consideration is now given for our immoral actions in Iraq; something that not to be kept in the family but thrown open to the nation for discussion and analyzation?

Maybe most everyone listened to Bill O'Reilly back in February of 2003 when he said, "Once the war against Saddam Hussein begins, we expect every American to support our military, and if you can't do that, just shut up."

Holding Feet to the Fire

Last night was a telling night in primaries across Ohio and Texas. Much air-time and hot air was wasted on whether or not Hillary or Obama should concede defeat were either to not win these two battleground states. Back and forth go the talking heads, arguing and debating on how many delegates and superdelegates there are voting for who and why and where and what the hell is going on?! Really. I mean, where is substance and issues and background on these two candidates?

I found some here. Watch this video of a CBS news clip regarding the time Hillary Clinton served on the Board of Wal-Mart. Yep, the anti-union, sweatshop-laden, mom & pop shop destroying, women-hating Wal-Mart. (They'll pay for Viagra, but not birth control). How ironic that once Hillary decides to run for President, her views change and she's now pro-labor, pro-American-made goods, and pretty much for everything Wal-Mart is against. Just one more reason I'm quite leery of Hillary and won't be voting for her.

Here's an informative and humorous look at sweatshop & child labor: Pranktivism.



I'm a big proponent of the truth. Therefore, things like this and this, really piss me off. If the Iraq war really is the defining war of our time, so vitally important that our government makes sure we are really terrified of Al Qaeda Islamo-fascist, freedom-hating, Arabs, then why are these two twins and the Five Brothers allowed off the hook? Mitt Romney said, in August of last year, "it's time, in my view, for the people of America to show a surge of support, including our leaders in Washington, for these families and for the troops."

Oh, ok. Just support the troops and their families; those willing to live with the death or mutilation of their loved ones, and all is good...I don't have to actually sacrifice anything myself. I support the troops and life is good because I'm not one of them....is that it Mitt? I'm glad you lost, buddy.



Questions, questions, too many questions:

Wasn't this supposed to happen? Here is an article from January of 2003 - two months before we invaded the innocent country. "I don't think they're planning as far as I know to use Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, but they are going to use it to pay for the occupation." Oh, really?


Why doesn't this make headline news? Whether they're lying or not - we could hold their feet to the fire, couldn't we? Then again - we like being the bully on the block - where we have a little less than 10,000 nuclear warheads. And we want more!

Why do we think we're smarter than mother-nature; smarter than an evolutionary biology that has been continually perfecting itself over millions and millions of years?

These are the days of our lives

According to a top news article here, 2007 has been the deadliest year for U.S. troops.

In light of that; they're old enough now to ask how dad died. I also hope that they're asking (and being told) exactly why their fathers (and mothers) are no longer alive. Here's a hint: it wasn't weapons of mass destruction (like Bush said), or bringing democracy to Iraq (after no WMD's were found), or going after al-Qaeda in Iraq (after democracy didn't work), or - well, al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until we invaded that country so - get the pattern?





Just in case you don't get the pattern, retired Army Gen. John Abizaid said that our war in the Middle East could last 50 years. "...but we shouldn't assume for even a minute that in the next 25 to 50 years the American military might be able to come home..." It's all part of a much bigger plan that has been obvious for quite awhile now. From the stated goals of the Project for a New American Century to presidential candidate Mitt Romney when he says, "For me what America should do is strengthen our military, strengthen our economy and strengthen our family structure so that we always remain the most powerful nation on earth. A world without America as the leader is a very frightening place."

How arrogant is that!? What would a German citizen or English, or Indian, or take your pick of other citizenry, think of that? That's like a kid on the playground saying he's not going to let anyone else run things - it's his way or you get pounded. Surely our founding fathers didn't have empire in mind when they created the grandest experiment in democracy saying that "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."






A good part of the problem is our media. Not only that it's highly concentrated by mega-corporations, but that the people asking and discussing important questions are incompetent at best. The always on target Eric Alterman discusses that here.

Our newspapers, magazines and television programs do a horrible job of telling us what we need to know about candidates. How does Clinton's health plan differ from Obama's? Moreover, what exactly is Clinton's health plan? Oh, I hear plenty about how the Republicans are against it, how she's the front runner, how she cackles; but what are the ins and outs - the particulars - of her health care plan? Why isn't this discussed? About half-way down this article by Eric Boehlert talking about the press' reaction to a Stephen Colbert presidential run, you come across this:

"Look at the latest research findings from the campaign trail: "Just 12% of stories examined were presented in a way that explained how citizens might be affected by the election," according to Editor & Publisher magazine. "And just one percent of stories examined the candidates' record or past public performance.""

A functioning democracy must have an engaged and informed citizenry. If we're not getting pertinent information from the media, what kind of democracy are we living in?

It's All About The Benjamins

According to the National Priorities Project, taxpayers in the state of Hawaii (where I currently reside), " will pay $1.5 billion for the cost of the Iraq War through 2007. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

495,930 People with Health Care OR

2,455,230 Homes with Renewable Electricity OR

36,168 Public Safety Officers OR

28,333 Music and Arts Teachers OR

399,014 Scholarships for University Students OR

112 New Elementary Schools OR

4,617 Affordable Housing Units OR

497,457 Children with Health Care OR

197,000 Head Start Places for Children OR

28,333 Elementary School Teachers OR

21,354 Port Container Inspectors

Some more interesting facts and figures, this time from Adbusters magazine:

The Real Threat to Americans
(est. number of deaths 2001-2005)

-- 3,000 Terrorism

-- 96,000 Homicide

--- 102,000 Drunk Driving

---- 180,000 Suicide

----- 228,000 Second Hand Smoke

-------------- 436, 890 Diabetes

--------------------------2,311,134 Cancer*

---------------------------------2,652,000 Smoking Related

-----------------------------------------------------3,119,142 Heart Disease*


* Excluding smoking related deaths





Pop quiz time: What do $500,000 for a "Virtual Herbarium" in New York, $100,000 to celebrate Lake Champlain's quadricentennial, and $50,000 for an ice center in Utah, all have in common?

I doubt you guessed it (something like this should be on the nightly news, shouldn't it?) - but the answer is: These are Congressional pet projects which were given money over children's health care! That's right ladies and gentlemen, our elected leaders really do represent us. Don't polls show 56% of Americans want an ice center in Utah?





More on lies and money: this story, in which the White House redacted six full pages of research on climate change only goes to show you: the Bush Administration cannot be trusted! It's been long known, through their own words and actions, that Bush and his oil and gas buddies would lose profits if they had to take action on global climate change. That is why the auto industry so heavily lobbies Congress to not make car emission standards higher - they'll lose profits! Who cares if we're killing life and helping make species extinct, who cares if the seas will rise flooding major cities or fires will tear across densely populated areas? What matters most is the bottom line: profits. Profits über alles!

If the Bush Administration will go to blatant lengths to hide this information from you (information that may very soon save our lives - or at least help us prepare for disaster) what else are they hiding from us?

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.

Perpetuating Dysfunction

While reading and ruminating on a story about the 20-year old deputy in Wisconsin who shot 6 people here, many thoughts and feelings were coursing through my body and mind.

The big question everyone always asks in these situations is: Why? Why did this happen; why did he choose this as his option for dealing with whatever set him off (being rebuffed by a girlfriend)? Here's what I've got:

Are we given enough options and education and training to make correct decisions about dealing with our tempers and anger? No one can argue that we get plenty of instruction - overkill it could be argued - in math and science and reading courses in school. And that's good as it prepares us for our careers. However, what prepares us for social, relationship, and child-rearing life? Our parents? LOL - c'mon.

While I'm positive there are wonderful parents out there, there are many dysfunctional and bad parents. Because who taught them? Their dysfunctional parents. And who taught those dysfunctional parents? Their parents, etc., etc.... Do you see the pattern here?

How many hours (days, months, years) of TV do we subject our kids to? And there's not much good on TV, so what are they watching? Jack Bauer slap, beat, punch, and torture people when he doesn't get his way. The majority of television shows and video games (24; CSI; Gladiator; Saw 1, 2, and 3; Halo 1, 2, and 3; Battlefield 1942; Battlefield 2; Day of Defeat; Brothers in Arms; Medal of Honor; Doom) are centered around mean, vindictive, barbarous, vengeful and painful behavior, if not outright killing. And I've only named a very few but very lucrative selection here. (Halo 2 made $125 million on its first day of release).

Children copy adults. We buy them shaving kits and easy-bake ovens so they can pretend to be like us. They push baby strollers with baby dolls and play house and play war. (Oh how cute - are kids are pretending to kill each other. . . shouldn't this trouble us?)

Since I have been alive the U.S. has sent troops into and killed people in Grenada, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Bosnia, Lebanon, Honduras, Bolivia, Afghanistan, and Iraq among others.

That's how adults deal with problems. When talking doesn't "work" anymore, you go kill people. Who's to say, however wrong it was, that the 20-year old deputy, in his mind, didn't exhaust all "diplomatic" options and do what he saw on TV, on video games, and on CNN, FOX News, MSNBC? Shock and Awe, right? The Iraq war live and in color.

Over 600,000 dead civilians in Iraq. General Tommy Franks: "We don't do body counts." Collateral damage. Here, here, and do not go here unless you are ready for the true picture of war.

What we put into our society is exactly what we get out of it. Learn this, and we will grow up. When adults act as they expect their children to act, then peace will come and killing will become more infrequent; greed will not rule but vested interests arguing for the safety, security, and prosperity for ALL the Earth's people will be a priority.





Fox's drama "24" shows that torture works, and works well. We kill people to show that killing people is wrong. We violently attacked a country that did nothing to us, are preparing to bomb another country that has done nothing to us and our government doesn't talk with those it perceives as enemies. Yet we're amazed by a shooting?

When adults stop acting like children, our children will start acting like adults.

And so it goes...

I kept hoping that the world community would do something about Myanmar. Isn't this exactly what we're told, over and over again, that this is what the United States fights for? Isn't this why we have the United Nations and peacekeeping forces? Wasn't the fourth (or fifth or sixth) reason for invading Iraq to bring democracy to a people who really really wanted it?

I don't remember any Iraqi's holding demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad. I don't remember thousands of Imam's peacefully protesting Saddam's government. Yet this past week we've had a military junta killing journalists while having destroyed over 3,000 villages and forcefully relocating people. In addition, today it was reported that "thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle."

Why don't we see a Colin Powell up in front of the UN showing samples of satellite photo's like these? Here is a population literally dying for democracy - and the world's "leaders" only action is to say how bad it is. That's like a teacher standing on the playground watching a bully beat up someone while all they do is say how wrong the bully is acting.

In one of my recent blogs, I was wrong in saying that oil was a reason we weren't doing anything about Myanmar. It's because of oil that we aren't doing anything:

"Diplomats and analysts say Myanmar's resources, including natural gas and oil fields that foreign companies are vying to tap, make many nations reluctant to impose economic sanctions or other measures as punishment for the bloody assault on pro-democracy demonstrators."




MUST READ ARTICLES -------------------------------

1. More "progress" from the Iraqi government.

"Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is orchestrating a campaign of persecution against political rivals "even worse" than Saddam Hussein's reign of terror, his predecessor has claimed."



2. Money. Profits. Definitely more important than morals, values, or human life.

" For the time being, General Dynamics has the best of both worlds: strong demand for jet aircraft, and healthy sales of combat equipment even with a troop reduction in Iraq."



3. We used to be great once. What the hell happened?

""If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change ... The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back," he said."



4. Whoops...sorry. We still are great at selling weapons. And number one at locking people up.

"The United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world..."



5. I wish we would do something like this here.

"A landmark case upholding the citizen's right to non-polluted air could lead to local governments in Germany being held responsible for the health of their constituents and the cleanliness of their immediate environment."




6. Leaving out history here.


How come we write this: "Iran and the U.S cut off diplomatic relations in 1979 after Iranian militant students seized the U.S. Embassy and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days." ...which is true and accurate, but leave out the fact that we overthrew their democratically elected government in 1953 and that that's a big part of the reason leading up to hostage taking?

So Much Work for Patriots

A lot of important things have been brought to my attention in the past few days. So much so that I would have a week's worth of blogging if I talked about every issue. At the end of this blog - and maybe all future blogs - I will have a section titled: Must Read Articles. These are articles I find very important that should be on the nightly news at least once - if not repeatedly. It will also contain articles pertaining to subjects that I have previously written about. You could consider them follow-up articles.


This morning I received an email from George W. Bush. Well, from GOP.com - one of those HTML form letters trying to rally people to vote for them and give money. I get them from the Democrats as well. While reading today's email, this struck me as particularly interesting:

"After the enemy attacked us, I vowed I would rally this nation and use our resources to protect you. And that is exactly what we have done. We have reformed our intelligence services to make sure we can find the enemy before they strike. We have fought to deny them safe haven in Afghanistan and Iraq so they cannot plan and plot again.

"The fight for freedom in Iraq is the fight for the security of the United States of America and we must prevail. If we leave before the job is done, the enemy that attacked us would be emboldened."


The GOP write that "the enemy" attacked us. Who is this "enemy?" If it was al Qaeda, why wouldn't you write that? This is nothing more than a continued blurring of the lines between what really happened and what the Republicans want people to think happened.

More to the point on this is the last sentence saying that we denied them safe haven in Iraq. GOP = Grand Ol' Phibbers? Everyone - all together: al Qaeda was NEVER in Iraq prior to us invading! In fact, our intelligence communities all tell us that our being in Iraq has actually caused al Qaeda to go to Iraq.

And finally, the last sentence is very telling. The fight for freedom in Iraq is now not for WMDs, it is not for the toppling of Saddam, it is not to bring democracy to Iraq, it is not to bring freedom and liberty to the people of that nation. No, the fight for freedom in Iraq is "the fight for the security" of the U.S.

What? Our invading a sovereign nation actually caused people to hate us more and has become a rallying cry for al Qaeda. It's what they wanted. It proved their point that all we do is stick our big, bullying bombs and guns into the politics and business of nations in the Middle East. Ron Paul has said it best:

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there- we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East - I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. "

MUST READ ARTICLES

1.

"The U.S. government is collecting electronic records on the travel habits of millions of Americans who fly, drive or take cruises abroad, retaining data on the persons with whom they travel or plan to stay, the personal items they carry during their journeys, and even the books that travelers have carried, according to documents obtained by a group of civil liberties advocates and statements by government officials."

and

Activist Silenced for Fear of Surveillance

-----Repeat after me: P O L I C E S T A T E. If you don't really know what that means, simply put, it means that you have no privacy and everyone is a suspect for everything. Go read 1984.

2.

"The White House approved a Transportation Department campaign to lobby against California's application for a waiver to combat global warming through auto emissions limits tougher than federal standards, a lawmaker charged Monday."

-----While growing up, I was taught that the government was here to protect us and help make our country a better place to live. Oh my how the tides have turned....


3.

"US soldiers are luring Iraqis to their deaths by scattering military equipment on the ground as "bait", and then shooting those who pick them up, it has been alleged at a court martial."

----- So this is how we get to say that we are killing more "insurgents." Amazing.


4.

"The US Senate is expected to vote as early as Tuesday on a Bosnia-style plan to subdivide Iraq on ethnic lines, touted by backers as the sole hope of forging a federal state out of sectarian strife."

----- Why are WE making their decisions? What happened to the whole "democracy" and "elections" thing? We go in and destroy their country, kill 700,000 civilians, and then vote to break up their country? Amazing.


5.

"Bush: We Can’t Spend $22 Billion On America Because We Need $200 Billion For Iraq War"

----- Reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker: It Will Be A Great Day When Our Schools Get All The Money They Need and The Air Force Has to Hold a Bake Sale To Buy A Bomber. There's ALWAYS money to kill people...amazing...

You Can't Keep Keepin' Us Down

The more I hear Ron Paul talk and the more I see the MSM ignore him, the more I know he's onto something and the more I truly respect him. I don't know if I'd vote for him because some of his Libertarian views are just too far of a stretch for me to take, however, he's smart, articulate, full of integrity and has a firm grasp on the issues -- which is a lot more than I can say for any other Republican candidate and quite a few of the Democratic ones. I'd like to include those from the Green, Libertarian, or other third parties in this discussion, but for some odd reason, we in this country like to limit our freedom of representational choice to two sides of the same coin.

Outstanding Ron Paul at the recent Republican Debate can be seen here with some transcripts and a blog by Eric Garris about it here.



Now this (and this) has been making me smile all day. I truly love good ol' fashioned checks and balances. Let's hear it (finally) for some democracy in the USA!



This just really amazes me. It amazes me not only that the MSM doesn't report on this, but that Congress allows it to happen. If you have this revolving door of people who work for the government, then go work for major corporations, then back to the government - are they really going to represent the people and do what is in our best interest? Or are they going to bend over backwards to please those who gave them these cushy loyalty jobs?



I get a very dark, sinister feeling about this. (Another Eric Garris blog - the original story is here.) Bush has already admitted that his plan is to keep troops in Iraq up to, and hopefully after, he leaves office. Iraq is without question a gigantic illegal and immoral disaster. Maybe some quick strikes on Iran will help bolster the GOP's chances for a favorable outcome in 2008. We wouldn't bomb people just to win elections...would we?




Kudo's to Sony (and Japan) for pushing the limits and boundaries of human ingenuity. This is just awesome! Our imaginations are the only boundaries to our creativity.

That's why not for one second do I buy into this crap that Bush & Co keep polluting our national discourse with regarding CO2 limits and reduction: It'll hurt the economy or Other nations pollute, too! What are we, only the greatest nation when it comes to bombing people? News flash - creating new energy resources through research, development, and productions WILL CREATE NEW JOBS AND HELP THE ECONOMY! Why is no one throwing this back at Bush when he repeats the same tired lies?

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.